Wednesday, 29 February 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Kangaroos To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Coleman,Mrs Darling,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Fife,Mr Hollis and Mr Keogh. 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 Cowan,Ms Fatin,Mr Fife and Mr Keogh. 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, the loyal citizens of Australia, firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/ or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words 'Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-'God save the Queen'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan and Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth- Whereas the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation has sat in Launceston, Tasmania, and taken evidence on the problem of aircraft noise over that city, and Whereas that evidence has established that a prima facie case does exist on the matter of encroaching aircraft noise on the lives of people living under the existing takeoff flight paths; Your petitioners humbly pray that the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: Request the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation to bring down an interim report on the matter of aircraft noise at Launceston, Tasmania as a matter of urgency, as: (a) The situation is becoming worse and, with the expected introduction of a Boeing 727 on the night freight services, the position will become intolerable for those living under the northerly takeoff flight path. (b) There will be more jet aircraft flights at night than experienced in the day. (c) That the present measures planned by the Department of Aviation to alleviate the noise are totally inadequate and fail to recognise the basic causes of the problem. (d) The increasing noise problem affects the well being of the patients in five major hospitals, the aged in five aged home complexes and children in fourteen major schools and colleges, all under the mandatory flight path as laid down by the Department of Aviation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the North-West Region, commonly called Scheyville, imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. Note that such a proposal will result in the destruction of the historic village of Pitttown, Longneck Wildlife Reserve, significant aboriginal relics and the historic Scheyville camp and will irreversibly alter the character of the five Macquarie towns. 3. Consider the resulting intolerable pollution of the Hawkesbury River. 4. Note that approximately 2,000 properties will be resumed, displacing over 5, 000 residents. 5. Consider the detrimental effects of noise, air and vehicular pollution on many thousands of residents in the surrounding districts of Hawkesbury, Baulkham Hills and Hornsby Shires and Blacktown and Penrith cities. 6. Give immediate consideration to finding a more suitable alternative site. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the handing over of the Uluru National Park to exclusive Aboriginal control is discriminatory to other Australian Citizens. 2. That the Uluru National Park monoliths, i.e. Ayres Rock and the Olga Mountains, are natural phenomena of Australia, and therefore belong to all Australian Citizens irrespective of race, colour or creed. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will reject any proposal to hand over control of the Uluru National Park to any one group of Australian citizens. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, parents and teachers working for and in the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia, respectfully showeth that: We support the Federal Government's determination to restore the community's confidence in public education. We support the Federal Government's opposition to base grants to all non government schools (a) by reducing funds to those schools already operating above community standards and (b) funding other schools according to need. We support the Federal Government's policy of negotiations and planning with State/Territory Governments regarding joint programs for improvements in Government schools in the next decade. 1. We ask that the Federal Government increase recurrent funding for Government schools as promised. 2. We ask that the Federal Government provide promised funding for special programmes to assist primary children with learning difficulties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Keogh. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action nor legislate 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 Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposal of Telecom Australia to close the Manual Assistance Centre at Parkes will severely disadvantage the Parkes community by: (1) The loss of current employment and future employment opportunities and consequent loss of income to the district (2) The loss of a local 24 hour emergency service (3) The loss of local knowledge of telephonists being available to telephone users when traffic is routed to an exchange anywhere in the State (4) The loss of a local and personalised service provided especially to elderly and handicapped people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that those of the honourable House will call on the Government to halt the closure pending a full and open inquiry into the needs and desires of affected subscribers and the full economic and social effects of the closure on this district, rural telephone subscribers and Telecom Australia employees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia showeth that proprietors and customers of small milk bars and mixed businesses are financially disadvantaged as a result of widespread price discrimination in the wholesale supply of food, confectionery, and beverages. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: 1. Initiate a full and complete inquiry into all aspects of marketing in the grocery, confectionery, and soft drink industries. 2. Urgently review sections of the Trade Practices Act 1974 relating to price discrimination. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. 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 respectfully 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 decisions 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 resource 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 programme of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Cowan,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Fife,Mr Hollis and Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully show: 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, indicated 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of New South Wales respectfully show: 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 glamourous and increase their effect on teenangers, 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 Maher. 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 government in Australia shows that: General Revenue grants to local government under personal income tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent, The increase in grants to State governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent, Increased demands are being made on local government authorities to participate in Federal Government programs, e.g. Community Employment Program. The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in General Revenue grants to local government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to local government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Farrer 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 Fife. Petitions received. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that ABC FM radio now broadcasts on 27 stations around Australia; (2) recognises that the transmission by-passes Mackay en route between Rockhampton and Townsville; (3) notes the demand from residents of Mackay to be able to listen to the station; and (4) condemns the Minister for Communications for his total lack of initiative in ensuring that Mackay residents can enjoy ABC FM broadcasts as do residents of other similar cities. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with satisfaction the decision to locate the third grain handling terminal in New South Wales at Port Kembla; (2) congratulates Alderman Peter Morton, Chairman of the task force, and the task force, for their untiring efforts to have the terminal located at Port Kembla; (3) notes that this terminal will lead to the revitalisation of the port of Kembla, and (4) congratulates the Government for making significant funds available under the Steel Cities Assistance Plan enabling this facility to be built. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the success of the Government's First Home Owner's Scheme; (2) notes with concern recent increases in prime interest rates, and (3) urges all financial institutions to continue to lower housing mortgage interest rates as was the case during the latter part of 1983. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) applauds the generosity of the people of Darwin who, in 23 hours last Sunday, gave to charity $185,945, or the equivalent of about $3 for every resident in Darwin, as a part of the Channel 8 telethon charity appeal, and (2) congratulates the management and staff of Channel 8, Darwin, and all those connected with the appeal for its resounding success. Mr Peacock-We would like to call that one on straight away. Mr Young-No. Mr Steedman proceeding to give a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The notice of motion is out of order. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House expresses concern at the intolerable delays in approving first home grants and the consequent effect on many applicants in arranging other finance, in particular persons getting into financial difficulty by agreeing to purchase property and not being able to complete the arrangement in the time agreed due to delays in approval of their grants. Debate resumed from 7 December 1983, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(10.08) —The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Act (No. 5) 1983 contains a very lengthy and complicated series of amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act. So far as the Opposition is concerned our response to the Bill will fall into two parts. Firstly, the Opposition will be offering no objection to that part of the Bill which gives effect to a number of announcements that were made by the former Government. I refer there to the decision that was announced by me as Treasurer in the last Government on 18 December 1981 and also on 24 June 1982 dealing with leveraged leasing activities . Both of those are being given effect to by this measure. I pause there to say that I found rather interesting the protests of outrage that came from the New South Wales Premier, Mr Wran, who is the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, at the announcement I made about leveraged leasing on 18 December 1981. Because my announcement had an effect on the financing arrangements being proposed at the time by the New South Wales Government for the Eraring power station, I was called all manner of things by the New South Wales Premier. I was accused of punishing the taxpayers of New South Wales. I was accused by Mr Wran of trying to hold up the development needs of New South Wales. Yet what do we find now that we have a Federal Labor Government? Is it giving effect to Mr Wran's criticisms of my announcement of 18 December 1981? Not likely; it is giving legislative effect to the announcement that I made at that time. The measure also gives legislative effect to the leverage leasing announcement that was made on 26 June 1982. It also deals with the special concessions for Australian trading ships that were announced arising out of the report of the Crawford Committee on Revitalisation of Australian Shipping commissioned by the former Government. The measure also gives effect to the amendments about deductions for investment in qualifying Australian films which were announced by the present Government. It also gives legislative effect to the announcement of the former Government, which at the time quite properly received bipartisan support, of payment of special benefits to victims of major disasters. That arose in particular out of the disastrous bushfires that struck Victoria and South Australia in the early part of last year. On those measures the Opposition will offer no specific opposition in this chamber although one or two of my colleagues, either here or in another place, may have something to say about the effect of the changes announced in relation to investment in Australian films. But that is an issue I will leave to my colleagues, either here or in another place, who have particular responsibilities in this area. Two other amendments in this Bill greatly concern the Opposition. Firstly, there is the proposal which the Government has included in this Bill covering certain tax avoidance practices in relation to employee superannuation funds. The stated purpose of this amendment is to eliminate certain tax avoidance practices of a blatant artificial kind which the Government believes are going on in relation to employee superannuation funds. On the surface, that is a wholly unexceptionable objective and one that would normally draw our support. But when one looks below the surface there are two areas of concern. Firstly, we are very concerned about and will in fact oppose the fact that the Government is applying retrospectively the commencement date of this amendment to 1 July 1977. Leaving aside for a moment the very legitimate views of many people on this side of the House, and I dare say some on the other side of the House, as to whether there can ever be any circumstances that might justify the use of retrospective legislation, and even for a moment countenancing the fact that there may be such circumstances, which is not a view to which many on this side of the House subscribe, this is clearly not such a case. Not only was no warning of any kind given, but also the Government has advanced absolutely no explanation as to why this measure should operate from 1 July 1977. In applying it from that date, the Government is clearly breaching its guidelines on the use of retrospective legislation which were laid down by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), when he had responsibility for the Australian Taxation Office, shortly after the election of the Hawke Government. On that occasion, giving effect to an announcement that had been made by Senator Gareth Evans as the shadow Attorney- General, the Minister for Finance said that retrospective legislation would be used only in very limited circumstances in relation to schemes of a blatant artificial and contrived kind. The fact is that this particular practice was not regarded by the Commissioner of Taxation as being of a blatant, artificial and contrived kind. I will explain in some detail how I make that assertion. When I was Treasurer a number of people raised with me the possibility that tax avoidance practices were occurring in relation to internal superannuation funds. I have no doubt that there are some tax avoidance practices occurring in relation to internal superannuation funds. This is a matter I raised with the Taxation Commissioner on several occasions. As late as 8 February 1980 the Taxation Commissioner advised me in the following terms: Because in revenue terms we have many larger tax avoidance problems in other areas and also because of the need to make certain that no avoidable difficulties are created in genuine superannuation funds- I emphasise the words 'in genuine superannuation funds'- I would recommend that you await the comments of the Task Force- that is the Task Force on Superannuation- before undertaking any corrective measures to deal with actual or potential misuse of the superannuation concessions. Thus in February of 1980 the Tax Commissioner told the Government of the time that it was a relatively unimportant issue and that there was a danger of interfering with genuine superannuation arrangements. His advice was that I do nothing about it until I had the report of the Task Force on Occupational Superannuation. I took that advice because I thought it made a lot of sense. In the face of that, the Government's proposal to date the operation of this measure from 1 July 1977-two and a half years before the advice that I received from the Taxation Commissioner-is an extraordinary proposition and one that simply cannot be justified, not even in accordance with the guidelines for the use of retrospective legislation that had been laid down by Senator Gareth Evans and the Minister for Finance himself. The Government has made no attempt at all to justify the use of the legislation on this occasion. Anyone who has followed debate on taxation in this Parliament over the last couple of years will know that the fury and the intensity of the debate that took place about 18 months ago because of the use by the former Government of legislation having some retrospective elements. The circumstances in relation to that, the threat to revenue, the nature of the practices involved, were infinitely more serious and culpable. Therefore, in the view of many they were deserving of the sort of legislation that is involved here. The Taxation Commissioner of the day said: ' Don't do anything about it'. Yet in the face of that, this Government runs back the operation of the legislation to 1 July 1977. That is not the end of the matter so far as the Government's approach is concerned. Shortly before the change of government, I invited the Taxation Commissioner to send me his views as to what further remedial action might be required in the general area of tax avoidance and tax minimisation practices. He sent me a very lengthy memorandum. It is a memorandum that could be made available to the present Government. I have absolutely nothing to hide concerning it. In the course of that memorandum-- Mr Shipton —What date was it? Mr HOWARD —It was written on 3 March 1983, a mere two days before the change of government. The Taxation Commissioner wrote, inter alia: The evidence available to this office suggests that the introduction on 27 May 1981 of Part IVA with effect from that date effectively put a stop to the promotion of new tax avoidance schemes of a blatant, artificial or contrived nature. Here again the Taxation Commissioner said that there were not any blatant, artificial or contrived schemes operating because of the legislation that was brought in on 27 May 1981. How therefore does the Government justify commencing this legislation on 1 July 1977? Does the Government argue that the practice that this legislation is directed against is blatant, artificial or contrived? Is the Treasurer (Mr Keating) saying that this legislation falls within the definition of the Attorney-General and the Minister for Finance? If he is, he is challenging the objective judgment of the Taxation Commissioner. As far as I am concerned, the Treasurer can look at that document because I have absolutely nothing to hide. It details a number of tax shelter arrangements that the Taxation Commissioner said that people were increasingly going into. Let the Treasurer of today have a look at that memorandum and make his own judgment. It was a document like others I continually received from the Taxation Office when I was Treasurer. It was a professional, objective document and I have no objection to the present Treasurer seeing it. The purpose of quoting at some length from those documents and pieces of advice given to me by the Commissioner of Taxation is to demonstrate one thing very clearly: Even taking a more relaxed attitude to the use of retrospective legislation than is taken on this side of the House, the Government has no justification at all for its use on this occasion. It has failed to establish that there is any major threat to revenue, and the Government knows that. The Commissioner of Taxation knew that in February 1980, when he said to me: 'There are more important things to worry about. In any event, you might get in the way of legitimate superannuation schemes. So don't do any thing about it until you get the report of the task force'. That was in February 1980, yet here we have a government which wants to take this legislation back to 1 July 1977. What earthly mandate, what right or justification, even with the greatest zeal under the sun to combat tax avoidance, does the Government have to apply this measure from that date? I will be very interested to hear the explanation, the justification, from the Treasurer. I will be interested to hear what he has to say about the advice which was given to me by the Commissioner of Taxation, who is now his Commissioner of Taxation. He is a man who certainly enjoyed my confidence and I am sure he enjoys the confidence of the present Treasurer. The Commissioner did his job very objectively and fearlessly. He was never anybody's cipher, which is proper for the Taxation Commissioner in our kind of society. The Opposition is at a loss to find an explanation as to why the Government should wish this measure to be retrospective. It is a capricious, irresponsible and unexplained use of retrospective legislation, and the Opposition will oppose the proposed commencement date of 1 July 1977. In the Committee stage, and in another place if the move is defeated here, we will move an amendment requiring that the commencement date be the date of introduction of the measure. I believe that, despite a number of areas in which I strongly disagree with the Treasurer and despite the constraints of many in his own Party, he is concerned with creating an orderly climate for business decision-taking in this country. He professes concern about sensible policies of economic management. He professes concern about giving certainty to the small and large business community. If he wants to give effect to those expressions of concern, if he wants to be faithful to the sort of preceptions he is trying to create in the community, he will change the proposed commencement date. If he changes the date of effect to the date of introduction of this measure, he will get our applause and our support. The Treasurer really has no right to use retrospectivity, and he knows it. For some extraordinary internal reason he thinks it is expedient to use retrospectivity on this occasion, and I think that is a great pity. I hope the Treasurer will have a change of heart in the course of this debate. I put to him that he will win a lot of credit in the business community if he is willing to do that. I ask the Treasurer, in the light of the matters I have put during my remarks, to consider that suggestion very seriously. That is not to say that in any event we would not have reservations about this measure even if the date of introduction were changed, but we will not vote against it if the Treasurer accepts our amendment. We take the view that it does fall within that category of measures that broadly can be called Budget legislation which, except in relation to particular circumstances that have been laid down in another place, it is not the intention of the Opposition to block. In that connection, we are concerned that this measure will have an adverse effect, even if it operates in an entirely prospective sense, on many small business superannuation arrangements. It is very easy to say emotional things about superannuation arrangements. Members of parliament, perhaps more so than many others, will be aware of that. Some emotional things are said about superannuation arrangements for members of parliament, be they on the Australian Labor Party side or on our side. It is very easy for people to talk about internal superannuation fund rip-offs. Anybody who has even a minuscule understanding of the operation of small business in Australia and of the difficulties facing it will be aware of the enormous problem that small business has in finding cash for investment. Unless reasonably generous superannuation provisions and arrangements are available to people in the small business arena they really do suffer a significant disadvantage. I have long held the view that the small business community has many more legitimate gripes about superannuation arrangements than have most other sections of the community. Superannuation is one of those things about which few people are very objective. I found when I was Treasurer that anybody employed in the corporate sector who had fairly generous superannuation arrangements could not understand what all the fuss was about when it came to small business. The tendency was to think that small business people had access to income splitting arrangements, cash out of the till and so on and therefore had no great problem in regard to taxation and superannuation arrangements. Equally, I found that anybody who did not work in the Public Service, or who was not a member of parliament, thought that public servants and members of parliament had the most generous superannuation arrangements of all. Some overlooked the insecurity of tenure faced by members of parliament and the fact that the remuneration of public servants in Australia, particularly senior public servants, was clearly inferior to that of people carrying equivalent responsibilities in the corporate sector. We have been reminded of that by some interesting material, published recently in a business magazine, which underscores that point. By way of a slight digression I say that, to the extent that the Government is endeavouring, by some of its Public Service changes, to loosen up that position I congratulate it; it is a very sensible thing to do. I do not endorse everything that the Government is trying to do in that area-I know that it is causing some heartburning and is running into the odd piece of granite-like opposition-but the concept of trying to recognise some of the disparities that exist is very sensible and to that extent the Government deserves credit. I just sound a word of caution. The Opposition is worried that this legislation may be going too far in the direction of change. One or two of my colleagues, in particular the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), the Opposition spokesman on small business matters, will be saying something about that. In order to forestall the tirade that might come from the other side about the Opposition being the friend of the tax avoidance industry, I make it quite clear that we are not talking here about friends or enemies of that industry but about whether we might now be going too far. At the time of the change of government I had in preparation a Cabinet submission which dealt with this area. Whether I would have eventually gone as far as has the present Treasurer, in a prospective sense, I do not know. To try to speculate on that is an empty exercise but I ask the Government to satisfy itself completely that what it is proposing, in a prospective sense, may not be going too far. The second area that causes us a great deal of concern is that which deals with short term assurance policies. The Government is taking up the announcement that I made on 27 August 1982, that we would subject to tax bonuses from life assurance policies of less than four years duration, and is increasing the period from four years to 10 years. We are opposed to that change because we believe it goes much too far. I am not alone in expressing these concerns. Very strong concern has been expressed to the Treasurer by the life insurance industry. The original malaise and problem in this area was that essentially people were using these short term policies as a method of simply converting income into capital. They were abusing the system, and I accept that. That is why, after a fairly lengthy period of study and after a lot of consultation with the life assurance industry, I announced that we would tax the bonus on anything under four years and that anything over four years could be treated in the normal fashion. I thought that on balance that was the right way to tackle it. I thought that to have anything less than four years could still allow a significant area of abuse. However, once we started to go beyond four years we could not argue with the same strength that people were really abusing the system and that should be subject to tax. The former Government and I thought that arrangement struck a reasonable balance between the two competing considerations. For some extraordinary reason the present Government has come along and said: ' Look, four years is not good enough, we are really going to knock this right off and push it out to 10 years'. I ask the Government to think seriously about what it is doing. A person who takes out an assurance policy for 10 years will have to pay tax on the bonuses if he cashes in that policy after, say, nine and a half years. That is a bit rough. It is a fairly serious attack on the fundamental concepts of life assurance in this country. Is anyone seriously arguing that if a person holds a policy for nine and a half years and then cashes it in he is involved in some tax avoidance practice? This attitude really demonstrates a misunderstanding of what tax avoidance represents. Therefore we do have some strong objections to this proposal. Of course, this proposal discriminates against the holders of assurance policies as compared with other kinds of investors. For example, a unit holder in a property trust can receive profits on realisation of his units after 12 months without paying tax on the profits unless he is classified as a trader. Mrs Kelly —Would you support us if we introduced it? Mr HOWARD —Ah, the Government is going to do something about them, is it? Mrs Kelly —I said: 'Would you support us if we introduced it?' Mr HOWARD —I am not giving a blank cheque to this Government on anything. I want to see the colour of its legislation because, as has been demonstrated with this measure, until we see the colour of the legislation we really do not know what it is. It is fairly obvious from the enthusiastic interjection of the honourable member for Canberra that the next one off the rack will do something about these 12-month units. This is very interesting. The Government is blatantly discriminating against people who hold life assurance policies. I think this is a pretty serious change which has nothing to do with tax avoidance. The Government is saying to people who hold policies for a lengthy period of up to just under 10 years: 'If you cash them in we are going to tax the bonuses'. I think that is a very serious change. I do not think a lot of people on the Government side really understand that that is what is happening. Very strong representations made to the Government and the Treasurer have been rejected out of hand. The Treasurer went on to say that the rebate provision will ensure that policy holders will not be doubly taxed on capital gains. That is clearly incorrect because many policy holders will pay double capital gains tax. I remind honourable members that before long a lot of people in Australia will be paying 46c on the additional marginal dollar. Month by month this will become a bigger problem for the Government. The Government is not just dealing with so-called wealthy middle income earners; it is dealing with the great mass of the Australian community. There will be a very significant tax disadvantage if they are paying 46c or 60c in the dollar instead of only 30c. The extension from four years to 10 years makes it much more likely that the 30c taxpayer will suffer a double capital gains tax. I understand there was no consultation with the industry on this extension. The Treasurer has justified it by alleging that life office management would have made the discussion public or would otherwise have made use of privileged information and that some tax would have been lost because people would have rushed to place money in policies of four years before the new announcement was made. The industry is naturally annoyed about the attack on its integrity. I can verify that discussions on the four-year proposal were held confidentially with the previous Government and that confidentiality was fully maintained. As I understand it, the industry has challenged the present Treasurer to provide any evidence to the contrary. So much for consensus and so much for talking to the business community about changes-not changes to stop crooks or cheats, but changes that will affect ordinary people. In correspondence with the industry, the Treasurer apparently said that the legislation is directed at essentially short term investments dressed up as policies of life assurance to exploit taxation incentives intended for long term life assurance and there was 'a need to take the decisive action'- I am quoting from his letter- 'to put an end to this form of tax avoidance'. Once again he has lapsed into the old rhetoric and shown a misunderstanding of where legitimate arrangements of one's business affairs and tax avoidance actually converge. I think that is a defensible complaint to make in respect of something under four year, although some people would question whether four years might not be a bit too long. But it is a totally indefensible claim to make in respect of a policy that is to run for a period of up to 10 years. To suggest, in those circumstances, that people are in for a fast dollar and are involved in some kind of tax avoidance arrangement is quite absurd, unless the Government has in mind some massive changes to other provisions in other areas of the tax law so that the discrimination against people who hold life assurance policies will not exist. The Opposition supports certain measures in this Bill for the reasons that I have outlined. We will not oppose the passage of the measure at the second reading stage. But during the Committee stage we will certainly by moving an amendment to delete 1 July 1977 as a wholly unjustified commencement date of the small business superannuation proposal. We will be inserting, in lieu thereof, the date of introduction of the Bill. My colleagues the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) and the honourable member for Higgins will also be speaking about other aspects. In conclusion, whilst a large part of this Bill is quite unexceptionable and will receive the support of the Opposition, as it should, there are two areas of very great concern to the Opposition. The onus is very heavily on the Treasurer to justify not only the use of 1 July 1977 but also this quite extraordinary attack on the legitimate use, the non-tax avoidance use, of life assurance policies. I think many small investors in Australia will be very concerned about this matter when they learn about it. Perhaps they will be reminded that, after all, the Australian Labor Party is in power at the present time and although it may have lent itself, for a period, to some more economically rational people it is fast grabbing it back. This is an example of the sort of legislation people can expect in that sort of exercise. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(10.38) —The Government appreciates the support that members of the Opposition give to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1983. I will refer briefly, later in my address, to the two points of contention raised by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). However, I will refresh the memories of members of the House as to the purpose and functions of this legislation. This Bill amends the income tax law covering a wide range of subjects. The honourable member for Bennelong referred to two matters specifically but the Bill, amongst other things, will complete the implementation of some of the unfinished income tax proposals of the former Government which this Government has decided to adopt. Again, the Government is most appreciative of some of the initiatives taken by the Opposition which are reflected in this Bill which is before us today. The measures include the denial of relevant income tax deductions in respect of property that is the subject of certain leveraged leasing arrangements-I notice that there was no objection to that proposal-and to the extension of special income tax concessions to Australian trading ships. Again, there are no objections to that from the Opposition. The legislation will also remove the advantage in the present law under which bonuses on short term life assurances are received by policy holders tax free. As the honourable member for Bennelong pointed out, this is an issue of some contention between the Opposition and the Government. The Bill will also exempt from tax the first two weeks of social security special benefit paid on or after 17 February to victims of major disasters. Again this is not an issue of contention. Tax avoidance practices involving employee superannuation funds will be countered and certain modifications will be made to the Australian film incentives scheme. Again, that last proposal is supported by the Opposition. Finally, the Bill will also provide for an extension of the present exemption from withholding tax for interest paid on public or widely spread overseas issues or bearer debentures. Honourable members will see that there is considerable support for most of these amendments. Opposition to the Bill has centered on tax avoidance practices in relation to employee superannuation funds and on the changes to the taxing of bonuses received on short term assurances. The honourable member for Bennelong has already raised a number of these objections and I would like to deal with some of them. First, the new secton 26AFA will modify the tax status of certain superannuation funds falling within section 23F of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Act and end tax avoidance schemes which involve employer managed funds , ostensibly for the benefit of employees but with the intention-with the intention; that is important-of eventually winding up the funds. Employees gained tax benefits but did not collect from the funds because they either did not know of them or had become disentitled by the manner of termination of their employment. These are commonly called section 23F funds. The issue of contention about these funds is retrospectivity. This was raised by the honourable member for Bennelong who questioned the commencement date of 1 July 1977. The rationale for the Government's action in relation to that commencement date rests with the statement made by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) on tax avoidance on 28 April 1983, when all the principles were set out . I would like to refresh honourable members' memories on this issue. The speech sets out the principles on which retrospectivity on tax avoidance practices actually applies. The Minister for Finance said: . . . I now affirm that the Government will, as necessary, employ retrospective legislation to ensure that tax sought to be avoided under any blatant tax avoidance scheme that comes to light during our term of office will be collected , irrespective of when the scheme was entered into. Any legislation that it becomes necessary to introduce in pursuance of that policy will be made to operate from the date of first known use of the particular scheme. This date, 1 July 1977, has been considered on the advice of the Australian Taxation Office to be the first known date of operation. The point that the honourable member for Bennelong raised was whether these schemes under the definition of the Minister for Finance-to continue his statement-were: . . . highly contrived and artificial schemes, generally accepted as being unambiguously inspired by avoidance motives and having little if any legitimate commercial function. The view of the Government is that many examples of this scheme do fit into that definition. I think that is the issue of contention between the Opposition and the Government. There are many examples of these schemes that the Government feels were fraudulent, and there is good evidence that they were artificial schemes highly contrived for the particular purpose of avoiding tax. Some business proprietors established superannuation funds and, after taking advantage of the taxation concessions for contributions and the tax-free treatment for income of the funds, they wound up the funds in circumstances where the accumulated assets of the funds were paid out not to employees but to the proprietors of the businesses concerned. This legislation will clear up fraud against unsuspecting employees and what amounts to tax avoidance by proprietors. The honourable member for Bennelong, by his opposition to this retrospective clause, is seeking to ensure that those sorts of schemes become legitimised, that a practice that was set up deliberately to avoid paying tax, that deliberately ensured that many employees did not receive appropriate benefits, be legitimised by government. This Government makes no apologies for the fact that that clause will be retrospective to 1 July, the first time this scheme became known to the Australian Taxation Office. The other more wide-ranging criticisms include a concern that the provisions of the legislation are wide enough to encompass payments of excessive benefits in bona fide situations. However, to spell out in legislation all those situations that are not bona fide would result in inordinately long and complex provisions. Instead, as is common in taxation legislation, the key elements are identified and the Commissioner of Taxation may exercise his discretion. Related to this concern is that which alleges that the Commissioner already has sufficient provision under the tax law to deal with impune practices. However, if a section 23F exemption has been granted in relation to a year of income, the Commissioner could experience difficulty in determining, on the basis of some of the subsequent activity by which the fund no longer meets the criteria, that the fund should be treated as not having met the criteria in earlier years. Of course, if it were established that the fund had not been conducted in accordance with the law in earlier years, then provided the fund was still in existence-often it is not-retrospective denial of exemption might be possible. A related problem is that this proposal will do nothing to assist the employees who have been victims of nefarious arrangements, and members of the Government do have some concern about this. Unfortunately, that it is outside the scope of the tax law and the redress of past exploitation of employees cannot be dealt with. However, we think that this retrospective clause is important so that practices that have been occurring since 1977 are not legitimised. We hope that this legislation will protect employees in the future. The second focus of objection has been on the taxation of bonuses received in relation to short term assurance. A life assurance policy provides, in return for payment of premiums during life, a benefit on the death of the life assured. Reversionary bonuses which result in tax exempt accretions in the value of the policy make short term life assurance policies attractive as early cancellation of the policy would result in considerable tax free gain. The issue of contention now between the Opposition and the Government is in relation to the time. This legislation extends the four-year approach to 10 years, provided that bonuses and other amounts to the extent that the proceeds exceed premiums were to be included in assessable income. As I have said, the issue of debate between the Government and the Opposition is the length of time. It should be remembered that life assurance policies are entered into for payment on death. That is the understanding of the arrangements entered into. If a person dies short of the 10 years this clause does not apply. If, in fact, there are serious financial hardships, again this clause does not apply. So what we are saying is that the 10-year clause applies only to ensure that these life assurance policies operate exactly in the way they are supposed to operate, that is, for a benefit to accrue and to be paid out when a person dies, the understanding being that it should not be used to avoid paying tax. That is the rationale behind the 10-year approach. I remind honourable members that the Opposition originally proposed the legislation to remove the tax advantage available in respect of short term life assurance policies and that the only issue of debate is about the number of years. In spite of the expressed fears on the other side of the House, bona fide life insurers will not be discouraged by being taxed in full if they receive bonuses and similar benefits within eight years of the commencement of the policy. Amounts received in the ninth year will be taxable by two-thirds and in the tenth year by one-third. Policies issued after 27 August 1982 and before 8 December 1983 will be subject to less stringent tax treatment. Again, this is in line with the proposals of the previous Government. The previous Government made few attempts at tax reform, and I have been concerned during this debate that members of the Opposition are not prepared to seriously follow through some of their own proposals. They debate the very issue that is critical to this question, that is, the issue of retrospectivity. What they are attempting to do is legitimise known tax avoidance practices. They say that we should forget the operation of the scheme for X number of years after it came into operation. By opposing the retrospective clause in this legislation, they are condoning those practices. The amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act will in no way affect those who receive superannuation benefits in accordance with the approved rules of a superannuation fund; nor will they affect claims for deduction in respect of contributions made by employees to bona fide superannuation funds. Therefore, I think there is little ground for the matters the honourable member for Bennelong raised in relation to the fears that small business may have. I believe the small business community in Australia comprises a very honest group of people who want to live by the rules, and are not working against that. What we are attempting to do is ensure that practices which encourage tax avoidance and evasion are stopped. We believe that is a legitimate concern of all members of the community. One has to remember that while some firms or individuals avoid paying tax the burden for the collection of that money rests on the taxpayers of Australia. The money has to come from somewhere. If one section of the community is not making a fair and equitable contribution the burden falls much harder on other people, particularly pay-as-you-earn taxpayers. I am very disappointed at the response of the Opposition. I found it interesting to read that one area of attack by members of the Opposition this year will be the tax area. I would have thought it might have been much more appropriate for them to look at their own record in this area. Their record was dismal. Under the previous Administration the big increase in tax revenue came from PAYE taxpayers. The personal income tax component of Commonwealth Government revenue averaged 55 per cent under the Opposition Administration, while the company tax component sank to around 14 per cent. On top of that, the tax avoidance industry flourished. The underground economy was estimated to account for more than 10 per cent of the nation's economy. That was the Opposition's record after seven years in government. That is the sort of record in the taxation area that I presume it intends to make the basis of some attack on the Government this year. It will be very interesting to see how successful it is in that regard because I believe the previous Government had no credibility in the community when it came to tax reform. Sure, it talked a lot about it but it never delivered. It had seven years to deliver and it did not. The only time it moved into the area of tax avoidance was when it was forced to after the report of a royal commission. When the crunch came it used its numbers in the Senate to ensure that tax avoidance practices were not followed through, that in fact we could not get the revenue that was legitimately the right of the Commonwealth in relation to tax avoidance. Instead of that, the pay as you earn taxpayers are the ones who have to suffer, the ones who have to increase their contributions to taxation revenue. The aim of this Government is to make personal income tax mandatory for all those who have assessable incomes. This Government will continue its pursuit of tax reform. The legislation before us today is just a small move in that direction. The retrospective clause of this legislation is critical to the operation of the legislation and does indicate to the tax avoidance industry that this Government is fair dinkum about moving in on tax avoiders, unlike the Opposition when it was in government, because the former Government effectively granted immunity from legislation to prior participants in the scheme. That is what it is asking us to do again today. By saying 'Oppose that retrospective clause', it is asking that the Government grant immunity to people who were deliberately practising tax avoidance schemes. It does not debate that it was a tax avoidance scheme, but it is asking us to grant immunity to that scheme. We believe that is unjust and inequitable. The philosophy of this Government is that no matter how long it takes to discover all that is necessary to know about a particular scheme, its commitment to retrospective legislation will ensure that tax that ought to have been paid will be paid. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.58) —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I at the outset formally offer my congratulations to you on your recent election. We are delighted for you and look forward to the opportunity of working with you for the remainder of the term of this Parliament. The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1983, contains several measures already indicated by earlier speakers. A couple reflect proposals announced by the previous Government, although at least one goes considerably further than proposals foreshadowed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) when he was Treasurer. I will come to that later. The measure by which it is intended to disallow deductions for investments in plant or other property used for tax exempt purposes is unobjectionable-indeed it is to be welcomed. Incentives provided in the Income Tax Act should be confined, I believe, as far as possible to encouraging the growth of both production and eventual assessable income. While that is not exclusively the case, as we all know, those allowable deductions for the business sector should invariably have the desirable characteristic of enhancing profitability and productivity. Because the Act permits claims for deductions for plant employed to supply goods and services by a tax exempt entity, where that entity has effective control over and use of that plant, it seems necessary to cut off one possible avenue of exploitation by suitable amendment of the principal Act. It follows that deductions will not be allowed in future to organisations having effective control of the type just mentioned if their products do not attract assessable income. Where it seeks to deny benefits in the form of tax deductions to certain participants in leveraged leasing arrangements the Bill should succeed. The provisions of the Bill will preclude certain defined lessees or end users from entitlement to claim. Categories affected will be in very general terms: Non residents where the property is used principally outside Australia; lessees or end users whose property is used in tax exempt activities; and lessees or end users who were the owners of certain property before acquisition by another by sale and lease back arrangement. Being fairly complex it is to be hoped that the stated intention is matched by the wording of clause 8. If it is there should be a high level of support for the measure. Another separate measure in this omnibus Bill of amendments will provide special tax concessions for Australian trading ships. Some 18 clauses are required. Wholly owned Australian ships employed for the purpose of gaining assessable income and registered in Australia may qualify. Tax deductibility will take the form of depreciation allowances although an investment allowance may also accrue in certain cases. Specific conditions in addition to those already mentioned will also apply. Among them are stipulations as to manning levels authorised or determined by the Secretary to the Department of Transport. While such a constraint on eligibility may be included for good reasons, they are not immediately clear. Whatever the reasons, the inclusion of manning levels as a prerequisite to qualifying for tax deductibility carries with it more than a suggestion of an intention to use the Income Tax Act to do more than provide incentives to Australian shipowners. It smacks of intervention by way of tax regulation, which would be unnecessary if the interests of other, perhaps the Seaman's Union of Australia, were not also deemed by the Government to be relevant. In other words considerations other than those warranted to achieve the stated purpose of these amendments seem to have been in the collective mind of the Government when drafting the measures. An explanation for the need to include manning levels as a qualification is called for. I ask the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to respond accordingly, hopefully before we go into Committee. It is worth noting that all or part of these measures would probably be unnecessary to combat the effects of overseas competition on Australian shipping and shipowners if manning levels required under Australian statute and industrial law were not so inordinately onerous. Although successive governments have indulged in the practice, there is not much to be said in favour of using income tax law to treat what are after all the effects, and failing to attack the causes of problems by other measures. The manning levels qualification is just the most recent classic example of this malpractice. Clauses 6 and 25 deal with bonuses under short term life assurance policies. On 27 August 1982 the previous Government announced that it would introduce legislation to tax bonuses and like amounts received from life assurance policies issued after that date and cancelled in the first four years of the policy. Under this proposed legislation not only are the previously announced measures included but they are widened to extend over a 10-year term in respect of policies taken out after the date of introduction of the Bill. Although not retrospective in operation the provisions are much more severe than was originally proposed by the previous Government and that fact should not be lost on interested parties. Indeed, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has indicated that we will oppose that part of that provision. Four other clauses in the Bill set out to modify concessions to investors in the film making industry. Those parts which will liberalise facilitation of the use of underwriting arrangements are particularly welcome. The decision to reduce the deduction from 150 per cent to 133 per cent of expenditure and the exemption of income from 50 per cent to 33 per cent is a matter of government policy rather than legal or other technicality. However, the implications for the film industry in Australia are far from clear and predictable and these measures do not make it any easier. Of course, some film producers and financiers favour the lowering of allowable deductions and the income exemptions evidenced in this Bill. Still others have expressed grave doubts about them. Of the latter, they predict an unintended outcome not foreseen when the policy decision to implement the changes in this Bill was taken. Already there are signs of downturn in the Australian film making industry. Someone close to the industry has said that he knows of only one feature film since this new tax regime was announced. He went on to warn of a disastrous downturn in the industry. It has been claimed by others close to the industry that there is a lack of understanding by the Government of the precarious state of the Australian film industry, which can at least in part be attributed to these tax measures under discussion. It may be that the Government wants to put a dampener on the industry, and I can see why it might want to do so. However, if that is an objective, it should be made clear. Its policy decisions on film making should not be clouded by tax measures which are not readily identifiable by those who otherwise may think that the Government has a commitment to the industry that is not seriously diminished by these provisions. Another provision in the Bill will exempt certain payments to victims of major disasters. Still another provision will exempt from interest withholding tax or interest on public overseas issues of bearer debentures. They both have the support of the Opposition and me. However, that support will not be forthcoming on the retrospective element of provisions to clamp down on some private superannuation funds, that is, section 23F superannuation funds. A new section 26AFA is proposed. It is intended to act retrospectively to 1 July 1977 to tax in the hands of an individual amounts received by that individual from a section 23F fund where the benefit is not a benefit that the taxpayer has a right to receive from the fund or is an excessive benefit. My opposition to any legislation which imposes a retrospective penalty or obligation should be well known. Retrospectivity is even more offensive when existing legislation already gives the Commissioner of Taxation power to attack the practices that the Bill is supposedly designed to counter. Let me explain that. For section 23F to exempt from income tax the income of a fund, section 23F(2)(a) requires that: the fund is an indefinitely continuing fund established and maintained solely for either or both of the following purposes: (i) the provision of superannuation benefits for employees in the event of their retirement or in other circumstances of a kind approved by the Commissioner; and (ii) the provision of superannuation benefits for dependants of employees in the event of the death of the employee; It follows that if a fund is not being maintained for the benefit of its members , the income of the fund is assessable and contributions to the fund are not deductible. The Commissioner may, under the law as it stands, attack the income of the fund and employer and employee contributions. He may do that in each and every tax year. The Commissioner may go back six years and do that under existing law. If there is not a bona fide superannuation fund and if there has not been a full and true disclosure, the Commissioner could tax income in the relevant fund and disallow as deductions contributions to that fund. Mr Robert Brown —Why didn't you do it? You knew about it since 1977. Mr ROCHER —It was there. The Taxation Commissioner may do it now, he may have done it then and he may do it in the future. The Bill seeks only to assess in full any payment from the fund rather than going back to assess the fund by disallowing contributions. By concentrating on recipients of payouts from offending funds the Commissioner will be bound to have to wait much longer than he would if he tackled the funds as he is able to do under existing legislation. Despite measures already available, proposed section 26AFA is to have retrospective effect in relation to benefits received on or after 1 July 1977. If suspected malpractice was of significant proportions, one could have expected this Government to have announced its intentions to legislate much earlier in its term of office. It has had eight months to announce its intention. It has had a year to bring in legislation. In the event, it waited until 14 November 1983. Taxpayers must be invited to rely upon the tax law as it is at any time and not, six years later, be subjected to rules which subsequently make them liable. Of further and almost equally disturbing concern is that the legislation may be expressed more broadly than was indicated in the November 1983 announcement by the Treasurer. It seems likely that proposed section 26AFA could detrimentally affect those who receive superannuation benefits even in accordance with approved rules of a relevant fund. The Treasurer's announced intention was to counter retrospectively superannuation funds which had 'clear elements of fraud against both the revenue and unsuspecting employees'. Mr Darren Moses, in a publication which I think is called 'Chartac', published in February 1984, said: . . . there is a divergence between the substance of the Act and the contents of the explanatory memorandum which accompanied the introduction of the Act into the Parliament. The legislation will apply to any amount paid out of, or attributable to, assets of a Section 23F fund where the benefit is not a benefit that the taxpayer has a right to receive from the fund, or is an excessive benefit and, in addition, it will impose tax at the full marginal rate on any amounts so received. He went on to state: In view of the breadth of this legislation, it is conceivable that this new Act could detrimentally affect those who receive superannuation benefits even in accordance with the approved rules of a superannuation fund. Such a result is, as indicated, contrary to the Treasurer's own announcement on November 14, 1983, as well as his explanatory memorandum. This divergence between the November announcement, the explanatory memorandum and the Bill deserves more attention. If it arises from a conscious decision of the Government, we should be told. If not, the possible outcome canvassed by Mr Moses in the article from which I have just quoted should be studied and proposed section 26AFA appropriately amended, as well as the provisions relating to assurance bonuses. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has stated the position of the Opposition. I am totally in agreement with that in relation to the proposed amendments and in particular to retrospectivity where it occurs in this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) adjourned. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(11.15) —by leave-I move: That this House- (1) while totally upholding the privileges of individual members of Parliament, regrets the attacks made yesterday upon the integrity, impartiality and competence of Mr Justice Cross by the member for New England under the privileges of this House, including in particular the following statements: He simply ignored that evidence because it did not fit into what appears to have been his predetermined conclusion. This is but one of many illustrations of the judge sacrificing accuracy and judgment on the altar of the quick quip. He has in each instance ignored the only objective evidence available to the Special Commission. Mr Justice Cross has acted other than in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The implication of his failing to adequately consider or inquire into the matters referred to him is that not only has my name been muddied, but the administration of justice in NSW has been brought further into question. Indeed, the objective evidence has been ignored. I suggest that in the future, if Mr Justice Cross draws some objective but colourful analogy with the proceedings over which he presided, he might find himself drawn irresistibly to phrases such as Star Chamber, or kangaroo court, and (2) records its full confidence in the integrity, impartiality and competence of Mr Justice Cross. Yesterday we witnessed in this place an unprecedented attack on a member of the judiciary in the execution of his duties. This matter goes to the very heart of the independence of the judiciary and the relationship between the Parliament and the judiciary. The Executive appoints the judiciary. The legislature may ask for the removal of members of the judiciary, but to reflect on their integrity within this Parliament is a violation of the fundamental constitutional principles which apply in this area. Never in the history of this place have these principles been so starkly and blatantly jeopardised as they were in the attacks on Mr Justice Cross yesterday by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). It is very important that we understand at the outset that we are not just talking about the Leader of the National Party. To this point, all members of the Opposition are presumed to support what he said in this place yesterday. I make it quite clear from this side of the House that the time has come for each member of the Opposition to stand up and be counted on this issue, and for no one is that challenge more imperative than for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). It is no good for them to say: 'No, this concerns only the Leader of the National Party. We will let this one go through to the wicket keeper'. They have to stand up and be counted on this fundamental principle of the relationship between the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary and to decide whether they will tolerate attacks upon the integrity of members of the judiciary. I make it quite clear that there is no suggestion in this motion that it is not open in any way at all to question the reasoning of members of the judiciary. That happens all the time in the courts and outside the courts. That is a right properly open to all members of the Parliament. But let it be equally clear that that is not what happened in this House yesterday. The simple, indisputable fact , as every honourable member opposite realises, is that if the charges made yesterday by the Leader of the National Party were to be accepted directly or indirectly by this House, this House would be saying unequivocally that Mr Justice Cross was not a fit and proper person to hold judicial office. This House cannot be left in that position. No member of this House should wish to be left in that position. Let whom we are talking about and what we are saying about him be quite clearly understood. We are talking about a member of the judiciary who was a member of the District Court in New South Wales from 1957 to 1978, a period of 21 years, and who from 1978 onwards was a member of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. It has been said that it is a proud boast of that member of the judiciary that at no time in that period has there been any successful appeal against a decision of his in a criminal matter. Knowing the record and tenure of the man we are talking about, let what was said about that man be seen and understood. I refer to what is contained in the motion. Firstly, it was said by the Leader of the National Party that Mr Justice Cross: . . . simply ignored that evidence because it did not fit in to what appears to have been his predetermined conclusion. Can there be anything more obviously questioning the integrity of a member of the judiciary? Secondly, the Leader of the National Party said: This is but one of many illustrations of the judge sacrificing accuracy and judgment on the alter of the quick quip. He was saying that Mr Justice Cross did not undertake the fundamental judicial responsibility of exercising his judgment, but sacrificed that because he wanted and preferred to make a quick quip. Thirdly, the Leader of the National Party stated: He has in each instance ignored the only objective evidence available to the Special Commission. Again, that is a fundamental attack on the integrity of the judge, not a questioning of his reasoning. It was said that he ignored the only objective evidence. Fourthly, the Leader of the National Party said: Mr Justice Cross has acted other than in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Again, could there be a more fundamental attack upon the integrity, not the reasoning, of a member of the judiciary? Fifthly, it was said: . . . the implication of his failing to adequately consider or inquire into the matters referred to him is that not only has my name been muddied, but the administration of justice in NSW has been brought further into question. There it is. Not only has the fundamental integrity of the judge been attacked, but he is said to have repudiated the fundamental responsibilities imposed upon a member of the judiciary as to how he discharges his judicial responsibilities. It was said that in repudiating his fundamental responsibilities he acted in a way which brought the administration of justice in New South Wales further into question. The Leader of the National Party also said: Indeed, the objective evidence has been ignored. Again, that is a fundamental attack upon the integrity of the judge. Finally, just to wrap it all up, bringing it all together in a most colourful and dramatic way, the Leader of the National Party in the very last paragraph of his speech attacked the integrity of this member of the judiciary by saying: I suggest that in the future, if Mr Justice Cross draws some objective but colourful analogy with the proceedings over which he presided, he might find himself drawn irresistably to phrases such as Star Chamber, or kangaroo court. Why is the right honourable member using the phrases 'Star Chamber' and ' kangaroo court'? It is because of what he said before. He has accused the judge of having a predetermined conclusion, of sacrificing judgment on the altar of a quick quip. He has accused the judge of ignoring the only objective evidence and said that the judge acted other than in accordance with the principles of natural justice. He said that the judge failed adequately to consider or inquire into the matters before him and that the objective evidence had been ignored. He said that the judge was guilty of breaking every fundamental rule which this society understands has to be employed when a member of the judiciary is discharging his tasks. Having accused the judge of breaking every fundamental rule, the right honourable member goes on to equate the judge's behaviour with that which could be found in a Star Chamber or a kangaroo court. Let me make the position quite clear so that there can be no attempt by any honourable member opposite to confuse the issue. I say 'any honourable member' because each one of of them has to examine his conscience on this matter. It should not be suggested that the Government is saying that we are trying to deny the right or the privilege of any member of this House to question reasoning. Of course that right must be respected. After all, honourable members opposite are always parading around as the protectors and upholders of law and order. If they are sincere about that, they must understand what this motion is about. It is an attack upon the very fundamental basis of the concepts of law and order. Can this Parliament reach a situation where with impunity to protect such a tattered and sullied reputation as that enjoyed by the Leader of the National Party it tolerates and sits idly by while members of the judiciary are attacked? For what is the judiciary being attacked? It is for not following the fundamental principles demanded of a member of the judiciary. If we reach that position not only will this fundamental right, which honourable members opposite proudly walk around the country trumpeting about as being their fundamental position, as the upholders of law and order, be in tatters. The confidence of our society in our judicial system, the judicial processes and the relationship between the Executive and this Parliament and the judiciary will also be at risk if this House does not face up to that responsibility. I remind all honourable members, and I particularly ask all members of the Opposition to think seriously about this, that they have to think of what they have to say day after day about the responsibilities of other people in society to accept the judicial and the arbitral processes. What do honourable members opposite say about the responsibility of the trade union movement in regard to the arbitration system or decisions of the courts in regard to trade unions? What is said every time, and rightly, in respect of the trade unions when something in issue goes before an arbitration tribunal or the judicial processes , is that it is a fundamental obligation of the trade union movement to accept the umpire's decision. What would honourable members opposite say if Normie Gallagher or anyone else in the trade union movement who, when faced with a ruling or decision that they did not like, got stuck into the integrity of a member of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or of the court which had dealt with them? Honourable members opposite would be up on every platform available to them attacking the trade unions, saying that the trade unions who are attacking the integrity of the Arbitration Commission or of an industrial court were practising the processes of anarchy; that they were destroying the very fundamentals of this society. That is not hypothesis on my part, because if one were to go back and look at previous Hansards or at Press reports, year after year, one would find that spokesmen for the Liberal-National Party have done just that. I believe, and my record shows this, that it is appropriate that the trade union movement should abide by its commitments. It should abide by decisions made in respect of it. In regard to this society and its future, we cannot have a position in which there is one rule whereby the Government and the Opposition will be saying to the trade union movement: 'You abide by the rules'. Yet at the same time the Leader of the National Party, a man who purports to be the alternative Deputy Prime Minister of this country will be saying: 'Yes, we will tell the trade unions how they should behave in order to establish what is necessary in order to maintain the fabric of this society, but as far as we are concerned, in an indecent attempt to do the undoable and to protect the unprotectable, we will attack the integrity of the judges'. The matter we are dealing with is absolutely fundamental. I say to this House and to this country that nothing could be more calculated to undermine respect for the judiciary and the judicial processes and, importantly also, nothing could be more calculated to undermine the authority of this Parliament and the respect that we hope it enjoys in this community than for every member in this House not to support this motion. Let me make it clear that if honourable members on the other side of the House vote against this motion they will be recording in the Hansard of this Parliament that each one of them believed it appropriate for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party-and he would have loftier ambitions than that-to say of a member of the judiciary that he went into certain proceedings with a predetermined conclusion, that he sacrificed judgment. Opposition members will be saying that the judge ignored objective evidence and that he did not act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. They will say it is right for the right honourable member for New England to say that the judge presided over a Star Chamber or a kangaroo court. Honourable members opposite should be clear in their own minds. It is not just the Leader of the National Party whom we are talking about now; each and every member of the Opposition who does not support this motion will be saying that it is appropriate so to attack the integrity of the judiciary of this country. If honourable members opposite act in that manner, they will have struck a very great blow at a fundamental principle of this society. I refer to the integrity of the judiciary. If they attack the integrity of the judiciary and attempt to lend the weight of the Parliament to attacks upon the judiciary, they will have struck a greater blow than has ever been struck in the history of this country at a basic fundamental aspect of what this society is about. Once people of this community believe that members of this Parliament, with impunity, can attack the judiciary of this country, we cannot expect anyone else in this community to have respect for the processes of law and order. Honourable members opposite must face up to the truth of what is involved in this motion, and each one of them must exercise his conscience. I suggest that if in the near future they want to live with themselves and with their alleged principles, they must support this motion. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Before I call the Leader of the National Party, I point out that the Prime Minister was heard in quite a degree of silence. I think that on a matter like this the Leader of the National Party should be afforded the same privilege. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.35) —The hyprocrisy and flexibility in matters of principle that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has just displayed to this House are matters that every elector in Australia should register when next this country has a Federal election. No man has condemned members of the High Court more, no man has condemned the former Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick more, than has that man who hypocritically produced this motion. It was that man who, not so long ago, said of the Chief Judge of the Arbitration Court, Mr Justice Kelly, that he was an Irish pig farmer. It was not so long ago, in the debates in this place on the bottom of the harbour taxation legislation, that he and his colleagues of the Australian Labor Party were using all sorts of damning epithets, not about someone outside the jurisdiction of this Parliament but about men who are officers of this Parliament-members of the High Court of Australia, the highest court of the land , and of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We have before us a motion which, but for the circumstances, I would suggest Mr Speaker, on any impartial ruling, you would say was ultra vires, outside the competence of the Parliament. We are called upon to express confidence in a man who is not appointed on a commission from the Governor-General but by a State government on a commission from a State Governor, one who is not responsible to this Parliament and on whom we have no ability at all to pass judgment. We have to recognise that we are called on to adopt not a motion that expresses our confidence in the integrity, impartiality and competence of members of the judiciary but rather one which expresses those sentiments with respect to one individual, an individual who is totally outside our domain. Of course it is true that on this side of the House we respect the judiciary. We respect its integrity, impartiality and competence. Would that those who now suddenly utter new-found expressions of confidence had done so in respect of the High Court and those who, with such distinction, have filled their places as senior judges over the years. We are asked to express an opinion about someone who has no relationship with this Parliament. It is also important to realise that it is not even with respect to his exercising his role as an officer of the court that we are called on to express this opinion. When Mr Justice Cross was acting as a Special Commissioner he was not acting as a Judge of the Supreme Court. He was acting as an officer of the New South Wales Parliament and, specifically, of the New South Wales Premier under the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983-not as a judge but as a Special Commissioner. Do not honourable members regard that as being different? I draw their attention to what Mr Justice Cross himself said in his opening remarks to those who appeared before him: . . . the Commission does not sit as a Court; it does not 'hear and determine' questions coming before it. Its function is to 'inquire' into the report upon the specific matters referred to it for investigation . . . He is not sitting as a judge. He is there as a Special Commissioner. Indeed, honourable members will recall that no sooner had he been appointed a Special Commissioner than another full time judge was appointed to the Supreme Court Bench and the retirement of Mr Justice Cross, upon the conclusion of his role as a Special Commissioner was announced. In other words, he is no longer serving as a judge, so the whole motion is related to something about which we are not talking at all. I spoke yesterday about his role as a Special Commissioner. Everyone should realise the genesis of this rather peculiar legislation. I commented yesterday about the attitude adopted, and the opposition that there was, to the legislation itself. Honourable members will note that in the Sydney Morning Herald of Wednesday, 25 January last, Milton Cockburn, who seems to have fairly close access to what happens in New South Wales, wrote that it was my allegation, which was carried on television, that led to the New South Wales Government's decision to set up the inquiry. He wrote: On that Sunday, Mr Wran summoned his staff, the Attorney-General, Mr Landa, and the Secretary of the Premier's Department, Mr Gleeson, to a council of war in his office and the idea of the Special Commission of Inquiry was born. Two days later Mr Wran made the announcement and the next day legislation to establish the inquiry was introduced into Parliament. Why was that done? It was done because that smell of corruption was suddenly coming out into the full light of day. Why are these people running to cover them? Why are they running to shelter them? We all know that the power brokers in the Federal Labor Party up to now have been the members of the New South Wales Party machine, but one thing that we all need to recognise-it came out of yesterday's debate-is that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), the leader of the new centre left faction, is taking a very up-front profile on domestic policy issues. We all know that he has not done so until now. What is happening? Within the Labor Party there is a group of people who, quite validly and properly, believe in Australian Labor Party principles and they want to see their policies implemented. So we have a new power structure in the Party. We see, on the part of the Labor Party, an attempt to cover up the smell of corruption in the right wing Labor machine, that right wing Labor machine that supports the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). It is that smell of corruption that they have to brush under the carpet, for if it comes out into the light of day of course they will fall with it, as they should. Let us look now at the relevant legislation. Honourable members will remember that Mr John Hatton, whom I quoted yesterday, said that this legislation would sit well in any totalitarian state. Honourable members will remember the reason for introducing into this Parliament my observations about the findings of the Special Commissioner. I again draw the attention of honourable members to section 36 of the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act, which states: A Special Commission shall not be vitiated by reason of any informality or want or form or be liable to be challenged, appealed against, quashed or called in question by any court. In other words, not only is he not acting as a judge; he is acting as a Special Commissioner. He is completely apart. There is no right of appeal, yet this new champion of parliamentary privilege, this new advocate of protection of the rights of the back bench in this place, has suddenly decided that some criticism should be made of an alleged abuse of parliamentary privilege by me, in exercising the only right of appeal there is to a Bill that otherwise denies it. Indeed, if one thinks of what happened in my case one can draw attention again to what is happening to Mr Bob Bottom. There was a very important Privy Council decision, which the Prime Minister has so conveniently forgotten. I draw the attention of honourable members to a law report in The Times of 21 October 1983 regarding the case of Mahon versus Air New Zealand Ltd and Others. They will remember that a New Zealand judge conducted a commission of inquiry but in doing so, the Privy Council said, he failed to adhere to the two rules of natural justice-that a finding had to be based on material which tended logically to reveal the facts to be determined and that any person represented at the inquiry who would be adversely affected by a finding should be made aware of the risk of that finding being made. Let me explain that neither I nor Mr Bottom had an opportunity, in accordance with the findings of the Privy Council, to respond concerning a finding which would be adverse. Both I and Mr Bottom should have had an opportunity to present our interpretation of the facts before that finding was published. That was the reason for my referring in this place to the subject of natural justice. What does the motion say? It talks about integrity, impartiality and competence . What I am talking about is the circumstance of a judge acting as a Special Commissioner. I am not talking about the judgments he makes as a judge. I am talking about the decisions that he has made acting as a Special Commissioner. There is a need to recognise the distinction. The Government talks about the integrity, impartiality and competence of his judgments. The Special Commissioner said that he was not sitting in judgment, that he was not there as a judge; he was there as a Special Commissioner. He stated that, therefore, he had a responsibility to inquire. What happened? Honourable members will recall that I was put in a position in which, according to the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, if there was evidence I should have gone out and produced it. He tried to put me in the position of being a prosecutor. It is not required, under the inquiry terms that Mr Justice Cross identified-to inquire into and report on -that the parties before him should produce the evidence. He has the full trappings of the power of the law in New South Wales. He has the police force. He has the opportunity of his research staff. He has neglected all of those. What I am saying is that it is not for the parties before him to act as prosecutor; it is a matter of the inquiry being conducted and reported upon by he who is responsible for so doing. Let us have a look at the individual items. Let us look at the objective evidence. Honourable members will remember that I said that Mr Justice Cross ignored the only objective evidence available to the special commission. Is the Prime Minister suggesting that Mr Scotford's evidence should be ignored? Why was not Mr Murray Gleeson called? Of course, that is one of the fundamental flaws. As my colleague the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) said yesterday, the only objective evidence which is really sustainable in a matter such as a conflict of recollections is the objective evidence which was available at the time. What was available at the time? The evidence of my solicitor. Why did not the Special Commissioner and counsel assisting him cross-examine Mr Scotford? Why did they not accept that objective evidence? As I said yesterday, it is in this respect that there is a flaw in Mr Justice Cross's reasoning as special commissioner. I have said that he has acted other than in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Surely any reading of the Privy Council decision in regard to Mahon and Air New Zealand would show that there was an obligation on him as special commissioner to give me an opportunity to make him aware of the reasons why I did not agree with his assessment of fact. But, no, he did not give me such an opportunity and it is for that reason that there was a denial of natural justice. An appealable ground has been laid down by that recent decision of the Privy Council. The Prime Minister said that there is an attack on the integrity, impartiality and competence of Mr Justice Cross because I said that Mr Justice Cross failed adequately to consider and inquire into matters referred to him. I ask honourable members: How could His Honour have dealt with this matter in one judicial day? We have the whole of this scene: We have a very serious matter; we have findings that are colourful in the extreme which have come out and my integrity is questioned. He did it all in the course of a 10 o'clock to 1 o' clock, 2 o'clock to 4 o'clock day. He did not call a material witness available to provide objective evidence-evidence in regard to what happened at the very time the event occurred, matters that objectively could establish that there was not something that just happened by recollection so much later, matters that were available at the time. Why was not Murray Gleeson called; why was not Mr Scotford's evidence inquired into? Why was not Mr Scotford's diary looked at, accepted and regarded as indicating that something rather murky took place at the lunch? Mr Justice Cross, in the last of his points, draws some objective but colourful analogy with the proceedings over which he presided. Of course, that was the whole point of it all, was it not? We had a finding of Mr Justice Cross. All of us know what judicial language is like. Those of us who have studied law will know how boring and trite many of those judgments tend to be. But look at that report of Mr Justice Cross. He talks of the Spanish Inquisition and makes all those magnificent, quick quips. They were glorious, were they not? They made wonderful reading. But is that judicial language? Of course it is not. That is the whole point of it. If a special commissioner acting in this role acts responsibly he should act according to the charge which he was given. Of course, quite obviously the Australian Labor Party knows that the great fantasy it is trying to weave around this matter is starting to crumble. Those media tapes that the Age could find but which Mr Justice Cross did not inquire into revealed that same tangled web which is threaded right through. How coincidental it is that Mr Morgan Ryan happened to be present during the Special Commission of Inquiry. How coincidental that the same firm of which he was a principal partner happened to be the instructing solicitors for Mr Waterhouse and Mr Coombs. How coincidental Mr Coombs has been revealed in those tapes as a bagman for an illegal starting price operation. Obviously all of these things go right back to the core of integrity not just of the Wran Government but of the Federal Government. In view of the support that members of the Federal Government are giving, one can only but suspect them . Why, one might ask, are they suddenly championing parliamentary privilege? Why do they who have attacked members of the High Court of Australia, they who have attacked members of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission suddenly seek to put forward a motion in respect of someone who has no responsibility in this place? This motion is no more than an attempt by the Labor Party to try to disguise those things which all electors should recognise, and that is that there is really a stench about the administration of justice in New South Wales. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(11.51) —We have just heard another defence as to why the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) had cause to complain about Mr Justice Cross. If we listen to the defence now given, the Leader of the National Party now says that he has no objection to paragraph (2) of the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which records full confidence in the integrity, impartiality and competence of Mr Justice Cross. He just says: 'I fully support that'. But when it comes to Mr Justice Cross being a commissioner he says: 'I have all the objections in the world because he was dealing with me'. That is the issue. Yesterday in this place he was able to attack His Honour in respect of all the matters listed in the motion-that His Honour was not objective, that it was a kangaroo court and that His Honour had prejudged the issue. In fact, if these points are accepted by the Opposition, Mr Justice Cross would not be able to maintain his position as a member of the judiciary. No parliament in Australia would support Mr Justice Cross. There could not be the situation tendered by the Leader of the National Party. It does not sit squarely with the second part of the motion which refers to integrity and impartiality. The Leader of the National Party then made the extraordinary claim that we should not be dealing with this matter because it is ultra vires this Parliament . Is he really serious about that? Standing order 75 says that no member of any parliament can in any way condemn a member of the judiciary anywhere in Australia. Why has this ridiculous interpretation been put before us that Mr Justice Cross cannot be dealt with in this Parliament because it is ultra vires? The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made the point about allowing this Parliament to be used as a vehicle to attack members of the judiciary. It is very cowardly to use the Parliament to attack members of the judiciary. The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) got up to give his fifth variation of evidence given before His Honour. The right honourable gentleman was represented by a Queen's Counsel. In fact, his legal costs were paid. And this is a question of a denial of natural justice! What about the justice of the other two men who were impugned by the Leader of the National Party in a televised speech? The right honourable gentleman virtually said they were crooked and corrupt. Their names were Waterhouse and Coombs. He had their names dragged across the limelight of publicity. When he is asked to substantiate those claims, he fails. Mr Ruddock —He didn't name them. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He did name them. Let me come to that point. Let us come to the issue so that the legal gentlemen opposite can at least agree on this. A special commission of inquiry is to report to the Governor of New South Wales as to whether there is or was any evidence or sufficient evidence warranting the prosecution of a specified person for a specified offence. Today we have the Leader of the National Party saying: 'Yes, there are two people who should have been prosecuted'. He is still saying that. He could have done it. He is a barrister of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. His solicitor could have done something about it. His counsel, Mr Murray Gleeson, could have done something about it. The crime which was offering a bribe or soliciting a bribe to pervert the course of justice was made in December 1979. At that time the right honourable member was appearing before the Court of Petty Sessions of New South Wales on other charges and was defended by Mr Scotford and others, particularly Mr Murray Gleeson. Is the right honourable member suggesting that those counsel would not have been able to get up in the Court of Petty Sessions or even the District Court where he was subsequently arranged and say: 'Look, there is a perversion of justice in this prosecution. I have evidence from my client to show that in December 1979 he was solicited for a bribe to pervert the course of justice'? The right honourable member cannot possibly get away with that sort of suggestion now. That is what it is all about. Why did he remain silent for so many years? The explanation was given here last evening. The right honourable gentleman never thought he would be brought to book on the charges that he made. Let us have a look at this matter. As soon as he made this outrageous speech, before the Special Commission of Inquiry began, and Deputy Commissioner Perrin went along to interview him, as a police officer must, the right honourable member said in public that two people had solicited a bribe from him. Let us have a look at the record of interview on 31 August with Deputy Commissioner Perrin, who was entitled to go along and interview anybody. The National Party Leader is not exempt. The record of interview was tendered in evidence. The Opposition now wants to suggest that the judge had no right to make the findings that he made. At page 3 of the record of interview honourable members will see the position following questions asked by Deputy Commissioner Perrin. In answer to the question-- Mr Howard —He was directed by the penciller. The penciller told him to do it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member is very clever. The employer of the penciller was also a friend of Sir Robert Askin. Does the honourable member admit that? When being interviewed by Deputy Commissioner Perrin, Mr Sinclair said-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I would appreciate a little protection. Mr Sinclair said to Mr Perrin: . . . I've said that in my view there is nothing illegal in what he did . . . This was the evidence given by Mr Sinclair on 31 August to the Deputy Commissioner of Police. He said: . . . I've said that in my view there is nothing illegal in what he did . . . He had already impugned them across the nation. Let us press on a bit. 'Who was it', asked Mr Perrin, 'who raised the question of the $20,000?' 'I must have', said Mr Sinclair, 'I think I suggested $10,000'. That is the evidence about the money. It came from the accuser himself. This interview was held before the inquiry started. On page 6 of the record of interview Mr Sinclair said: I'm afraid the nature of the discussion,- that discussion happened to take place at the Christmas lunch- however, was too vague for me to see anything in it that I could report to anybody. What are we talking about? This man, the right honourable member for New England , made an outrageous statement in recent months, four years after the event, and when he was interviewed he said immediately: 'There was nothing in it; it was too vague'. He now objects to what the judge found as being too vague. On page 7 he said: 'From my recollection I am not too clear what the position of the money was. I do not believe that the others mentioned a sum of money at all'. That was given in evidence. He mentioned it; they did not mention it; everything was too vague to get a prosecution; and now he berates the judge for finding that there is no evidence to support the accusation. He said there was nothing illegal in what they did. Why is he complaining about the judge if that is the issue? That is the issue, is it not? Honourable members have spoken about objective evidence and substantive evidence. The only evidence that was substantive was that the right honourable member said he was solicited for $20,000 by two men named Waterhouse and Coombs. He made the accusation. Why can he not stand up and lodge that complaint now? The right honourable member said that a proposition was put to him and, according to his recollection, he treated it with the contempt it deserved. Then he said he had another conversation a week later with Mr Waterhouse and said he was not interested in the proposition. Does that sit squarely with the evidence? Firstly he said he treated the proposition with contempt and then he rang the man a week later and said he was not interested in the proposition. Where was the contempt? Let us have a look at this marvellous diary entry-I table it-which is convoluted and circumscribed by a series of cattle prices. He is a master of inventiveness. The figure '20G' has been put in under a line, which means 20 grand in the vernacular of the racecourse which the right honourable gentleman does not frequent! Matters relating to Mr Coombs and Mr Waterhouse have been interposed as a method of saying: 'Of course, it must have happened'. It has all been arranged so it looks as if it must have genuinely been there all the time. Let us look at Mr Scotford's evidence. The right honourable gentleman relies on Mr Scotford. If Mr Scotford had any memory at all he would certainly remember whether his client came to him within a few minutes of having a lunch and said that two characters, Waterhouse and Coombs, had put a proposition to him. Apparently the right honourable member went to his solicitor and the solicitor's notes were given in evidence. Despite what the right honourable gentleman said here today, which was again wrong, the solicitor was called and was asked about his notes. The notes state: 'Yes, I met Mr Sinclair and he said he had had a lunch and that he had rejected certain proposals'. The notes do not refer to any names such as Waterhouse or Coombs. When Mr Scotford got in the witness box and tendered the diary entry, naturally the first question asked of him was: 'Having a look at the document, you spoke in general terms about a proposition, is that correct?' 'That is correct' said Mr Scotford. He was then asked: 'Is that the only information that came to you? Did you have any identification of the persons?' Mr Scotford said: 'I cannot recollect'. Is that the position? Do honourable members not think that the client would have told his solicitor the names of the two gentlemen? Mr Scotford, in his evidence, said he did not recollect. Is the right honourable member suggesting the judge was wrong in saying that he could not accept Mr Scotford's evidence? Mr Scotford could not even find out who were the two people. I will leave those documents available for the right honourable gentleman so that he can have a look at the evidence that was given. The right honourable member's point is that the judge was wrong. Where did Mr Justice Cross go wrong? He did not go wrong at any stage. Where is the evidence given by the Leader of the National Party that justified a prosecution against these people when he was asked to justify it in the witness box? That is the issue. Why did he prevaricate? Why did he resile from the accusations that he made in public when being interviewed by Deputy Commissioner Perrin and say that nothing illegal had happened? If nothing illegal had happened, why did he make the accusation? Everything illegal had happened if we accept his view. These people should have been prosecuted. Mr Murray Gleeson and Mr Scotford had a duty to prosecute if they were put on notice. Of course, the evidence given at the inquiry can be used to prosecute those people, even now, if that is the situation. The inquiry in no way exempts them. The right honourable member can lay the information now. Is that not the best test? The issue surely is this: Either the right honourable gentleman is not worthy to be a member of this Parliament or Mr Justice Cross is not worthy to be a member of the judiciary. We support Mr Justice Cross. All the evidence supports him. When one looks at the way this evidence has been given can one find anything wrong with the findings of Mr Justice Cross? He made the point that Mr Sinclair, within 48 hours of the televised speech, when interviewed by the police, retreated as far as he could from the allegations without losing face. He conceded that he had nothing to suggest that Mr Waterhouse or Mr Coombs had any connection with the police or with the Labor cause. He admitted he may well have been mistaken in thinking any offer had been made. Finally, he conceded that at the lunch neither Mr Waterhouse nor Mr Coombs had suggested anything illegal or even improper to him. Not only did he say that in evidence in chief before Mr Justice Cross but also he said it to the Deputy Police Commissioner before the inquiry even started. So we have the ridiculous situation of the Leader of the National Party dragooning his poor unfortunate troops in here to support him in his allegation that the judge was crook and that he did not know what he was doing when he, himself, admitted before it started that there was nothing in what he had said. He has now come in here and made the accusation that this matter is ultra vires now and this Parliament should not even consider it because a State judge is involved. A State judge can deal with all of us at any time on any criminal offence relating to State matters and he is entitled to deal with the right honourable gentleman. We invite the right honourable gentleman to go outside and make those accusations and allow the judge to test him before another impartial tribunal. Where is the evidence of crime? Where is the evidence other than from the right honourable gentleman's imagination? He made a very peculiar diary entry, which certainly goes back to the charges and the skill that he might have with the pen . Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(12.05) —Mr Speaker, the bringing up of this matter is an absolute fraud. The Government lost on it yesterday and it will lose again today. It is interesting to note that the big build up we read about what the Government would do to the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) turned out yesterday to be nothing but a damp squib. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) did not have the guts to come in here and stand with his senior Ministers and make accusations against the Leader of the National Party. The Leader of the National Party, by the overwhelming majority of those judging him in the media, was justifiably cleared by his statement yesterday, so in came the Prime Minister today to try to join issue and get in on it. The fact is that he did not have the guts to do so yesterday. He was supported today by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), who simply repeated what he said yesterday. Let us get it very clear: We are not impunging the integrity of the judge. However, we are calling into question his findings, and this can and should be done. Remember that Mr Justice Cross accepted the evidence of the solicitor of the Leader of the National Party, and by accepting that there was no way- euclidean logic would tell us that-that he could reach the conclusion he did. Still members of the Australian Labor Party came in here today with a motion that calls into question our attitude towards the integrity, et cetera, of a member of the judiciary because we exercised our right to criticise his judgment . Let us look at what Labor members have said about members of the judiciary. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) rightly pointed out yesterday that the Prime Minister had referred to a judgment of the High Court of Australia as an obscenity. Let us not leave it at that, but look at what the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) said in this House on 12 October 1982. At page 1902 of Hansard, he said: . . . the Barwick High Court, which has accurately been described at that time as the tax avoiders temple . . . Then let us look at what that aspirant for ministerial office, so I read in the newspapers, Mr Robert Brown, said on 27 October 1982, at page 2628: I was referring to what the Chief Justice-that shameful man, Barwick-said in connection . . . Then, I presume impugning all members of the High Court bar one, he said at page 2629: The only member of the High Court during the period of Sir Garfield Barwick's chief justiceship who showed any concern or guts in connection with these shysters was Justice Lionel Murphy . . . What a fabrication by this Government! In case anybody thinks it is left to the lesser lights, or the dirty artful dodgers such as the Minister for Finance, just remember what the Prime Minister said on 15 December 1979. It is interesting that he refers to the good Lord, our maker. He said: If ever people have to face their maker and justify their existence, certain occupants of the High Court will have a particularly messy time. We call into question findings. We are not besmirching the character or the courage of judges; what we are doing in regard to this motion-I will go through elements of it in a moment-is vastly different from what so many honourable members on the other side have done. They are prostituting the rule of law by using some form of fabricated statement relating to the integrity of judges to hide behind. The quotes show that, and we heard the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), to whom the Labor Party gave time last night, defending the right of members of parliament to criticise judges. Of course he was right. What is sacrosanct about judges? Every time this Government or any previous government has taken a lower court decision on to appeal, has that meant it has called into question the integrity of the judgment? Of course it has not. That is absolute nonsense at law and it is absolute nonsense so far as this parliamentary motion is concerned. There are two basic reasons, and probably a number of others, for members of the Labor Party to be scuttling into this place today, trying to run away from the criticism of their attack yesterday. The first is that yesterday they failed miserably and the Prime Minister did not have the guts to come into the Parliament and do other than listen and interject. He did not have the guts to speak and, as I have said, most Press commentators today supported the Leader of the National Party. The second reason is the creeping stench of New South Wales that pervades them all. As I look around this Parliament, I know that they know that I have material and others have material of which so many of them are aware , and if they think that this matter will block the gradual drawing out of affairs in New South Wales, they have read it wrongly. The fact of the matter is that what takes place in a court can be criticised, that that criticism can be trenchant, and that by so criticising it one is not calling into question the integrity of the judge. This motion is not concerned with integrity; it is not concerned with standards. It is pure politicking in its basest form and it overlooks all honourable members opposite have said before. The hypocrisy that exudes throughout the motion is revealed by the sorts of statements to which I have referred. Here is another one, which I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition must have relied on when he used the word ' obscenity'. In 1977, the Prime Minister said: In this day and age I cannot think of a greater obscenity than the decision of the High Court in respect of the Curran case. If that does not call into question the matters that are raised in this motion, what does? We are not talking about obscenities; we are talking about reports and decisions wrongfully reached. As I say, every time a government takes a decision of a lower court on appeal to a higher court, who is impugning integrity? The reality is that every day judges are allegedly mistaken and their judgments are taken on appeal. The reality is that the Leader of the National Party had no right of appeal. He was not given the basic element of natural justice. He has not just had the concept of natural justice that all of us understand swept aside by the report of the Cross Special Commission of Inquiry; he has had the elements of natural justice distilled into a determination and finding of the Privy Council in the Air New Zealand case. That finding confirmed judgment after judgment of the House of Lords in relation to natural justice for a person so accused in the decision of a body of inquiry such as the Cross inquiry. Let us have a look at this motion before the Parliament, and select just a few elements of it. Members of the Labor Party have put down statements that are supposed to be a bomb in the basement of the Leader of the National Party. They are, in fact, a brick by brick demolition of their own case. The Government's motion states: He simply ignored that evidence because it did not fit in to what appears to have been his pre-determined conclusion. I would have heard that argument every day of the week on appeal in court. Time and again it is called into question by any counsel when there is a right of appeal. Here is another statement in the motion: He has in each instance ignored the only objective evidence available to the Special Commission. Time and again on appeal the judgment that objective evidence was not drawn, made available or was ignored is called into question. I quote another statement contained in the motion: Mr Justice Cross has acted other than in accordance with the principles of natural justice. I have referred already not only to the norms and the conventions of natural justice but also to a judgment brought down recently. That judgment confirms not only those norms and conventions but also decisions of the House of Lords itself . Another statement in the motion reads: Indeed, the objective evidence has been ignored. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), for example, in many appearances before courts of appeal would have directed attention to such matters. How does it impugn the integrity of a judge when one calls into question an error in the finding itself? That is the absolute fabrication of this motion. We can see the constant duplicity of the Prime Minister who has moved a motion which contains the words contained in paragraph (2). I have read the sorts of remarks that he has passed. He came in here today and said: 'Of course you can criticise judges, but you cannot do it in this way'. Is he the sole determinant of the manner in which criticism of judges can be made? Does anyone here accept that judges cannot be criticised? That is the first question. If honourable members accept that they can-as every honourable member here must accept-all they are doing is saying, 'We are going to put a value judgment of zero to 10 on the nature of that criticism'. By a comparison of the statements made by members of the Government and the hyperbole contained in the attacks that they have made against Chief Justice Barwick and other members of the High Court, the motion falls to the ground for the politicking that it is. It ignores the fundamental point of being able to call into question the judgment of courts. The Government has put down a motion that says that the Opposition is impugning the integrity of a judge for simply criticising a finding. The fact is that the Leader of the National Party went beyond that. Today he referred again to the stench and the corruption in the administration of government and justice in New South Wales. I am not going to develop that at length. There will be time to talk about the Government's mate in New South Wales who is the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party. His name does not just appear in newspapers or in Hansards. His name appears in other interesting documents. Let us deal with them on another day. Honourable members opposite know that it is there. That is the bomb in the basement for them. It is ticking and ticking. The cover-up of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) yesterday will be dealt with in this place. It will be shown to be the cover-up that it is by this Government. It is a failed cover-up. The Government became involved in it by associating itself with the statement made by the Attorney-General yesterday. The fact is that we are critical of this report. But by so criticising that report we are not calling into question the integrity of the judge. He accepted the evidence of the solicitor acting for the Leader of the National Party. He accepted the solicitor's diary entry. That should have been the end of the matter. Once Mr Scotford's evidence was accepted then Mr Sinclair's statement was correct. Why on earth did he go to the solicitor and report it if it did not transpire and he did not believe it had transpired? The fact is that the motion which has been brought before the House should be treated with the contempt that it deserves-contempt because of its timing and content. I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: '(1) while not endorsing every detail of statements by members within the privilege of Parliament this House upholds the right of members to exercise that privilege in matters pertaining to themselves or the Australian electorate, and (2) this House records its full confidence in the integrity, impartiality and competence of the Australian judiciary'. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(12.20) —I second the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) to the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Unless the Government is willing to accept this amendment it will demonstrate once again the double standards of which it has been guilty. This amendment is directed towards establishing a common code of conduct for honourable members on both sides of the House in matters of this nature. If it is wrong for the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), in defence of himself, to join sharp issue with what Mr Justice Cross said, it is wrong for the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown), the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) and the Prime Minister to make the attacks that they have made upon the integrity of the High Court of Australia. When that attack was made on the High Court of Australia, one of the then Opposition members stood up and said that the only person on the High Court who had any guts about tax avoidance was Lionel Murphy. Not only was that person attacking the then Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Garfield Barwick; he was also attacking the present Governor-General of Australia who was then a member of the High Court of Australia. I remind the Prime Minister, who had the obscenity to use the language that he did about the High Court in relation to the Curran decision, that he did not know much about the Curran decision because the present Governor-General in fact delivered a dissenting judgment in that case. So when members of the Government talk about attacks upon the decency and the integrity of members of the judiciary they would do extremely well to cast their own minds back to what was said in this chamber and to the intemperate language that was used by members of the then Opposition about the judiciary. They made attacks which were quite outrageous. If they are to apply this standard to the right honourable member for New England and say that it is wrong for him to defend himself with colourful language, they have to look in their own backyards. They have to recall the statements that were made. They have to look at some of the statements that were made by the present Prime Minister when he was the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Not only did he use the word 'obscenity' which is a very offensive and critical word reflecting upon the competence and the good intentions of members of the High Court, but also he said a lot more when he made a speech launching Michael Sexton's book entitled Illusions of Power: The Fate of a Reform Government. The book considers the High Court. I will quote from the speech of the Prime Minister of Australia, the man who moved this motion. This is the man who said that the right honourable member for New England launched a grave attack upon the fabric of our society by what he said yesterday. This is what he thought about the fabric of Australian society; this is what he was prepared to say about the High Court of Australia: We will explain to the people that if this anachronistic institution is going to continue to make decisions which favour the privileged and impose unnecessary burdens upon the less privileged then a Labor Government will act to ensure that that institution is brought up to date with the reality of the society in which we live. Mr Robert Brown —Hear, hear! Mr HOWARD —The honourable member says: 'Hear, hear!'. The Prime Minister made a blatant attack upon the competence of the High Court. Members of the Left and the Centre Left of the Australian Labor Party nod their heads in unison. The Prime Minister was attacking the competence of the High Court. He was attacking the motives of members of the High Court. He was using highly intimidatory language to impugn their conduct. If that is not inviting contempt for the basic fabric of our society, if that is not a call to arms against one of the bulwarks of our democratic system, I do not know what is. Yet he comes in here, posing once again as the ultimate repository of everything that is fair and reasonable and decent in the Australian way of life, and says: 'We really have to rise above politics'. He appealed to all of us to rise above politics as, of course, he did when he welcomed Mick Young back into the Ministry. He was able to rise above politics because he was staring a Caucus defeat in the face, despite the fact that he and his Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) had made up their minds several months ago that Mick was gone for quite a long time. There was a bit of a turn of political fortune, so he had to face reality. The Prime Minister comes in here with his double standards and says that we have to deplore absolutely the fact that the right honourable member for New England, denied the right of appeal by an Act of the New South Wales Parliament, uses the forms of this Parliament to defend himself against the attack. The Prime Minister says that we must deplore that, we must throw away our political allegiances and support him in his crusade for truth, honour and decency in Australia. Yet he is the person who described all the justices of the High Court of Australia as being involved in an obscenity. Of course, he has moderated his language a little over the years. In the days when he was a little more flamboyant, the justices were not engaging in obscenities, they were called Irish pig farmers. That very colourful description was used by the Prime Minister about the head of the Arbitration Court. Of course the right honourable member for New England used some very colourful language yesterday in defending himself. Mr Hawke —Hah! Mr HOWARD —The Prime Minister has at long last come back into the debate. So indeed did Mr Justice Cross use colourful language. It reflects no credit at all upon his impartiality, sobriety and careful use of language for any judge to use some of the expressions that Mr Justice Cross used. I do not know Mr Justice Cross. I have not heard any adverse reflections upon his general competence as a judge. I have no particular brief for or against him. But let me say that in that judgment he used language which he would have to admit, with the benefit of hindsight and further reflection, was extremely colourful. To use the sorts of expressions he used was in fact to invite some of the responses that have been given. Can honourable members blame a man for responding in that way to language more appropriate to the Spanish Inquisition and the Devil himself? We all would have to admit, from our understanding of the English language and the society in which we live, that they were extremely critical and very, very colourful words, the sorts of words that must inevitably invite, from somebody who believes that he has been unfairly maligned, that type of response. The fact is that a colourful judgment produced an equally colourful response from the right honourable member for New England. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has quite properly said, this is not a motion about high principles. If the Prime Minister had come into this House with clean hands so far as the judiciary is concerned; if the Prime Minister could always have been found to be somebody who had stood up for the judges of Australia; if the Prime Minister was not on record as having used the language he has to describe the judges of the High Court of Australia; if the Prime Minister did not have as members of his Cabinet people who have used the privileges of this Parliament not only to traduce the integrity and the reputation of the justices of the highest court in this country but also the reputations and the integrity of ordinary decent, law-abiding Australian citizens; if he had a Cabinet composed of members who had spotless public records and who had not been found guilty of irresponsible conduct by a very widely respected judge, somebody appointed by both sides of politics in Australia to undertake onerous tasks-I refer here, in case honourable members think I am referring to anybody else, to none other than my old friend the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), the honourable member for Port Adelaide; if he had come into this House with clean hands; if he had been able to set himself away from everything else; then, of course, he might have a little more success and he might be a little more persuasive and a few of us over here might be a little more interested in his argument. Everybody knows that the Prime Minister has chosen this as a blatantly political opportunity to have a go at the Leader of the National Party. Everybody knows that this motion has nothing at all to do with upholding the integrity of law and order in Australia. It has nothing whatever to do with that . It has everything to do with kicking a few heads on this side of the House and at the same time creating something of a diversion from what is happening in New South Wales. This motion is designed to take the heat off the penciller, and we all know what heat is being applied to the penciller at the present time. We all know the difficulties that day by day and week by week are encircling him so far as respect and regard for the administration of justice in New South Wales at a government level are concerned. Mr Speaker, I believe this country has been extraordinarily fortunate in the integrity of the members of the judiciary in the various courts at both State and Federal levels. I think that, by and large, we have one of the best records in the world so far as the integrity of the judiciary is concerned. If the Prime Minister and the Government are really interested in a bipartisan vote of confidence in this parliament, in the integrity of the Australian judiciary, and of course that includes Mr Justice Cross and all the other members of the New South Wales Supreme Court, he will support the amendment that has been put forward. If he is really interested in a bipartisan expression of support for the idea that we have an incorruptible judiciary, why does he not join in that bipartisan expression of support? Why does he use this opportunity, under the cover of standing up for law and order and protecting the decency of individual members of the judiciary, to make a political attack on the right honourable member for New England? If he was really worried about respect for the judiciary he would facilitate a bipartisan unanimous expression of support of this motion. If today we want to strike a blow for respect for the judiciary by the Australian community we must all get together and say that we have the utmost confidence in it. This Prime Minister is not willing to do that. He wants to kick a few heads on this side of the House. He wants to score a few political points. Of course he grins. Honourable members opposite all grin, but we all know that this is about scoring political points. It has nothing to do with law and order, it has nothing to do with decent standards, it has nothing to do with the competence of the judiciary. Mr Hawke —Sinclair is destroying you. He is destroying everyone on your side. Mr HOWARD —As is proven by the Prime Minister with his constant yapping interjections, it has everything to do with trying to score a few political points. He has one last opportunity to fulfil in this debate all of that rhetoric he berates us with day after day, about rising above the political heat and dust of battle and adopting a consensual and bipartisan approach. What the Prime Minister would like to do is go out of this Parliament and say: 'We, the elected representatives of the Australian people, have full confidence in the decency and integrity of our judiciary'. He would like to do that and he has an opportunity of doing it, but of course he will not do it. He has turned this opportunity into yet another chance to kick a few heads and to make a political attack under the guise of standing up for truth, justice and high principle. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, this is a totally political motion. It has nothing to do with standards. It has nothing to do with principle and propriety. It has everything to do with the crude use of numbers by the Labor Party in this House. Of course, what better demonstrates it is that the final speaker will undoubtedly be the honourable member for Port Adelaide, whose initial utterance, as Leader of the House, was: 'If you have 75 votes, you might as well use them'. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(12.36) —One never ceases to be amazed when watching the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) at the despatch box. If he ever gives up politics, we will give him a job blowing up balloons because he opens his mouth a lot but does not say very much. I remind the House that only once in the history of this country has the full Budget been published before it was issued in the House of Representatives. Who was the Treasurer when the Budget was leaked to Laurie Oakes? Who resigned over the leaking of the Budget? It was not little John. He stuck to his seat. The Budget was out in the papers all over Australia before it was delivered to the House of Representatives. But little John did not resign; he stuck to his seat and said: 'I am not responsible'. Now he is saying what we should and should not do. The honourable member for Bennelong quite correctly said, when the Cross inquiry report was issued, that he was very disturbed. We know why he was disturbed. But will he please tell us now-he has spoken for 35 minutes yesterday and today-what evidence has come before the Parliament that has changed his mind ? He has not said anything. What Opposition members are telling us, in telling us to vote for the amendment, having said that they have absolutely no confidence in one member of the judiciary, is that they can overcome their sins by carrying a motion of confidence in all the members of the judiciary. What sort of a joke is this? They have said that in 1977 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ), as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, said something about the Barwick High Court. People were making observations about decisions. But Mr Sinclair was a witness before the Cross inquiry. He was not observing something that affected other people. He was actually in there as a witness. The Cross inquiry was not under way when he made his allegation. Mr Sinclair was the trigger of the Cross inquiry. He was responsible for the Cross inquiry being established. He would not have said what he did at the National Party Conference last year if he had known the Cross inquiry was to be called. Will one member of the Opposition-just one-please tell us where the evidence that was given by Mr Sinclair would in any way bring Mr Justice Cross to any conclusion other than that which he reached? As Mr Waterhouse said on AM this morning, the only reason that it took only three or four hours for the inquiry to take place into Mr Sinclair's allegations was Mr Sinclair. He could not substantiate the allegations he made at the National Party Conference. I bet he has learned his lesson from this. It will be a long time before he goes before the National Party Conference again. The Opposition will not get away from the allegation he has made about Cross, that Cross had made up his mind before Sinclair appeared before him. That is what the Opposition has to overcome. The Cross inquiry goes on. If the House does not carry the motion put before it by the Prime Minister, Mr Justice Cross might walk away from the Cross inquiry still being undertaken in New South Wales because the national Parliament would have said: 'He is not a fit and proper person to continue with the inquiry irrespective of what aspects of that inquiry are still to be undertaken'. What the Opposition has put up as an amendment is an absolute sham which will not get Opposition members off the hook from having supported the Leader of the National Party in saying yesterday, and reiterating today, that Mr Justice Cross is not a fit and proper person. This motion will be carried, not because we have the numbers but to bring some respect back to the national Parliament. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Peacock's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hawke, R. J. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.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. Peacock, A. S.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Jacobi, R. Aldred, K. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Hawke's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hawke, R. J. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.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. Peacock, A. S.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Jacobi, R Aldred, K. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 12.53 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it not a fact that the corruption tapes and transcripts reveal a network of organised crime? If so, how can the Prime Minister justify the matters being dealt with in the random manner indicated yesterday by the Attorney-General? If he agrees with the Attorney-General, who is he seeking to protect, and why? Mr HAWKE —The very comprehensive statement made in the Senate yesterday by the Attorney-General completely covers the position raised by the Leader of the Opposition and shows, indeed, that the Government has acted with complete propriety and expedition in this matter. I add only the observation that the deplorable performance of the Opposition in this place yesterday and today raises the question whether there is any point in referring such matters to any form of judicial or other inquiry because at the end, when the findings are brought down, all that we will be entitled to expect, judging by the performance of honourable members opposite, is that they will attack the integrity of those who undertook the inquiry. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I address my question to the Minister for Transport. Is it a fact that the fuel levy of 2c a litre for the Australian bicentennial road development program is indexed? If so, is the indexed amount provided for road funding; if not, why not? Mr PETER MORRIS —One could say that the bicentennial road levy component of the total excise charged on fuel is indexed as a result of measures in the last Budget. But the bicentennial roads legislation enacted by the previous Government of those honourable members opposite who are now chiacking about it did not provide for other than 2c a litre of the levy to be directed to the trust fund for road expenditure. Mr Tuckey —Why don't you change it? Mr PETER MORRIS —I do not want to change it because it was the intention of the previous Government that the legislation cover the period from 1982 to 1988. That Government obviously thought very deeply about it. It knew there would be increases in excises in years to come and in light of the previous Government's consideration, which we respect and are now honouring, for that six years the amount going to the fund should be only 2c a litre. I do not apologise for the legislation of the previous Government. Honourable members opposite directed it. They wrote the legislation and voted for it and they determined that only 2c a litre should go into the fund. We are doing that. If one were to take the component which would arise this financial year from indexation of the bicentennial road levy of 2c a litre, how much would that provide? It would provide $22m. Mr Tuckey —That's a lot of roads. Mr PETER MORRIS —It is $22m in a record Federal road expenditure this year of $1 ,233m under this Government. I am talking about a 45 per cent increase in the efforts of the previous Government in its last year of government. In the campaign which is being waged round this country by the National Party of Australia there is no indication to the councils being written to that the legislation we are honourably and responsibly enacting is legislation introduced by honourable members opposite when in government. We intend to carry it out. Indexation in the future is obviously something to be considered by the Treasurer in the context of the forthcoming Budget. Mr PEACOCK —Does the Prime Minister place the alleged invasion of privacy of possible criminals above the need to stamp out crime, corruption and impropriety ; that is, above the public interest? Mr HAWKE —The position of this Government in regard to both attacks upon organised crime in this country and the proper observance of the rights of individuals has been clearly stated, but apart from stating it we have acted in a way which is consistent with honouring both those principles. In respect of the question of the pursuit of organised crime in this country, we have provided the opportunity by way of legislation which we have introduced in this Parliament for a National Crimes Authority to be put in place. This would deal with both issues. It would be a competent and effective instrument for dealing with organised crime in Australia and at the same time it would take appropriate account of the need to protect the proper interests of individuals. We have brought that legislation into the Parliament. If the Government had been allowed to give effect to its wish we would now have in place an authority which would be able to deal effectively with the pursuit of organised crime. This country is not in the position of having such an appropriate authority properly protecting the interests of individuals while at the same time pursuing organised crime because of the tactics of this Opposition. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Is the Minister for Housing and Construction aware of concern in the community about delays in the processing of applications under the Government's overwhelmingly successful first home owners scheme? What steps are being taken to alleviate delays? Mr HURFORD —I am aware that there are strains and delays in the processing of the applications of first home owners. We are working hard in my Department to overcome those delays. The first point I want to make to this House is that these delays are the result of the enormous success of the first home owners scheme. The fact is that since 1 July of last year there have been over 400,000 inquiries at my offices alone about this scheme. That is apart from all the inquiries that have gone to banks, real estate firms and so on. The second point that I wish to make very strongly is that the number of inquiries and applications we have received is indicative of the pent up demand which existed in this community, particularly among people in the lower income group, for a first home. It is absolutely tragic that the guilty people sitting opposite allowed that pent up demand to accumulate over that period. It is an indictment of honourable members opposite that we have had in my offices inquiries of that sort at such a level. The first home owners scheme is working magnificently. It is one reason why there has been such a recovery in the housing market in this country. Whereas in the previous financial year, due to the previous Government's mismanagement of this economy, we were down to a 20-year low of only 105,000 commencements, we are now running at about 130,000. Another 35,000 man years of employment have been created through the housing sector alone. That is just one example of the enormous success of the economic management of this country. Interest rates have been reduced and the first home owners scheme has been successful. I pay tribute to the many honourable members, particularly on my own side, who have supported this scheme and made the availability of these funds known to their constituents. Those constituents have of course responded magnificently. That is why we are achieving economic recovery in this country. As I said at the beginning, there is strain in these offices. I pay tribute to the employees of my Department who have been taking that strain. I acknowledge that particular problems exist in Perth, Hobart and the Australian Capital Territory. We are working hard with task forces to overcome the problems. Special arrangements have been made already to redeploy staff from other areas of the Department, but there is a limit to the extent to which that can be done. Also, special arrangements have been made to train new staff. For a field such as this expert training is required and, of course, a lot more overtime is being worked. I end on the note of the success of this scheme. I do not want to take all the credit myself. With my usual modesty I will take only 90 per cent of it! At the same time, I point out that we do not know how long this pent up demand will last. We do not know to what extent permanent employees will have to be assigned to these jobs. In the meantime, we are taking every step possible to ensure that minimum delay will be incurred by those who apply. Mr HOWARD —Does the Prime Minister recall an interview with Mr Michael Willesee of GTV9 in August 1982-- Mr Hawke —I have every word at my finger- tips. Mr HOWARD —Well may the Prime Minister remember it-in which, inter alia, he used a tape recording of a conversation between a senior oil executive and a private distribution contractor in Victoria, which he acknowledged had been taped without the approval of the two people participating? I ask whether he recalls saying in response to a question of concern about invasion of privacy: . . . not only do I not regard it as any significant invasion of privacy that I should be concerned about, but I believe it's a duty of anyone who's got information which will disclose the nature of these people and what they will do to decent Australians, then they should be revealed for the sort of people they are and the perfidious and hypocritical actions that they undertake. In the light of that clear declaration of bias in principle, does he endorse the attack made by the Attorney-General on the Melbourne Age newspaper for its action concerning the Age tapes? Mr HAWKE —As is well known by people in this House, I have a remarkable memory and, as distinct from those on the other side of the House, it is not a convenient memory. I do not recall the exact words. If the transcript is there I may well have said them. The answer to the second question is yes, I totally endorse the statement of the Attorney-General. Mr Howard —I seek leave to table the document. Leave not granted. Mr KENT —Has the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to remarks made by the French Foreign Minister, Mr Cheysson, that Australia was not worried about nuclear testing in the Pacific? Will the Minister ensure that Australia's strong opposition to French nuclear testing in the Pacific is clearly conveyed to Mr Cheysson? Finally, will the Minister confer with his colleague, the Minister for Trade, to see that our ban on the export of Australian uranium to France is strictly maintained? Mr HAYDEN —There were reports that the Foreign Minister of France, Mr Claude Cheysson, had commented that Australia was not too deeply committed in its opposition to French nuclear testing in the Pacific. If that statement was made it would be wrong and it is hard to understand, if it was made, how it could have been made. The newspaper in which it was reported has a propensity for giving somewhat colourful interpretations of what has been said by public figures from time to time; so it is possible that it is not an accurate reflection of what Mr Cheysson said. Australia's representatives overseas are seeking to check on the matter. Certainly, when Mr Cheysson was here earlier it was made clear to him that our opposition was deeply felt, was bipartisan and was supported by the Australian public. When the reports of this alleged statement appeared the Deputy Prime Minister released a very firm public statement repudiating any implication that we might not be genuinely concerned about this matter. We are; and in fact we are currently engaged in consultations with the French on the matter of nuclear issues generally. The consultations commenced with a discussion of our very fierce concern about that testing in the Pacific. The Prime Minister announced the trade embargoes last year and they remain firmly in place. Mr SINCLAIR —Will the Prime Minister explain to the House the difference between the civil liberties of Mr David Combe, when he revealed his name to Labor Caucus , and the civil liberties of those involved in the Age transcripts? Mr HAWKE —I suppose that we should be indebted to the Leader of the National Party of Australia for the continual reminders that he gives this House of his constitutional incapacity to tell the truth. I did not do what he alleges. Mr MILDREN —Can the Minister for Science and Technology advise the House of the extent of the damage suffered by the Antarctic supply ship Nanok when it struck a reef near the Mawson base on Sunday? Was there a considerable oil spill? What effect will the accident have on Australia's scientific research program this season? Mr BARRY JONES —At 2.03 eastern standard time on Sunday-honourable members will appreciate that they do not have daylight saving down in the Antarctic-26 February, the Nanok S hit an uncharted rock about one and a half hours out from Mawson at approximately 67 degrees 24 south and 62 degrees 49 east. Some fuel leakage was evident at the time but the vessel continued on course for Hobart overnight while pumping oil from affected tanks. There was no injury to personnel. By early morning it was apparent that up to 100 tonnes of fuel had been lost and that insufficient fuel remained to reach Hobart. Consequently, the vessel returned to Mawson where it took on fuel from the stocks held and the damage was inspected by a diver. The damage appears to be limited to denting in bottom plates resulting in leaks in the bottom tanks. The vessel has now left Mawson and is expected in Hobart about 13 March. It now appears that the incident, contrary to what we thought at first, did not result in an extensive oil slick, the fuel possibly having been lost gradually during the night. There are no sea bird colonies in the immediate area, although some penguins may be affected while feeding at sea. The marine diesel fuel involved is regarded by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research as a low pollution risk because it tends to evaporate readily. The incident will not affect Australia's scientific research program this season. However, it does highlight the need to have a range of transport links between Australia and the Antarctic and the importance of using only ships with a high safety margin in this remote and hazardous area. Mr STEELE HALL —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. If the Government seriously doubts the authenticity of the corruption tapes: Why then did it refer some of the material to the Special Prosecutor, Mr Redlich? Why did Mr Wran refer some to the Stewart Royal Commission? Why are Federal and State police pursuing other possible breaches? Why did Mr Temby recommend that the judge mentioned in the tapes be told not to further his relationship with the solicitor also mentioned? Mr HAWKE —I have nothing to add to the answer I gave before that all the matters referred to in this question have been adequately and comprehensively covered in the statement by the Attorney-General. Each of those issues has been covered and the position-- Mr Peacock —So you are in the cover-up? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, I must say that I am indebted to the antics of the Opposition. The way they are performing really takes away from this Government the necessity to attack them at all. The wounds they are inflicting upon themselves are so massive that we need to do nothing. I repeat that the action of this Government in respect of what was raised when the information was passed on by the Age to the Government has been entirely appropriate. It has been expeditious. I repeat: I await with interest the attitude of members of the Opposition when the reports of the inquiries that are under way are presented to see whether they will, as usual, be quite self-serving. If the reports happen to serve their interests, I am sure their attitude will be that the inquiries have been properly conducted and that there is no question of the integrity of those conducting the inquiries. If, on the other hand, the results of the reports are unacceptable to them, no doubt the Australian people will be treated again to the spectacle of a personal attack upon the integrity of those conducting the inquiries. Dr EVERINGHAM —I direct my question to the Minister for Health. Have elements of the medical profession objected to the abolition of gap insurance, which provided for refunds of 15 per cent or a $10 maximum gap between Government- recommended or schedule fees and standard rebates? When 100 per cent schedule fee cover was first allowed by the former Government, did some of those same medical people object that this removed deterrents to overuse of their services by patients? Will Medicare obtain the best of both worlds by limiting gap payments by patients in one financial year to a maximum of $150, which is considerably less than the former gap insurance premium of about $182 a year for single contributors or $364 a year for a family? Are many of the same medical people creating a new gap by promoting among doctors an Australian Medical Association-recommended fee? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should get to his question. He is putting a fair amount of information and argument. I invite him to round off his question. Dr EVERINGHAM —Are these same people creating a new gap by promoting an AMA fee? Will the fees tribunal be authorised to consult with AMA financial advisers with a view to bringing this recommendation closer to the schedule? Dr BLEWETT —It is true that many members of the medical profession do not know whether they are Arthur or Martha about gap insurance. It is perfectly true that , whatever it says now, the Australian Medical Association argued before the Jamison Commission against gap insurance on the grounds that there should be some payment at the point of service. That is, they had an argument quite clearly that they did not at that stage believe in gap insurance. So the first point is perfectly correct. Jamison, of course, advised the previous Government that gap insurance should be removed because, Jamison argued, gap insurance underpinned doctors charging above the schedule fee. The evidence was quite clear that where people had 100 per cent insurance they tended to be charged 120 per cent. That is, it was, as Jamison said, a means of underpinning charges above the schedule fee. The honourable member for Capricornia is basically correct in saying that under the previous system people paid an amount for gap insurance. It is difficult to put an exact figure on that because, as honourable members know, there was a wide range of gap insurance provisions, but the figures given by the honourable member for Capricornia cover that total range. In fact, people who paid gap insurance in the past will be protected under Medicare by the fact that once a person's gap payments get to $150 then 100 per cent is covered for the rest of that financial year. So we have tried to secure some consumer constraint on what doctors charge. At the same time, we have protected people against any catastrophic impact from this by the $150 limit. I should also say that most of the complaints now being received relate not to the fact that people have a small payment to make between 85 per cent and 100 per cent but that far too many doctors are charging well above the schedule fee. That is, in complete defiance of the rest of the community, who have been prepared to accept constraints, too many doctors have not been prepared to accept even the advice of the AMA that they should show constraint in this period and observe the schedule fee. Mr RUDDOCK —Is the Minister for Territories and Local Government aware of the very considerable alarm in Canberra at his failure to reappoint Don Hamence as Australian Capital Territory Tourist Commissioner? Did he, in his statement of 17 February, acknowledge Mr Hamence's experience, private sector background and undoubted success as Australian Capital Territory Tourist Commisioner? Is the Minister aware of this Government's commitment to introduce at senior levels of the Public Service known experts from the private sector, and was not Mr Hamence a good example of such an appointment? Will he reconsider his decision not to reappoint Mr Hamence? If not, will he assure the House that his reticence is unrelated to the prospective appointment of Mr Al Grassby to a 'new and challenging involvement involving much travel'? Mr UREN —First, let me clarify the last part of the honourable member's question. Mr Grassby is not under consideration by my Department for appointment as Australian Capital Territory Tourist Commissioner. I also want to correct the shadow Minister. The appointment is not my responsibility, it is the responsibility of my Department. Officers of my Department discussed the matter at length and then discussed it with me, and I concurred with their decision. Mr STEEDMAN —Has the Minister for Health seen recent newspaper reports that senior members of the Opposition have expressed support for the strike action being taken by surgeons in New South Wales? What action does the Minister propose to take to ensure that the rights of the citizens of New South Wales are protected from the greed of an elite and wealthy sector of our society? Dr BLEWETT —I have not read statements of senior members of the Opposition having supported this position. If they have, then they are as irresponsible in this attitude as certain surgeons and radiologists in New South Wales. As is becoming increasingly clear, this is a completely manufactured conflict between the Government and the profession. The Government is insisting on one simple provision, that is, that radiologists and pathologists in public hospitals charge no more for their services than the schedule fee. That is a very simple and, I think, very reasonable demand in relation to tax-funded institutions. We shall ensure for the people of New South Wales that any patient going in as a public patient will incur no charges in a public hospital and that private patients can be confident that they will not be charged more than the schedule fee for pathology or radiology services. Mr PEACOCK —Mr Speaker, I am moved by the words 'the rights of citizens' and ' the rights of citizens to know' to ask you a question. Is it a fact that Press Gallery representatives may be moved from this Parliament House to make way for more politicians? Mr Cohen —You won't have to worry; there'll be none of your people involved. Mr PEACOCK —I thought you were in favour of citizens' rights and their right to know. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I would like to hear the question so that I can answer it. Mr PEACOCK —As this will significantly affect the media's ability to scrutinise the actions, not only of this Government but also of all members of this Parliament, will you stop this action at least until all political parties represented here, and Gallery representatives, have time for further consideration of the matter? Mr SPEAKER —I am quite prepared to answer the Leader of the Opposition. I am not prepared to give him any assurances because no decisions have been made. The Presiding Officers are charged with the responsibility of finding accommodation for 23 new members and 12 new senators after the next election. Mr Donald Cameron —Why don't you scrap that ridiculous legislation? Mr SPEAKER —I suggest that the honourable member for Moreton stay silent or I will not give him a second chance and he will find himself not accommodated in this chamber for a short time. I believe that the question is a quite serious one. It does not involve only members and senators, it involves also the attendant staff. At the moment the Presiding Officers have a building designed to accommodate X number of people but required to accommodate twice that number. Mr Peacock —But the Presiding Officers do not run the Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —I trust that the Leader of the Opposition is not reflecting on the Chair because if he had the courtesy to listen to the answer he would appreciate the point being made. As a result of those demands, the Presiding Officers have consulted with their officers. A number of options have been considered and feasibility studies have been requested through the Department of Housing and Construction. No decisions have been made. As one of the options was the possibility of shifting the Press Gallery, I felt, as a matter of courtesy and common sense, that I should advise the President of the Press Gallery that it was one of the possibilities being considered. I can do no more than to say that studies are being held. When it becomes a matter for consideration, naturally there will be consultations with the members and senators concerned. Mrs KELLY —Is the Minister for Health aware that Canberra gynaecologists have refused to confine and deliver Medicare patients? Does the Minister agree that if gynaecologists want access to public hospitals for private patients they should also service public patients? Will the Minister consider creating positions for staff specialist gynaecologists in Canberra hospitals if gynaecologists continue to refuse to treat Medicare patients? Dr BLEWETT —The Government is well aware of the issue raised by the honourable member for Canberra. It is disappointing that, in Canberra where private specialists have such ready and open access to the public hospital system, they should now be waging a campaign not to deliver services to anyone who does not take out private insurance. In a city such as this where most of the services provided in our public hospitals are provided by private doctors, this attempt by the doctors to force all of the Canberra patients into private insurance by these tactics, contrary to the way they have behaved in the past, is something to be condemned. The Government is looking at the various options open to it if this kind of effort to drive people into private insurance continues. These doctors are very privileged in comparison with doctors in most other States. If this campaign continues the Government will consider a number of options, one of which would be to employ salaried gynaecologists in the Canberra hospital system . Mr TUCKEY —In the light of the previous answer, I ask the Minister for Health: Does he agree that the residents of Queensland, and now the Australian Capital Territory, and those in many country areas whose local hospitals are, by necessity, serviced by private doctors, are being denied all or a significant part of Medicare services? Was the Minister aware of the objections of the Queensland State Government and the many doctors to the details of his scheme prior to its introduction? If so, why did he commence the Medicare scheme, with its associated universal taxation levy, on all Australians when he knew that he was unable to deliver the service to all Australians? Dr BLEWETT —There is no problem about delivering the service to all Australians provided the doctors of this country are willing to co-operate. Despite the kinds of issues that have been raised, the great bulk of doctors in this country are actively co-operating with the implementation of Medicare. Let me take the particular areas raised by the honourable member. Let us look first of all at Queensland. In long negotiations with the Queensland Government, the Federal Government offered Queensland a very generous compensation arrangement. Queensland, in relation to its public hospitals, would receive the same compensation as other States plus a $35m special grant which no other State would receive. In addition, because Queenslanders had much lower levels of insurance than the rest of the country, prior to Medicare, they stand to get much greater medical benefits from the Medicare system. The total revenues paid in to the Medicare scheme by Queenslanders in various ways amounts to $212m. Provided the Premier of Queensland is prepared to sign the agreement, Queenslanders will receive back $220m a year in payments. Let us look at the country areas. Country areas, in some ways, have situations which run parallel with the situation in Canberra. Because country hospitals are open to doctors in a much more generous way than most metropolitan hospitals, doctors could service all Medicare patients as their own patients if they were prepared to do so. I was glad to hear, in talking to the Ministers from Western Australia this morning, that there is a growing movement in those country hospitals for doctors to sign those agreements. Mr HUMPHREYS —Has the attention of the Special Minister of State been drawn to Press reports which were critical of his statement relating to donations which may be made to the Liberal Party of Australia by certain doctors? Will the Minister inform the House of the facts in relation to donations made to political parties? Mr YOUNG —I preface my remarks by saying that some of my best friends are doctors . I was alarmed to have presented to me a copy of a letter sent from Andrew Peacock, it seems, to every doctor in Australia including doctors in the Labor Government. That letter says-and I was very alarmed at this-that he intended to try to change the Government. We were all hoping he would continue with the same performance as last year. The fact is that he has asked doctors for money to try to change the Government. One would have thought that that would be caught within the ambit of the new laws of Australia proclaimed a couple of weeks ago which now make it mandatory for the disclosure of donations to political parties or candidates for the purposes of campaigning. Mr Peacock —The more you belt them, the more they give. Mr YOUNG —I do not care how much money they give the Opposition, but the law of the land, in section 16 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, says that if they are giving a party money and that money is being used for electoral purposes, specifically in campaigning-- Mr Peacock —You have said all that. Mr Steele Hall —Are you threatening the Commission? Mr YOUNG —I can understand that these changes bring some alarm to the Opposition benches because all the big cheques will be missing at the next elections. Some of the big companies will not want to put their name on the register. I say to their old mate there in the Speaker's gallery, Peter Nixon, that the saddle bags are gone now; it will all be out in the open. They will not be giving cheques to Ian Sinclair. And no one in the world-not even an Eskimo-would take a cheque off him. The Electoral Commission is charged with certain responsibilities. One of the responsibilities, under section 16 of the Act, is to see that returns from registered political parties-- Mr Sinclair —Why are you threatening the Commission? Mr YOUNG —I am not threatening the Commission; I am explaining to the House the performance and role of the Commission. The Government will not keep a register of the people who will be making political donations, but the Electoral Commission will. I think it is encumbent upon all the political parties, that now have less than 90 days in which to register if they have members in the present Parliament, to tell people when they send out letters asking for cash donations that it could well be that, if that money is used for campaigning between now and the next Federal election, the Electoral Commission is charged with getting all the donors listed-- Mr Sinclair —So you are threatening it? Mr YOUNG —I am not threatening anybody at all. The Opposition does not seem to understand. I know it does not like the changes. Mr Peacock —You are swelling our coffers. Mr YOUNG —Listen, Andrew, your voice is getting deeper and deeper. You are the only person I know whose voice has changed again at 45 years of age. Mr Peacock —And you would know more about deep throat than anyone. Mr YOUNG —Now that we have introduced Medicare you ought to get yourself examined. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to cease interjecting and I ask the Special Minister of State to round off his answer. Mr YOUNG —Under the present laws that have been proclaimed we have private donations running parallel with public funding in Australia. There has been no interference with that. The only thing that has been brought into law is that the Electoral Commission now has a responsibility where moneys are donated to political parties and candidates-over $200 to a candidate in a single donation and over $1,000 to a political party-to ensure that those donors are disclosed after the next election. That register will be available to the public. It is one of the responsibilities of the new Electoral Commission. Mr Hunt —Not for maintenance. Mr YOUNG —Not for maintenance; I am saying for campaigning. I have referred to the letter sent out by the Leader of the Opposition. He says the money is to be used to change the Government. He is not putting on office girls, is he? He must be doing something else. We have had two Question Times this session and there has not been one question on the economy or unemployment. The Opposition is asking the Speaker about where the Press Gallery will go. What about the honourable member for Denison, who said that all members of the Press are grovelling to the Government? Why don't members of the Opposition have a chat with him about where the Press Gallery will go? Mr PEACOCK —I understand that the Special Minister of State is responsible for the Australian Information Service. I wonder whether he can, in a way which will not hurt either the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Prime Minister, both of whom were travelling overseas on VIP jets at the same time-the ones that they had sworn to sell on election to government-ensure, in the delicate manner in which he can give messages to people, that Voice of America is informed who is Prime Minister of this country. As reported in the Telegraph of 5 February, Voice of America broadcast on the Thursday before that a reference to the Australian Prime Minister, Mr George Hayden, and his wife Helen. I make no comment on what may have been happening and whether it motivated the de facto matter that arose recently, but I do ask whether the Special Minister of State could advise, through his Department, that Robert James Lee Hawke is in fact the temporary Prime Minister of this country and not Mr George Hayden or his wife Helen. Mr JOHN BROWN —I would have thought that the temporary Leader of the Opposition would have known that the AIS belongs in the Department of Administrative Services. Let us clear up that little mistake to begin with. I read the report of the misnomer about who is the Australian Prime Minister. The rest of the world certainly knows who is the Leader of the Australian Government. The Leader of the Opposition should read the references of the Prime Minister of Japan to the outstanding, statesmanlike qualities of the Australian Prime Minister and understand that he was speaking not only on his own behalf but also on behalf of most of the world the Prime Minister has visited to raise the stature of this country. One mistake that will never be made is the announcement that Andrew Peacock will be the Prime Minister of Australia, at any time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —For the information of honourable members I present the Foreign Investment Review Board report for 1983. The report was released to honourable members during the recess. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to sub-section 25A ( 2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1981, I present the certificate from the Australian Electoral Commission as to the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth and of the several States and the number of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen in the several States. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 12G of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, I present the Academic Salaries Tribunal Annual report for 1982-83. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to section 10 and 10A of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Act 1953, I present the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Trust annual report and the associated Auditor-General's report for 1982-83. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members I present the resolution of the Australian Fisheries Council 13th meeting held in Sydney on 23 September 1983. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 11 of the Sugar Agreement 1979, I present the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee annual report for 1982-83. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 18 of the Dried Fruits Research Act 1971, I present the Dried Fruits Research Committee annual report for 1982-83. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 38 of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980, I present the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation annual report for 1982-83. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Wine Research Institute annual report for 1982-83. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 18 of the Honey Research Act 1980, I present the Honey Research Committee report for 1982- 83. The report was released to honourable members during the recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 9 (c) of the Fisheries Act 1952, I present the (A) Agreement on fisheries between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea, 23 November 1983. (B) Subsidiary agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea concerning squid jigging by fishing vessels of the Republic of Korea, 23 November 1983. (C) Agreement between the Commonwealth and KKFC Pty Ltd for joint ventures squid fishing off south eastern Australia, 5 December 1983. (D) Agreement between the Commonwealth and Safcol Seafoods Pty Ltd for the use of a foreign fish processing vessel, 23 December 1983. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 9C of the Fisheries Act 1932, I present agreements under the Act between the Commonwealth of Australia and, firstly, Australian Southern Bluefin Exporters Pty Ltd, secondly, Port Lincoln Tuna Processors Pty Ltd and, thirdly, D. Lukin and Sons. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —Pursuant to section 41 of the Australian National Railway Act 1971, I present the Australian National Railways Commission annual report for 1982-83 Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report on the independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —Pursuant to section 39 (4) of the Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956, I present the Australian National Line annual report for 1982-83. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Shippers Council annual report for 1982-83. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —Pursuant to section 39 of the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965, I present the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation annual report for 1982-83. The report was released to honourable members during the recess. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —For the information of honourable members I present the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry annual report for 1982-83. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism annual report for 1982-83. I suggest that the report be compulsory reading. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members I present the Industries Assistance Commission report on fatty acids and certain aliphatic acids, their salts and esters, glycerol, tallow oil. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members I present Industries Assistance Commission reports on the following matters: Lawn mowers, certain engines and parts; passenger and light commercial vehicles substitution; the dairy industry; polyvinyl chloride homopolymer-anti-dumping; copper and certain copper products, including removal of export control. These reports were released to honourable members during the recess. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 42 of the Australian Film and Television Act 1973, I present the Australian Film and Television School annual report for 1982-83. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Biological Resources Study annual report for 1982-83. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Children's Television Foundation annual report for 1982-83. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —For the information of honourable members I present the Department of Home Affairs and Environment annual report for 1982-83. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Pursuant to section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, I present the proposals for the relocation of the two police guard boxes at the rear of Parliament House. The views of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House are being sought on the proposals . When these are available I shall take action under the Parliament Act to seek approval by the House of the work. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Pursuant to section 38 (1) of the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979, I present the Parliament House Construction Authority annual report for 1982-83. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, I present the annual report of the Victorian Grants Commission for the year ending 31 August 1983. The report contains the determinations for distribution of Commonwealth funds to individual municipalities by the Victorian Grants Commission. Payments to Victoria were made in early September 1983 by the Treasury. Mr SPEAKER —Pursuant to standing order 18, I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable member for Bowman to act as Deputy Chairman of Committees when requested so to do by the Chairman of Committees. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies on the Sheraton Hotel incident. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises publication of the report on the Sheraton Hotel incident of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies, and (2) that the report be printed. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-Mr Justice Hope has reported, as requested by the Government, on the incident at the Sheraton Hotel in Melbourne on 30 November 1983. The Government became aware of the incident on 1 December 1983 and on that day asked Mr Justice Hope to undertake an inquiry into it. Certain details of the incident were subsequently provided by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, to the Parliament. This report describes the incident and the circumstances surrounding the training exercise in detail in accordance with the Government's formal request to Mr Justice Hope, conveyed to him on 7 December 1983. Further, as requested by the Government, His Honour has examined the general conduct of all persons associated with the exercise, including those who had a supervisory role, and whether any breach of the law was committed by anyone carrying out or authorising the exercise. Editing and Declassification of the Report The report presented to the Government was highly classified. The reason for this, as His Honour noted, was that the special operations role of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service has, in the past, been treated as top secret. The Government has declassified the report for tabling because the background of special operations training is essential to an understanding of the Sheraton Hotel incident. There has been considerable speculation about what ASIS was up to that led to the fiasco at the Sheraton on 30 November last, and that speculation, and the attendant disquiet in the public mind, could only be put to rest by making public the fact that ASIS has been conducting training exercises involving such scenarios as the rescue of a hostage from foreign intelligence agents. Declassification of the report has made necessary a few small editing changes based largely on considerations of our international relations and national security. These small changes, which do not affect the substance of the report, have been discussed with the Royal Commission. I have provided the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) with a copy of the classified version of the report. The Incident The training exercise-and I point out that Mr Justice Hope has emphasised that what occurred at the Sheraton was in fact part of a training exercise and was not a real operation-required the trainees to rescue an individual from persons playing the roles of foreign intelligence officers who were holding him hostage in a room in the Sheraton Hotel. The means by which that 'rescue' was effected are generally known. To put the exercise in some sort of context, to explain why such an exercise might even have been contemplated, it is necessary to consider briefly the functions of ASIS. The principal function of ASIS, under its directive, is the collection of foreign intelligence. A minor function, specified in the directive, requires ASIS to maintain a special operations capability for wartime and other very special situations. As Mr Justice Hope notes, that capability is maintained only on a contingency basis. The Government notes that the whole question of ASIS's special operations function will be dealt with in the Royal Commissioner's report on ASIS due later in the year. Ministerial Responsibility It being understood that the exercise was conducted as part of training, under the authority of the special operations function as outlined in the directive, the question of ministerial responsibility should be addressed. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has made clear that he was not aware of the planned exercise, and Mr Justice Hope has concluded that there was no suggestion that the Minister should have been informed of the kind of special operations training which was being undertaken in November, nor of the specific exercise which concluded at the Sheraton Hotel. Conclusions on the Exercise In reporting on what went wrong and where responsibility should lie, Mr Justice Hope has criticised the exercise as being 'poorly planned, poorly prepared and poorly coordinated' (3.26). The Government agrees with these criticisms. His Honour has concluded that ASIS's training precepts and training manuals provide inadequate guidance and insufficient control on the conduct of exercises such as the one in question (3.26). Further, His Honour concludes that every aspect of the exercise, including preparation for its execution, ought to have been so planned and supervised so as to ensure that it was carried out lawfully (4.5). Mr Justice Hope identifies as an obvious deficiency in the planning of the exercise the failure to notify either the Victorian Police or the manager of the Sheraton Hotel of the exercise (4.6). The Government agrees that common sense and ordinary courtesy alone required prior consultation. Mr Justice Hope has commended the reactions of the hotel manager and the Victorian Police at the scene of the incident. Offences Mr Justice Hope has made an examination of the possible breaches of laws which may be applicable to this incident but has taken the view that any decision on prosecutions should rest with the appropriate responsible authorities. He makes no findings that any person has committed any offence, and he makes no recommendation that any person ought to be prosecuted (5.18). His Honour has found that there are valid reasons based on considerations of national security and international relations for keeping secret the names of those involved in the exercise (1.10, 6.5-6.7). The Government appreciates the difficulties for Victoria in its consideration of possible prosecutions, where national security, which militates against the public disclosure of the names, conflicts with the State's responsibilities to enforce the law. A copy of the full report was made available to Premier Cain without delay, and discussions on these difficult issues have continued between our governments. I understand that the Victorian Government intends to introduce legislation to enable the courts in Victoria to determine that there may be confidentiality in court proceedings where necessary in the interests of the national or international security of Australia. On the basis of the enactment of such protective legislation, and any necessary complementary legislation, the Commonwealth will withdraw its previous objection to the release to the Victorian Government of the names of those participating in the Sheraton incident and not already known to the Victorian Government. There is presently an outstanding High Court injunction against the release of any such names, but the Commonwealth will use its best endeavours to secure an appropriate settlement of that case in terms that will allow communication of the relevant names to the Victorian Government. Recommendations Mr Justice Hope's recommendations for measures to prevent a recurrence of this kind of incident are contained in chapter 6 of his report. In brief, he recommends prohibition on carrying any type of firearms in public and of any exercise which might harm or alarm members of the public, and a requirement for clearance with police, local military districts and owners of any property affected before any such exercises are undertaken outside ASIS training facilities. The Government accepts all of the report's recommendations designed to ensure that such incidents cannot recur. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, has indeed already taken several such steps and will ensure that the other measures proposed by His Honour are put in place. Mr Justice Hope has found that varying degrees of responsibility apply to the ASIS senior management , the planners of the exercise and certain of the participants. Disciplinary Action While His Honour touches on the question of disciplinary or other action for those involved in the exercise, he has not made recommendations as to what disciplinary or other action, if any, should be taken. Those questions have been left for the responsible authorities to resolve. I now announce that the Government has appointed a new Acting Director-General of ASIS. The new Acting Director-General will be Mr J. O. Furner, CBE. Mr Furner has until now been the Director of the Joint Intelligence Organisation, after retiring from the Army with the rank of Brigadier. Mr Furner's first responsibility will be to consider disciplinary action concerning those involved in the planning and execution of this failed exercise. To assist Mr Furner in this consideration the Government has appointed Mr Clarence Hermes to investigate the conduct of persons who were involved in the authorising, planning and carrying out of the exercise. Mr Hermes is about to retire as Chief Magistrate of the Australian Capital Territory. Mr Hermes is to report to the Acting Director-General of ASIS and the Minister for Foreign Affairs on whether disciplinary action should be taken against any of those persons and, if so, what disciplinary action. In the course of those inquiries, those affected will of course be given the opportunity to put their side of the case. It is only when those involved with the exercise have had this opportunity to reply to the report that a decision will be taken on whether disciplinary action should be taken. The Government expects that process to be completed in the next few weeks. Conclusion Mr Speaker, in conclusion I take this opportunity to thank Mr Justice Hope for his report and look forward to his further report on the wider subject of the functions of ASIS. I present the following paper: Sheraton Hotel Incident-Ministerial Statement, 29 February, 1984. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.08) —I will be very brief, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was good enough to ensure that both the report on the Sheraton Hotel incident and his statement were delivered to my office before the House resumed this afternoon. This is a matter of very deep regret, particularly to me as one who was a Minister in charge of this organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service. A reading, cursory though it has been in the time available, of the report by Mr Justice Hope indicates that from the Opposition's viewpoint we should accept the findings and the recommendations of His Honour as contained in the report that the Prime Minister made available to me. I would simply say that the public cannot be put at risk by any government organisation, secret or not, in the way in which Mr Justice Hope's report reveals. Notwithstanding the serious errors, the Opposition naturally supports the continuing role of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service and trusts its effectiveness is not diminished by this action and hopes also that the matters that the Prime Minister has indicated the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) will be putting in place will make the organisation even more effective and, in this case, more responsible in the future. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —by leave-I wish to make a statement concerning certain allegations made by Senator Primmer against Mr J. E . Ryan, the former Acting Director-General of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service. In a statement made in the Senate on 8 December and Question on Notice No. 584, as well as in a question without notice on 6 December, Senator Primmer raised a number of issues in which he alleged Mr Ryan was involved. In summary, these were: The discovery of the existence of a 'phantom' employee on the payroll of the High Commission in Accra when Mr Ryan was High Commissioner; the commission of 'financial irregularities'-malpractice and embezzlement-by Mr Ryan as Ambassador to Laos; collusion by Mr Ryan, as First Assistant Secretary of the then Management Services Division from 1971 to 1974, to assist the covering up of false entertainment claims, for example, in Stockholm, 'phantom' servants, tax evasion , furniture removal frauds, importation of dangerous goods, for example, machine guns, and 'frauds of every conceivable description all over the world'; 'crude and abrasive' treatment of subordinates by Mr Ryan generally, going so far as attempts to 'expel' from the Department those who tried to expose alleged frauds involving senior officers; the failure of Mr Ryan, as Ambassador, to make satisfactory arrangements for Prime Minister Whitlam's visit to Rome in 1974; 'frequent bouts of drunkenness and disorderliness' by Mr Ryan as Ambassador in Rome; and 'that Mr Ryan was appointed Australian Ambassador to Laos at a time when the Australian Embassy there was little more than a minor branch office of the Central Intelligence Agency'. I need scarcely stress the obvious-that these statements are extraordinarily damaging to Mr Ryan's reputation-but they have been made in the Parliament, with little opportunity for him to defend himself, and he has invited Senator Primmer to restate these allegations publicly so that Senator Primmer would have the opportunity of defending them. The first thing I wish to say is that my personal knowledge of Mr Ryan is limited to my regular professional contact with him in the period from when I became Minister for Foreign Affairs in March last year until December, when he voluntarily resigned from his position of Acting Director-General of ASIS. In my experience, Mr Ryan as Acting Director-General of ASIS had always sought to apply himself attentively to his tasks and I saw nothing in his character or behaviour which gave me any cause to believe that any of the deficiencies of character and behaviour attributed to him in these allegations was evident. Mr Ryan has suffered severe criticism for deficiencies in his administration of ASIS by Mr Justice Hope in the report tabled in this Parliament a few moments ago by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). These shortcomings, however, are not evidence of the other forms of deficiencies attributed to Mr Ryan by Senator Primmer. While it saddens me that these findings were necessarily made from a very properly conducted inquiry of Mr Justice Hope, I am nonetheless not deflected from making these comments about Mr Ryan as I know him, nor from presenting the following responses to the allegations. These responses have come from the Department of Foreign Affairs after as careful an investigation of relevant files as has been possible to respond to the allegations. I mention, however, that some of the allegations are so sweeping and general that it would be very difficult for anyone to produce concrete evidence one way or the other. I deal with the allegations as follows: Allegations of Financial Malpractice and Embezzlement in Laos In 1971 Mr Ryan conducted an investigation into fraudulent misappropriation by cheque by the Embassy to the Ministry of Finance carried out by locally engaged staff. There was, incidentally, no loss involved to the Commonwealth through any of the converted cheques, as the creditors bore the loss. The perpetrators were arrested. As a result of his investigation, a severe reprimand was issued against the then Ambassador. Ryan also discovered that two cheques had been fraudulently converted during his own tenure as Ambassador. He disclosed this and recommended, inter alia, that a severe reprimand should be issued against himself as Chief Accounting Officer of the Embassy in that period. Vientiane-Currency Transactions Because of the rapid devaluation of the local currency in 1963 and the difficulties of locally engaged staff who were paid in local currency suffering a rapid erosion of their spending power, an arrangement was worked out whereby locally based staff could receive goods such as foodstuffs and other essentials, purchased by the Embassy in Thailand, in part payment. I am assured that in instituting the arrangement considerable care was taken to ensure that no Lao, Thai or Australian laws were contravened. My advice is that while this was somewhat informal and pragmatic, it was strictly legal. I mention that because of rigidities in the Public Service system, local allowances could not be adjusted before the next Public Service Board inspection, and in any event the problem was escalating rapidly. If one is punctilious about such things, one might be encouraged to criticise Mr Ryan for such an unconventional arrangement. On the other hand, given the circumstances prevailing in Laos at the time, one might be encouraged to take the view that, if criticisms are due, they should be directed to rigid bureaucratic processes which forced Ryan to allow this arrangement to be put in place when he was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Services Division 3. The alternative, it seems, would have been an appalling collapse in the living standards of the locally engaged staff in Laos. Allegations of 'Phantom' Employee-Accra In 1968 the Department raised with Mr Ryan's successor as High Commissioner in Accra questions about the employment of a night watchman by the High Commission in Accra. The High Commission pointed out that, by a memorandum of 3 December 1962, the Department had authorised the employment of a night watchman. This was well before Mr Ryan's time as High Commissioner in Accra. The matter ended there . Allegations of 'Cover-up' Concerning False Entertainment Claims-Stockholm Because of allegations about representation returns from the Stockholm Embassy made in 1971, Mr Ryan, as First Assistant Secretary, Management Services Division, recommended that an investigation be made of the matter. That investigation eventually recommended that the Ambassador be informed that the matters raised in the allegations did not justify the conclusion that there had been misrepresentation, but that a number of discrepancies had emerged. I have to acknowledge that I have experienced some unease at the general conduct of the investigation into this matter, so much so that I referred the file to the Attorney-General's Department. I add that Mr Ryan did not personally conduct that investigation. As I understand the advice of the Attorney-General's Department, no criminal action would be appropriate. I have to add also that there is no suggestion that Mr Ryan was in any way involved in a cover-up or any tardiness in providing his responses to these allegations. Indeed, Mr Ryan's notations and comments where he was involved in this matter suggest that he was quite attentive to his responsibilities. Allegation of Drunkenness and Disorderliness in Rome The only evidence that can be found on file of what might be more appropriately described as abrasive behaviour was when he responded to some complaints about helicopter transport accommodation to Syracusa, Italy, in 1975 in the course of a visit by the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, in what Mr Ryan described as a 'flash of irritation'. He apparently made a rather rude comment to the inquiring pressman and then declared he was 'off to bed'. He shortly after returned and apologised for his rudeness. Allegations about Arrangements for Mr Whitlam's Visit to Rome The evidence available indicates that the arrival of Mr Whitlam's aircraft was delayed by two hours owing to fog and was eventually diverted to an airport other than the one where the official welcoming party was waiting. Apparently some confusion arose with arrangements for the accompanying Press at the second airport before the welcoming party, including Mr Ryan, could get there. As I understand the circumstances, Ryan did everything humanly possible to try to get the welcoming party to the alternative airport to greet Prime Minister Whitlam on his arrival. I do not believe any criticism of him in respect of this matter is justified. Allegations about Mr Ryan's Relationship with the United States Embassy and the Central Intelligence Agency in Laos The Department of Foreign Affairs reminds me that Mr Ryan did not work for the Central Intelligence Agency at any time, either during his posting as Ambassador in Laos or at any other period in his foreign service career. No other members of the Australian Embassy in Laos at that time worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. Allegations about Wrongful Import of Machine Guns An examination of relevant available records has been made both by my Department and the Australian Customs Service. However, many records covering the period have been destroyed in accordance with departmental disposal arrangements. Those searches show that four machine guns were imported by officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs during the tenure of Mr Ryan as First Assistant Secretary, Management Services Division. In one case the importer did not declare an AK50 machine gun on his Customs unaccompanied baggage statement. However, it was included in the inventory of goods which accompanied that statement. The practice at the time was to permit the release of such weapons where the weapon was modified to render it permanently inoperable and the importer had police approval to possess the weapon. Two of the guns were released in accordance with that procedure. The other weapons, including the AK50 machine gun mentioned above, were donated at the request of the owners to the then Commonwealth Police and the Australian War Memorial. On the available evidence, there is nothing to suggest that all four importations were dealt with in other than a routine manner. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Mr Ryan was involved in any way with any of these importations. Mr John Ryan served this country in the Department of Foreign Affairs for 38 years, including the 18 months he was seconded to ASIS as its Acting Director- General. As far as I can establish, he served diligently and honourably. I feel that the facts I have provided, supplied from departmental files, show that the allegations made against Ryan have no foundation. In fact, Ryan appears to have applied himself to his duties with consistency and firmness that even disadvantaged him, for example, when he recommended a firm reprimand against himself after discovering improper conduct which had occurred during a period of his administration of an overseas post and for which a locally based officer was responsible. There are two final things I want to say. The first is that Ryan, like some other senior officials of the Foreign Affairs Department, has become the subject of personal attack. In the case of other members of my Department, I have pointed out how a succession of enquiries has failed to establish any evidence to justify the extreme allegations which have been made. These allegations have been quite damaging to the persons concerned, causing great personal distress to their families. It seems to me, considering the evidence produced by my Department from files available in this matter and to which I have been attending today, that the edge of fact has been force-moulded through rumour into quite villainous assertions about Ryan. He has been impugned about a number of matters in which he has apparently behaved honourably. It is a shame, therefore, that an effort has been made to discredit his character in this way. The other thing I want to say is this. The allegations were made in the Senate by Senator Primmer. Senator Primmer is a colleague of mine and has been a long- standing friend of mine. I have known him in the past to be a man of honour, although I would not say that he has always been right. I have personal reasons for being grateful to Senator Primmer. It is my assessment that Senator Primmer has accepted hearsay accounts poured from a bitter and disappointed heart without recognising their nasty nature. He has, I suspect, unconsciously allowed himself to be misdirected in this way. I would appeal to him to exercise the restraint and honour which I know him to have practised in the past. I would particularly ask him to recognise how much pain and distress these sorts of allegations can inflict on people. Finally, on this score I remind him of other matters-matters I suspect not necessarily unrelated to these and some other issues which he has raised in the Senate-that are to be properly adjudicated before the courts. It would be better to await the outcome of these proper judicial processes before deciding whether he should accept at face value what I regard as ill-motivated scandal brought to his attention. I present the following paper: Mr J. E. Ryan-Ministerial Statement, 29 February 1984. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(3.24) —I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) for the statement he has made to the House. I believe that the detailed way in which he has dealt with the allegations demonstrates very clearly that John Ryan has had a very great deal of personal hurt and pain needlessly applied to both himself and his family. In dealing with this problem, we ought to remember that John Ryan has suffered from the attacks not only of Senator Primmer, but also of his own Minister, because as we heard this afternoon from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) our current problems derive from that absurd training exercise in the Sheraton Hotel. One of Melbourne's most well read journalists, Claude Forell, reported: The mock raid, as we all know went wrong. Guns were brandished, people were scared, property was damaged. It could have ended in tragedy. It was actually more like a Keystone Cops comedy. No one, thank goodness, was hurt. Only feelings were hurt. Not so much hurt as outraged. Police and politicians put on a show of indignation that was wondrous to behold. Mr Forell later goes on to refer to the paranoid glee of the socialist Left and the attacks made by a senator he describes as 'that paranoid Left-winder Senator Primmer'. The findings of the report tabled today by the Minister absolving John Ryan from the allegations made by Senator Primmer confirm the dangers of extremism in the attitude of the socialist Left. But there is more to this than those matters we have already dealt with. As I said, John Ryan suffered from the attacks not only of Senator Primmer, but also of his Minister. At the time of the Sheraton raid Mr Ryan was in charge of the Australian Security Intelligence Service and of course he was made the scapegoat by his Minister. We all know that the Minister for Foreign Affairs was genuinely embarrassed by the incident. I believe in that circumstance he had the sympathy of all reasonable men. At that time he agreed sensibly to refer the issue to Mr Justice Hope. Of course, his correct course at that stage was to await the outcome of the Hope Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security Agencies. But in advance of the Hope report he felt obliged to put pressure on Mr John Ryan, the man he has just defended in this House. He did not defend him then; it was not the Minister's fault. He was not accepting any responsibility for those organisations under his ministerial control; it was the fault of somebody else. Who was that somebody else? That somebody else was Mr John Ryan. Was it not nice and convenient that Mr Ryan had been assailed by the Minister's colleague Senator Primmer! As this statement shows, Mr Ryan has been completely exonerated on all those matters to which the Minister quite properly referred today. Mr Bilney —It was afterwards. Mr MacKELLAR —But Primmer had already made allegations before the Sheraton raid. In fact, the matter was referred to about the last session of the first sitting of the Parliament last year by the Minister. When it really came to the crunch, the Minister himself did not hesitate to bail out and absolve himself from his responsibility. Of course John Ryan happened to be the unfortunate man who was again the subject of common talk and implied criticism. I am relieved, as will all members of the House, that a man who has served his country for a very long period with great distinction has been publicly defended by his Minister. I hope that in that instance, this will not be a precedent. I hope that members of the Parliament will take into very close account the closing words of the Minister because great harm can be done to individuals and their families by ill- considered, ill-judged and, as has been shown, wrong statements. I allude to one other matter in response to the Minister's statement and in response to the statement of the Prime Minister. I am very concerned that the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Government seem to be falling for the three card trick when it comes to their discussions with the Victorian Government. We have to look at the Sheraton raid in much more detail than has so far been occasioned. We must be very careful of the response we give to requests for the publications of names. A number of people, particularly those in the socialist Left and in the Government of Victoria, cannot wait to get their hands on those names and at no matter what national cost to publish those names. This matter requires the closest consideration by the Government in terms of the future national security of this country; not for it, as seems may be the case at the moment, the path of short term political expediency as against the requirements of long term national security. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented in the statement of the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) and I wish to clarify the situation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —The Minister may proceed with his personal explanation. Mr HAYDEN —The honourable member accused me, in provocative terms which might otherwise encourage debate to be made out of this issue, of making Mr Ryan a scapegoat. I wish to avoid such a debate for Mr Ryan's sake. The statement had been very carefully prepared. The only matters which I wish to raise are these: The comments by Senator Primmer in respect of Mr Ryan occurred in December; the Sheraton Hotel fiasco occurred on the night of 30 November. In all the circumstances it did not seem appropriate for me at any stage, once we had decided to put the matter in the hands of Mr Justice Hope, to make a comment. If a comment were made in one direction affecting Mr Ryan it might be seen as an effort on the part of the Government, through me, to disadvantage him. If a comment had been made in another direction in respect of Mr Ryan it might be seen as an effort by me on behalf of the Government to influence the outcome of the inquiry in Ryan's favour. In either circumstance I concluded that the procedure of responding to Senator Primmer at any time before the report had been presented to this Parliament would be inappropriate. I had made it clear to the Secretary of my Department that I would be making-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair is reluctant to interrupt the Minister but he is proceeding to debate the matter. He is entitled to state clearly the manner in which he has been misrepresented. Mr HAYDEN —I thought I had done that, but obviously it would take quite a while to make that clear so I will leave the point there. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The threat to personal health care posed by the Government's widespread attack on private medical practice. 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 CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.33) —Mr Deputy Speaker, today the Opposition raises a matter of public importance, namely: The threat to personal health care posed by the Government's widespread attack on private medical practice. We raise this issue at a time when the medical profession throughout Australia, having taken a moderate stance in relation to the introduction of Medicare during the planning stage last year, is now reacting strongly as it realises the underlying motives of the Government and also as it experiences the authoritarian attitudes and actions of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who is sitting opposite me. We charge that the intentions of the Government go well beyond the bland and misleading assurances given by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his fraudulent policy speech prospectus, in his equally fraudulent letter to all Australians, in the misleading pamphlets and advertisements published by the Government, and in the smooth talk of the Minister in the Press, on radio and on television. As the fundamental problems in the scheme emerge, as people find that it is not cheaper, not fairer, not simpler than the previous scheme, the Minister says that all it needs is 'fine tuning', and that phrase is repeated in a hundred newspaper articles and editorials throughout the land. It is not fine tuning which Medicare needs; it is a change of station, and eventually that will have to happen. Before I expose the nature of the Government's organised and orchestrated attack on private medical practice, let us examine the current dispute involving visiting medical specialists in public hospitals. This shows the Minister in his true light. He is imposing conditions unilaterally on State governments, public hospitals and doctors without any process of arbitration or any right of appeal. The immediate cause of the dispute is that the Minister is unhappy with the level of incomes of diagnostic specialists, principally pathologists and radiologists, who use the facilities of public hospitals to provide services to private patients. These specialists operate according to contracts negotiated between themselves and the public hospitals, which, of course, are under the control of State governments. I will not enter into the dispute over the levels of income earned by these specialists except to observe that this Minister is prone to quoting gross incomes rather than the net incomes after the subtraction of practice expenses. Quoting the gross incomes of doctors is an old Australian Labor Party ploy designed to create envy of and animosity towards doctors. However, the question of whether or not these existing contracts are reasonable is beside the point. It is the way in which the Minister seeks to alter them which is causing the trouble. His method of altering these contracts has been to pass the notorious section 17 of the Health Insurance Act, which gives him the absolute unfettered power to impose contractural conditions on all specialists in Australian public hospitals without allowing any system of arbitration or any right of appeal. These shortcomings, which go right against the grain of the Labor Party's professed concern for fairness in relation to awards and conditions, were pointed out very clearly to the Minister in discussions with the Australian Medical Association and others at the time that the Medicare Bill was going through Parliament. I also raised the shortcomings forcefully in the Medicare debate, and they were raised by my colleagues in the Senate. The Minister rejected our suggested amendments and thereby committed himself and the Government to the confrontation which would inevitably arise when he tried to use these draconian provisions on the doctors. That confrontation is now upon us. The total responsibility for it lies with the Minister, not with the doctors. He and the Government knew at the time the Medicare Bill was going through this Parliament that those draconian provisions existed in the Bill, that they were totally out of line with the Government's professed view of fairness in awards and arbitration and that they would lead inevitably to some kind of difficulty. The Minister has recently claimed that processes of arbitration are available. He says that the scheduled fees are determined by an independent arbitrator. That is true, but the scheduled fee is only one element of the total package. It is like saying that if the basic hourly rate in an award is arbitrated, one can forget about all the other conditions such as hours of work, overtime rates, holiday pay and the like, as they can be imposed unilaterally by the employer, just as the Minister is imposing conditions unilaterally on the specialists. Try telling that to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and seeing how far one would get. The second element of the Minister's defence is that he has appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Professor David Penington to look into this matter and to report back in July. The terms of reference of that committee are the subject of some dispute. Even if they were not in dispute, the Minister still demands that the doctors sign the unilaterally imposed contracts on 1 March even though the Penington committee will not report until June or July. In other words, he is saying: 'Brothers, we will impose an award without arbitration or right of appeal now, and then, in July, you can have another look at what you have signed. Then you will be committed to what you have signed and we will be committed to nothing'. Try telling that to the ACTU. Is that fair bargaining or fair arbitration? The Minister has compared the doctors to the Builders Labourers Federation. The BLF's crime is that it failed to honour arbitrated awards. How can the doctors be compared with members of that union? The Minister will regret that remark as it exposed his underlying contempt for private medicine and underscores his determination to eliminate it. If he does eliminate private medicine, it will be the patients who will suffer. It is the patients we are arguing about, not the doctors. The Government's intention, based on its socialist principles and a deep hatred of private medical practice, is to take doctors away from being employed by patients and to have them employed by the Government. Australians will not accept having their doctors employed by the Government. They believe in the concept of private medical practice. They want to engage the services of the doctors. Independent private practitioners are the backbone of health delivery in this country, inside and outside hospitals. Salaried practitioners certainly play an important role in the whole system, but without the life-giving force of those in private independent practice the quality of health care for everybody in this country will deteriorate. The private independent practitioners are those who run flexible small business-type operations, capable of absorbing new techniques on the one hand and adapting to changes in patient needs on the other hand. They are flexible, adaptive organisms. They are able to learn new techniques in order to keep up to date and they have the motivation for doing so . On the other hand, they are seeing their patients, the customers, in a thousand places, watching their varying needs and adjusting their learning and treatment to meet those needs. If the Government succeeds in turning them into another arm of the bureaucracy it will have injected cancerous cells into our system of health care delivery. A bureaucratic system is incapable of adjusting, in a thousand ways, as these independent practitioners do every day in their surgeries and in the hospitals. The Minister might deny that he has this long term intention. I can prove that he has. Let me begin by referring to the basis of hatred of the profession that shows through in the remarks of the leader of his faction in the Labor Party, Mr Hayden, when Leader of the Opposition. In a notorious speech in Melbourne in 1981 he said: . . . the health care system is rigged by doctors to satisfy their pecuniary aspirations. Greedy members of the medical profession are more interested in higher incomes than proper health care at a reasonable price. Of the Australian Medical Association, the professional body which represents most doctors, he said: It's conservative, self-interested and ineffective-and very greedy into the bargain. That was the leader of the Minister for Health's faction, the Foreign Minister, speaking. What of the Minister for Health himself? In this respect he is a credit to his faction. His duplicity can be exposed by his own words. When he believes that he is speaking to a sympathetic audience he is very revealing. For example, in 1982 he disclosed to the Australian Hospital Association in Adelaide what his long term plans were for private medical practice. He said, referring to the Labor Party: The Party has put aside any primary emphasis on salaried or capitation systems in pragmatic recognition of the prevailing culture and attitudes in this society and in its effort to secure widespread community support for its program. Private fee-for-service medicine is deeply entrenched in Australian society, strongly defended by the medical profession, and favourably evaluated by the population at large. That is a fact of life and whatever changes we desire in that system will have to take place gradually and incrementally. In other words, he was saying: 'We do not think that we can get away with it in one hit, so we will do it salami fashion, slice by slice'. The surgeons can see this happening to them. They correctly assume that they are the next slice after the diagnostic specialists. The Minister claims that he is interested only in controlling the incomes of diagnostic specialists, yet he refuses to amend the legislation which covers all specialists. The answer lies in a speech made to his own socialist lackey group, the Doctors Reform Society, in August 1983 at which the Minister said: It was agreed at the July Health Ministers' conference that attention to these problems should be initially directed to the area of diagnostic services, with the intention to move more broadly in due course. So there we have it again-Dr Salami. The Minister stated clearly in that speech to the Doctors Reform Society that the intention was to move on to the other specialists afterwards. But beyond that, he quoted a decision of the Health Ministers conference which we should all know about and which certainly all surgeons and other specialists should know about. The Minister says: 'Walk in backwards and they will think you are walking out. Make public reassurances as to your intentions but tell your mates the truth'. The Government, with its bulk billing proposals for surgery doctors, its moves to control all hospital specialists, its doubling up of the 1984 computer surveillance operations concerning doctors and its vicious BLF style attacks on doctors, is softening up the public for British fashion national health. It is leading the public into a system under which there will be no immediate patient control over any of the bills in the hope that there will be over-servicing. Then it will be coming in with that computer surveillance, creating a public disturbance, saying that the doctors are ripping off the public and then proving that the Government has to come in to nationalise the doctors, to put them on salaries and capitation fees, in order to control costs. That is the Mein Kampf of this Minister and it is quite clear from his own speeches and writings. Mr Fife —Nationalisation from the back door. Mr CARLTON —As the honourable member for Farrer says, it is nationalisation from the back door. I warn the Minister that Australians are not fools. They want to remain the employers of their doctors' services. They do not want their doctors in the public service. They value the services of the independent private medical practitioner. There has been a great attempt by the Labor Party to suggest-it has been taken up by the Press, which has repeated what the Labor Party has said-that the doctors are in low standing with the Australian community, that nobody will look at what the doctors are saying, and that the people will not believe that the doctors are acting in the long term interests of patients. Last year a Morgan gallup poll showed that doctors were well up in public esteem; they enjoyed a positive response of almost 60 per cent. The figure for politicians and journalists was down in the twenties. I believe from that evidence, from my own observations and from talking to people about the matter, that Australians do hold their personal, private, independent practitioners in high regard. They value the capacity to employ the services of people without interference from the Government. On this occasion the Minister has bitten off more than he can chew. The Australian people will not allow him to destroy the basis of good health care in this country. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(3.46) —The allegation made in raising this matter of public importance is that the Government is carrying out a widespread attack on private medical practice in this country. I say first that nothing in Medicare threatens private medical practice in this country. The great threat to private medical practice in this country comes from those segments of the medical profession and hospital entrepreneurs that are prepared to exploit the Austalian health care system for their own gain. Nearly everything that governments have done, and that includes the previous Government as well as the present Government, has been done in reaction to such activities within the profession itself. One point I would make is that the medical profession itself-that is where the real responsibility for maintaining private medical practice will lie-will need to deal with some of those extreme members and entrepreneurs who create conditions to which governments must react. Indeed, much of the conflict we are now having is simply a response to such behaviour. As I shall show, each element of Medicare has been introduced with an acceptance that it is underwriting medical practice in this country. I must say that in the present quarrel some segments of the medical profession have done their profession a great disservice by the way in which they have behaved. When we come to analyse both the remarks of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and the behaviour of elements of the medical profession we will see clearly that in this dispute over private practice rights certain extremist elements who overthrew the advice of the federal body of the Australian Medical Association and took a certain line have done great damage to the profession. For instance, I would like to tell Mr Aroney, who was, I believe , the Chairman of the Australian Surgeons Association, that nothing has so bolstered the reforming zeal of my Caucus colleagues and given them more encouragement than his description of the Caucus Social Policy Committee as one made up of extreme leftists. Such a description, coming from people such as Mr Aroney, has done a lot to encourage reformist activity on the part of a group of people whom I would describe as dedicated, moderate and sensible in their approach to health care. I think I quote the honourable member correctly in remarking that he said: 'People do not want their doctors in the public service' . The interesting thing is that so many doctors are doing their very best to ensure that no patients are in the pubic system. Let me take the case of Canberra and refer to a letter that has been received from the President of the local branch of the AMA. Let me recount what we did in Canberra. The Capital Territory Health Commission issued the following instruction: . . . all patients who are admitted for elective treatment on a pre-arranged basis such that the doctor who has been providing care prior to admission, can continue to provide that care once the patient becomes an in-patient of the hospital regardless of the patient's insurance status. That was the offer that was made by the Capital Territory Health Commission to continue private medical practice in our public hospitals. The response of the Canberra branch of the AMA is to say: 'Oh, we cannot allow that to happen. Our incomes might be undermined'. Therefore, it instructed its members to make sure that all Medicare patients-that is, all patients who do not have private insurance-will not be treated by their own doctors even though we provided that open opportunity for them to be treated by the registrar or resident staff. This is how it is to be done, and I quote: Have your Secretary contact the hospital switchboard to find out the name of the duty doctor for the appropriate speciality. Then arrange admission of this patient under that doctor. I think there is clear evidence that in fact actions such as that by the medical profession itself are undermining the opportunities for private medical practice in this country. In this case there is a simple refusal to participate in a scheme which would have allowed full private practice to continue. Let me just take the three major parts of the Medicare scheme. First of all, what we have done with Medicare in terms of medical services is to underwrite private fee for service medicine. That is the whole basis of the Medicare scheme . In outside hospitals-I will turn to the hospital sector in a moment-what we have done is to underwrite the private fee for service system. In fact, we have enabled something like another two million Australians to be able to seek that private fee for service medicine system through the Medicare system. There can be no doubt, whatever kind of conspiracies may lurk in my mind, that the actual effect of Medicare is in fact to extend the opportunity for Australians to seek private medical practice in this country. Let me turn to the question of private practice rights in public hospitals. Of course, this made up a major part of the honourable member for Mackellar's speech. He alleged that I had some conspiracy thesis. He somehow presented this on the basis of one remark from my centre-left leader, as he described him, a remark from me which was somehow made to my friends at a public meeting of the Australian Hospital Association-as he himself indicated quite clearly, it was quite a major philosophical utterance looking at all these issues-and a remark made to a meeting of the Doctors Reform Society. Let us test those allegations against the particular issue of private practice rights in public hospitals. It is the allegation of the honourable member for Mackellar that somehow I am personally unhappy with the level of income of diagnostic specialists. I suppose there would be some conspiracy at work if I singularly and obsessively had the view that there is some problem in regard to private practice in public hospitals. But it is a problem which has been long recognised in this country. For instance recommendation 109 of the Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals-the Jamison Commission which reported to the previous Government-states: There be an urgent review by each of the employment authorities of rights to private practice in hospitals with a view to limiting its scope, consistent with the underlying intent for the contract between an individual patient and doctor. Recommendation 111 states: Steps be taken to phase out over a period the rights of private practice for full time salaried specialists. These are recommendations which go far beyond anything I have proposed. Mr Carlton —That is not the issue I raised. Dr BLEWETT —I will come to the issue the honourable member raised. The honourable member suggested that I as Minister had this personal unhappiness. He did so without any basis whatsoever and without looking at the fact that in this society there has been major concern about this issue. Recommendation 112 states : Action be taken to improve the awareness of all medical practitioners of the value and cost of tests, not only for pathology but for all diagnostic services. This is where we have been concentrating. That suggests already a kind of disquiet about this from a highly conservative Commission. The Jamison Commission was appointed by the previous Government. It was generally regarded as being a reasonably conservative commission. But I do not even have to rely on commissions. The present Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales also devoted much time to this issue because he was concerned about it and saw the problem. He said: Regardless of what particular health insurance arrangements prevail in a family or at any point, the costs of hospital care are ultimately borne, in every sense , by the community as a whole . . . The medical profession has an obligation to ensure that the public funds it accepts, and more importantly commits, are utilised to maximum effect and are properly accounted. Historically, the profession has not adequately recognised this obligation. He went on to talk about particular private practice rights. He referred to the private practice scheme C in New South Wales, of which I am sure the honourable member for Mackellar is familiar, which permits salaried specialists to earn up to 175 per cent of a senior specialist's salary-that is about $87,500 per annum. Mr Greiner said: With respect to scheme C, it is fair to say that a considerable weight of opinion believes it to be excessively generous. This opinion is shared by many specialists working under other schemes. The Government sought to address these problems in section 17 of its legislation -that there was real concern in the community, that this was a problem in relation to private practice rights in public hospitals and that if these private practice rights were continued there had to be a consideration of the community interest. That is what we tried to do in section 17. It is this Government's view that the balance of private and public work in public hospitals has benefitted the public hospitals system of this country. It is not us who are taking steps which would destroy this system. We believe it will be strengthened if it can be shown to everybody that that system of private practice in public hospitals is responsible to the public interest and is governed by considerations of community interest. That is what we tried to do in the legislation. It is argued that there are problems with the legislation, particularly in respect of the rather arbitrary power that has been granted to the Minister. Let me say that in long negotiations with the AMA we agreed that those issues should be put aside. No contract that anyone will be required to sign tomorrow has any reference whatsoever to any other issue but the schedule fee issue. That is, the question of consultation and the question of appeal mechanisms have been referred to the Penington Committee. The question of constraints on doctors' incomes, how to deal with scheme C and all of the other issues such as the new facility fees we suggested on a national basis, have been put aside. No doctor in this country has been required to make any commitment about those whatsoever. They will go to the Penington Committee because, frankly, I recognise the justice of some of the criticisms. But I believe the basis of our scheme is correct. However, I believe we will all gain by those issues being adjudicated and discussed by that Penington Committee. So we are left now with one single issue. It is one issue from which the Government will not back down, and that is the requirement that private specialists with private practice rights in public hospitals should charge no more than the schedule fee. This amounts to scarcely even a contractual arrangement. This Government will be content if simply we have an acknowledgement from a doctor that he will observe that practice in his private practice rights. But we will not back down on the schedule fee issue. Why has the Government taken this position on this one issue and put the other issues aside to be adjudicated on by the Penington Committee. Let me say again that the Penington Committee, which I think is a very high quality committee, is made up of representatives from the AMA, the Dean of Medicine from the Melbourne University and a leading pathologist from South Australia. I believe that that Committee can give us advice, hopefully, give the profession advice and, above all, contribute to the education of the public. But why we are sticking on the one issue is that this Government believes that the schedule fee in publicly funded institutions should be observed. The schedule fee is applied in relation to high cost specialities. We are demanding that it be applied in regard to radiology, pathology and nuclear medicine which, if we look at the schedule, are mostly high schedule fees. We say that that has to be observed. It is fairly unusual for private practitioners to use public facilities. It is fairly difficult to find other instances where so much is provided to private entrepreneurs, private activity. I find it difficult to think of parallels in other professional areas. In the hospital area private doctors go into public hospitals, and we believe that that is of value to the hospitals. They go into institutions which are funded by the taxpayers. All the equipment in the hospitals is funded by the taxpayers; the doctors use that equipment. All the staff in the hospitals are funded by the taxpayers; the doctors use that staff. We believe that where the public makes such a contribution then the public is entitled to see that the schedule fee is observed. The schedule fee is not set by me or by the Government. It is a fee set after an inquiry. An independent arbitrator decides on fair and reasonable fees for particular procedures after listening to all the arguments. We will be saying to the Australian people from tomorrow that if a person goes into a public hospital as a public patient, then under the Medicare scheme he will be covered by salaried and sessional treatment by paid doctors or, in places such as Canberra, where we have a much more privatised system, it is hoped that they will be treated by private doctors in those hospitals without charge. If a person goes into a hospital as a private patient then we want to guarantee to that private patient that he will be charged no more than the schedule fee for those services. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(4.04) —Medicare was conceived as a fraud, it was born as a fraud, and in its early days of life it remains a fraud. Nothing that has been said today by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in any sense alters the fundamental fact that the medical specialists who have been trained to assist them to maintain health are not being given a reasonable opportunity to maintain their status in the community and the service which is required of them. It is worth mentioning that the Minister, who is meant to be in this House for this debate, cannot even bother to take the Parliament seriously. I regard that as a damned disgrace and an insult to this chamber and all members in it. He is not here but my colleagues are and others will be listening around this chamber. Let them hear, once and for all, the realities of the situation. If freedom of choice is, as the Minister suggested, to be still a major element in the supply of medical services to the Australian people, then there are two elements which he has tended to ignore. He introduced Medicare on 1 February, before he had adequately completed the necessary negotiations with the health care providers. It is all very well to speak in Parliament and to have one's Press releases published in the newspapers, but if one is not prepared to negotiate with those who are an integral part of the medical services system then clearly one is buying major problems. All the evidence we have seen to date , and Medicare is only a few weeks old, demonstrates yet again the inability of this Government to organise, in advance, precisely how it will introduce fundamental changes in the system, like those we have seen with the introduction of Medicare. Before the Government introduced this program it was happy to advise the community that it would not cost more. Certainly, the level of taxation, direct and indirect, will increase as a result. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), then the Leader of the Opposition, at the time of the last election told the Australian people that the vast majority, some 90 per cent, effectively would get a better service for less. I have spoken to many people in recent weeks and not one has said to me that he is able to maintain the same level of medical care today as previously. So much for that. One thing is clear. The mistakes that have been introduced in terms of Medicare are merely a continuation of the errors we saw at the time of the Whitlam Government's introduction of Medibank. We were told then that we would have the most wonderful system that had ever been seen in Australia. We were not told by a fraudulent government that Budget outlays on health would increase by 110 per cent between 1975 and 1976 and that total national spending on health would rise by 32.3 per cent between 1974-75 and the subsequent year. The reality of trying to enter into a system in which people who are trained to give services cannot determine or even be involved in negotiating the basis upon which those services will be given demonstrates the absurdity of the situation. The Minister suggests that a basic fee for service will be applied to all specialist and diagnostic services. He totally ignores the fact that not all doctors are equal in the services they give. The same law applies in medicine that applies in most other elements of human endeavour, that is, the law of supply and demand. Pehaps it is time the Minister for Health told the Australian people that he is a doctor of philosophy and not a doctor of medicine. Many people are being led to believe that somehow or other he can speak with profound knowledge of this subject. Mr Carlton —He should be known as Dr Salami. Mr CONNOLLY —The honourable member points out that he should really be known as Dr Salami. His objective in life is nothing short of a nationalised health system. He obviously wants to build on the failed United Kingdom system. He wants to introduce into Australia a totally nationalised system in which hospitals and all elements of the nation's health service are controlled by government. The absurdity of the current situation is that under section 17 of the National Health Act doctors can have contracts imposed on them unilaterally and at the same time have existing contracts between them and the hospitals they serve abrogated at the fiat of the Minister for Health. Two important elements come out of that. Firstly, the Minister has said that, as a result of the introduction of Medicare on 1 February, this will be in place. Some doctors rightly have reacted because they see their future, their status in the community, the relationship between their career and their patients as being seriously in doubt. The Minister has said: 'I am quite happy to arbitrate. Why, I have established a committee under Professor David Penington. He will report by July. What is all the fuss about?'. The concern of these doctors rests upon the simple fact that they do not have until July to make their reaction known to the Government. They have, as of today, less than 24 hours to make that reaction known because on 1 March, tomorrow, all those doctors are expected to have signed contracts over which they have had no opportunity to negotiate whatsoever . I ask this Government of compassion and concern, this Government that sees its foundations so well laid in the trade union movement, to answer one simple question: How could it go to the Australian Council of Trade Unions or to any union in this country and dictate terms on the same basis as it has been dictating terms to the medical profession in Australia? The Government knows as well as I do that it would be cast forth with its bags and baggage and told to go and sort itself out. It is easy to use the media, as the Government likes to think it has in this case, to lambaste doctors and accuse them of being rich men whose objective in life is to live off the pain and ignorance of the people. The fact is that doctors are in practice because the Australian people want them to be in practice and because they have patients who go to them for service. People do have an alternative in this country. In many hospitals they have the alternative of the service given by doctors who work on a fee for service basis or the service provided by doctors who are salaried. But, not satisfied with a reasonable compromise as we have at the moment, we now have a Minister who is determined, as he has said in public statements in months gone by, ultimately to have a service in which all doctors will be controlled by the Government and in which all doctors effectively will receive salaries. Why? Because it is a terrible thing that some doctors may be better than others, that some doctors may receive an income which is related to the quality of the service they give, that some doctors have a right to believe that they can choose which hospital they want to work in and which patients they will take, and that most patients-if not all patients-should also have the right to choose the doctor they want. The reality is that the medical system in Australia, which for many years has given the Australian people a standard of health care which has enabled until recent years all political parties to say at election time that they support the highest standard of medical care possible, is finally heading towards those rocks of destruction placed by a socialist government that believes fundamentally that there should be no distinction between quality of service and that a doctor who gives the best services should have his or her income determined by government. Out of all this, I assure honourable members of one thing: The quality of medical service in Australia will deteriorate, the ability of our hospitals to maintain standards of health care for the Australian people will decrease and in years, if not months not too far distant, the people of this nation will say to this Government: 'You have failed us because we came to you on the basis of what you promised the Australian people, which was a fairer health system'. The Government did not say it would be offering them a system of health care which would result in a lowering of their health standards. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley)(4.13) —I will use a few first hand examples to show what this debate on health care is really about. I refer first to a case that came through my own office, involving a family of five children-three of them handicapped-with an income at that time of $294 a week. With an income of $293 a week that family would have been entitled to a health card. (Quorum formed) But for that extra $1, this family could have had adequate health care. That was not to be. The family had to pay $50 a month out of their meagre income to get the minimum health care-the same amount as the wealthiest person in the land would have to pay for the same care. The people of Australia should know, if they do not know already, that that is the Liberal-National Party's idea of equality. That is the Australian Medical Association's idea of equality and freedom of choice. It is protected abuse by the privileged of the idea of democracy and social responsibility. One of the children in this family needed an operation and, under the former Government's system, that family had no hope. It was only because of the generosity of several doctors in my area that a solution to the family's terrible dilemma was found. I pay tribute to those doctors and many like them who are prepared to support cases such as this. I pay credit to those doctors who do have a social responsibility which is not obliterated by the greed that obliterates the social responsibility of many of their colleagues. My following comments are directed at those greedy extremists. Health care in this country is a democratic right and it is the Government's national responsibility to provide an efficient, effective health care system. Before Medibank, health was just a business-a business that served only the interests of the primary owners of that business, the providers of the service. Medibank changed all that. The Australian population wanted to keep Medibank and during the 1975 election campaign Fraser said he would not touch Medibank. Members of the Liberal-National Party knew the people wanted it then, and they want it now. They conned the people then, and they are trying to con them again. The people might not have listened to us in 1975 but they are listening now. They know the rip-offs that are going on; they have seen them going on for years under the patronage of honourable members opposite. In many ways people are confused about the health care systems that operate in this country. I do not blame them, because members of the former Government swapped around so many times that they confused themselves. They still do not have a policy to sell to Australians, and Australians would not believe them if they did. Their only policy is the golden rule; that is, whoever has the gold makes the rules. I can tell them that those days are long gone. All the divisive speeches of members of the Opposition and those they are here to protect will not divert this Government from giving Australians what they want. Australians want a cheap, efficient, safe and effective universal health care system. They want a system they can trust. Medicare is such a system; a system in which they can have confidence. That is what they have, and they can have that confidence in this Government. The Opposition and its noisy, powerful supporters in their Mercedes, Jaguars and Rolls Royces are there to protect the wealthy, and the people of Australia well know it. The Opposition did not care, and it still does not care, about the two million Australians, fellow citizens and taxpayers-real, honest taxpayers-who are not in any position to get tax concessions for their Mercedes, Jags and Rolls Royces. This Government is protecting those two million people now. It is time those people were protected and got a decent return for the tax they pay. Let me give all honourable members a fine example of the greed, the sneakiness and the con jobs that are going on. I have in my hot little hand a copy of an account from a doctor who operates from a private hospital in Canberra. The item number on the account is 2968, for a service described as a plain body scan. The total amount payable is $430. At the bottom of the account it is said that if payment of the account is received within 30 days, 50 per cent of the total will be acceptable. Amazing! But if we look at the schedule fee, it is not $430; it is not $330 or even $215, half the amount of the account. The schedule fee is $ 194. It would appear from the point of view of the poor patient who goes in faced with an account like this that the doctor is such a wonderful, generous person that he is prepared, as an example of his fine community care and responsibility, to forgo his due of $430 and will accept $215 if he is paid within 30 days. The doctor stated that if payment was received within 30 days 50 per cent of the total would be acceptable. But why does that doctor not have the guts to say: 'If you do not pay this bill within 30 days I will charge you double'? This doctor, by the way, has very close former connections with the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists. We hear a lot about that organisation these days. What about the ones who will be going out on strike tomorrow in some States? Where are the principles of these people? Where is their basic honesty and social responsibility? Where is the honesty of members of the Opposition? Where have the members of the Opposition gone? They have left the chamber. They called us in here. They have run off with their tails between their legs. Where is the honesty of the Opposition in calling on this matter of public importance which reads: The threat to personal health care posed by the Government's widespread attack on private medical practice. What a lot of rot. Who is threatening the personal health care of Australians? It is not this Government. It is not those doctors who do have social responsibility. It is the Opposition and those greedy individuals who are winding up the Opposition here today. They are the ones who really pull the strings for them in this country. A medical degree should not be a privilege to print money. M.B. does not stand for megabucks. Some of those noisy people who are represented by the Opposition parties-their members have gone now-should remember that it costs more than $100,000 of taxpayers' money to educate a doctor through his or her five-year basic medical degree course. It costs $100, 000 for each doctor. This money comes from the sweat and blood of millions of hard and honest workers in this country. They invest their money by way of taxation through the education system so they will have some protection against disease and illness and some knowledge of what to do in those circumstances. What do they get back from doctors such as the one to whom I have referred? They get a bill from a doctor who says: 'I will charge you more than double the schedule fee if you do not pay within 28 days'. It is about time that those sections of the medical profession and those in the Opposition who have not looked down from the windows of their ivory towers for so long did just that. It is about time that all Australians had their right to high quality health care without the fear of starvation and destitution, without having to tolerate the insults and without being ripped off by those doctors and the people who represent them in this House. I quote from the February 1984 issue of the Australian Hospital, which is a reputable journal: There are times when the AMA is a disappointment even to its most ardent admirers . . . In reality there is no support from other salaried specialists, the hospitals themselves, pathologists and radiologists in private practice-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(4.23) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the Sessional Orders adopted by the House on 8 December 1983 be amended as follows: Adjournment and next meeting Standing order 48A be amended to read- 48A. At 10. 30 p.m. on each Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, at 7.30 p.m. on each Wednesday and at 4 p.m. on each Friday the Speaker shall propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate; if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress and upon such report being made the Speaker shall forthwith propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate. No amendment may be moved to this question: Provided that- (a) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced; (b) if, on the question-That the House do now adjourn-being proposed, a Minister requires the question to be put forthwith without debate, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question; (c) a motion for the adjournment of the House may be moved by a Minister at an earlier hour; (d) any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of the adjournment shall be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting, and (e) if the question-That the House do now adjourn-is negatived, the House or committee shall resume the proceedings at the point at which they had been interrupted: Provided further that, if at 11 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, at 8 p. m. on a Wednesday or at 4.30 p.m. on a Friday the question before the house is- That the House do now adjourn-the Speaker shall interrupt the debate, at which time- (f) a Minister may require that the debate be extended until 11.10 p.m., 8 .10 p.m. or 4.40 p.m. as the case may be, to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate; at 11.10 p.m., 8.10 p.m. or 4.40 p.m., as the case may be, or upon the earlier cessation of the debate, the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting , or (g) if no action is taken by a Minister under paragraph (f), the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting. Routine of business Standing order 101 be amended to read- 101. The House shall proceed on the days indicated with its ordinary business in the following routine: Monday and Tuesday 1. Giving notices. 2. Questions without notice. 3. Presentation of Papers. 4. Ministerial statements, by leave. 5. Presentation of petitions. 6. Matter of public importance. 7. Notices and orders of the day. Wednesday, Thursday and Friday 1. Presentation of petitions. 2. Giving notices. 3. Notices and orders of the day. 4. Grievance debate or general business (at 12 .45 p.m. on Thursday only). 5. Questions without notice (at 2 p.m.). 6. Presentation of papers. 7. Ministerial statements, by leave. 8. Matter of public importance. 9. Notices and orders of the day. Question time New standing order 101A be inserted- 101A. At 12.45 p.m. on each Wednesday and Friday the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House in order that questions without notice can be called on at 2 p.m.: Provided that- (a) if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress; (b) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Matter of public importance Standing order 107 be amended by omitting ''at least one hour before the time fixed for the meeting of the House'' and substituting ' 'not later than 12 noon on each sitting day''. Last year the Government gave notice-there was some debate in the House-that it intended to change the sitting routine of the House to a four-day week. Some matters concerning the Friday sitting were unresolved at the time. There have been discussions between the Government and the Opposition in relation to some of those. One of the matters concerned the travel difficulties of some honourable members. Those difficulties will be overcome by the motion which I have moved today. The adjournment debate of the House will be held between 4 and 4.30 p.m., so the House will rise at 4.30. I am told that all honourable members , with the exception of a few honourable members whose electorates are in the top end of Queensland-those honourable members might still have some difficulties, but we are working on them-may be able to travel home. The other matter that was left in abeyance before Christmas but which has now been resolved is that Question Time will be held at the same time on Fridays as every other day, that is, at 2 p.m. Question Time will be followed by a matter of public importance. These matters have been tidied up as a result of discussions and the debate in the House prior to Christmas. There are still some matters to be resolved, including your problem, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are discussing them with the travel manager to see what can be done. As every honourable member would understand, there are always problems whatever the House decides to do in terms of sittings. There can be no doubt from the sentiments that have been expressed by honourable members on both sides of the House that we think we ought to give the new system a fair trial in the first session of the Parliament in 1984. That means we will have a four-day week for two weeks and the Parliament will rise for two weeks, instead of sitting for three weeks and having one week off. This should allow honourable members to spend more time in their electorates and in their homes. This is the idea of trying the four-day week. It has presented us with some problems but I think that by and large most honourable members are willing to give it a fair trial during the first session of 1984. If we are faced with insurmountable problems as a result of the changeover we can look at the matter again during the winter recess. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.26) —The Opposition accepts the motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Young) and is grateful that the Government has accepted the proposition that there should be a Question Time on Fridays. However, we are still concerned about sitting through lunch on Thursdays although, as honourable members will note, it is to be a grievance or General Business debate. It will be up to individual members to maintain the state of the House. If they have matters that they wish to canvass while others are in the dining room they will be in the chamber attending to the presentation of their own affairs. One aspect does concern me. I have not yet been completely satisfied that it will be easy for the Hansard staff, the Clerks and the other officials in this place to have a luncheon adjournment. I trust that some arrangement will be made so that they too will be able to have some sort of a break in the middle of the day. I know that they are all willing and that they do work extraordinarily long hours. I think that it would be foolish for members of this place to ignore their needs. I trust that the Government, in changing to this sitting pattern, has accommodated the requirement of each of those groups of people, including all those who assist us in the various areas around the place, so that they will not be disadvantaged in any way because we like to work these rather extraordinary sitting patterns. The Opposition accepts the suggestion of the Leader of the House that this two- week on and two-week off sitting pattern should be given a trial through this parliamentary session. We are prepared to accommodate that arrangement. However, in addition to our concern about sitting through lunch hours-this does worry me- I think I should mention a couple of other matters. Perhaps the most important is that which the Leader of the House just mentioned, that is, the question of those honourable members who are unable to leave at the normal close of business on a Friday afternoon and who, like yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, are being called on to leave at about lunch time. In my view, if the Parliament is sitting arrangements need to be made so that members can be in Parliament. I believe there is no reason for people represented by those members to be disadvantaged simply because the rest of us set the sitting hours to suit our own convenience. While I understand the problems, I believe that if a group of members is unable to attend in this place simply because of the difficulty of gaining transport out of Canberra, that difficulty needs to be accommodated. I trust that the Government-certainly, on our part, the Whips and myself will do so-will keep a farly close watch on that aspect. I believe that if there is to be a revised sitting pattern it needs to be followed. All honourable members need to have the opportunity to be in the House whenever the House is in session. A second matter emerges from that. While we accept that this is a trial and are prepared to co-operate in it, if the sitting hours become too long and if people find that they are just not practical, I trust the Government will be prepared to consider the present pattern purely as a trial. The present sitting pattern involves a very considerable and protracted period throughout Thursday's sitting when there will not be a break. It involves quite a number of late nights-Tuesday, Thursday and, of course, the following Monday. It involves early starts and, given the fact that there are party meetings, party committees, parliamentary committees and constituents for whom all members need to be available to meet, it would be unfortunate if those other activities which are an intrinsic part of the exercise of our responsibilities as members of this place were to be prejudiced by the change in sitting patterns. I trust therefore that the Government will be prepared to consider the impact of any difficulties should they occur in the course of this experiment and, if necessary, to modify these sitting hours or sitting practices during this session. With those reservations, the Opposition does not oppose the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(4.31) —I rise to address the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1983 which relate to shipping. These amendments are among the most significant legislative changes introduced specifically in support of the Australian shipping industry. They are crucial to the efforts by this Government to encourage Australian shipowners and Australian sea-going unions to expand the base of our shipping industry. Despite the fact that we are one of the largest trading countries in the world, our international merchant fleet carries only a meagre 4 per cent of our imports and exports. When we came into office, just on a year ago, we undertook to change this situation for the better. We have not taken the view that Australia will have a maritime industry just for the sake of it. On the contrary, we have recognised the strategic importance of shipping in our international trading affairs. We have acknowledged that Australia needs a soundly-based, efficient shipping industry. We have taken initiatives necessary to provide the right framework so that progress can be made. In the past, with the exception of wartime emergencies, Australians have generally disregarded the importance of our shipping industry. Governments have paid lip-service to the serious issue of providing financial assistance for the industry. Shippers have come to rely on foreign shipping for so long that they are not always sympathetic to the aspirations of Australian shipowners and sea- going unions. They have preferred to rely on shipping services provided by either our trading partners or other countries. They have used the ships of owners who in many cases have developed fleets by using fiscal benefits not available in the traditional maritime countries, and to some extent by reduced supervision and reduced responsibility for their fleets. I believe it is also true that our few Australian shipowners have not been very forward looking in attempting to move into new trade areas. They have tended to accept the status quo because their primary interest has usually been to service their own coastal shipping requirements. They have often had competing demands for the very large investments required to enter overseas shipping. Governments have generally given more favourable treatment to those competing investments by way of tariff protection and taxation concessions and in other ways. On the other hand sea-going unions have been slow to recognise that their long term interests are best served by an Australian merchant marine that can grow and develop naturally by moving to match many of the changes in work practices and productivity which have developed in the shipping industries of other developed countries. Perhaps our most serious failing as a country has been the limited attempt made to bring all of these parties together so that all can become better informed on the issues. Only in this way can we make progress in overcoming those problem areas which make it difficult to develop sensible and lasting policies. This process is also an essential prerequisite to developing the level of motivation necessary to take advantage of the incentives contained in this Bill. I recognise that my predecessor, the honourable member for Gwydir, Ralph Hunt, saw that it was only by bringing the parties together that realistic commercial development could be commenced, and he had bipartisan support for that initiative. He commissioned Sir John Crawford to work with shipowners and sea- going unions in an effort to bridge the communication gap which had developed. But this was just the start. Sir John Crawford's report on the revitalisation of Australian shipping certainly provided an outline of the changes of fact and attitude needed if Australian shipping was to become economically competitive. We have taken the further steps necessary to allow tangible progress to be made. By building on the relationships established in opposition, we have in the past 12 months developed closer ties with the broad section of the Australian shipping industry - shipowners, sea-going unions and shippers. As Minister for Transport, I have gone out of my way to maintain a constant dialogue with these groups and to encourage continuing dialogue between all the parties. I recognise that relations between shipowners, sea-going unions and shippers have become destructive over the long period of decline of Australian shipping and that polarised attitudes have reinforced that decline. However, this Government wants to change that situation. We want all sectors of the industry to adapt to changing circumstances, so there can be growth of the industry-and we want all those involved not to choke that growth by looking backwards rather than forwards. This legislation is central to the process of change. It will bring Australian shipowners' capital costs more into line with those of their foreign competitors. The legislation combines these taxation incentives with the objective of encouraging the gradual reduction of crewing costs on Australian ships to levels closer to those of our international competitors. Both are essential if potential investment in Australian shipping is to be realised. The combination of capital and crewing costs today accounts for a substantial proportion of total operating costs. Australian shipowners are able to build or purchase new ships at international prices. They must be able also to finance and man them competitively. Under the shipping provisions of this Bill, special income tax concessions will be introduced for eligible Australian ships commissioned on or after 29 July 1977, namely: Confer depreciation allowances in respect of eligible ships in equal instalments over five years; in certain circumstances allow the first year 's depreciation in the year before an eligible ship is commissioned; and extend the investment allowance to an eligible ship used outside Australia. These changes should reduce the net cost of funding new ship purchases. They will also enable ships constructed since 29 July 1977 to be eligible retrospectively for these benefits. The benefits will be available to eligible trading ships; that is, ships which will be engaged exclusively in the coastal and/or overseas carriage of cargoes or passengers, ships wholly owned or used by persons who are residents of Australia, ships used wholly and exclusively for the purpose of producing assessable income, ships registered in Australia under the Shipping Registration Act 1981, ships manned by persons who are either residents of Australia or non-residents whose engagement for a specified period is authorised , and ships manned at a level which does not exceed the manning level determined for a ship by the Secretary to the Department of Transport. These requirements are incorporated in the legislation basically to ensure that the ships which receive the benefits under Australian law are in essence Australian in nature. Clearly the purpose of this is also to ensure that the manning levels of Australian ships commence to become more competitive internationally. I am not suggesting that the task of expanding the Australian shipping industry on a commercial basis will be easy. It will not be. What I believe is important is that since we have been in office there has been an underlying desire by all associated with shipping to make positive attempts to improve the industry. International shipping has over the past few years faced some of its most difficult times. The world-wide recession has been felt by shipowners all round the world. Many have gone out of business. Many are operating even now on a non-economic, non-commercial base. Many have sought and received the support of their national governments. I am sure honourable members will appreciate that there is a long way to go before we become internationally competitive in our manning. It is a process of negotiation, training, and developing acceptance of change in deeply entrenched practices and expectations. We have made the first step in this process, and we are determined to do all that we can to ensure the momentum is maintained. Sea- going unions are gradually coming to terms with the fact that manning on Australian vessels is generally uncompetitive. There is no sidestepping this fact and it is recognised by responsible officials of the unions concerned. This legislation attempts to build a nexus between lower capital costs and lower crewing costs on Australian vessels and the expansion of a competitive Australian fleet. The alternative is a stagnant or declining fleet and a permanent reduction in Australian jobs. One of the catchcries is that the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development 40:40:20 liner code is a viable alternative. That catch cry indicates the lack of understanding of the provisions of the code. The code itself is too restrictive in its scope. It relates solely to liner conference shipping. It does not include non-conference or bulk shipping. Non-conference shipping is expanding and I suggest to honourable members that it would further expand at the expense of conference shipping if the 40:40:20 code was applied to conference shipping. Bulk shipping constitutes just over 90 per cent by weight of our overseas trade . Given Australia's mineral export potential, this is surely an area of expansion that ship owners should aim for because only 5 per cent of our total trade is carried by liner conferences. That 40:40:20 code that so many people want to talk about and to espouse provides only a fraction of the opportunity for increasing Australian involvement that would be provided by the bulk trades. I repeat: There is no sidestepping the fact that the only responsible way to expand our shipping industry is for the industry to become more efficient, more competitive and more aggressive in the marketing of its services. Australians will not support revitalisation of Australian shipping if they have to foot the bill of higher freight rates, raising the cost of goods they buy. They will not support sea-going unions which do not come to grips with modernisation of shipboard practices. I mention that when the Department of Trade made a study in 1977-78 of exports and imports, that study showed that a 5 per cent decrease in export income would result in the loss of about 30,000 jobs. We hear about crew numbers as low as 18 on overseas ships. But let me stress that that should not be seen as a common crew level. Most new overseas ships are operating with crew numbers in the low 20s. Some vessels are particular or special purpose vessels. Some vessels are experimental type vessels. Those experimental numbers should not be confused, in an informed and responsible debate about the future of Australian shipping, with what we would expect to be the common practice in this country. It is only by reducing its cost structures and improving its productivity that the Australian industry will be able to compete effectively with ships of our trading partners. Over time these improvements will bring increased participation by Australian ships, more stable employment opportunities for Australian seamen, greater stability in freight rates, increased flexibility for exporters and importers in marketing products on a cost, insurance and freight basis, and, importantly, greater reliability in our shipping services. Currently, international shipping is under constant pressure to reduce its costs. This pressure has been accentuated during the period of global depression and Australian shipping, particularly in this sphere, cannot be insulated indefinitely from the rest of the world. Consequently, we should see the changes flowing from the report of the Crawford Committee on Revitalisation of Australian Shipping, such as the abolition of the 2 per cent duty on imported ships, these taxation amendments and the more efficient manning arrangements, as steps in a process of continuing improvement of our shipping industry. This Government, and I as Minister, stand committed to work with the shipping industry to assist in resolving the difficulties which will arise as we work towards improving our international competitiveness and building the basis for future growth of the industry. Finally, I assure honourable members and all associated with the Australian shipping industry that we will continue to work to develop an efficient Australian shipping industry. Our Government has directly and indirectly made known its wish to increase the Australian flag shares of our commercial shipping . The provisions in this Bill relating to shipping constitute a crucial step in our progress towards developing an efficient Australian shipping industry. I firmly believe that Australia should and can have a reliable, competitive and efficient shipping industry with sound prospects for future growth if the consensus developed over the past year by sea-going unions, industry and government is maintained during the difficult transitional period ahead. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(4.45) —The shipping services to and from Australia and around the Australian coast can certainly be dramatically improved. All the major overseas trades are subject to conference arrangements although non-conference lines operate on most trades. The coastal trade is totally protected by the Navigation Act which restricts the trade to Australian owned and manned ships. The result has been a high priced and uncompetitive service. In addition, the Australian maritime unions have one of the worst industrial relations records. This has caused enormous disruption and lack of confidence, as well as adding to the costs of shipping services. I want to instance a few examples of the sorts of additional costs that the Australian shipping industry is forced to bear. For instance, the cost of the settlement forcing non-conference lines to raise their rates and carry less cargo on the East-Asian trade is estimated at $20m a year. That was a direct result of union activity. Recent wool negotiations were started at the previous conference rate of $2,109 per container and were finally settled at a rate of $1 ,465 per container following non-conference competition with the conference lines. That is an indication of the benefit that competition has on the cost of shipping. Australian ships have a prohibition on stewards doing laundry work. This results in a dockside laundry bill of $150,000 per ship per annum. On Japanese vessels a laundry manned by the crew is standard equipment. The 1981 average annual costs of operating a 100,000 tonne to 130,000 tonne vessel were $US1.8m for open registry flag vessels, $US2.4m for British flag vessels and $US3.8m for Australian flag vessels. When the Christmas Island phosphate trade was brought under the coastal shipping regime by the previous Labor Government in 1975, there was a 60 per cent increase in the freight rate. The cost per job created as a result of that action was $29,000. Australian National Line manning scales are reported as being reduced from 70 to 65 on a two crew per ship basis when international standards can be as low as 18 with far less than two crews per vessel. I acknowledge what the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) just said about the low scales being in many cases experimental, but the reality is that even on a normal overseas manning scale, the comparison with Australian scales is dramatically against the Australian level. A European shipping line estimated that it would cost an additional $1m per year per ship if it were required to meet Australian levels. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) would probably be interested to know that the 'strike club', or as it is properly termed, the Shipowners Mutual Strike Insurance Association, has stated that of claims paid world wide by the Association 54 per cent arose from industrial action affecting Australian ports. On the coastal trade, the Industries Assistance Commission has estimated the cost to Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd of the protection of the coastal trade at about $20m to $25m, and to the sugar industry between $4m and $8.7m. I raise those statistics as an indication of the sorts of problems with which Australian shipping is confronted. The Minister indicated in this debate that he puts great store on the Crawford report. It is part of his five-point plan, and this legislation will implement the fundamental recommendations that Crawford made. My concerns about the Crawford report relate to the fact that it is an industrial relations solution to a perceived problem. The report says, in effect, that there will be fewer jobs per ship but no loss of jobs because there will be more ships, and that we will get more ships by accelerated depreciation, investment allowance and removal of import duty on imported ships. In the development of the Crawford proposals no account was taken of the shipper, the customer. No attempt was made to cost the proposals. Indeed, it is not possible accurately to cost the proposals because nobody knows what the manning levels will be or how many ships there will be. One estimate, based on the addition of one new bulk carrier per year to the Australian fleet over a 10-year period, argues that the revenue forgone over the period would be $95m. On the basis of 10 additional ships, double crewed, 550 additional jobs would be created. The cost per additional job created would be $172,000. There is an assumption in the Crawford report that the ships will operate profitably, but there can be no guarantee of that. The Crawford report seeks to buy industrial peace at the expense of the taxpayer and probably also at the expense of the exporter. This is yet another case of the burden falling lightly on each individual taxpayer but the benefit being large in the hands of the few beneficiaries. I am not opposed to the development of the Australian shipping industry. The concern I have and one the Opposition wishes to express is that, even allowing for all the improvements that may flow from the Crawford report and from the proposals this Act would seek to incorporate as part of the taxation laws of this country, the Australian shipping industry would be still far from economic or competitive. There would still be a very unfavourable comparison with any overseas shipping services we may be able to buy. Crawford listed six arguments in favour of revitalising the Australian shipping industry. They were a balance of payments gain; an employment argument; an integration of coastal and overseas operations; a window into the industry; overseas countries protecting their shipping; and, finally, defence. Crawford's balance of payments argument is weak and takes no account of the balance of payments effect of purchasing the ships from overseas. The report offers no evidence that there would be net gain. Even if it were positive, it is not a conclusive reason for encouraging a shipping industry where Australia has no comparative advantage. The employment argument does not balance the steady growth in jobs with the cost of providing the jobs. As I just indicated, it is worth looking very closely at whether it is in Australia's interest to spend $ 172,000 to create one job. The efficiency argument of integrating overseas and coastal operations takes no account of the fact that this can be achieved overnight by deregulating Australia's totally protected coastal shipping regime. The window into the industry argument has never been a good one. The Australian National Line makes no information available to Australian exporters. In fact, it has been difficult for the Minister and for the Bureau of Transport Economics to get information from ANL. The ANL has shown that its loyalty is to the conferences and not to the shippers. The dumping argument that overseas countries protect their shipping lines and are unfair competitors is not a sufficient justification for our doing likewise. If we had an economic industry with some competitive advantage we may have a case against dumped shipping services. Crawford does not argue that Australia may be better off buying its shipping from other countries which are prepared to subsidise heavily those services at the expense of their taxpayers and to the benefit of Australians taxpayers and exporters. Instead, the report opts for propping up an inefficient Australian industry. As I indicated, it is an industry which is almost certain to remain inefficient and uneconomic even if the full impact of the Crawford proposals were to come into effect. Crawford's final argument is the defence argument, that there would be access to adequate shipping services in times of emergency and that this would augment Australia's national security. It is always difficult to counter emotive arguments such as that, but it is interesting that nowhere else in any of the policy-making that goes on in this country has the likelihood of World War III been evoked as a serious reason for determining economic policy, in this case taxation policy. The reasons given in the Crawford report as to why we should revitalise our shipping industry raise more questions than they answer. The Minister ought to turn his attention to these questions before he proceeds with the legislation before the Parliament. I would have thought that we should demand better reasons than those before imposing such a burden on Australian taxpayers and exporters. The real questions about the Crawford Report I shall now outline. Is it appropriate to revitalise the Australian shipping industry? Is it an efficient industry? Is Australia better off buying its shipping services form overseas? Should Australia try to compete with the subsidies offered by other countries to their shipping lines? Should we encourage our maritime unions, which have such a disastrous industrial record? Can Australia afford another feather-bedded industry? The position the Opposition takes on the proposals in this legislation as they affect shipping and on the Crawford report is that we do not want to give our full endorsement to them. We are not necessarily as an Opposition taking an anti-Crawford proposal stance at this stage, but we reserve our right to review the industry over the period ahead in the light of the changes that can be expected to flow in that industry from legislation which the Government has brought forward. I make it clear that the Opposition supports a competitive coastal trade open to foreign ships and competition from non-conference lines for the shipping conferences. This would constitute the most efficient solution to the current crisis in Australian shipping. It would result in important benefits in both the short and long term to growth and development in the Australian economy. In government, the Opposition would want to review the measures introduced by the Government in this legislation to implement the Crawford proposals. It maintains no commitment to them, but will be influenced by the state of the industry at the time we achieve government. I thank the House. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(4.57) —I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5). My comments on this Bill will cover that section dealing with shipping. I realise that shipping has already been covered by the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) but it is such an important item that I make no apology for devoting my comments to it. I was very interested in what the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) said. His comments demonstrated the kind of negative approach one expects from the Opposition which, when in government, sat on its hands and did absolutely nothing about Australian shipping. His comments about the Crawford report of the Crawford Committee on Revitalisation of Australian Shipping were also very interesting. It should be remembered that this report is the product of a direction of his Party when it was in government. It indicates that we can see further dissension within the ranks of the National Party of Australia. Obviously the honourable member for Hume strongly disagrees with the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt), who commissioned the report and who still supports it. I would like to know for whom the honourable member for Hume is speaking. Is he speaking for the National Party, for the Opposition, or is he again presenting his own views on the Crawford report? Australia as a trading nation must have a viable shipping industry. I fully support improved taxation concessions for Australian trading ships, as this Bill will permit. In so doing, it will give effect to the recommendations in the Crawford report on the revitalisation of Australian shipping. Australian shipping has declined in recent years, which should be of concern to all honourable members and, indeed, to all Australians. How can we claim to be a trading nation if we do not have a substantial fleet of Australian ships? My electoral office is near Port Kembla. Although I see in the port ships flying the flags of many countries, I see few ships flying Australian flags. It is to be hoped that with this legislation that will change. Port Kembla, with its magnificent work force, was recently idle. For the first time in 30 years no ship of any kind was being worked there. Over the past two decades Australia's trading partners have changed in importance, with an increasing emphasis on our trade links with Japan, East Asia and South Asia rather than on the traditional links with Europe. While it is important to develop efficient production, we are also dependent on a transport system which will allow our exports to be competitively priced in overseas markets. The distance to Australia's major markets and intense competition from other countries supplying those markets leaves no room for inefficiency in our transport and services sectors. Success in our external markets demands that our export trade be served by competitive, efficient and reliable transport. Australia has no special niche in the world trading scene. We cannot say it is ours by right or might. Australia is not the only source of supply of most of our export commodities. This Government has no intention of letting the industry sit back complacently and assume that we are indispensable to the world. What counts is the landed cost at the buyer's factory, be it iron ore delivered to Japanese steel mills or wool to Europe. Thus the spotlight falls on shipping for two reasons: On the one hand it is essential to get our products to their final destinations, and that process generates employment in mines, factories, processing plants, domestic transport and service industries. On the other hand, shipping is a potential Australian growth industry in its own right, with a contribution to make to our national economy. It is important to recognise that benefits are available to Australia from the expansion of our shipping sector. Increased employment is obviously one area of direct benefit to the Australian economy and one which is of particular concern to this Government. But as with any other sector of the economy this expansion must be achieved in an efficient, competitive environment which ensures the continued existence of the industry. Equally, it should not adversely affect employment opportunities in the export sector. What is the world shipping situation today and what are Australia's prospects? The international shipping industry is currently facing chronic over-capacity in virtually all sectors. This has resulted from changes in world trade patterns and the effect of the worldwide recession on international trade. The situation has been exacerbated by the policies of a number of foreign governments. They continue to subsidise their shipbuilding industries, thereby encouraging the building of ships with significant tonnage, which are not required on the basis of current trade expectations. Spot charter rates in the bulk shipping sector are at critically low levels, with a number of operators being forced out of business. Freight rates in the liner trades have also been affected by the over- tonnage situation, with many shippers experiencing reductions in freight rates in real terms a a result of the very competitive environment as operators fight for cargo. The availability of modern tonnage at low rates has encouraged many operators to expand services. Combined with the general downturn in trade, this has resulted in strong competition in the liner trades between conference and non-conference lines. Most people connected with the shipping industry have agreed that these factors will be with us for some time even though international trade is improving as the world economy recovers. The chronic over-capacity situation means that ample tonnage is available and competition will remain intense. But the very existence of the shipper's paradise has brought with it a degree of risk to the same users of ship services. When rates and cargo levels fall to levels which in the long term do not support the continued existence of an operator, a degree of instability creeps into the market. Sometimes this is dramatic in its effect, with loaded vessels being arrested and detained, with all the attendant problems for shippers. The Government's shipping policy is to work towards the carriage of a more equitable share of our overseas trade in efficient Australian flag vessels. In pursuing this goal the Government has recognised the need to make Australian vessels more competitive relative to merchant shipping operating in the international market. In the market situation I have just described, it may be in the longer term that major growth will occur. This legislation will extend accelerated depreciation allowances to Australian shipowners comparable with those available to overseas owners. These allowances are dependent on efficient manning levels being determined. The Government's approach to this, as to many policy issues, seeks to bring together the interested parties and to develop arrangements which will lead to improvements for all those concerned. It is important that both the financial situation and manning and operational arrangements be rationalised to allow Australian shipping to compete efficiently in the world market. It is essential to have the co-operation of all parties if we are to achieve our goal. The Government has also taken a number of steps aimed at allowing the Australian National Line to operate in a more commercial and independent manner and to improve its efficiency. The Australian Shipping Commission Act has been amended to effect these changes. Additionally, new appointments have been made at senior levels. There have also been significant staff changes. Management structures and efficiency have been reviewed and the Government has injected $90m additional capital. We have also assisted in the establishment of consultative arrangements between labour and management, which will allow rationalisation of manning levels and working practices to be achieved over time. But one may ask: Is this enough? People can argue, and it is an argument with which I find sympathy, that these policies are based on the premise of growth at a time when trade is still suffering from the biggest downturn in the post-war period. Why should we not take the easy way out-I think the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) was suggesting this-throw our hands up in despair and adopt cargo reservation arrangements as a method of achieving expansion of the Australian shipping industry? The United Nations liner code is often quoted as an example. It is not widely recognised that the liner code applies only to a very limited amount of shipping. The 40:40:20 allocation of cargoes in the trade has been accorded multilateral acceptance in liner conference shipping through the United Nations convention on a code of conduct for liner conferences. The liner code does not cover bulk or non-conference liner shipping. When Australia's shipping arrangements are examined we find that about 5 per cent of the volume of our total trade is carried by liner conference shipping services. In the year ending June 1982 Australian flag participation in conference services in our major trades ranged from about 27 per cent in the South East Asian trade area down to about 6 per cent in the Australian-European conference liftings. However, in the last 12 months Australian flag vessels have obtained an increasing proportion of the East Asia and South East Asia trade. They have captured a substantial share of the Trans-Tasman trade following ANL's entry into that service in March 1983. In addition, agreement has been reached for a 40 per cent increase in the Australian flag share in the European trade. It is envisaged that Australian flag liftings will continue to increase as commercial opportunities arise. However, Australian participation on the basis of a liner code cargo allocation is limited by the actions of our major trading partners, Australia's treaty obligations within the Organisation for Economic Co -operation and Development and the effect on our trade. If Australian conference shipping lines are not reasonably efficient, this could be reflected in conference freight rates. Trade could be lost to competitors. Cargo carriage could shift to cheaper non-conference shipping not covered by the 40:40:20 provisions of the liner code. One can see that while there is a theoretical advantage in applying the 40:40:20 provisions of the liner code, a number of legal, practical and economical problems could offset or even completely cancel out any long term benefits. On the other hand coastal and overseas bulk shipping account for more than 95 per cent of our shipping needs and therefore represent areas of the greatest potential growth for Australian flag shipping. But they are also the most competitive areas of shipping. In any case long term stable growth of the Australian fleet is achievable only if we can compete efficiently. There are opportunities for expansion of Australian shipping in parallel with opportunities to expand Australia's export markets. The prerequisite for both is international competitiveness. Shipping policy must support and complement our trade effort. We cannot afford the luxury of divorcing the trade and shipping sectors. Both are extremely important to our economic viability. The Hawke Labor Government is committed to an Australian shipping industry. This legislation will remove some of the disadvantages Australian ships face in relation to ships of our competitor countries. There is much bipartisan agreement on the measures now before the House. But this agreement notwithstanding, I must contrast the Opposition view on transport , which is often enunciated by the honourable member for Hume, with the view of the present Government so capably enunciated by our excellent Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). The honourable member for Hume puts the strict economic rationalist view of selling things off to the market. I recall participating in the debate on the Australian National Line not many months ago, when the honourable member for Hume wanted to flog it all off. I ask honourable members to contrast this with the Opposition's view on the much-debated Alice Springs to Darwin railway line, in which case a seocial audit view demonstrated that it would be a major misallocation of funds, yet the Opposition supported it . This shows how politically shallow and opportunistic is its view on transport. No one, least of all the Government pretends that the way ahead for Australian shipping is easy. With hard work and good will on the part of everyone, substantive progress can be made, but this must involve management, workers and all levels of government. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(5.10) —I wish to deal with the superannuation aspects of the Bill, which is basically a taxation measure. The Bill covers a wide range of matters, one of which the previous speaker, the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis), referred to in particular. I wish to take up two issues raised by the Bill which deal specifically with the superannuation powers of the Commissioner of Taxation. On first acquaintance it may seem rather strange that the Taxation Commissioner should deal with these areas. It is my belief that matters of superannuation, whether occupational superannuation or superannuation funds instituted by private organisations or through the major insurance companies, should become the responsibility of one of the insurance commissioners. It does not seem reasonable to me that the Commissioner of Taxation alone should deal with private superannuation funds, simply because these are a mechanism related to tax rebates or benefits. It does not seem to me that they can be structured properly or designed effectively if the Taxation Commissioner continues to deal with superannuation. Much of the trouble that the Government will create by way of this Bill is brought about by the fact that there is a piecemeal approach to superannuation. That really comes back to the basis of the structure of superannuation and the way in which it is considered by government-through the office of the Commissioner of Taxation. It is unfortunate because it means that we have not a comprehensive approach to occupational superannuation, other superannuation or insurance investment in the way that is needed if we are to move towards obtaining the objective of having people prepare effectively for their retirement. The uncertainties that are created by constant changes of government policy in regard to specific matters of superannuation can all be sheeted home to the Taxation Office, which perhaps has considered that somebody is being ripped off, that someone is avoiding tax, or compensation is needed in particular in the small business area because the superannuation process then is not in line with other superannuation processes. Therefore, we have changes that are initiated by the Commissioner of Taxation who looks on the superannuation funds, as they are established by organisations, as a tax mechanism not a retirement mechanism. That is unfortunate and wrong and will lead many people in the work force into a position of serious disadvantage if it is continued. I would like to quote comments made by Mr Coates, the general manager of the AMP society, a gentleman who is known to and respected by honourable members on both sides of the chamber. In an interview that was reported in the Australian of 9 March 1982, Mr Coates said that the first role of superannuation funds was to provide benefits for retiring people and meet the need to ensure that these benefits were available and maximised when required. The second role of the superannuation industry was to provide investment funds for the short and long term. These aspects are locked together and the superannuation funds provide a highly significant base for investment and capital growth within Australia. Mr Coates said that the Government needed to examine certain matters that were of concern to the industry. The first was the provision of social service benefits, including the question of a national superannuation plan, and the requirements of related means tests. Secondly, the Government needed to apply itself to the preservation and taxation treatment of superannuation benefits on change of occupation. The third point concerned the positions of subsidised employees, non-subsidised employees and self-employed persons in relation to tax relief on contributions and benefits available. The fourth point concerned the relative tax treatment of lump sum and pension benefits derived from funded and unfunded superannuation arrangements. The fifth point concerned the desirability of encouraging pension benefits in lieu of lump sums, together with the need for an inflation-proofing mechanism to preserve the purchasing power of pensions in line with public sector plans. On all of those matters raised by Mr Coates action has been taken by government . The great tragedy is that the decisions of government have either been piecemeal or such as to reject the comprehensive approach that Mr Coates suggested. It seems to me that the decisions made by this Government, and in particular the two referred to in the Bill, are detrimental to the community at large. It appears that the Government is intent on driving people out of superannuation funds. One need only analyse the propositions put two years ago. All honourable members were aware of the concern shown in regard to the level of social security benefits, the way in which they were funded and their relationship to means tests, and the need to provide for preservation of superannuee's schemes as they moved from job to job, safeguarding their funds until retirement. Also of concern was the situation of subsidised and non- subsidised employees and self-employed persons in regard to superannuation and its acquisition, as well as taxation treatment of lump sum payments. All of these matters have been dealt with. The previous Government, in 1980, took a very positive and strong step to assist those who were self-employed to come into line with other beneficiaries of superannuation schemes. That decision was welcomed by the community at large, especially small business . Guidelines were established as to how funds should be invested. Private companies or small organisations were given some direction as to how they should invest their funds and the funds of their employees in such a way that they would be protected and not interfered with. The Government has decided to move against cherry picking, the process of postponing the payment of superannuation in such a way that the employee loses all benefit and the employer finishes up with both the money and the box. The Government has moved against that but it has moved in such a way as to disadvantage seriously small business, to the extent that it will be unwilling to initiate superannuation funds on behalf of its employees. There is now no advantage for organisations which wish to assist their employees. The Government has moved too far and too hard in regard to its tax advice and this, linked with the taxation of lump sum superannuation, I believe is forcing people away from preparing for their retirement by way of investing funds, augmented by a contribution on the part of their employer. That must be the role of superannuation. I would like the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), when he responds, to enunciate the Government's ultimate objective. Our experience has been that since coming to office the Goverment has moved on three occasions to disadvantage persons seeking to prepare for their retirement by way of superannuation. If these attitudes persist, an increasing number of people will be throwing themselves upon the mercy of the Department of Social Security when they reach retirement. Is it the objective of the Government to move people out of funds that protect them in their old age and retirement? Is it the Government 's intention to force people into social welfare areas? Mr Robert Brown —You know that it is not. Mr CADMAN —I have seen no positive indication that the Government has other intentions. It makes lots of comments about national superannuation. It makes lots of flowery comments about what it is going to do for pensioners and retirees but in this place, in fact, it has done nothing. All that it has done is put up walls, block, disenfranchise and frighten people. It did that first with the lump sum tax on superannuation. It did it also with the assets test, which it has had to withdraw. There is still out there that concern, fear and uncertainty. It appears to me that the Labor Government has no positive plans in this regard . What it is doing, I would suggest, is fooling around with the report of the task force on superannuation, trying to get a national superannuation scheme out of it. To move first against individuals who are protected in their retirement and then some years later to develop a superannuation scheme is to give absolutely the wrong priority. The Government is affecting too many people adversely. It will suffer from that at the ballot box. I suppose that will be to my personal advantage, but I dislike the process the Government has adopted. It is causing fear and concern. People are being forced to sell property, readjust their savings, readjust their superannuation arrangements if possible and live in a constant state of uncertainty. That is not good for the Australian community. It is time the Government got its act together. It is time it really dealt in a comprehensive way with the problems of retirees and the problems of superannuation. The method by which it could start to do that would be to move the superannuation legislation out of the tax area and into some other area where it can be looked at comprehensively and not be subject to the piecemeal approach we have seen. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(5.22) — The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5 ) 1983 is an omnibus Bill which gives effect to a number of amendments to various income tax measures. I am sorry that in the time available to me it will not be possible for me to pursue some of the issues that I would have preferred to pursue. However, I will take advantage of the time which is available to me to deal specifically with clause 17 of the Bill and the background developments which have given rise to that clause. I say at the outset that I am not unmindful of the fact that the new arrangements which the New South Wales Government has been required to put into place in order to accommodate itself to the announcement that was made on 18 December 1981 by the former Treasurer have fairly effectively accommodated New South Wales. I am not unmindful as well of the very significant revenue implications of the proposal in relation to what has been called leverage leasing arrangements, which are mostly undertaken by State governments. I want to indicate the background to the statement made by the former Treasurer on 18 December 1981 which effectively pulled the rug from under the feet of the New South Wales Government and other State governments which had been quite deliberately and quite consciously in the process of actively co-operating with a number of appeals which had been made by the Fraser Government. The events leading up to the former Government's announcements concerning this matter represent a shameful saga in the Fraser Government's manipulation, abuse and sabotage of the States, and in particular of New South Wales. They reflected the Fraser Government's obsessive determination and persistent and continuing attempts to contract public sector investment because of its absurd and fallacious claim that only by doing so could the private sector be given room to grow. This in turn was based on the equally absurd belief that private sector investment is inherently superior, more desirable, more productive and perhaps even more moral than public investment. The former Government's position reflected something else which was even more enlightening. The Fraser Government was prepared to deny to Australian private sector companies and consortiums concessions which it made freely available to foreign-owned firms either domiciled or operating in Australia. This denial to Australian companies and consortiums was to apply if they had the audacity to enter into arrangements with State governments to assist in the provision of services by public authorities or to facilitate public sector investment in the provision of necessary services. This was initiated by the arrangement entered into by the New South Wales Government concerning the Eraring power station project. That project was estimated to cost about $1,600m, was to be undertaken by the Electricity Commission of New South Wales and was to be financed under the provisions of the special infrastructure borrowing program introduced in 1978-79. The restrictions on this program made it necessary for the New South Wales Government to seek other methods of financing it. The arrangement arrived at has been called a leverage leasing arrangement but, as I said, it is a misnomer-it is not an arrangement of that kind. Most of the conventional leverage leases operate to finance public authority spending in cases where the assets are owned by the private financial institutions and leased to the public body. Therefore, under existing tax legislation at that time and prior to tonight, deductions were available only for normal depreciation. In contrast, the arrangement with the Eraring power station was that the power station would be sold to a consortium of Australian companies, called the equity participants which would use its equity finance, which was originally $300m, to raise funds overseas to provide sufficient total funds to purchase and complete the power station project. The power station was to be managed, staffed and fuelled by the Electricity Commission of New South Wales, which would buy the generated electricity from the power station on a take or pay basis at a price which would guarantee the principals a 13.5 per cent return on capital after tax. That was estimated to be about 25 per cent before tax. The result of this arrangement would have been that the consortium would be entitled to the 18 per cent investment allowance available for new investment as well as normal depreciation allowances. New South Wales was placed in this position during the period of office of the former Government-from 1975-76 to 1981-82-as a result of the cutback in the provision of capital funds to the States. Capital funds were down in real terms in 1981-82 compared with 1975-76 by over $1,000m. This happened in one year alone. That shows the type of treatment which was handed out to the State governments by the Fraser Government. The borrowing arrangements for larger State authorities were down in real terms by $166m between 1975-76 and 1981-82. A special infrastructure borrowing program was encouraged, initiated and sponsored by the previous Prime Minister and his Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong, Mr Howard. The special infrastructure borrowing program for the larger State authorities was adopted, as a result of those initiatives, at the Loan Council meeting in June 1978. That program was designed to provide special additions to semi-government programs and the States were to seek separate approvals for specific projects. The Eraring power station in New South Wales was one of the projects listed by the New South Wales Government. It was estimated, as I said, that the cost of the project would be $1,600m. The Fraser Government encouraged the States to undertake this infrastructure borrowing program. This is what happened when New South Wales responded to that request and co-operated with the Fraser Government : In 1978-79, $55m of the $1,600m was borrowed for the project. In 1979-80, $81m was borrowed for the project. In 1980-81, $110m was borrowed. So by mid-1981 only $246m of the $1,600m had been provided under the program initiated by the Fraser Government. With the Federal elections looming in late 1980, the then Prime Minister wrote to each of the State Premiers in November 1979 urging them to accelerate their electricity supply capital works programs-in other words, their coal-based power stations. New South Wales responded to the appeal by continuing the Eraring project and by borrowing for the Bayswater power station, which became essential components of the Wran Government's plans for the growth and development of New South Wales. New South Wales acted on the invitation of the then Prime Minister and on the implicit assumption that infrastructure borrowing would be available. With the 1980 election safely out of the way, the Fraser Government-Prime Minister Fraser and Treasurer Howard in particular-pulled the rug from underneath the feet of all the States involved in the program, particularly New South Wales. At the Loan Council meeting on 4 May 1981 former Prime Minister Fraser asked the States to review their infrastructure programs to see whether they could be cancelled, deferred or, specifically, developed by private enterprise. That was precisely the measure which was adopted by New South Wales to encourage private enterprise to come in on the financing side of the Eraring power station. As soon as it became known to former Treasurer Howard a few days prior to 18 December he made the announcement which pulled the rug out from under the feet of New South Wales. As a result of these developments, approval was given for only 77 per cent of what the States had sought for the infrastructure program which was highlighted by Mr Fraser. South Australian approvals were increased by 298.6 per cent, Western Australian by 247.3 per cent, Tasmanian by 54.5 per cent , Queensland by 31.3 per cent, Victorian by 14 per cent and New South Wales by a miserable 1.9 per cent. New South Wales approvals were increased by 1.9 per cent compared with South Australian approvals which were increased by 298.6 per cent. Of course at that time, South Australia was under a conservative government. It was an act of betrayal and sabotage by a conservative national government directed specifically at one State government, the New South Wales State Government, which was the State Government most successful in achieving State development. All the evidence is there. I am glad I have had the opportunity to commit at least that much to the record. The request by former Prime Minister Fraser in May was confirmed by former Treasurer Howard in his address to the Premiers Conference and Loan Council meeting on 19 June 1981. Former Treasurer Howard said: . . . though some public sector infrastructure is required to complement private development, more could be provided by the private sector itself. While this would involve much the same call on resources (though some greater efficiencies might be expected in greater private provision), it would also provide an important market test of the priority to be attached to different infrastructure projects. In connection with power stations, the private power station makes no sense in that sort of large integrated system which exists in New South Wales. So the Eraring arrangement allowed the private sector to become involved in a manner which was appropriate to the generation of power and the distribution of power through a State-wide grid on a State-wide basis. Despite this miserable and shabby treatment, New South Wales again responded in a spirit of co-operation with the objectives sought by former Prime Minister Fraser when he requested that various alternatives be examined for infrastructure projects. I repeat that one of those alternatives was that private enterprise develop the projects. In his Budget Speech of 26 August, the New South Wales Premier and then Treasurer, Mr Wran, referred to the fact that he would be specifically inviting private sector participation in those developments within New South Wales. He made it public; there was no attempt to hide it or camouflage it. He was responding in a co-operative spirit with an appeal made not only by the former Prime Minister, but also by his Treasurer. It was not made off the cuff in the confines of the Loans Council and the Premiers Conference. Not only were these negotiations publicly announced in New South Wales. In October and November 1981 talks were held and correspondence was exchanged with the Australian Taxation Office by the accountants, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co., who were involved in organising the project's finance to ensure that the principles embodied in the arrangement complied with taxation law. The reply that the accountants got from the Taxation Office stated that they did comply, that they were within the provisions of the taxation requirements. In the light of that, they chose to proceed. As a result of that they proceeded to give effect to those arrangements. The legislation, the Eraring Power Station Act 1981, was assented to on 14 December 1981. In conclusion, after all of that co-operative response from the New South Wales Government and its attempt to put into place significant and important power development projects in New South Wales to encourage the development of that State in a period when the Australian national economy was declining because of the stupid and ridiculous policies being pursued by our opponents, on the night of 18 December, four days later, the New South Wales Government and the New South Wales people were finally king hit and finally betrayed by the action of the former Treasurer when he refused those arrangements for Eraring to proceed. I am most concerned about some other implications of this legislation and I may have the opportunity to pursue those at the Committee stage. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(5.36) —In speaking to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1983, I wish to concentrate my remarks on the employees superannuation funds amendment, section 23F, as far as it affects small business in Australia today. There is absolutely no need for this amendment to section 23F. The Government has not given us any reason for the amendment other than to say that it is in accord with the Government's announced policy in relation to blatant tax avoidance practices. We have heard no evidence from the Treasurer ( Mr Keating) as to what those practices are. The net result of the amendment for which there is absolutely no need will be a disincentive for employers to establish superannuation funds for employees. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) dealt with the effects of that in his speech. There is no reason at all for this legislation. The Government's amendments to section 23F show its complete lack of understanding of how small business operates in Australia and how small business works. It shows a lack of understanding by the Government of the financial needs of small business, the family firm and the independent operator and of how the financial system in Australia discriminates against small business. Combined with the Government's lump sum superannuation tax proposals, it really shows that the Government does not understand how small business operates. It does not understand that this amendment will tax people's assets and savings. It will tax the assets and savings of small business employees and it will tax the assets and savings of small business employers. Business in Australia today is starved of capital, and small business particularly so. It is short of funds for investment. It is out of investment that we get growth and it is out of growth that we get profit for further investment. We are short of capital in Australia and we are short of investment. What is the Government doing? It is again taxing individual savings and assets through the amendment to section 23F which provides for the taxing of superannuation schemes. Section 23F schemes benefit employer and employee alike. Obviously there has been some abuse. The Government has not articulated that to us. But here it is throwing out the baby with the bath water. The Government is imposing a retrospective tax burden on business. Rather than impose this new tax on small business employers and employees, I ask the Government and the Treasurer: Why does not the Government fulfil its tax promises made to small businesses at the last election? It promised to allow the full retention of profits for small companies. It promised to extend the time for payment of sales tax and it promised to change the provision for the payment of provisional tax. The Government has not implemented any of those measures. Instead it has hit small businesses. The amendments to section 23F are an attack on small business employers and employees alike and are a new and added tax impost. The Income Tax Assessment Act confers an exemption from tax upon a range of superannuation funds established for the purpose of providing superannuation benefits for employees. These are section 23F funds. They allow employers to take advantage of the very significant tax benefits available in respect of contributions to the fund. Employer contributions are fully tax deductible while employee contributions may be treated as rebatable. Where the fund complies with the 30-20 public securities investment rule the investment income of the fund is exempt from tax. The proposed amendments are retrospective. My position on retrospectivity is consistent. I am against retrospective laws of this type that make something illegal yesterday which was, at the time, legal. They are anathema to me. They offend the principle of the rule of law. My voting record in this chamber has been consistent. I voted against the Fraser Government's retrospective legislation as I voted against this Government's retrospective legislation. Now we have more retrospective taxation being introduced into this House, something that I warned about on an earlier occasion. There is no justification for this legislation being back-dated to July 1977. Mr Robert Brown —Of course there is. Mr SHIPTON —There is no reason at all. If the honourable member would just listen to me, he would find out. The retrospective action will not assist any employees who have been harmed by such avoidance practices. If there are avoidance practices, let us hit those practices prospectively, from this day forward, but let us not go back in time and back-date laws. Genuine employers are classified with avoiders. The Government has hit everybody. As I said before, it has thrown out the baby with the bath water. Genuine business people operating within the law at the time may have utilised superannuation funds on a loan back arrangement to purchase machinery or equipment needed to maintain production levels in order to meet sales to employ people during times of economic downturn, or to meet liquidity crises they may face during the downturn in the Australian economy. The Government is hitting those businesses, those employers and employees, and at the end of the day there will be a disincentive for employers to employ people. The proposed legislation will seek to recover a tax that was not legally payable and the payment of which has not been illegally evaded. That must be understood. Obviously, as a result of this legislation some companies will be placed in liquidation and jobs and investment will be lost. Let us look at the operation of the existing section 23F. It had become common practice for small companies to establish a section 23F superannuation fund so that tax concessions could be gained from the contributions. Those funds were then lent back to the company at favourable interest rates. Because of the extensive use of section 23F funds for tax minimisation, the Commissioner of Taxation set down last year some strict guidelines to ensure that the funds held real assets for the benefit of all their members. I do not think there was any need for this legislation. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) made it quite clear earlier in the debate that in March 1983, when he was Treasurer of this country, the Commissioner of Taxation wrote to him and stated: . . . the evidence available to this office suggest that the introduction on 27 May 1981 of part IVA with effect from that day effectively put a stop to the promotion of new tax avoidance schemes of a blatant, artificial or contrived nature. So there we had the Commissioner saying that there was no need for any of this type of legislation. Additionally, under the discretion in existing section 23F, the Commissioner has existing guidelines to determine how he will exercise his discretion. There is complete uncertainty in this area. These tax guidelines were introduced a little hastily and businesses were not given enough time to comply with them. The Commissioner needs to realise that honest business men and women have entered into these arrangements, that businesses have not been given enough time to comply, and that they can be placed in embarrassing positions. They may not be able to borrow or make other arrangements in time to pay the tax. The Commissioner of Taxation, in the administration of the existing Act, needs to understand how business works and the problems facing business. One of the major problems facing the small business sector in Australia is the lack of finance. Because small business has not had adequate finance, because it has had to rely on bank overdrafts, other methods of financing investment and growth and working capital have had to be found. Section 23F is a legitimate way by which businesses have evolved, for the benefit of employer and employee alike, a way to finance the operation of business in Australia. That needs to be understood. This problem arose because of a cash crisis, a crisis of capital in the economy , for the small business sector. Through the Taxation Commissioner on the one hand in the administration of the discretions, and through this new retrospective tax legislation on the other, the Government is hitting business hard and cutting off the option for small businesses to use those superannuation funds in a legitimate way. I am not talking about tax rorts or tax rip-offs; that needs to be understood clearly. I do not think that the Minister at the table, the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen), understands that at all. He ought to know that, under the existing section 23F, the Taxation Commissioner has issued a ruling, No. 294 of 1982, which provides for audit certificates. If one reads that section of the Act in conjunction with the Commissioner's ruling, one finds that there is absolutely no need for this legislation and that an auditor's report is sufficient. The legislation is not necessary. The Commissioner in his administration of the Act needs to consider the problems of small business. He must understand that responsible people would invest assets of superannuation schemes in sound and commercially realistic investments. The Commissioner and the Government must understand that a properly balanced investment portfolio must take into account a breadth of investment opportunities. The Commissioner must be careful about interfering in the management of superannuation funds. His job must be to assess businesses for tax purposes, not to oversee businesses' methods of operating or tell them how to operate. It is important that the Government and the Commissioner understand that we cannot have two sets of rules in this country, one for large superannuation funds and one for small superannuation funds. We ought to remember that trustees of superannuation funds have obligations placed on them by trustee legislation. That tends to be forgotten. I am totally opposed to the retrospective effect of this legislation. It seems to be the norm for this Government to introduce such legislation into this House . I point out that the Commissioner has had the power to act against offenders since 1977 and that therefore this legislation is unnecessary. It will add to the complications of the existing regulations, which are already inches thick. The legislation creates uncertainty for small businesses as the mechanics are not spelt out. Business men and women are operating in a fearful environment; they do not know with any certainty what their tax position is. Employer and employee alike are left up in the air. The Government, with these amendments, is imposing a new retrospective capital tax on the assets and savings of employers and employees. Accordingly, I will be supporting the Opposition's amendments in the Committee stage to section 23F of the Act. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(5.49) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 5, page 3, line 36, omit '1 July 1977', substitute '7 December 1983' . (2) Clause 5, page 4, line 28, omit '1 July 1977', substitute '7 December 1983' . (3) Clause 5, page 5, line 2, omit '1 July 1977', substitute '7 December 1983'. These amendments purport to do one thing and one thing alone-that is, to provide that the commencement date in relation to that part of Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) which concerns small business superannuation arrangements be altered from 1 July 1977 to 7 December 1983. The effect of that would be to make the amendment proposed in the legislation entirely prospective in its operation. The Committee will recall that during my address at the second reading stage I made, I think, a very compelling case as to why there was absolutely no justification for this even if one believes-as the Government does -in the regular use of selective, retrospective legislation in blatant tax avoidance cases. Even if one believes that, which the Government does, this practice does not fall within that definition. Mr Robert Brown —It does. Mr HOWARD —The honourable member says that it does. The Commissioner of Taxation , Mr O'Reilly, said to me in February 1980, when I asked him about it: 'Don't do anything about it for the time being'. So the practice was so blatant, contrived , artificial and had such a tremendous effect on revenue that a man respected on both sides of the House as a taxation commissioner of absolute integrity and a man who owed his status to nobody was prepared to say to me: 'Look, there is a problem, but there is not a lot of revenue involved in it. I am frightened that if you do something about it without awaiting the report of the task force which is looking into occupational superannuation you may interfere with some boda fide arrangement'. That is hardly the language that somebody who believes this practice to be blatant, artificial and contrived would be likely to use. As the Committee knows, in 1982 I tabled a large number of documents on taxation matters sent to me by the Commissioner of Taxation, which I decided ought to be tabled in the public interest. The Commissioner of Taxation is not a person who minces his words when he wants to get a point across. He can be very effective and very cogent, no matter to whom he is addressing his correspondence . I have no doubt that my successor has been at the receiving end of a few salty memoranda from the Commissioner. Mr Robert Brown —When did he give that advice? Mr HOWARD —He gave that advice in February 1980. Yet the Government is taking the legislation back to 1 July 1977. As late as February 1980 the Commissioner was saying in effect: 'You might want to do something about it, but I advise you to hasten slowly'. That was as late as February 1980. Yet the Government is taking the darned thing back to 1 July 1977. As I also said in my speech at the second reading stage, the Commissioner of Taxation, at my request, addressed a lengthy memorandum to me, which I received only two days before the change of government, in which he canvassed the whole situation, as he saw it, on tax avoidance matters. That memorandum was a document of the former Government. I have no problem if the present Treasurer ( Mr Keating) wants to see that document or to make it public. It will aid public understanding of debate on these matters if he does make the document public. It is a very comprehensive document. The Commissioner said, inter alia, two things that are relevant to this debate. He said: 'Firstly, as a result of your new Part IVA all the blatant artificial and contrived schemes are a thing of the past'. If they are a thing of the past what earthly justification is there, in the name of proscribing blatant artificial avoidance schemes, for bringing in this legislation and making it run from 1 July 1977? I think also in that memorandum, although it could have been in another one, the Commissioner reminded me that he had in the course of preparation a cabinet submission dealing with this issue. If there had not been a change of government that document would have come to me. No doubt it went to the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) who assumed responsibility initially for the Australian Taxation Office . What I am seriously putting to the Committee is that even if it adopts the Government's own rules on retrospectivity, which are different from ours-putting aside the main argument on the issue which in a sense in this debate is irrelevant-the Committee will find that the Government has got it wrong, because the rules do not really fall within its own definition. I think that the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) was constructing the argument that the Government believes that this is a blatant, artificial and contrived scheme. No doubt some people in the Government believe that. Some people in the Government believe that anything that involves any kind of arrangement that lessens the incidence of tax is a blatant, artificial and contrived tax avoidance scheme. Of course, that was once the view of the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). I can remember having a debate with him six or seven years ago about this. He said that anything that results in one paying anything other than the maximum amount of tax that the Commissioner can get out of one was a tax avoidance arrangement. I think that he has moderated his views a little since. I am very pleased to note that. I am sure that the present Treasurer knows that many arrangements involve attracting a lesser liability for tax than might otherwise be the case which cannot fairly be described as blatant artificial tax avoidance arrangements. I say to the Committee in all seriousness that even if one were to adopt the Government's rules-we do not, but for the purpose of this argument let us assume the Government's own rules on the question of using retrospective legislation- one would realise that on this occasion it is going beyond that. That is why the Opposition feels very strongly about the matter. I quote as my evidence not my own subjective judgment. I refer to the views of the Commissioner of Taxation who has not been noted for going soft on blatant, artificial tax avoidance arrangements. As I said earlier, he is not reluctant to give any Treasurer of the day the sharp end of his views on what ought to be done so far as amendments to the Taxation Act are concerned. I am very disappointed that the Government has gone a bit further. I wonder whether the Treasurer has got his heart in this piece of legislation. I wonder whether he does not think: 'Maybe Howard has a point for once'. Even at this late stage he ought to give it some consideration. It is never too late in these matters to reconsider. I know it is a forte of the present Government that if a Minister makes a mistake he should admit it. I understand that it is a virtue that is claimed by the present Government. It has been claimed in respect of a fairly major matter recently that if a Minister has got something wrong then he ought to be man enough to admit it. I think that the Government has got this one wrong. It may not be an enormous thing in the broad sweep of legislation, but I think, having laid down some rules in a very controversial area-rules which of course we do not accept, but let us do so for the purposes of this discussion- the Government is going quite outside those rules. It has not produced any evidence that the judgment given to me twice when I was the Treasurer by the then and now Commissioner of Taxation to the effect that this was not something that could be described as a blatant artificial and contrived tax avoidance arrangement was wrong. I have not yet heard any evidence from the Government side disputing that proposition. I did not hear all of the speech made by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown). I know that he contributes a great deal to these taxation debates . Normally I try to hear him in detail because I respect very much his contributions, but save for the possibility that he explained it all-I think he is indicating by his reaction that he did not-the Government has not really described precisely why it should be breaking its own rules in this matter. I would be very interested to hear from the Treasurer as to why it is doing so. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(5.58) —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) raised the point that the Commissioner of Taxation wrote to him in 1980. I am sure that is true. I appreciate the fact that he has agreed to allow that document to be made available to me and to the present Government. I think that two points are important in considering the Commissioner's view at that time. The first is that I do not think the Australian Taxation Office was as cognisant then as it is now, firstly the extent of these schemes and, secondly, the blatant way in which they were used as tax avoidance measures. The fact that the Commissioner wrote to the former Treasurer at that time about the agenda, if you like, concerning changes to the law in respect of tax avoidance and evasion, quite obviously in terms of revenue indicates that the matter was of lesser significance than other matters which were on the former Treasurer's plate in respect of bottom of the harbour type schemes and the more expensive and more blatant schemes which were around at that time. I think Part IVA had application from about 27 May 1981 onwards and it applies only in relation to a scheme after 27 May 1981. Many of the impugned practices were entered into well before that date. Some may even have been brought to a conclusion and benefits distributed before that date. Furthermore, any scheme containing the elements which attract the operation of Part IVA would also be a candidate for the disallowance of deductions for any excess contributions and the tax exemption for investment income under the specific provisions of the law . Part IVA would then not be able to be, or indeed need to be, invoked. Therefore the Government, upon advice from the Commissioner of Taxation, has sought to try to remedy a position which was in fact far more blatant and significant than perhaps the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the then Treasurer , or indeed the Commissioner, believed it was in 1980. The Government's policy on retrospectivity was outlined in a statement on 28 April 1983 by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) who said: . . . retrospective legislation will be employed to ensure that tax avoided under blatant tax avoidance schemes will be collected irrespective of when the scheme was entered into. Such legislation was to have operated from the date of first known use of a particular scheme. Not only are the schemes blatant tax avoidance schemes but they also contain elements of fraud against unsuspecting employees. If any person has the slightest doubt about that I refer to remarks by Mr Justice Wootten of the New South Wales Supreme Court in the case of Kelly versus Raymor, which is a particularly distasteful example of this practice. In that case several employees of long standing who were about to become entitled to substantial superannuation benefits were dismissed or encouraged to retire only a matter of weeks before those substantial benefits would have become legally payable to them. In his judgment Mr Justice Wootten said: Despite the disagreements of the two brothers, they shared one consuming passion, a desire to pay as little tax as possible. It is apparent that the problem of avoiding taxation occupied many of their waking hours, and dictated many of their actions. I think we are dealing with a quite blatant tax avoidance practice here. He went on to say: In 1973 their search for new forms of tax avoidance led them to consider the possibilities of a superannuation scheme for employees of the group. It is apparent from what followed that the establishment of the superannuation scheme was not motivated in the least by any desire to benefit their employees, but to obtain taxation benefits for their companies . . . the real purpose of the scheme was to enable a very large part of the profit of the group to be channelled into a superannuation fund, thereby avoiding the payment of tax on the sums so channelled. But what of the ordinary employees of the group for whose benefit the scheme was supposedly set up and whose credits in the fund were the basis of the companies' enormous taxation savings? He went on to say: What benefits did they get? The answer is that for practical purposes they got none and were never intended to get any. So here we have a very strong remark from Mr Justice Wootten. He went on to say of the case: In 1980 there were three employees who were within a month of reaching retiring age. What happened to each of them is instructive. For example, Mrs Lowndes was due to reach retiring age on 15 July 1980. At the end of June her employment was terminated on a Friday on the pretext that staff had to be kept down, and that as a married woman she was the obvious person to go. Nevertheless she was re- employed as a casual on the following Monday and was still working when the case came on for hearing before me. By this simple manoeuvre she was deprived of $53, 639 which, unknown to her, had been credited to her account in the superannuation fund in pursuit of the group's taxation advantages. Mr Chairman, I think the Opposition is asking the Government to accept that people who perpetrate that sort of fraud-and it is substantial fraud-against employees should be able to keep their ill-gotten tax benefits. I just do not think that is reasonable. Mr Howard —I do not disagree. Mr KEATING —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says he does not disagree with that, and I recognise that comment. I do not think it is reasonable that we should, and therefore I think the retrospectivity does stand up notwithstanding the fact that almost certainly now the Commissioner of Taxation is more agitated about this than perhaps he was in 1980. Mr Howard —Would you make his views available to me? Mr KEATING —Let me think about that for a moment. I will have a look over it. Mr Howard —Seeing I am making mine available to you, you might like to reciprocate. Mr KEATING —I will think about that. Let me quote again from the judgment of Mr Justice Wootten. He said: There can be no doubt that the Raymor superannuation fund was of this extreme tax avoidance category. It was apparent that in the litigation, as in the establishment and separation of the fund, the employees of the Raymor group had been treated as pawns to be manipulated for the benefit of the controllers of the corporate empire . . . although there is nothing I can do about the termination of the proceedings, I do not think I am obliged to be indifferent to the brazen cheating of employees disclosed in the case, to the considerable public cost of a hypocritical proceeding, or to the losses to the revenue resulting from the manipulation which has been revealed in this case. I express no opinion as to whether the relevant authorities would be able to take any action in respect of the matters concerned, but I do think that they should be informed, even if only for future reference. A clear fraud was perpetrated on those unsuspecting employees and, of course, on the revenue of the Commonwealth. That is the reason why this Government believes that retrospective legislation is fully justified in this case. I have no reason to doubt the former Treasurer's statement that he took no action in 1980 on the basis of advice from the Commissioner that there was at the time more urgent tax avoidance legislation around. The limited resources provided by his Government to the Commissioner obviously had to be devoted to the highest priority areas. The legislation which I have brought forward has been made retrospective because of the information made available to me by the Commissioner. The case to which I have just referred was decided late in 1982. Information from the Australian Federal Police and other information available to the Commissioner in 1983 revealed the extent of the malpractices which this legislation addresses. The choice of 1977 for the commencement is based essentially on advice that these schemes became more prevalent from that time. The precise date is necessarily somewhat arbitrary but there can be no doubt that it is reasonable and justified. There are blatant tax avoidance schemes, the full seriousness of which came to the notice of the Government last year. In the full light of the facts, I certainly hope the former Treasurer will not continue to defend those gaining tax benefits from these schemes. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(6.08) —The Treasurer (Mr Keating) concluded his remarks by talking about the full light of the facts. This argument between us seems to devolve upon whether this proposal really falls within the definition that the Government has laid down. Given the nature of the advice that I received, and which he has not disputed, I wonder whether, as I interjected, the honourable gentleman might be willing to make available to me, as I have indicated a willingness to make available to him, the advice he has received from the Commissioner of Taxation. I understood him to say that his advice is at variance to the advice that the Commissioner provided to me, in the manner that I have quoted, in the beginning of 1980. I think it is a matter of some substance because we are dealing with a fairly dangerous animal when we are talking about using retrospective legislation in any circumstances. It is not just a question of brushing it aside like that. The fact is that the Commissioner gave me bona fide advice that nobody has disputed to the effect that this thing did not fall within the Government's own definition. The Treasurer is now saying that that is wrong; that the Commissioner has changed his mind. I would be interested to have a look at it. I do not withdraw the offer I made to the Treasurer. I said that he could look at the advice given to me and I do not intend, whatever his response, to withdraw that offer. But I think it would do him no loss of credit if he were willing to do the same thing for me. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(6.09) —I do not think there is necessarily an inconsistency in the position which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) put by saying that the Commissioner of Taxation at that time believed there were other tax priorities around. He has also said that he is prepared to issue his advising from the Commissioner and asks that I do the same. The only problem I see with that-I would like to shed more light on it for all concerned- is that for the Government, in considering advice, it becomes a very difficult precedent if it is obliged to trade advisings or to offer official advice in support of legislation. That is not a principle that I feel I can establish in the Parliament at this time. At no time in the period when the honourable member for Bennelong was Treasurer did he ever offer advisings to the former Opposition . Mr Howard —Yes, I did. I made 500 pages public. You got it. Mr KEATING —Yes, I did. Of course, that was after the then Treasurer had failed to act on it for four years. Mr Howard —Nonsense. It was my decision. I was under no pressure to act on it. Mr KEATING —I understand that. But, given the fact that the Commissioner of Taxation finally blew the whistle on the Fraser Government, blaming it, to be very fair to the former Treasurer I do not think he could have done otherwise. I certainly accept that he had the discretion as to whether he published a telephone book of advice on the bottom of the harbour matters. But, in the final analysis, politically I do not think he had any other course of action available to him. I leave the Government's case to rest there. The schemes are blatant. I would not want to be in the business of publishing or tabling the police file on this matter. The schemes are retrospective. The practice has been blatant. It is unfair. It has been referred to in the judgment to which I have just referred and for those reasons I cannot support the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's amendments. Nor can I join him, at this point at least, in offering advice to him that the Government has received, although I appreciate the fact that he is prepared to tender the advice that he received in 1980. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(6.12) —I support the amendments moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). The Treasurer (Mr Keating), in the Committee stage, has given us no evidence nor produced any reason for the Government introducing the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1983. He has quoted a case of fraud. No one on this side of the chamber is trying to justify fraud or illegal action under the Income Tax Assessment Act. What we are saying is that we have a view of principle against retrospective taxation. We are also saying that the Commissioner of Taxation has the power under existing provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act to put the matter right. In circumstances of the case similar to that that the Treasurer told the House about, the Commissioner has powers under the existing Act and there is no need for this type of legislation. Mr Keating —It does not go back into the past. Mr SHIPTON —It can. He can issue amended assessments, I think for six years. The Commissioner of Taxation has power to issue amended assessments. We have received no evidence from the Treasurer, either in his second reading speech or in his comments a few minutes ago in the Committee stage, as to the reasons for introducing this legislation. He read out one case. He did not quantify the amount alleged to have been lost to the revenue. We had no quantitative figures and, when asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to make the Taxation Commissioner's advice available to him, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when Treasurer offered to make and in fact did make available to the present Treasurer, he refused to accept that offer. That shows that there is no case to answer and that the Treasurer is frightened to make this information available. It is information that would be of benefit to the taxpayers of Australia, employers and employees because it would provide us with facts and figures if they exist. I believe that the Treasurer has an obligation to give information to taxpayers , to give information to the people of Australia, as to why the Government is introducing retrospective tax legislation of a heinous nature such as this which attacks people's savings and people's assets. I ask the Treasurer to reconsider and make this advice available. It clearly shows to me and to the Opposition that there is no evidence and there is no reason for the Treasurer introducing this legislation. The Treasurer is frightened to make the information available. I ask the Government to reconsider and to accept the amendments of the Opposition. The Government fails to understand how business operates and how small business functions. The net result of this legislation will be a winding up of superannuation funds. We will see some businesses wound up and sold and jobs lost, which is all the more reason for the Treasurer to reveal to us the basis of his advice on this legislation. Additionally, in the future, there will be no incentive for employers, for small businesses, to provide superannuation for employees. I am sure the Government does not want to see that happen but that will be the net effect. Perhaps it does want to force everybody into the hands of big brother government . The Government has not thought this legislation through and I ask it to accept the amendments moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I again appeal to the Treasurer to make his opinion available. There is a need for the Government, the advisers sitting behind the Treasurer and the Taxation Commissioner and his officers to understand clearly the nature of small business, the problems that small business faces, how small business operates and the problems that businessmen face. I conclude by giving an example in relation to the administration of section 23F of the Act. In recent days I was speaking to a businessman. He was talking about the guidelines under section 23F at present and was engaged in discussions with the Commissioner about the valuation of an asset held in a superannuation fund. The employer said that the value of the asset had depreciated. There was an argument about the valuation. The Commissioner would not accept the argument. The net result is that the employer is going to sell that asset at a loss. One can imagine similar examples of small businesses being affected as a result of this legislation and as a result perhaps of a lack of understanding in interpretation of how small business operates-in interpreting and working with this legislation. In fact, small businesses will go to the wall. I appeal to the Government in terms of my comments during this debate. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(6.18) -I shall clarify this point because I am not sure that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) or the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) understand the situation. What the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) said in the early days of this Government was that, if schemes were blatant and contrived, we would move upon them retrospectively. What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Higgins are suggesting is that, as a result of the advisings that the then Treasurer received in 1980 from the Commissioner of Taxation, these schemes were neither blatant nor contrived and that therefore we have no basis under our own definition for moving against them retrospectively. I quoted from Mr Justice Wootten's remarks to indicate that they are blatant and contrived. In what is quite extravagant language, couched conservatively nevertheless by Mr Justice Wootten, he was obviously at great pains to indicate his objection to the way in which these people operated these schemes. The schemes may not have had the revenue consequences that the bottom of the harbour schemes had. Certainly, in terms of Australian Taxation Office priority, they obviously were not part of the priority of tax avoidance or evasion reform at that time. But nevertheless they were contrived and they were blatant and, therefore, they fit the definition. Mr Howard —Not according to the Commissioner. Mr KEATING —The Commissioner certainly says that to me. Mr Howard —He has changed his mind. Mr KEATING —No, I do not think he has. His priorities have changed as so much of the tax avoidance legislation has been dealt with including, to give him credit, that dealt with by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he was Treasurer. But those things are now off the agenda and the Commissioner is getting back to things on the agenda. This matter is on the agenda. Also, since 1980, the Australian Taxation Office has been appraised of the fact that tax avoidance was much more extensive and perhaps more blatantly contrived than it ever believed. The final point the honourable member raised was about the existing law. The Commissioner has advised me that resort to the general provisions of the income tax law would not produce an effective solution in the cases to which the proposed legislation is directed. Thus, if a scheme is wound up there is no possible way under the existing law of dealing with it without the legislation proposed by the Government. Thus we are not in the slightest way altering our position as enunciated by the Minister for Finance in the early days of the Government's period of office. If the schemes are blatant and contrived we will move against them. The scheme which has been referred to is blatant and contrived. I have referred to that particular judgment. There are others, as police reports indicate. We cannot use the existing law, as we are bound to do. I do not think that the Liberal Party or the National Party could argue that anybody in these schemes is entitled to stick to the money. Obviously, such people should give back the money. One of the bodies to which they ought return it is the Commonwealth Government. That is why the Government has moved to introduce the legislation. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(6.21) —I will be brief. A serious matter has arisen in this debate about advice given by the Commissioner of Taxation to the former Government and to this Government. It is a very serious matter because, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said, the Taxation Commissioner wrote to him in March 1983 in the following terms: The evidence available to this Office suggests that the introduction on 27 May 1981 of Part IVA with effect from that day effectively put a stop to the promotion of new tax avoidance schemes of a blatant, artificial or contrived nature. The Commissioner has apparently given changed advice to the present Government. It is a shame that this advice has not been shown to the House today because there are two interpretations. Mr Keating —I will read out the advice. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The Treasurer might await the call. Mr SHIPTON —I thank the Treasurer and I await with interest what he will read. It is really a very serious matter for taxpayers because one government is given advice by the Commissioner and the next government is apparently given different advice. The business community wants to operate under the income tax laws with certainty. It is a most serious matter for small, medium and large businesses, indeed for the total business community, to operate legitimately and with certainty and not have a Commissioner's interpretations or views on the income tax laws changed. I await with great interest to hear what the Treasurer will read. If he has different advice he should nevertheless not introduce this legislation. He should accept the Opposition's amendment because the taxpayer ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. The taxpayer should be given a fair go. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(6.23) —The advice I received from the Commissioner of Taxation reads: Each year the Commissioner of Taxation is called upon to make a decision as to whether income tax deductions should be allowed to an employer for his contribution to a superannuation fund and whether the fund as it was conducted during the year is entitled to exemption from income tax. Where a fund has met the criteria set down in the law in respect of a number of years of income, there is considerable doubt that, on the basis of some subsequent activity by which the fund does not meet those criteria, the fund should be treated as not having met the criteria in earlier years. If, of course , it were established that the fund had not been conducted in accordance with the law in earlier years then, provided the fund is still in existence-- that is the point I made earlier- which often it is not-retrospective denial of exemption might be possible. A concomitant of withdrawal of the section 23F status retrospectively would be the retrospective disallowance of rebates allowed for contributions made to the fund by any innocent employees. Nor would resort to the provisions of the income tax law relating to the assessment of income derived by trusts be wholly effective. Contributions to a superannuation fund would not represent income of the fund-in trust law parlance they would be the capital of the trust. The trust provisions in the income tax law would not operate to tax distributions made from contributions to the fund- they only operate to tax distributions of income from a trust. The suggestion that Part IVA would apply has severe limitations. Part IVA applies only in relation to a scheme entered into after 27 May 1981. Many of the impugned practices commenced well before that date-some may even have been brought to a conclusion and benefits distributed before that date. Furthermore, any scheme containing the elements which attract the operation of Part IVA would also be a candidate for the disallowance of deductions for any excess contributions and the tax exemption for investment income unde the specific provisions of the law. Part IVA would then not be able to be, or indeed need to be, invoked. The Government's proposals seek to tax the total distribution improperly made from a superannuation fund. In so doing they will have the effect of taxing not only the income of the fund, but cancelling out income tax deductions which may have been allowed, incorrectly as it turns out, for contributions by the employer to the superannuation fund. I read that advice into Hansard so that we can be quite clear on this point. As far as the Taxation Commissioner is concerned, that is the Taxation Office's point of objection. I do not think that the advice would differ from the advice offered to the former Treasurer. As I have said, the priorities have changed. The schemes are blatant tax avoidance schemes and the people who propose them should not be entitled to stick to the money. Therefore, the Government's principle about taxing them retrospectively stands as it did when announced by the Minister for Finance last March. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. Hodgman, W. M.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Braithwaite, R. A. Katter, R. C.Burr, M. A. Lloyd, B.Cadman, A. G. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Donald McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ian MacKellar, M. J. R.Carlton, J. J. McVeigh, D. T.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Newman, K. E.Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. 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. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Everingham, D. N. Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Fry, K. L. Snow, J. H.Gayler, J. Staples, P. R.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Gorman, R. N. J. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. 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.Hurford, C. J. Aldred, K. J. Jacobi, R. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Keating)-by leave-read a third time. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(6.38) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill before the House will substantially amend the Shipping Registration Act 1981. The Bill, though important to Australia's maritime industry, is certainly not a controversial one. I hope that it will receive the bipartisan approval of members generally, as was the case with the Shipping Registration Act 1981, which the present Government supported when in opposition. It is appropriate to refer briefly to the reasons for amending an Act which has been in operation for only a little over two years. Honourable members will recall that the Act enabled Australia to determine conditions for the grant of nationality to ships and replaced the shipping registration provisions of a British statute, the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. Until Australia Day 1982, the registration of this country's ships was subject to British legislation enacted towards the end of Queen Victoria's reign. The Act of 1894 was itself derived from a statute of forty years earlier. The task of enacting a new legislative framework was a formidable one and it was only to be expected that operational experience would demonstrate where improvements can be made. Practical experience gained over the last two years has shown that the administration of the Act can be improved in several respects . The Government is concerned to ensure that the Shipping Registration Office's practices are kept as flexible and as responsible as possible to the commercial obligations of the Australian maritime industry. The proposals to be implemented by this Bill have been referred to the States and the Northern Territory through the Marine and Ports Council of Australia. No objections were raised. Let me now refer to the principal provisions of this Bill. An important change will be the removal of the need to register, and have measured for tonnage, ships of less than 24 metres in length. The Act at present exempts 'small craft' which is defined to mean ships less than 12 metres in length. This stipulated length can lead to problems because of anomalies which arise in relation to individual ships. For example, the owner of a 15 metre harbourbound tug is now obliged to incur the expense of tonnage measurement and registration, while an 11 metre trading vessel, which plies on the high seas, is exempt from these charges. This expansion of exemptions accords with the International Maritime Organisation's International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969, to which Australia is a party. The Convention does not apply to ships less than 24 metres in length. The elimination of the expenses associated with the compulsory registration and tonnage measurement will therefore benefit the owners of small commercial ships. I should make it clear that ships less than 24 metres will continue to be entitled to be registered for nationality and title purposes or to fulfil the requirements of mortgagees or other third parties with an interest in the ship. A ship outside Australia, when it becomes entitled to be registered under the Australian legislation, must at present at least obtain a provisional registration certificate from a consular officer before leaving a foreign port. A new provision in the Act will allow the Registrar to issue a provisional certificate to any ship entitled to be registered that is overseas or about to proceed overseas. Provisional certificates are of limited duration an are used mainly by owners of pleasure craft. These owners are frequently unaware of international obligations and have not made necessary preparations for registration, often a lengthy process, before an overseas voyage. A further problem identified has been to ensure that the correct markings are placed and maintained on a registered ship. These relate to such matters as its name, official number, registered tonnages and length. The amendments stipulate that a ship will not be registered until it has been marked as directed by the Registrar of Ships. A provision is added to cover the situation of a ship or a share in a ship being subject to two or more mortgages. In future, a mortgagee in possession will, before disposing of the ship, have to notify the Registrar of his intention. The Registrar will be required to give immediate notice to successive mortgagees. Another new provision relating to mortgages will enable discharge where the original mortgage instrument cannot be produced. The Bill will introduce a caveat system into ship registration. These caveats will be similar to those incorporated in State and Territory land title laws. Any person claiming an unregistered interest in a ship or share thereof may lodge a caveat with the Registrar of Ships. The Registrar will notify the owner or owners of the lodgement and, unless otherwise ordered by a court, the caveat will be deemed to have lapsed 14 days after the caveator has been notified of a proposed dealing with the ship. A provision is included to enable a person who has wrongly sustained damage because of a caveat to institute legal proceedings for the recovery of damages from the person who lodged the caveat. Another amendment will end the present administrative problem where a ship's registered owner or agent fails to verify any matter relating to the registration of the ship. The new provision will now empower the Minister to direct the Registrar to close a ship's registration where no response is received to a notice. This will also apply where a shipowner fails to reply to a notice published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. The House will appreciate that it is desirable to close off obsolete entries in the Register. I am told that the Register, which was taken over from the British authorities, contains a reference to a ship owned by one John Batman, merchant of Melbourne. I think that we can all forgive the Registrar if he has experienced a little difficulty in contacting Mr Batman about his ship. The administrative function of issuing the notice and receiving the reply shall be carried out by the Registrar. The decision as to removal of an entry from the Register will continue to be one for the Minister. A further amendment will clarify the application of another old British Act-the Admiralty Court Act, 1861-in order to ensure that an aggrieved mortgagee is able , under that Act, to have a mortgaged ship arrested if the ship is subject to the Shipping Registration Act. Other provisions of the Bill relate to: the clarification of meaning of 'Australian national' in relation to persons and bodies corporate who wish to register a ship on long-term charter; the inclusion of a specified time limit for the lodgement of various documents required by the Act; the strengthening of the requirement for a ship to have a registered agent with an address in Australia. The other amendments to be made by this Bill relate to technical and administrative matters. These provisions are described in an explanatory memorandum which is being circulated to honourable members. I should explain that the financial implications of the proposed amendments will be minimal. The small commercial ships which this Bill will exempt from registration requirements, oil pollution levy and lighthouse dues contribute less than one per cent of the total revenue derived from these imposts. The basis of exemption from these charges will be altered from the tonnage to the length of a ship. This change may exclude some ships now liable for those payments but any loss of revenue will be largely offset by reduced administrative expenses. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lusher) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(6.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is complementary to the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 1984. It is required in consequence of an alteration to the requirement for tonnage measurement of ships. At present, the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Act 1981 applies the levy to any ship exceeding 100 register tons. The Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 1984 proposes to exempt all ships under 24 metres in length from the necessity to register. It is intended that the Shipping Registration Regulations will exempt ships under 24 metres from the necessity to be measured for tonnage if they are registered voluntarily. Because ships under 24 metres would no longer have evidence, in the form of a tonnage certificate, of their tonnage for the purposes of the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Act 1981, it is proposed to amend that Act so that it will apply only to the same ships to which the compulsory registration provisions of the Shipping Registration Act 1981 and the compulsory measurement provisions of the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 apply. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lusher) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(6.49) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wool Industry Act 1972 to broaden the borrowing powers of the Australian Wool Corporation and to widen the opportunities for investment of Wool Research Trust Fund monies. The present provisions of the Act limit the Corporation to borrowing monies from an approved bank or another lender. Under Clause 4 of the Bill the Corporation's borrowing powers are to be broadened, specifically to include power to deal in securities. The Bill also provides that the Commonwealth may provide appropriate guarantees in respect of such borrowings. Clause 5 of the Bill repeals Section 72 of the Act, which specifies the investment options open to the Wool Research Trust Fund . The effect of this amendment is to make the Fund's investment procedure subject to the Audit Act, which permits Commonwealth Trust Funds a broader range of investment options than is currently available to the Wool Research Trust Fund. Wool Industry Amendment Bill Canned and Frozen Vegetables Bill Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Bill Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill Automatic Data Processing Bill Satellite Communications Bill Satellite Communications Bill Accommodation for the ABC, Tasmania Accommodation for the ABC, Tasmania The Bill is consistent with the Government's policy to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the operations of the primary industry statutory marketing authorities. The Australian Wool Corporation operates in an increasingly difficult and competitive environment and needs to be able to take advantage of the best borrowing rates available. To date, restrictions on the Corporation's borrowing powers have effectively limited its borrowings to term loans or overdrafts from banks. These sources of finance can be considerably more expensive than other avenues and impose unnecessary costs on woolgrowers. This is especially so at present when, because of depressed market conditions, the Corporation has had to borrow significant sums to finance the reserve price scheme for wool. The provisions of the Bill give the Corporation borrowing powers comparable with those of other major statutory authorities and place it in a position where it can commercially evaluate alternative sources of finance for its operations. In summary, the amendments proposed in the Bill will allow for better management of woolgrower funds for market support operations and for wool research. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(6.51) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to impose a charge on fresh fruit and vegetables in respect of which an export permit has been granted under the Export Control ( General) Regulations. The Government's intent in imposing this charge is to recoup, in accordance with announced policy, 50 per cent of the costs associated with the export inspection of these products. The Bill sets a maximum rate of charge for fresh fruit and vegetables in respect of which an export permit has been granted of $20 plus 18c for each package involved. An operative rate of charge will be set by regulations and, it is intended, will be half this maximum rate, subject to any change that might arise out of the current review of inspection procedures. The inspection for export of fresh fruit and vegetables is conducted by the State agriculture departments on behalf of the Commonwealth, and the State departments claim from the Commonwealth for the costs involved. It is estimated that the State claims in this regard for 1983-84 will amount to $2.4m. My Department's assessment is that, on its estimations of the annual level of exports of these products, the operative rate proposed would have recouped half this amount-$1.2m-if the charge had applied for the full year 1983-84. It is the Government's intention to bring the Act and regulations setting the operative rate of charge into force simultaneously, and the target date proposed is 1 April 1984. On this timetable, collections of the charge should amount to $ 200,000 in 1983-84, bearing in mind that under the provisions of the associated collection Bill, charge payable on the April export permits will not be due for payment until towards the end of May. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(6.53) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to make provision for the collection of the charge to be imposed by the Fresh Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1984. The Bill follows the usual pattern of such collection legislation and deals with such matters as the due date for payment, recovery of unpaid charge, penalty for non-payment, offences, access to premises, review of decisions and the making of regulations to establish the collection procedures in greater detail. I commend this Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(6.54) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to impose a charge on canned or frozen fruit or vegetables in respect of which an export permit has been granted under the Export Control (General) Regulations. The Government's intent in imposing this charge is to recoup, in accordance with announced policy, 50 per cent of the costs associated with the export inspection of these products. The Bill sets a maximum rate of charge for canned or frozen fruit or vegetables of six-tenths of a cent per kilogram. An operative rate of charge will be set by regulations and, it is intended, will be half this maximum rate, that is, three- tenths of a cent per kilogram. This rate of charge is substantially lower than that indicated to industry as the likely charge level in my public announcement last December. The reason for the change is that my Department, which has the direct conduct of inspection of these products, will be moving as a matter of priority to modify current inspection practices in this field. One result of these modifications will be a considerable reduction in the inspection costs associated with the products. Departmental estimates are that the costs of the revised inspection regime would have been $519,000 if the regime had applied throughout 1983-84 and the operative rate of charge has been devised on the basis that, if the revised regime and the charge had applied throughout 1983-84, half this cost would have been recouped. It is the Government's intention to have the charge in operation from 1 April 1984. On this programming, it is expected that actual collections in 1983-84 will amount to approximately $40,000. I commend this Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(6.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to make provision for the collection of the charge to be imposed by the Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1984. The Bill follows the usual pattern of such collection legislation and deals with such matters as the due date for payment, recovery of unpaid charge, penalty for non-payment, offences, access to premises, review of decisions and the making of regulations to establish the collection procedures in greater detail. I commend this Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(6.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill and the associated Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill 1984 is to impose and collect a charge for the export inspection of honey. Government policy is to recoup 50 per cent of the cost of providing export inspection of primary produce. Legislation to impose such a charge on honey was introduced by the previous Government in March 1982. The Senate referred those Bills to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations which reported in May 1982. The Senate Committee's central recommendation was that the then current honey inspection procedures be abandoned and replaced by a system of limited random sampling and testing by the Department of Primary Industry. On the basis of the Committee's report and its recommendations the Bills were not proceeded with. In addition, the then Government undertook to reassess the question of honey export inspection as part of a broader review of export inspection activities that was then underway. As a result of this review, the export inspection of honey is to change from 1 October 1984. The new regime will be substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee in that it involves a system of limited random sampling and testing of honey prior to export. There is general industry support for continued Commonwealth export inspection of honey. I am aware, however, that some people have reservations on the level of charges that should apply. It is proposed that each honey export establishment should be given an inspection classification according to its performance in meeting export standards, and that the intensity of export inspection effort be related to the inspection classifications. Initially, it is proposed that all export establishments should be accorded normal inspection but that this would be subsequently reviewed and the intensity of inspection then related to the quality of the export product. The level of charge will then be based on the inspection effort involved. The criteria used in classifying establishments will be published in a set of honey orders under the provisions of the Export Control Act 1982. Pending the full implementation of new inspection arrangements the Government has decided to introduce a uniform charge of $4.70 per tonne with a target date of 1 April 1984. This charge is based on the estimated costs of export inspection under the new regime, which are lower than current inspection costs. When the new inspection regime is fully operational, charges are expected to vary from $2 to $12 per tonne of honey depending on the record of performance of individual packers. The Bill provides a maximum rate of $24 per tonne. The charge is to apply to all honey for which an export permit has been issued. Other recommendations contained in the Senate Committee's report have been fully considered in the overall review of export inspection. The question of the need for an export permit has been examined closely by the Department of Primary Industry and has been found to be necessary for the effective administration of the new export inspection system. The requirement for a permit is the only basis on which any form of control over exports can be established and is the means whereby the Customs Service is assured that a particular consignment complies with the regulatory requirements and may be exported. In relation to the issue of a 'Certificate in Respect of Honey', the feasibility of issuing this at the same time as the export permit and other export documentation is under examination. It is anticipated, however, that in general it will be the responsibility of the exporter to obtain analytical certificates from a National Association of Testing Authorities accredited laboratory to meet importing country requirements for detailed chemical analyses . The Department of Primary Industry will continue to inspect and register premises used for the packing and storage of export honey. Honourable members will be aware that the Industries Assistance Commission is currently undertaking an inquiry into whether assistance should be granted to the honey industry. It is proposed that a review of the Australian Honey Board be undertaken in the light of the Commission's report. Honey is one of the few commodities that until now has avoided a charge for export inspection. This Bill and the associated Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill establish the basis for a fair and equitable system for charging for export inspection and will provide a mechanism for implementing this Government's policy and the previous Government's policy of recovering 50 per cent of the cost of providing an export inspection service for honey. I commend the Bill to honourable members . Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(7.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is associated with the Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1984 just introduced. It is designed to provide for the collection of charges proposed in that Bill. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(7.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to correct certain anomalies relating to the imposition of the Apple and Pear Levy under the Apple and Pear Levy Act 1976. The apple and pear levy is imposed on the production and sale of apples and pears and provides funds for the operation of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation. Under the present provisions of the Act, apples and pears distilled to produce beverage products, such as pear brandy, are liable for levy at the processing rate rather than the considerably lower juicing rate. This is considered inappropriate as the returns paid to growers by processors for fruit used for distillation purposes are well below those paid for processing quality fruit and are more in line with the lower returns paid for juicing quality fruit . This Bill provides for fruit used for distillation purposes to be levied at the juicing rate. The Bill also provides for fresh pears used for drying to be exempt from the apple and pear levy to take account of amendments proposed as part of the provisions of the concurrent Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill. Under the provisions of this Bill fresh pears used for drying purposes will now be subject to the dried fruits levy. It is not proposed to exempt fresh apples delivered for drying from the apple and pear levy as dried applies, unlike dried pears, are not defined as a dried tree fruit under the Dried Fruits Levy Act 1971. Commencement of the Bill is on 1 January 1985, prior to the beginning of the next apple and pear season. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(7.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to correct certain anomalies relating to the imposition of the dried fruit levies imposed by the Dried Fruits Levy Act 1971, to increase the maximum permissible rates and to simplify administration. The levies are imposed on dried fruits of a season received for packing, and provide funds for the operation of the dried fruits research scheme established by the Dried Fruits Research Act 1971. Under the present Levy Act, fresh fruits delivered for drying purposes are in practice not subject to levy. Fresh pears delivered for drying are, however, subject to levy under the Apple and Pear Levy Act 1976, even though moneys raised by the latter levy are not applied for the benefit of dried pears. This Bill provides for fresh fruits delivered for drying purposes to be subject to the dried fruits levy through amendment of the definition of 'received for packing'. This change is complemented by the provisions of the concurrent Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill 1984, which propose exemption of fresh pears delivered for drying from levy under the Apple and Pear Levy Act 1976. The Bill provides for an increase in the maximum levy rates for dried vine fruits and dried tree fruits. These increases were recommended by the Australia Dried Fruits Association, which represents 95 per cent of producers, and by the Dried Fruits Research Committee. Doubling the maximum rates of levy is expected to avoid for several years any need for further amendment to the legislation to provide for levy increase. The opportunity provided by the introduction of this Bill is being taken to make other relatively minor amendments of an administrative nature. Commencement of this Bill is to be on the day which it receives royal assent. Provision is made for the amendment of the definition of 'received for packing' to apply first to dried fruits of the season commencing on 1 January 1985. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a brief personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —Yes. It is somewhat extraordinary, but this evening on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation current affairs program PM the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), when being interviewed, referred to a division earlier today in relation to a motion involving the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), and said that I and the honourable member for Balaclava ( Mr Macphee) had absented ourselves from the chamber at the time of the division. As I understand it, he expressed it in terms that we had absented ourselves because we did not wish to vote with the Opposition on the matter. That is incorrect and, as such, is a misrepresentation. I was representing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), at his express request, at the Australian National University and had been granted leave from this House. The honourable member for Balaclava was representing the Leader of the Opposition in Melbourne, also I believe at a university. I believe that that should be clarified. I thank the House. I should simply mention that three honourable members did not vote in support of the motion-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member should give only his own personal explanation. They can make their own. Mr HODGMAN —Three Government Ministers did not support the motion. They were the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Bowen, the Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —They will make their own personal explanations if they feel the need. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(7.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to amend the Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Act 1977 to extend the period of that Act until the Government announces its decision on the longer term assistance arrangements to apply to the computer hardware, software and related industries. The Act, due to cease on 28 March 1984, provides bounty assistance to the production in Australia of certain ADP equipment and parts at the rate of 7.5 per cent of the value added in Australia by ADP equipment manufacturers. The Government received the Industries Assistance Commission's final report on these industries on 10 February 1984 and expects to be able to announce its decision by 6 May 1984. In the absence of extended bounty assistance, the computer industry would have been left with minimal assistance. This would have placed the industry in a difficult position, particularly in tendering for contracts during the intervening period. The proposed extension of the bounty scheme is therefore intended to create a stable environment within which the industry can continue to operate. The Government recognises the importance of ADP equipment manufacture in Australia. This industry and the computer software industry, are considered to be activities that can improve the competitiveness of Australian manufacturing and commence generally. The Government's decisions on these important industries will take into account these factors and the close interrelationship with other industry sectors, including robots and metal working machine tools. The cost of the extension of the ADP bounty until 6 May 1984 is expected to be less than $200,000. I commend the Bill to the house. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(7.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to be able to introduce this Bill into the Parliament. This Bill, together with the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984, gives effect to recent Government decisions on the ownership and management of the national communications satellite system. The Bills together express the Government's intention that the telecommunications system provided by Telecom Australia and the satellite telecommunications system provided by Aussat Pty Ltd shall together form one national telecommunications network for Australia. The Australian satellite system will provide enhanced broadcasting and telecommunications facilities for the provision of services that would not be possible, or would be prohibitively expensive, using terrestrial based systems. The unique nature of satellite technology means that distance is no longer a major inhibiting factor in bringing news, information and entertainment to all Australians, wherever they may live. Clearly, the satellite will be a boon to those living in the more remote and outback regions of Australia. It will bring to those Australians the benefits of Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio and television services, through the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service. Along with other innovative developments in terrestrial communications, the satellite will have the ability to provide a range of telephone services to remote dwellers, including mining settlements, outback homesteads, and Aboriginal communities. The development of satellite related technology and support services in Australia is likely to provide a significant stimulus to Australian industry, create more employment opportunities and raise the technological base of many industry sectors. The Satellite Communications Bill outlines the legal framework within which Aussat Pty Ltd will operate the national satellite system, and guarantees Aussat 's future within the national telecommunications infrastructure. Under the Bill, Aussat is to operate as a commercial, tax paying enterprise with its primary object being the operation of a satellite telecommunications system for Australia. Aussat may also provide satellite facilities for use in telecommunications systems in neighbouring regions. These objects are firmly entrenched in that the Bill deems them to be objects of the company even where the company's Memorandum of Association may not so provide, and obliges the Directors of Aussat to act in accordance with the requirements of the Bill. The provision of satellite facilities for use in neighbouring regions does not authorise Aussat to provide services of the type currently provided by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission for communications between Australia and other countries. The Bill ensures that Aussat shall remain as an integral component of the public telecommunications network by providing that Aussat may not be wound up either voluntarily or by its shareholders except in accordance with a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. At present Aussant Pty Ltd is wholly owned by the Commonwealth although some shares are held in trust for the Commonwealth because of company law requirements. However, the Government believes that the joint development of our national telecommunications network would be more readily accomplished by the full involvement of Telecom in the domestic satellite system. The Bill therefore provides that a strategic shareholding of up to 25 per cent of the shares in Aussat may be sold to Telecom with the approval of the Minister for Communications. Action in this regard is now in hand, and I would expect that by the end of this financial year, Telecom will have acquired a 25 per cent shareholding in the company. The Government is committed to ensuring that satellite transponder capacity is available, in the public interest, to certain users of the satellite system. Consequently, the Bill obliges the Directors of Aussat to ensure that, so far as practicable, Aussat is able to meet the requirements of the Commonwealth for the purposes of provision and maintenance of air navigation and related safety services, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for the purposes of provision of television and broadcasting services to remote communities and dwellings and Telecom for the purposes of provision of telephone services in remote areas, and for emergency services. These requirements are supplemented by provisions in Aussat's Memorandum and Articles of Association requiring that fair and equitable tariffs be set in respect of these and other services that Aussat will provide. The Bill also requires the Directors of Aussat to have regard to the intentions of Parliament expressed therein and the requirements of international law. Under the Bill, Aussat or other persons using the satellite system may erect their own earth station facilities for transmission of signals to and from a satellite and between a satellite earth station and premises owned or occupied and used by Aussat or the persons concerned, as the case may be. Such facilities will, of course, be subject to other laws of the Commonwealth, including the Radiocommunications Act 1983, in relation to licences or permits for telecommunications installations. Consistent with the Government's firmly held belief that satellite services should complement Telecom's terrestrial telecommunications system, rather than compete with it, the Bill prohibits Aussat from providing public switched telephone services or public switched data services. These measures are designed to ensure that there is no fragmentation of Telecom's public switched network which has provided and continues to provide Australians with a high standard of basic and enhanced services. In order that satellite transponder capacity be utilised in optimal fashion and to avoid difficulties that might otherwise arise, the Bill provides that satellite users will not be permitted to sell or otherwise dispose of the right to transmit signals to an Aussat satellite. The Bill makes mandatory the inclusion of such a term in any agreement between Aussat and a user of satellite facilities. Additionally, and subject to regulations that may be made pursuant to the Bill, persons other than Aussat and certain other recognised communications common carriers may not use a facility in an Aussat satellite for the purpose of carrying on a business of providing facilities for telecommunications between other persons. It is the Government's intention that the regulation of satellite services in respect to what is known as third party traffic will be in line with existing regulation by Telecom of terrestrial services. In order that the integrity of the satellite system be protected, the Bill also provides that a person shall not transmit a signal to an Aussat satellite otherwise than in accordance with an agreement between Aussat and the person concerned or with the approval of Aussat. In respect of both this and the restriction on resale and third party usage, the Bill provides penalties ranging from a maximum of $10,000 for a natural person to $50,000 for a corporation. Finally, the Bill provides for the making of regulations by the Governor- General prescribing all matters required or permitted by this Bill to be prescribed or necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to the objects of Aussat. This Bill is yet another link in the chain which commenced with the establishment of a National Communications Satellite Task Force in late 1977. All the indications so far are that the introduction of satellite communications to Australia will bring the social and economic benefits that were foreshadowed at that time. Today sees the completion of a necessary and vital step that puts the framework in place for the commencement of satellite services in 1985. The Government extends its thanks to all those who have been involved in this important national project. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(7.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 amends the Telecommunications Act 1975, the Postal Services Act 1975 and the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1975, in relation to certain matters consequent upon the Satellite Communications Bill 1984. Most importantly, the Bill entrenches in the Telecommunications Act 1975 the intention of Parliament that the telecommunications system operated by Telecom Australia and the satellite system operated by Aussat shall together constitute the national telecommunications network for Australia. The Bill also provides Telecom with the necessary powers to enable the taking up of shares in Aussat. Honourable members will know that the Government has decided that Telecom should be permitted to acquire up to 25 per cent of the shareholding in Aussat. I expect that by June 1984 Telecom will have purchased a 25 per cent share in the company, and will thus be able to participate fully in the development and implementation of Aussat's operational policies. The Government is also taking the opportunity to broaden Telecom's powers so that it may, with the approval of the Minister, form or participate with other persons in the formation of companies involved in the business of telecommunications and enter into partnership agreements and agreements for the provision of technical services to companies of that nature. The purpose of this wider amendment is to ensure that Telecom as an organisation has the institutional flexibility to be able to respond at a policy level to the rapid changes that are occurring in telecommunications technology, which in themselves are bringing pressure from business and other users for new and enhanced services. These proposed powers, used sensibly, could enable Telecom to meet more creatively the demands of the private sector for new telecommunications services , and could bring a greater degree of commercial management to certain parts of Telecom's operations. As I noted earlier, the powers cannot be exercised by Telecom except with the approval of the Minister. The Bill includes provisions that enable the Minister to give directions to Telecom in respect of the disposal of its interests in such a company or the termination of arrangements between Telecom and the company, as the case may be. A further amendment to the Telecommunications Act that is consequential upon provisions in the Satellite Communications Bill is the provision of clause 6 that exempts Aussat, and a person authorised under that legislation to use facilities in an Aussat satellite, from the monopoly provisions of section 94 of the Telecommunications Act. The Bill also amends the Postal Services Act 1975 to the extent necessary to confer on the Australian Postal Commission the power to use the services provided by Aussat in connection with the performance of its functions. This power will be relevant to the provision of electronic mail services by Australia Post. Similar provisions are included in respect of the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946. Powers presently in this Act which enable the overseas Telecommunications Commission to form or participate in the formation of a company to provide satellite telecommunications services are no longer required and have been withdrawn. Provisions remain in the Act however that would permit the Commission to enter into a partnership or other form of commercial relationship with Aussat Pty Ltd. The Commission may, for example, provide technical services for Aussat. The exercise of these powers requires the Minister's approval. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(7.24) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of accommodation for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Stage 1), Hobart, Tasmania. The proposal is for the construction of a building for the first stage of an integrated broadcasting and television complex for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in Hobart to replace current unsatisfactory facilities in five separate locations throughout the city. The first stage will provide accommodation for all radio activities, including program transmission, production and recording, associated technical services, and also for management and administrative services. Engineering workshops and stores facilities will also be provided. The site for the proposed complex is the old Hobart railway station, comprising some 2.6 hectares, and the buildings have been designed to blend into this historic environment. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $7.7m at September 1983 prices. I notice that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has entered the chamber. I deplore the fact that he climbed on a bandwagon yesterday by giving notice to the Government to speed up this proposal. He has known that the proposal was under way. He has known, as any honourable member worth his salt in the local district should have known, that this matter was going before the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works. I might add that if his Party been in government right now we would have no such proposal. His Government was going to slash the Government's deficit to about $2 billion less than it is at present. It is only because of the actions of the Hawke Labor Government in moving to build up the construction as well as the housing industries of this nation that we have such a proposal going to the Public Works Committee. I table the plans for the proposed work and commend it to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(7.27) —I rise to support the motion. I am bitterly disappointed with the incredible comments just made by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford). Apparently the Minister is ignorant of the fact that I served for nearly six years as a member of the Australian Broadcasting Commission's State Advisory Committee in Tasmania. Apparently the Minister is so ignorant that he does not know that his Department completed a feasibility study on this project and that it was printed and distributed in December 1982. Apparently the Minister does not even know that the matter was in the pipeline to be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works at the time of the Federal election last March. Without breaching Cabinet solidarity, I can tell the Minister that the matter was discussed at the last Cabinet meeting of the Fraser Government before the election on 5 March. If the Honourable Neil Brown, QC, was still in this Parliament he would tell the Minister that the matter was discussed. I intended to congratulate the Government but now I have to say that it is about 12 months late. This project should have been referred to the Committee last April. If it had been referred then, construction could have commenced by July or August of last year. I feel very strongly about this. I have not had a fight with the Minister in the eight years we have been members of parliament, but tonight he has disgraced himself because he attacked me on a project in respect of which I have worked my guts out for the last six years. I know more about the project than the Minister does. The Minister did not mention the fact that the ABC in Hobart operates out of 12 buildings on four different sites. The Minister did not draw attention to the fact that under the revised plans-- Mr Hurford —You were in government for seven years and did nothing. Mr HODGMAN —The Minister is a hypocrite. I am amazed. I thought he would have been man enough to recognise that this is my project, my baby. Across party lines he should have given me credit for it. I will conclude because the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), for whom I do have a regard and a respect, unlike the Minister for Housing and Construction because of what he has just done, wishes to speak. This is a $21m project. I issue a challenge to the Government: The hearings will start in April. Give us a firm commitment that construction will start in 1984-85 on the radio project, stage 1, which is worth $7.7m, and go on with the television project, stage 2, which is worth $13m. Give the people of Hobart, the people of Tasmania, what they are entitled to. Debate interrupted. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Young-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(7.30) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise with some concern the progress of the handling of the so-called Age tapes. I am distressed that they have been handled in a way that must cause great concern to the community in Australia and to those people who wish to be assured that all in high places conduct themselves properly and if they transgress they are also dealt with properly. The first point I would like to make is that I believe the Age tapes have been authenticated in three ways. Firstly, Mr Temby authenticated them by warning the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that he should take certain action regarding the judge who was named in the tapes. Mr Temby accepts that the contents of the tapes are authentic and he produced a recommendation based on his consideration of them. The second person to authenticate the tapes is, I believe from the information that is available to the public, the judge himself who, as I understand it from Mr Temby's statement, complained of the quality of the tapes but did not wish to say that they were not tapes of his voice and said that the words used could indeed have been the words he used at the time. So we have two people-Mr Temby and the judge-authenticating the tapes. Further, the Attorney-General himself authenticates the tapes by saying that he has referred consideration of them to the Australian Federal Police, to Mr Temby and to the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. So we have three people authenticating the tapes. The Attorney-General goes further and says that he accepts that the conversations that were taped did occur. He said: Even if one accepts, as I do, that it is more likely than not that those conversations occurred between the parties in question . . . The conversations to which I refer and which are referred to by the Age newspaper were something like 3,000 conversations consisting of 524 pages of transcipt. It is a matter of great concern and the manner in which Senator Evans has handled the Age tapes and transcripts I believe is completely unsatisfactory . He has admitted today that the conversation took place. I believe the authenticity of the tapes has been established. It is improper for the Attorney- General to take it on himself to declare the status of the judge following private conversations. In the Ivanov case, if I may remind the House, the Attorney-General did exactly the same thing as he has done in this instance. He gave an opinion before all proper inquiries had taken place and before all evidence was known as to the breach of national security by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). The subsequent inquiry by Mr Justice Hope proved that there had very likely been a breach of national security. In this case Senator Evans has got out the same whitewash brush and is waving it about. He has not used it but he is waving it around. A full independent assessment of these matters needs to be carried out by somebody who is trusted and impartial, somebody of status and trust. Then the report and the proven material from that person must be made public. A cover-up will put the Hawke Government down exactly the same dark passage that the Wran Government has gone down. Honourable members opposite need to exercise great caution in respect of how they suggest the Attorney-General should conduct himself over the next few weeks. It is dangerous ground. The Attorney ought to beware and he ought to conduct an impartial inquiry into these matters so that the public can be satisfied. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(7.35) — Last night Senator Kilgariff in another place expressed concern about the conditions at the Darwin Airport. He said, amongst other things, that the Customs area in which up to 200 men, women and children are expected to congregate was not air-conditioned, that it was an old war-time hangar, that it was in a damaged condition and that it was not fit for the purpose for which it is being used. Certainly the conditions at Darwin Airport are not good. There is severe over-crowding at times, particularly when larger international flights arrive. The Customs area is too small for the job which it is expected to handle and there is a lack of air-conditioning which makes conditions very uncomfortable. The problem is that the Hawke Labor Government has in its first Budget, after years and years of the previous Liberal-National Party Government promising to do something about the Darwin Airport, committed itself to spending $96m on a new international airport. I emphasise that that was after years of promises by the previous Government. All it was good at was talking about the matter. It never committed any money and in the first year of this new Government the money has been committed. The hearing of the Joint Committee of Public Works into the project has been held and if everything proceeds according to plan construction will proceed in the middle of this year. That raises the problem that since Darwin is to get a new international airport building it is difficult to justify a large expenditure on the existing building. Last year the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) received a broad estimate that it may be possible to do something about the luggage reclaim area and to expand the space by some building alterations within the building and also to provide air-conditioning. That broad estimate was in the vicinity of $300,000. Senator Kilgariff referred to that in the statement he made last night. It may be possible to justify a figure in that vicinity to improve the conditions at the airport over the next four and a half years pending the completion of the new international terminal. However, officers of the Department of Aviation have since inspected the terminal and done a complete report on the amount of work that would be involved to do all the things that are needed to be done in relation to luggage, space and air-conditioning. The estimate put on it is $2.1m . It is hard to justify spending $2.1m on a building which will be completely phased out within about four years. If the Opposition or Senator Kilgariff seriously suggests that that sort of money should be spent on the building they may be giving ammunition to those people who would want to delay major projects such as this. I suggest that a better course would be to leave the subject alone . There are some things that can be done and will be done. The Minister for Aviation has been able to arrange to have a baggage conveyor transferred from the Brisbane international terminal building and to have it installed in Darwin. This will handle some of the problems with luggage at the terminal. Also, the Department is investigating ways of reducing the number of passengers passing through the Darwin airport and not disembarking there. That investigation is proceeding and the Minister is expected to be able to announce something about it in the near future. While I concede that conditions at the airport are not good, we will have a new international airport thanks to this Government's quick work and thanks to the good work of a good Minister for Aviation. We will have that terminal in about four to four and a half years time. In the meantime, something will be done to try to improve the conditions. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(7.41) —I refer to the Age tapes which have obviously raised matters of the greatest importance, not only to the New South Wales Parliament but also to the Federal Parliament. The question of the authenticity of these tapes is now substantially settled. It has been settled by the Attorney -General (Senator Gareth Evans) who said on television this morning that it was 'almost certainly the case that a great many of the conversations between the parties in question did take place in some form or another'. He said: Certainly it is very difficult to contest in any root and branch way the authenticity of the 11 conversations that are the subject of specific content of the four tapes. The Attorney-General has also referred matters in the tapes to the Stewart Royal Commission on Drug Trafficking which, bearing in mind what he said on television , is not a matter of referring unreliable hearsay for routine checking; the tapes have been substantially authenticated. Even when trying to limit the meaning of his words, the Attorney-General, in answer to a question in another place this afternoon, said: . . . it would be very difficult to argue that the tapes themselves constitute a complete fabrication in the sense of no conversation of that kind ever taking place. I would be very surprised if the level of sophistication of even the most ill-motivated people around the place was such as to enable them to produce tapes of that order containing, on the face of it, conversations between people whose voices, perhaps, are recognisable to those who know them. He went on to say: But it certainly does not follow from that that every last bit of content of those tapes is to be regarded as authentic. Indeed, in that sense those tapes are wholly unauthenticated. Bearing in mind what he had already said, that simply indicates his confusion. It is a confusion which characterises Labor governments at the moment. The Premier of New South Wales stormed out of a Press conference today because he could not face Press questioning, obviously because he knows, as do so many other people, that what is in the tapes is now at least substantially authenticated. Tonight on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) misled the public when he said that two Liberals walked out of the House rather than vote with the Opposition on that ridiculous Government motion today. In fact both of those Liberals were absent from the Parliament, one in Melbourne and one in Canberra, on Opposition business. That is an indication of the Australian Labor Party's confusion. However, I am talking about the tapes and what the Attorney-General said today. He told us in another place that he has had two meetings with the Federal judge in question and had asked him about his conversation with the solicitor in question and about the appointment of a senior New South Wales public servant. The Attorney-General told us that the judge said that he had had the conversation-that is, he too authenticated the tapes-adding that the conversation was based on his innocent interest in the appointment and was not improper or injudicious. At the meeting-apparently, there were two of them for 20 minutes or half an hour each-the Attorney-General and the judge also discussed a proposed court action to get plenty on a former leading Federal Government person. The Attorney-General said that the judge was outraged at the newspaper reports and at the invasion of his privacy, but it seems, at least from what the Attorney-General said, that he did not deny the authenticity of the tapes on which the newspaper reports were based. He said that the conversations were within the ambit of legal and professional privilege and otherwise proper. But again this confirms the authenticity of the tapes. As to the taped conversation about the alderman and a gay restaurant and the possibility of damaging the alderman's public standing, the Attorney-General said that we should understand the total context, which suggests a different interpretation from what appears at first sight. This is what it amounts to. The Attorney-General said that the tapes are at least substantially authenticated. Mr Temby says the same thing in that he advised that the judge should no longer maintain the association with the solicitor revealed in the tapes. The Attorney-General tells us that the judge substantially confirms the authenticity of the tapes but says that understanding the context puts the whole matter in a different light. The Attorney-General also tells us that an internal aide-memoire was prepared by the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department in relation to both conversations with the judge. The next step is plainly to tell the Parliament what is in the aide-memoire. It is not enough to tell us that the tapes are substantially true but that the context may excuse their contents. It is not for him to make those inquiries in the first place. It is a police matter. But, having made those inquiries, he should at least explain the results to the Parliament. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley)(7.45) —Today in this House, in the Opposition's matter of public importance-a matter so important that for most of the time it could only manage to have four interested and concerned members in this House-I raised an example of an outrageous account from a local Canberra doctor. The account, issued by a Dr Nicholas Kringas, under the letterhead of the John James Memorial Hospital in Canberra, referred to Item No. 2968, a body scan, plain. The total fee payable was $430. On the bottom of the account were these words: ' If payment of this account is received within 30 days, 50 per cent of the total is to be acceptable'. From that any patient would feel that this man is generous . But the schedule fee for Item No. 2968 is nowhere near $430; It is only $215- 50 per cent of the total payable, according to Dr Kringas. If the truth is known, this account really states: 'If you pay within 30 days, you will be charged the schedule fee. If you do not pay within 30 days, you will be charged double and you will not know anything about it'. That is disgusting. We need laws in this country to protect the people of Australia against these sorts of practices. This is what this Government is concerned about. This radiologist is ready to double his bill if a poor patient cannot pay within 30 days. That is disgusting and a disgrace. Members of the public are being used. When they go to their doctor people should ask: 'Do you direct bill? Do you charge the schedule fee? What is the amount that will be charged to my account?' Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. I draw his attention to Standing Orders 71 and 72 which state that no member may allude to any debate or proceedings of the same session unless such allusion is relevant to the matter under discussion. As the honourable member has brought up the discussion, I am afraid I will have to rule him out of order. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(7.48) —People have been claiming great success for this Labor Government's first home owners scheme but today at Question Time the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) admitted that in fact things were not all that rosy and that people were facing lengthy delays in obtaining approval for their grant. Firstly, I wish to address myself to some of the claims that this scheme is so successful. My view is that it is creating massive distortions in the home building market. In the future we may see two results from that: Firstly, increased costs which will be hard to reduce and, secondly, the disappearance of the massive demand which has been created. We may see another slump. That is the history of these schemes. More importantly, I find in my electorate that people are being sorely disadvantaged by this delay. Today, in answer to a question, the Minister said: 'Well, we have had some delays as a result of the great interest in this scheme' . I concede that that is so. But what he failed to tell people is that the FHOS officers of his Department have written to the real estate agents in Australia and said: 'When you get a client who wants to buy under this scheme, contact us. This is how it is done and within seven to 10 days we will give you a response'. So people have been going ahead and signing contracts to purchase. I will read from one of the documents that they must fill in. There is a special section headed 'Checklist for Applicants' which asks: 'Have you enclosed the following documents?' It lists the original or copy of the purchase or construction contract and land contract where purchased separately, and other documents. One has to have a contract of sale to purchase before one can apply for the grant. When one applies for the grant the normal requirement is for settlement within 30 days. The normal real estate contract applies penalty interest if there is not settlement in that time. That is not as unreasonably as the problem that was just raised. The vendor is probably also a person who wants to buy another house or is paying high interest as a spec builder. Therefore, he wants his money. A building society becomes locked into this because it would make a loan conditional upon that person's getting approval for the home ownership grant. Such people commit themselves to a purchase thinking, because of advice given by this Government, that within seven to 10 days they will get a clearance on their home ownership grant. The building societies are managing to process the massive number of applications within a reasonable time, although the Government has now admitted it has failed to do so in three States. A building society says that it will approve finance subject to the applicant's getting the grant. There has been case after case in my electorate of people who have committed themselves to purchase a home being stuck with an interest charge. In one case, it is running at $10 a day. If this penalty interest charge is not imposed upon them they are confronted with legal action because they have failed to complete the contract and settle. They can be sued for the outstanding amount. Therefore, they are being driven to bridging finance companies. One constituent said to me: 'I wish to God I had never heard of this scheme. I was to get $1,500 in a lump sum and it has cost me more than that already'. This is so purely and simply because the Government has not kept a promise it put in writing saying that it would pay out or give an answer within seven to 10 days. It may be that the excuses given by the Minister today are reasonable, but surely the Government has an obligation to write to real estate agents and say: 'Look, we overestimated our capabilities. It now takes seven or eight weeks'. That was the answer give to one person who rang up and asked about his approval. He was told that it could not be considered for seven or eight weeks. Surely the Government can tell the real estate agents how long it takes. It should not tell people that the grant will be approved in the reasonable time it takes to buy a property. Under these circumstances a person could be a little bit unlucky in striking a bargain in the real estate market. If such a person wanted to buy that property and needed that wonderful government support to do so he would now be confronted with the situation whereby he could not go through with the deal. The vendor who is selling cheaply and wants his money now clearly would be unlikely to say that he would accept the buyer's offer conditional upon his getting approval for the grant from the Government because no longer does he know how long such approval would take. It is a disgrace and it shows quite clearly that the Government's claim today about the success of its scheme is false. In fact, it is leading certain people into great financial difficulty. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(7.55) —Unlike some of the contributions from honourable members opposite, my contribution tonight is on a subject of real importance. I refer to the new technology in supermarkets, scanners in particular. These scanners were recently introduced in Western Australia. They automatically scan the prices on groceries by means of little bar codes. For the benefit of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) I indicate that they look like the stripes on prison uniforms. The scanners automatically register an item price. Until now every individual item in a supermarket had a price on it. This new technology does away with that. I am not saying that these scanners are all bad; they do have some advantages. For the consumer they have one distinct advantage in that the ticket tape records in a very concise way what the item was along with its price. That is one advantage to the consumer. Offsetting this is the fact that the item itself does not have a price on it. It is therefore very hard to make sure when one gets home that the item price-- Mr Tuckey —They have a price underneath it, on the shelf. Mr GEAR —The honourable member for O'Connor need not worry as I will come to that. The disadvantage is that, as the honourable member for O'Connor has pointed out, the only way to tell the price of the item is to look at the shelf as the items have shelf prices. In my electorate I have started up the Tangney Prices Action Group to look at supermarkets. It is the biggest in Australia now. It has been our experience that at least three per cent of the shelf prices are wrong. Thus there is the potential for everyone shopping in the supermarket to be either undercharged or overcharged if they take items from a shelf wrongly marked. Another disadvantage in leaving the item price off the product is that pensioners and disadvantaged people without a lot of money to spend in supermarkets cannot do as they did in conventional supermarkets. They used to look around for the stock that had the old sticker, the cheapest price. It might only be a matter of a saving of a few cents, but it all adds up. These people will be disadvantaged by the new technology as they will not be able to do that any more. Also it is very hard to find out which is the old and which the new stock in these new supermarkets. Until now the fact that the item was priced enabled one to tell which was the old and which the new stock. When the new stock is put in now, we will not be able to tell. There is nothing to let anyone know. The Victorian Government tried to bring in some legislation to make it mandatory for supermarkets to put on item prices but it was frustrated in the Legislative Council by the conservatives with their concern for big business. Mr Robert Brown —Against the workers. Mr GEAR —Yes, against the workers. The legislation was knocked back. They changed their minds half way along. They seemed to think at the start it was a good idea, but when it came to the crunch and a few vested interests got stuck into them they soon changed their minds. The Western Australian Government has set up a committee to look at the matter. As I understand it, one consumer representative and one union person are on the committee. Overall the vested interests of supermarkets have the advantage. Mr Tuckey —Barry Jones will tell the honourable member that it is known as advancing technology. Mr GEAR —The honourable member for O'Connor would know something about that. Setting up a committee is one thing, but if that committee does nothing and is merely set up to allay fears it will not achieve too much. Western Australia should introduce legislation similar to that in Victoria to make sure that item prices stay on the items. As I said, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages and affect the most needy people in society, pensioners and the disadvantaged. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(8.58) —I rise to condemn in the two short minutes remaining the action of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) in rising here today to confirm and support his previous action of attacking doctors in this community who may wish to contribute to the Liberal Party of Australia. It is worth noting that the Federal Minister who several short weeks ago said that the new Electoral Commission would administer the electoral laws of Australia impartially, without any influence or input from political parties, several weeks later said that he had warned doctors that if they contributed to a political party they would have their names disclosed. He did not advise; he warned. There is a very great difference between those actions. Today, without contrition, he confirmed and supported his previous actions. It was the action of a person who believes in totalitarian means of achieving ends. There can be no other construction put upon the matter. Within days of a new Electoral Commission Chairman being appointed, the Minister took the matter of the impartial administration out of that new Chairman's hands and put it in his political area. The Chairman of the Commission has been put immediately in a political position. The new Chairman of that Commission should dissociate himself from the Minister's actions. They are disgraceful. Mr Hand —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why is it that the Liberal Party does not want the names of people who have tried to bribe it published? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! There is no point of order. It being 8 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Lusher to move- That this House is of the opinion that- (1) bearing in mind the nature of the Special Commission of Inquiry conducted by Mr Justice Cross into allegations by the Right Honourable Member for New England and its findings it was appropriate for the Member to respond in the terms in which he did in this House on 28 February 1984; (2) in order for the Member to establish his response to the findings of the Special Commission it was necessary for him to question the nature and conduct of the Commission, and (3) the way in which the Member delivered his response was, in all respects, appropriate and not deserving of censure. Notice The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 632) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 October 1983 : (1) Has he received representations from commercial radio operators to make Parliamentary proceedings available to all broadcasters for live or delayed transmission; if so, what was his response. (2) Is he able to say whether such material is available in the British Parliament. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am not aware of any representations on this matter. The Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary proceedings is currently examining matters relating to the televising and radio broadcasting of proceedings of both Houses of Parliament. (2) Yes. Commercial radio operators in Britain maintain a continuous taped record of the proceedings of both Houses. Proceedings may be broadcast live or on a delayed basis and stations may be selective in what is broadcast. (Question No. 703) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 November 1983: (1) Did his reply to Question No. 40 (Hansard, 6 September 1983, page 437), which states that there is no evidence of allergy to fluoride in fluoridated water, take into account the book Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma by George L. Waldbott, and the assessment of the author's credentials in the Annals of Allergy, Vol. 49, Dec. 1982, page 336. (2) Will he make available any rebuttals of Dr Waldbott's findings of fluoride allergy. (3) Did the report of the Safe Water Committee of the United States of America National Academy of Sciences recommend that Rappaport's study on mongolism be repeated, if possible, to check whether the lack of case finding was important in his result; if so, can he say what authorities have responded to this recommendation. (4) Will he make available the rebuttal of Steyn's findings of endemic goitre associated with fluoride intake and any investigation relating to water fluoridation to endemic goitre incidence. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) In 1971 the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Allergy unanimously adopted the following statement: 'There is no evidence of allergy or intolerance to fluorides as used in the fluoridation of community water supplies.' This statement is contained in the editorial of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 1971, volume 47, page 214, a copy of which has been placed in the Parliamentary Library. The Committee of Inquiry into the Fluoridation of Victorian Water Supplies ( 1980) found no evidence of allergy to fluorides. Paragraphs 11.26, 12.16, 12.17, 12.18 and 12.19 of the Committee's report deal with this matter. The Committee's report is in the Parliamentary Library. (3) Yes. I am not aware what authorities have responded to the recommendations by the Safe Drinking Water Committee of the United States of America National Academy of Sciences. However, mongolism was considered by the Committee of Inquiry into the Fluoridation of Victorian Water Supplies (paragraphs 12.6 to 12 .15 of the report). The Committee found no association between mongolism and fluoridated water. A similar finding was also reported in an investigation in England which was published in Community Medicine 1980, volume 2, page 190. (4) Steyn's finding in 1936 of an association between fluoride intake and endemic goitre in South Africa were considered by the Tasmanian Royal Commission into the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies in 1968. The report of the Royal Commissioner stated (paragraph 605): 'It is difficult to accept this observation (by Steyn) as meaningful in the light of subsequent detailed investigations of the Kenhardt children by Jackson and by the two special investigators appointed by the South African Commission who found exactly the reverse, viz. not a single case of thyroid enlargement in any of the 300 children examined.' The Royal Commissioner found '. . . no reason for suspecting fluoridation at 1 ppm will affect the size of function of the thyroid gland.' The section of the Royal Commissioner's report dealing with the thyroid gland ( paragraphs 601 to 616) has been added to the Parliamentary Library. (Question No. 744) Mr Burr asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 15 November 1983: Will the Government take steps to remove the present 15 per cent import duty on grain harvesters and replace it with a bounty to assist local manufacturers and the Australian grain industry. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Government will not be changing its decision that assistance to the production of grain harvesters will continue to be a duty on imports rather than by a bounty on locally produced machines. The original decision was made following receipt of a report from the Industries Assistance Commission-IAC. The Commission undertook a public inquiry at which all interested parties had the opportunity to submit their views and provide supporting evidence. The IAC found that the impact of a duty on the material input costs of growers would be small, and that there would be adverse effects in changing the form of assistance to a bounty. It concluded that there were insufficient grounds to justify a change. At the specific request of growers' representatives, the reporting period for the Commission was confined to 90 days. Since this precluded the normal draft report procedure, I referred subsequent criticisms of the report by the Australian Wheatgrowers' Federation to the IAC for comment. After consideration of the IAC's response the Government was satisfied that there was no reason to change its initial decision. I am satisfied that growers have had every opportunity to argue their case on this matter, and their views have received the most careful consideration. It is of course open to interested parties to apply for a tariff concession on imported grain harvesters if they believe such a concession should apply. However any such application would have to address authoritatively and specifically questions of competitiveness in the market place between local and imported products, and would need effectively to counter the conclusions reached by the IAC in this regard. (Question No. 788) Mr Rocher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: Will commercially sensitive or confidential information provided by businessmen to Australian Customs offices be passed on to other Government agencies, statutory authorities or commissions other than royal commissions with appropriate terms of reference; if so, in what circumstances. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Goods imported into Australia cannot be entered without the importer declaring the goods to Customs-which is part of the Department of Industry and Commerce- and providing particulars about the importation. As a general rule, information about particular importations is not passed to other agencies without first consulting the importer or unless there is a court order or legislative provision requiring otherwise. However, import information is passed to other Government agencies such as: the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the compilation and publication of official statistics; the Industries Assistance Commission and Temporary Assistance Authority for reference purposes associated with their legal responsibilities to advise the Government; the Steel Industry Authority for the purposes of advice to the Government on the achievement of the objectives of the steel industry plan; the Department of Foreign Affairs for the purposes of monitoring clearance of goods duty free by diplomatic and consular representatives; and to agencies for the purposes of the investigation or prosecution of an offence. (Question No. 797) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: (1) What (a) financial, (b) technical and (c) other forms of assistance, are available from the Minister's Department, to private business. (2) What (a) is the contact point and (b) requirements have to be met to qualify, for each form of assistance. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The basic function of the Department of Trade is to provide assistance to Australian exporters to develop and maintain overseas markets for Australian goods and services. To this end the Department provides a wide range of services to exporters. Assistance is also provided through a number of statutory authorities which come under my control. These services are described in some detail in the Department's annual reports and in promotional literature published by the Department. (a) In respect of financial assistance: (i) the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation-EFIC-provides exporters with a range of specialised insurance, finance and guarantee facilities. (ii) the Export Market Development Grants-EMDG-scheme provides for the payment of taxable cash grants based on eligible expenditure incurred in promoting exports of Australian goods, services, industrial property rights and know-how. (iii) taxation relief is provided under section 23AF of the Income Tax Assessment Act on income earned overseas by Australians working overseas on approved projects. The intention of the scheme is to assist Australian firms to be more competitive when quoting for contracts overseas. As the Minister for Trade, I, or my delegate, am responsible for approving projects for the purposes of this legislation. (iv) the consulting services feasibility study fund-CSFSF-assists Australian consultants prepare feasibility studies of specific projects in developing countries. Its objective is to create opportunities for flow-on work for consultants, contractors and Australian manufacturers and equipment suppliers. (b) and (c) In respect of technical and other assistance: (i) my Department maintains a network of representation and communication designed to keep Australian suppliers of goods and services in close touch with market opportunities abroad. The main elements of this network are, at the point of sale, the Trade Commissioner Service (representatives in 53 posts in 43 countries) and, at the point of production, the Department's regional offices ( in all States). (ii) trade promotion and publicity activities involving an extensive budget promote Australia's exports through the sponsorship and organisation of trade fairs, displays, and missions and buyer's visits, export education, advertising and publicity activities overseas, and the production of publications on Australia's export capabilities. (iii) the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation-AOPC-assists Australian industry to compete for contracts for overseas development projects. (2) (a) Contact should be made with the relevant statutory authority, the Department of Trade in Canberra or the relevant regional office in the States. The addresses and phone numbers are: DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY Central Office: The Department of Trade, Edmund Barton Building, Kings Avenue, Barton, A.C.T. 2600 Tel.72 3911 (STD 062) Telex: 62193, 62065, 62194. SOUTH AUSTRALIA Adelaide: Regional Director, H. E. McClelland, 7th Floor, NMLA Building, 80 King William Street, Adelaide, S.A. 5000 Tel. 218 0291 (STD 08). Telex: 82521 QUEENSLAND Brisbane: Regional Director, A. R. Bopp, 5th Floor, 295 Ann Street, Commonwealth Government Centre, Brisbane, Qld 4000 Tel. 225 0122 (STD 07). Telex: 40593 Townsville: Regional Director, J. N. Kelly, Townsville Permanent Building Society Building, 2nd Floor, 390 Flinders Mall, Townsville, Qld 4810 Tel. 72 2200 (STD 077). Telex: 47043 NORTHERN TERRITORY Darwin: Regional Director, C. N. Begley, 2nd Floor, MLC Building, 81 Smith Street, Darwin, N.T. 5790 Tel. 81 8686 (STD 089). Telex: 85210 TASMANIA Hobart: Regional Director, P. J. McNamara, 2nd Floor, Continental Building, 162 Macquarie Street, Hobart, Tas. 7000 Tel. 20 5011 (STD 002). Telex: 58097 VICTORIA Melbourne: Regional Director, R. C. Bolduan, 5th Floor, Commerce House, World Trade Centre, Cnr Flinders and Spencer Streets, Melbourne, Vic. 3005 Tel. 611 3355 (STD 03). Telex: 31270 WESTERN AUSTRALIA Perth: Regional Director, J. A. Douglas, 3rd Floor, Allendale Square, 77 St George's Terrace, Perth, W.A. 6000 Tel. 325 6400 (STD 09). Telex: 92424 NEW SOUTH WALES Sydney: Regional Director, P. A. Hartigan, Stockland House, 181 Castlereagh Street, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000 Tel. 266 0222 (STD 02) Telex: 21555 EXPORT FINANCE AND INSURANCE CORPORATION Head Office: Export House, 22 Pitt Street, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000 Tel. 261 2655 (STD 02) also offices in Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth EXPORT DEVELOPMENT GRANTS BOARD Head Office: Mining Industry House, 216 Northbourne Avenue, Braddon, A.C.T. 2601 (G.P.O. Box 197, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601) Tel. 72 3911 (STD 062). Telex: 61650 Staff assisting the Board are also located in the Department of Trade's Regional Offices in all capital cities AUSTRALIAN OVERSEAS PROJECT CORPORATION Head Office: Export House, 22 Pitt Street, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000 Tel. 27 6794 (STD 02). (2) (b) The detailed eligibility criteria covering the various forms of assistance described above can be complex depending upon circumstances. Broadly speaking, however, a key requirement for assistance is that the goods or services which a company is seeking to export must be substantially of Australian origin. Initial inquiries could be directed to the Department or, where a statutory authority is involved, direct to that organisation. (Question No. 813) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to recent statements of the Foreign Investment Review Board particularly as they relate to invisible payments. (2) What was the value of investment approved by the Board in 1982-83 which was expected to be directed towards the services and real estate industries and what proportion was this of total investment approved. (3) What has been (a) the value and (b) the proportion, of invisible payments in (i) Australian current account balances and (ii) global current account balances in each year since 1972-73. (4) What forms of assistance are provided to Australian business in searching for possibilities for trade with other countries. (5) Is the Government involved in any form of market research about trade possibilities for Australian companies; if so, how is the information disseminated. (6) What assistance is given to Australian companies involved in the provision of services to companies and governments overseas. (7) Are there gaps in the provision of support mentioned in parts (4) to (6). (8) Is there an urgent need for statistical information in the trade area, particularly if markets within the Asian area are to be penetrated and developed . (9) Is it a fact that without statistical information and support, small trading companies are at a distinct disadvantage. (10) Will he take steps to set up a bureau of statistical studies as a joint venture between the Government and private enterprise. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) provides advice to the Government on foreign investment policy matters generally and on specific proposals by foreign interests to invest in Australia. I am not aware of any recent statements made by the FIRB in respect of invisible payments. (2) As an advisory body the FIRB does not approve foreign investment proposals; this responsibility rests with the Government. The value of expected investment associated with foreign investment proposals approved by the Government in 1982- 83 which was to be directed towards the services and real estate industries was $1,463m and accounted for 46 per cent of total investment foreshadowed by all approved proposals. (3) The relevant data for Australia and the world are presented in Tables 1 and 2, below. Table 1 CURRENT ACCOUNT CREDITS AND DEBITS, AUSTRALIA 1972-73 TO 1982-83 ($m) Total Total current current Invisible account Invisible account Year credits credits Percentage debits debits Percentage 1972-73 1,565 7,556 20.7 3,033 6,841 44.3 1973-74 1,875 8,584 21.8 3,740 9,494 39.4 1974-75 2,313 10,755 21.5 4,323 11,975 36.1 1975-76 2,248 11,694 19.2 5, 176 13,098 39.5 1976-77 2,395 13,841 17.3 5,922 16,272 36.4 1977-78 2,746 14, 752 18.6 6,654 17,804 37.4 1978-79 3,325 17,397 19.1 7,701 21,087 36.5 1979-80 4,247 22,836 18.6 9,010 24,839 36.3 1980-81 4,698 23,416 20.1 9,702 28,871 33.6 1981-82 5,037 24,126 20.9 10,612 32,999 32.2 1982-83 5,746 26,444 21.7 11,768 33,382 35.3 Source: Balance of Payments, Australian Bureau of Statistics Table 2 CURRENT ACCOUNT CREDITS AND DEBITS, WORLD 1972 TO 1981 (SDR billions) Total Total current current Invisible account Invisible account Year credits credits Percentage debits debits Percentage 1972 135.1 455.9 29.6 144.1 453.2 31.8 1973 165.9 572.3 29.0 174.1 565.8 30.8 1974 213.0 791.9 26.9 224.6 800.0 28.1 1975 229.5 824.7 27.8 245.3 835.3 29.4 1976 263.6 971.7 27.1 280.2 987.3 28.4 1977 300.6 1,101.8 27.3 322.4 1,125.9 28.6 1978 349.4 1,218.2 28.7 371.7 1,239.2 30.0 1979 433.5 1,502.7 28.8 458.5 1,536.4 29.8 1980 524.3 1,822.0 28.8 567.6 1,871.4 30.3 1981 620.0 2,041.7 30. 4 682.7 2,089.4 32.7 Source: Balance of Payments Statistics, Yearbook Part 2, International Monetary Fund (various issues). Note: Estimates do not include all countries in all years shown. (4) The basic function of the Department of Trade is to provide assistance to Australian exporters to develop and maintain overseas markets for Australian goods and services. To this end the Department provides a wide range of services to exporters. Assistance is also provided through a number of statutory authorities which come under my control. These services are described in some detail in the Department's annual reports and in promotional literature published by the Department. Briefly, the back-bone of the Department's marketing effort is the maintenance of a network of representation and communication, designed to keep Australian suppliers of goods and services in close touch with market opportunities abroad. The main elements of this network are, at the point of sale, the Trade Commissioner Service-representatives in 53 posts in 43 countries- and, at the point of production, the Department's Regional Offices in all States. This basic marketing structure is supplemented by a number of additional services including : trade promotion and publicity involving an extensive budget to promote Australia's exports through the sponsorship and organisation of trade fairs, displays, missions and buyers' visits, export education, advertising and publicity activities overseas and the production of publications on Australia's export capabilities. activities of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) which provides exporters with a range of specialised insurance, finance and guarantee facilities, export market development grants scheme, providing for the payment of taxable cash grants based on eligible expenditure incurred in promoting exports of Australian goods, services, industrial property rights and know-how, participation in multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations and consultations to advance the interests of Australian exporters. (5) See (4) above. By virtue of its basic marketing structure, the Department and the Trade Commissioner Service are involved, in the day-to-day sense, in research on marketing opportunities abroad for Australian exporters. The results of this research are communicated direct to the exporting community through the regional offices and, where appropriate, are reported in the Department's regular publication 'Overseas Trading' and special market reports. A special allocation of $1.5m was made in the 1983-84 Budget to enhance the capacity of Trade Commissioners and the Department, to undertake, for the benefit of Australian companies, detailed overseas research into market opportunities and associated product development. (6) Services exporters are eligible for assistance under all of the Department' s export promotion and development programs as discussed in (4) and (5) above. Additional specialist facilities designed to assist exporters of services include the following: Taxation Relief Taxation relief is provided under section 23AF of the Income Tax Assessment Act on income earned overseas by Australians working overseas on approved projects. The intention of the scheme is to assist Australian firms to be more competitive when quoting for contracts overseas. As the Minister for Trade, I, or my delegate, am responsible for approving projects for the purposes of this legislation. Consultancy and Overseas Projects Opportunities The Department assists consultants and contractors to seek out and obtain contracts overseas, by advising them of project opportunities arising from the operations of the international financing institutions as well as development projects identified by Trade Commissioners, two of which have specialist functions relating solely to this field of activity. Consulting Services Feasibility Study Fund (CSFSF) The CSFSF assists Australian consultants prepare feasibility studies of specific projects in developing countries. Its objective is to create opportunities for flow-on work for consultants, contractors and Australian manufacturers and equipment suppliers. Australian Overseas Projects Corporation (AOPC) The AOPC, set up in 1978, is a statutory corporation established to assist Australian industry compete for contracts for overseas development projects. Transfer of Technology The Department applies the range of its promotional activities, as appropriate, to boost Australia's foreign exchange earnings from the sale of technology. (7) In an environment where resources are limited but claims are many, it is likely that some will perceive gaps in the available services or facilities. There is always a question of priorities when all demands cannot be met. One of my major priorities is to boost the export performance of our relatively small scale manufacturing and services sector. The new trade development initiatives that I announced recently in opening my Department's new offices in Melbourne's World Trade Centre, tailor the Department's services and their delivery to this end. Of particular relevance in this regard is the current study of the feasibility of operating an overseas trading company which is examining, inter alia, the need to assist small manufacturing firms in export, some of which lack the size and marketing staff to undertake overseas marketing efforts. (8) and (9) Access to dependable statistics on trends and performance in overseas markets is one element in successful export development. In recognition of this, my Department maintains a specialist statistical section which collates analyses and disseminates a wide range of domestic and international trade and trade related statistics. This statistical material has an important role as an indicator of Australia's progress in the export field and also provides a significant part of the basis for the formulation of export development strategies. (10) Given limits on resources availability, and the desirability of maintaining balance between the various elements of export development activities, for example, representation, promotion, publicity, finance, incentives, economic and statistical research and analysis i is my view that the statistical services and studies made available under existing arrangements are adequate. (Question No. 840) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What inter-departmental committees (a) does the Minister's Department and ( b) do instrumentalities under the Minister's control (i) participate in and (ii) chair. (2)What is the subject matter of these committees' inquiries. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) In the attached schedules the first column lists the names of the inter- departmental committees participated in by the Department of Resources and Energy and instrumentalities under the Minister's control. The second column states those committees which the Department chairs. (2) The third column lists the subject matter of those inter-departmental committees which the Department and its instrumentalities chair. Committees department is a member Committees department chairs Subject matter of committees department chairs IDC on the law of the Sea Convention IDC on the Torres Strait Treaty IDC on Commonwealth shipping, manning arrangements and future of surplus 'Cape' class vessel Commonwealth Co-ordinating Group on Mapping, Charting and Surveying The Commonwealth Co-ordinating Group on Mapping, Charting and Surveying (CCGMCS) CCGMCS-To improve consultations and co-ordination of mapping, charting and surveying activities among Commonwealth Agencies. Commonwealth Liaison Group on Raw Materials Processing Commonwealth Liaison Group on Raw Materials Processing Commonwealth Liaison Group on Raw Materials Processing-to service the Commonwealth's involvement in the Commonwealth-State Joint Study Group on Raw Materials Processing set up in 1978 to further the processing of Australia's base raw materials. IDC on South-West Tasmanian Compensation Commonwealth Consultative Committee on Water Resources Commonwealth Consultative Committee on Water Resources The Commonwealth Consultative Committee on Water Resources is a forum for inter- departmental consultation on matters affecting the Commonwealth's interests in water resources. Standing Inter-departmental Committee on International Energy Agency Standing Inter-departmental Committee on International Energy Agency Monitors Australian relations with International Energy Agency. Antarctic IDC IDC on Nuclear Safeguards IDC on Review of Atomic Energy Legislation IDC on Review of Atomic Energy Legislation Review of Atomic Energy Legislation-to develop detailed proposals to give legislative effect to the Government's policy to replace the existing Atomic Energy Act. IDC on Atomic Tests Veterans' and Aboriginals' Claims IDC on Atomic Tests Veterans' and Aboriginals' Claims Atomic Tests Veterans' and Aboriginals' Claims-to investigate courses of action available to the Government to deal with atomic tests veterans' and aboriginals' claims. Commonwealth User Committee on Remote Sensing Drafting Standards Committee Permanent Committee on Tides and Mean Sea Level Permanent Committee on Tides and Mean Sea Level Exchanges information on Tides and Mean Sea Level. Inter-departmental Committee on the Energy Conservation in Commonwealth Buildings Inter-departmental Committee on the Energy Conservation Programs for Commonwealth Buildings and other Buildings in the Australian Capital Territory Monitors program for Energy Conservation in Commonwealth Buildings. Minerals (Exploration) Research Liaison Committee (MERLCO) Minerals (Exploration) Research Liaison Committee (MERLCO) Co-ordinates minerals exploration and research by Commonwealth. Standing Committee on Japan Standing Committee on ASEAN (Question No. 870) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 29 November 1983: (1) Is he considering a proposal for an upgraded tourist organisation within his Department; if so, has this proposal been the subject of criticism by the Canberra Visitor and Convention Bureau and the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. (2) Has he declined to brief the Bureau on this matter. (3) Has he received objections to the upgrading proposal based on the fact that (a) the previous Tourism Advisory Committee was disbanded at its own request believing itself to be ineffective and (b) the proposal lacked detail of direction, staffing and funding and that there would be no means of assuring accountability. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am currently considering the most appropriate arrangements for upgrading the tourism function in the Australian Capital Territory. I have had some discussions with representatives of the Canberra Visitor and Convention Bureau and the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. (2) No. I am not aware that such a briefing has been declined and, in fact, officers of my Department have been keeping the Bureau informed of developments on a regular basis. (3) Yes. The objectives referred to are being considered in the development of the upgraded tourism function. (Question No. 927) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce , upon notice, on 7 December 1983: Has the Minister's Department, or statutory authorities for which he is responsible, (a) made or (b) plans to make, an application for Commonwealth employment program grants for employment creation in the electoral division of Murray; if not, why not. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: No. The Department of Industry and Commerce has no representation in the electoral division of Murray so, therefore is not able to make application for Commonwealth employment program grants. (Question No. 938) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: Has the Minister's Department, or statutory authorities for which he is responsible, (a) made or (b) plans to make, an application for Commonwealth employment program grants for employment creation in the electoral division of Murray; if not, why not. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (b) No. My Department and statutory authorities under my control have no operations or projects located in the Murray Electorate. However, under the jobs on local roads (JOLOR) program the Commonwealth has allocated $16.7m to Victoria for road works in 1983-84 as part of the community employment program ( CEP). Each council in the Murray electorate is entitled to $26,670 as a base grant for which it must apply. The balance of $11.046m will be distributed in Victoria for approved projects, determined on the basis of established road needs, special regional employment needs and energy and economic savings offered by the proposed projects. (Question No. 941) Mr Lloyd asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: Has the Minister's Department, or statutory authorities for which he is responsible, (a) made or (b) plans to make, an application for commonwealth employment program grants for employment creation in the electoral division of Murray; if not, why not. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) No. (b) No, because the activities of the various areas of the Department and statutory authorities for which I have portfolio responsibility do not meet the criterion of community impact and benefit which is the main basis of the program . (Question No. 964) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 8 December 1983: (1) What are the State wine licence fees in (a) New South Wales, (b) Victoria and (c) South Australia. (2) What quantities of wine were sold in Victoria which originated in (a) New South Wales, (b) Victoria and (c) South Australia in 1982-83. (3) Is it a fact that Victorian taxes on New South Wales and South Australian wines are significantly higher than other State taxes on New South Wales and South Australian wines; if so, how does he justify the last paragraph of his answer to Question No. 638 (Hansard, 30 November 1983, page 3127). Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Information on the Victorian wine licence fee was given in paragraph 3 of the answer to Question No. 638 (Hansard, 30 November 1983, page 3127). Technical details on revenue measures applied on wine in New South Wales and South Australia should be obtained from the Treasurers of the New South Wales and South Australian Governments. (2) Details of the origins of wine sales in Victoria during 1982-83 is best obtained from the Victorian Government. (3) The justification for the last paragraph of the answer to Question No. 638 (Hansard, 30 November 1983, page 3127) is that the Victorian wine licence fee is similar in nature to other revenue measures used by other State governments. The Victorian wine licence fee is levied on wine retailers in Victoria and is calculated by reference to all wine purchased by them in the previous year. It does not discriminate against the source of production whether Victoria, South Australia or New South Wales. Consequently, the Victorian wine licence fee does not appear to be a barrier to interstate trade. (Question No. 978) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce , upon notice, on 8 December 1983: (1) What is 'fast track' anti-dumping action. (2) To which products and countries does it apply. (3) Which dumping investigations (a) have been and (b) are being investigated using this procedure and what has been the result of these investigations. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1), (2) and (3) The term 'fast track' anti-dumping action has been used to describe special procedures which will be introduced to expedite investigation of dumping complaints against steel imports. The procedures will be developed by the recently announced Steel Industry Authority and the Department of Industry and Commerce.