Thursday, 10 May 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: 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 Donald Cameron,Mr Cross,Mr Drummond,Mr Hawker and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys,Mr Kent,Mr Mildren and Mr Scott. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the prospect of the proposed plant breeder's rights legislation. The reasons are as follows: (1) We believe it will restrict free growing and exchange or sale of non- chemically treated seeds. (2) We believe it will cause a decline in the genetic diversity of plants as evidenced in Europe following implementation of similar legislation there. (3) We believe that prolonged public debate is necessary as is a referendum before a final decision is made. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take positive action as soon as possible to arrest the implementation of such legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Robert Brown and Mr Hand. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: 1. Note that legislation establishing plant breeders' rights in other countries has had serious adverse effects, namely: (a) Virtual monopoly control of seed production has passed into the hands of a few large international corporations seeking to profit from the exclusive rights over plant genetic materials created by such legislation. (b) The varieties of seeds available have been restricted mainly to hybrids which will not reproduce truly and will not grow without the aid of artificial fertilizers and pesticides, thus maximising corporate profits without regard for the interests of growers and consumers. (c) The genetic diversity of crops has been eroded, rendering them vulnerable to disease and other environmental threats. 2. Recognise that maintenance of the genetic diversity of plant varieties is crucial to the continued well-being of the Australian nation, and take all necessary steps to preserve and promote such genetic diversity as a public resource and to prevent exclusive control over plant genetic materials from falling into private hands. 3. Defend the vital interests of Australian farmers and gardeners, independent Australian seed companies and their employees, and consumers of Australian farm and garden produce, by rejecting any proposal to legislate for the establishment of plant breeders' rights in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. 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 or legislation in respect of territorial or local government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron and Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Child and Mr Ronald 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: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the Australian Capital Territory Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require imported video tapes/discos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that Censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; that further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom and Mr Newman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: Undermine civil liberties and religious freedom; Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action Hospitals, Doctors and Nurses, who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment condusive to the development, including moral development of their children. Deny to parents their rights to have their children enjoy single-sex sporting activities e.g., boys cricket team, boys football team, etc. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of all principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly and Mr Mountford. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to RAAF Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully show: That the potential noise hazard to residents of Sandgate, Shorncliffe, Brighton , and Nudgee Beach (including 4,000 aged people), will become intolerable when the new Brisbane Airport is operative in 1987, if protective action is not taken . Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal Government will, when the redevelopment of the Brisbane Airport becomes operative, ensure that (i) no jet aircraft use the 32'14' crosswind runway; (ii) the Department maintain the curfew on the runway from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. 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 petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: That at present, certain infertility treatments including; hormonal drugs, procedures and laboratory services, are not covered by any health insurance due to non-itemisation on the Commonwealth rebate list. The psychological and emotional stress of infertility is therefore increased by the added financial stress. Your petitioners therefore pray, that the Parliament will view our plight to create life with sympathy, by recognising our needs, and taking action to include the abovementioned items on the Commonwealth rebate list. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ronald Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our wish to have the traditional place of Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State retained in our national and constitutional and democratic affairs and institutions, and also strongly advocate the retention of our present Australian Flag, standing for historic and loyal links with the United Kingdom, the nation which founded our Australian way of life. 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. We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully believing that: There is demonstrated evidence of a need for child care facilities by staff, users, and potential users of the National Library of Australia and surrounding buildings in Parkes, Australian Capital Territory; There are at present no such existing facilities; Provision has already been made for inclusion of the facilities in planned extensions to the Library, Humbly petition that your Honourable House reverse the decision by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment disallowing provision for child care facilities in the extensions to the National Library of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the railway line and train-passenger service remain in service. 1. that the railway line remain maintained 2. that the passenger service include return trips, and 3. that the services become more frequent. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Railway Line between Victor Harbor and Adelaide remains. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Mr Porter-I raise a point of order relating to the petition lodged by me. That petition, which has some 4,730 signatures, expresses an interest in wanting to maintain the Victor Harbor to Adelaide railway line. Perhaps some indication ought to be given as to the support that petitions have. I know that this matter was considered some time ago. I wonder whether it has been considered more recently. The Standing Orders-- Mr SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member has made his point of order. I remind him that the practice that is followed now is different to the practice that was followed when I first became a member of Parliament. We are following the practice adopted by the House. If the House wishes to change that practice the action must come from the House itself. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. The Hawke Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements, and 2. The Government's proposed assets test legislation, presently under re- examination, is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Government to: 1. Totally abandon its proposed assets test legislation. 2. Either institute a broad enquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter, and 3. Following the report of such a wide enquiry, institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the introduction of Medicare has not resulted in a cheaper, fairer system of health care as promised by the Federal Government. Rather, it is an expensive, bureaucratic scheme, depersonalising medical services and conducive to medical mediocrity. While recognising the responsibility which exists to assist those in need, we humbly request the Government to review this system which moves towards the nationalisation of Australian medicine. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cross,Mrs Darling and Mr Moore. To the Honourable 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% of road deaths; Alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; Alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria showeth our concern over the continuing taxation of Parents' Club bank accounts by way of the Bank Account Debit Tax. Your petitioners therefore pray that- Parent clubs being set up by Government Regulation in the State of Victoria ( Regulation XLII) be recognised by the Australian Government as education auxiliaries, in the same way as are School Councils. The Treasurer move immediately to exempt Parent Clubs from the tax in the same way as are School Councils. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled: The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectively showeth that : 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decision which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent 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 Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned electors of the Division of Ballarat, request that the Australian Government: 1. Recognise the apolitical nature of the International Committee of the Red Cross in its humanitarian work to people regardless of race, nationality, creed, sex or culture. 2. Recognise the ICRC reports that their activities on the main island of East Timor have been suspended owing to the refusal of the Indonesian authorities to grant their delegates access to all villages requiring assistance. 3. Recognise the breach of the internationally accepted Geneva Convention of 1949, which states that the occupying power ''shall agree to relief actions on behalf of the population and facilitate them by all means at its disposal by authorising in particular the relief activities of the Protecting Power, the neutral state, and the ICRC, or any other humanitarian body''. At present the ICRC is confined to visits to the island of Atauro. 4. Approach the Indonesian Government to give assurances which will allow the ICRC to extend its humanitarian work of distribution of food, provision of medical assistance, and visitation of prisons throughout the whole of East Timor . And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Mildren. Petitions received. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) deplores the blatant politicising of the Olympic Games as evidenced by the boycott of the Moscow Olympics by certain countries and the recent decision by the USSR to boycott the Los Angeles Olympics; (2) calls on the Australian Government to approach the International Olympic Federation and the Greek Government to establish a permanent international Olympic centre in Greece, and (3) expresses the hope that such a move would take politics out of the Olympic Games. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) shall second: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) in 1983 there were 25 per cent fewer industrial disputes than in 1982, and (b) figures to January 1984 show that time lost through industrial disputes has fallen to the lowest level for six years, and (2) commends unions who have made this possible by accepting and adhering to the prices and incomes accord and congratulates the Federal Government and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations for their success in implementing the accord. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House: (1) notes with satisfaction the completion of the third free election in El Salvador in three years, despite attempts by the terrorists of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front and other marxist groups to disrupt the elections; and (2) congratulates Dr Jose Napoleon Duarte of the Christian Democratic Party on his success in the run-off election. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) shall second: That this House- (1) acknowledges the contribution the Australian film industry has made to Australian culture and applauds this contribution; (2) congratulates Film Australia, the Director Gil Brealey, and the cast of the film 'Annie's Coming Out', as an outstanding contribution to world cinema, and (3) applauds the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment for his enthusiastic support of, and encouragement to, the Australian film industry. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) deplores the decision of the Standing Committee on Spoken English of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to abandon the English language in favour of 'Femtalk', and (2) calls on ABC commentators and newsreaders to ignore the committee's guidelines and to make sure that- (a) sportsmen remain sportsmen; (b) the man-on-the land remains the man- on-the-land; (c) statesmen remains statesmen; (d) cattlemen remain cattlemen, and (e) females remain feminine. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that up to the week ending 4 May 1984 the number of applications received under the first home owners scheme were, for Australia, 69 807 and for Western Australia, 10 454; (2) further notes that the number of inquiries received were, for Australia, 479 775 and for Western Australia, 79 907, and (3) recognises that Federal Government initiatives have had a substantial impact on recovery in the housing industry. The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear). Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) confirms its understanding that the main thrust of ALP policy on immigration is family reunion; (2) recognises that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has confirmed the policy, and (3) calls on the Government to implement its policy. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and my colleague the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) shall second: That this House- (1) notes the estimate of the Federation of College Academics that during the years 1976 to 1983 1000 teaching positions disappeared in the CAE sector, and with them many times that number of possible student places, and (2) condemns the previous Government's neglect of this important sector of the education system. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the former President of the ACTU, the Prime Minister, possesses considerable experience in the matter of understanding and influencing the trade union movement, and (2) expresses disappointment that, despite his background, the Prime Minister has not lifted a finger to force an end to the costly 14 week old strike at the new Parliament House site. Mr JACOBI(Hawker) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That a Joint Standing Committee, to be known as the Joint Standing Committee for Business Affairs, be appointed: (a) to review- (i) Commonwealth legislation with a view to removing (A) provisions (including provisions that require information to be furnished to a person) that impose or may impose unnecessary burdens on business and on industry, and (B) unnecessary or out-of-date provisions; (ii) the administrative practices of Commonwealth Departments and instrumentalities, so far as those practices have an effect upon the operations of business and industry, with a view to ensuring that those practices do not impose unnecessary burdens and demands on business and on industry; (iii) such laws and practices with a view to ensuring that, in respect of business and industry in Australia, they comply with international obligations assumed by Australia, including through the United Nations, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Labor Organisation; (iv) suggestions for the improvement of Commonwealth laws and practices in relation to activities of business and industry, whether made by business and industry, representative bodies or otherwise, and (v) reports of commissions and other inquiries with a view to making recommendations for the enactment of laws that may be made by the Parliament concerning business and industry in Australia, and (b) to recommend, in relation to the activities of business and industry, appropriate laws that may be made by the Parliament and that may have effect uniformly throughout Australia. (2) That the committee, for the purpose of performing its functions, may consider any proposed law or other document of information available to it, notwithstanding that such proposed law, document or information has not been presented to the House. (3) That the committee consist of 9 Members, 3 Members of the House of Represenatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (4) That further details in respect of the operation of the committee be the subject of a subsequent resolution. (5) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) union picketing of the new Parliament House site is preventing contractors from recovering valuable and costly equipment to use elsewhere, and (b) as a result of this picketing many of the small contractors are suffering great financial difficulties; (2) deplores the stranglehold applied by the pickets which again shows that under the Government unions are outside and above the law, and (3) calls on the Government to take immediate action to see that the millions of dollars of stranded equipment is removed. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House deplores the Government's total lack of responsibility evidenced by its announced intention to cut taxation when the total public sector debts, at local, state and federal levels, is presently $76 billion and growing daily which is 41.5% of Gross Domestic Product, representing a cost of $ 20,000 to a family with 2 children, and which places a burden of $6 billion in interest per year on all Australians. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House urges the Prime Minister to use his influence to bring to an immediate end the strike that has paralysed Broken Hill, but under terms and conditions that are no more generous than that provided by the ALP/ACTU accord on prices and incomes. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, on 7 March 1984, that there is lessening interest in family reunion from Europe and the UK; (2) endorses the information from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that there is an 18 per cent increase in applications for family reunion from Europe and the UK, and (3) calls on the Minister to substantiate his claims. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) the Melbourne Tourism Authority claims that travellers from the USA west coast can visit Sydney, Brisbane, Cairns and Townsville for the same cost, but, to see Melbourne they have to pay higher fares or change to a domestic flight, and (b) the Acting Director of the Melbourne Tourism Authority has said that no matter how successful the North American campaign, featuring the Paul Hogan television advertisements is, the anticipated benefits to Australian tourism will be significantly less in Melbourne than in most other eastern States cities , and (2) calls on the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism to take the matter up with the airlines in order to rectify this anomaly. Mr SPEAKER —Before I call the honourable member for Mitchell, I would remind the honourable member that there is a precedent restricting the number of notices of motion given by an individual member. The previous rule stopped at three. I will allow the honourable member to give his notice, but I ask him and other honourable members to take note of that precedent. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I will not test the previous ruling, Mr Speaker, I assure you. I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) considers that Australia's migration program is being administered by decisions that reflect the personal political attitude of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; (2) condemns the Minister for his- (a) secrecy in regard to details of the program; (b) failure to support his claim that there is lessening interest in family reunion from Europe and the UK; (c) personal intervention to ensure unequal treatment of migrants, and (d) belligerence in the conduct of his office, and (3) calls on the Prime Minister to remove the Minister from the immigration portfolio. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the actions of the fascists of the left in denigrating and defaming members of the Opposition who dare to express a view on immigration policy which is contrary to the views of the present Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Mr Hollis-Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I would like to know whether the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) was referring to members of the Australian Labor Party when he used the term 'fascist'. If he did, I ask that that term be withdrawn because I find it offensive for any honourable member of this House to be called a fascist. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I will examine the notice of motion. The term was used in the generality. It was not really directed at any honourable member of Parliament. I will examine it to see whether the import of the term is unparliamentary. [COGNATE BILL: DIVIDEND RECOUPMENT TAX BILL 1983 [No. 2] ] Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Before the debate on this Bill resumes, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the Dividend Recoupment Tax Bill 1983 [No. 2]. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(10.19) —I entered this House in 1980. When I look back over my files and over the records of speeches, it seems that this House has spent an inordinate amount of time discussing the topic of retrospective taxation. It is very difficult when one is speaking on legislation such as the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill and the cognate Bill to bring new points into the debate. However, what I aim to do, first of all, is take issue with some of the points that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) raised in his speech on these Bills. I was surprised by many of his comments. He began his speech by talking about his legislation-that is the legislation of the previous Government-and he claimed that that legislation had brought an end to tax avoidance. At the same time as he argues that, members of the Opposition will refuse to support retrospectivity. I cannot understand the logic of that argument. On the one hand they say, yes, they agree with the principle of moving in against tax avoidance; they say tax avoidance is dead. Yet, this legislation is not prospective at all; it is retrospective. It is to move in on the period when tax avoidance was rife. Everyone in this House knows that in the 1970s tax avoidance was rife. That is the whole aim of this legislation. It is not to look into the future but only to look into the past, to the areas in which it is acknowledged by everyone that there was tax avoidance. Yet, at the same time as the honourable member for Bennelong claims that tax avoidance has been brought to an end, we have people like the Peter Clynes of this world who have spent a large proportion of their lives making money from schemes which are designed to avoid tax and outmanoeuvre the Australian Taxation Office. It is true that at the moment Mr Clyne is awaiting trial on a charge of breaking Reserve Bank foreign exchange regulations. In one of his handbooks he said: It takes an hour to think up a new loophole, lurk or scheme. It takes the enemy - the Taxation Office or the Government- four or five years to understand what we are up to and devise an antidote. So that is the whole reason why we need retrospectivity. There is no way that one can efficiently and effectively fight tax avoidance unless the people who are practising these schemes know that there is a threat and the threat has to be that they have to pay up what they should have paid up and what they have illegally avoided paying. Without that, this House can legislate till the cows come home and the measures will not be effective. I acknowledge that the previous Government does have a good record in the area of moving in on tax avoidance and tax evasion schemes. Mr Robert Brown —Very reluctantly though. Mrs KELLY —The comment has been made that it was reluctant in its support for that. That is true. Very many members of the then Government did not vote in support of such legislation. The then Government brought in many pieces of legislation to deal with tax avoidance and tax evaders and I congratulate it on that. However, it was only in 1982 that it recognised the issue of retrospectivity. It was only then, with the assistance of the then Opposition, that the previous Government got that legislation through this House. So the previous Government recognised the problem after the horse had bolted. It decided that it would close the stable gate but the horse had already bolted. The real problem with this legislation is that if one is to be fair dinkum it has to be retrospective. This Government is serious about smashing tax evasion and avoidance and that is why we make clear statements about our intentions in relation to tax avoidance and retrospectivity. This Government has not just made many statements; there has been action. In the May statement last year we undertook to investigate the tax avoidance penalties of that sacred cow, lump sum superannuation schemes. Last September the prescribed payments scheme was introduced and has been a considerable success as a tax avoidance deterrent. Its success can be gauged by the 45,000 requests for new tax file numbers, a quarter of which had never previously been lodged on income tax returns. Last week we reintroduced the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1984 No.2 which deals with the so-called cherry-picker schemes. We have foreshadowed an increase in penalties for tax avoidance. Now, again, we attempt to strengthen the unpaid company tax legislation. So I think that the Government stands on its record. We have a mandate for the action we are undertaking. The only trouble is that we are suffering frustrations because the Opposition is not fair dinkum about its claims to move in on tax avoidance and tax evasion schemes. The second issue I would like to take up with the honourable member for Bennelong is in respect of the points he made in reference to the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). He quoted the Minister for Finance as saying that the tax avoidance is over and is not a problem. I query that. I sat and listened. I know that the honourable member for Bennelong is a respected member of this House, so I went to seek the information on which he had made his judgment. I could find no evidence at all. In fact, what I found is an answer to a question asked by the honourable member for Bennelong on 1 May in this House. I will quote sections of that answer and then I would like honourable members from both sides of the House to ask themselves: Is this the answer of a member of this House who believes tax avoidance no longer exists? Mr Lusher —Go to the speech to the Society of Accountants. Mrs KELLY —The interjection was that the speech was to the Australian Society of Accountants. I acknowledge that. In reply the Minister for Finance made reference to that and clarified the point. I will take the time to read his response so that the accuracy of his account of the situation can be recorded in this House and honourable members can make their own assessment of the position of the Minister for Finance. I quote from a reply to a question on 1 May when the Minister spoke about the record of this Government and said that when he was the Minister in charge of taxation: . . . I indicated that whenever a blatantly artificial tax avoidance scheme was identified we would legislate retrospectively to close off that scheme from the date of its first known operation. He then mentioned tax avoidance and said: The reason why that policy has not been capable of full implementation is that the Liberal Party in the Senate continues time and again to protect the tax dodgers. Members of that Party have refused to pass the legislation which we have put up on a number of occasions in order to ensure that these tax avoidance schemes are ended and that no new schemes will grow up in the future. What I was saying on that occasion-- that is, to the Society of Accountants-- was that notwithstanding the attitude of the Liberal Party and the National Party in the Senate and their gutlessness in the face of the tax avoidance industry, the professions now recognise that the game is up. However, we are faced with a dreadful legacy-- Opposition members should listen to this because they should understand that this is the implication of their actions-- as a result of the neglect of the former Government. As the Auditor-General has revealed, something like $3 billion is outstanding as a result of the dreadful experience of tax avoidance in this country. I ask honourable members of this House: Is that the response to a question of a Minister who believes that there is nothing further he can do in the areas of tax avoidance and tax evasion? Mr Lusher —He is acknowledging that tax avoidance is dead. It is absolutely clear. Mrs KELLY —The honourable member is taking that out of context. Mr Lusher —No, you are trying to redefine-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Lusher —the same way as you are trying to redefine income. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Hume. Mr Lusher —Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member has had an experience of answering back after a warning before. Mrs KELLY —What the Minister for Finance was saying is that there is a new awareness and a new consciousness in the community of the problems of tax avoidance and evasion and there is no doubt that people who previously practised these schemes are now thinking about it. The only reason they think twice about it is that they know that the policy of this Government is retrospectivity. They know they can escape while members of the Opposition continue to block that legislation. However, one day they know that we will have control of the Senate and this legislation will get through, or that maybe one day members of the Opposition will come to their senses and realise their responsibilities in this area. One can only hope. The third point I want to raise relates to a reference that the honourable member for Bennelong made in his response to the effects of tax avoidance on employment. The honourable member for Bennelong pleaded the case of small business. I think this Government recognises the problems that small business had under the previous Government. It has been very sympathetic to the situation of small businesses in this community. But we are not sympathetic to people who are not paying the tax that is rightly due to revenue. This legislation is particularly generous in that it has allowed a time to pay provision under which personal tax to be recouped can be paid, free of late payment penalty, by instalments over a 12-month period. Also, there has been no evidence that existing legislation has caused unemployment in companies, despite the predictions that this would occur when the Opposition legislation was introduced. Companies would generally be sold as going concerns and, if that is the case, there would be no or minimal loss of jobs. I have found, through dealing with some companies involved in this area, that banks and other financial institutions have been lending money to meet tax debts on security of businesses that have been expanded as a result of the erosion and avoidance of tax liabilities. These people cannot have it both ways. I wish to quote to the House from a case that came up in the Melbourne courts recently, the case of Gasbourne Pty Ltd and others. It involved the winding up of petitions against 11 bottom of the harbour companies. There is an outline of the explanation of the case. A section of the judgment states: A net sum of approximately $50,000 had therefore been saved and there was the additional bonus that such portion of the current year profits as would have been paid to the Joneses-- The claimants in this case-- in the form of dividends was converted into capital and was thus not liable to the payment of income tax. Mr. Jones freely conceded that the transaction was a very attractive one from his point of view and he indicated that it remained attractive to this day despite the passage of the 1982 Act having regard to the many years' interest-free use of relevant moneys and the income tax saving involved. These people freely admit that they had been getting benefits over a period from not paying the tax that was due to revenue. Yet members of the Opposition say that these are the sorts of people who should be protected. They say: 'These are the people who do not need to pay that tax. Let us shelter them'. That is what they are trying to do. They must remember that while they do that the money has to come from somewhere; other people have to pay that debt. Who has to pay? It is the wage and salary earners who continue to pay that amount of money. The former Treasurer also said that this legislation is penal in character. I take issue with that. No penalties or additional taxes are imposed, as could well have been the case. The Bill simply seeks to recover tax that ought to have been paid years ago when the profits were stripped from the company. In particular, the legislation does not impose any additional amount to compensate for the fact that repayment of escaped tax will be in today's money values and not in the money values of the years when the tax should have been paid. So these people are getting enormous benefits. Even if they pay the tax due in today's terms, they have had the benefit of that money over a period of years and have gained financial benefit from it. There is no denying that. So even if they pay up they will still be better off. They are the sorts of people that members of the Opposition are protecting. They are the sorts of people who are not paying what they should fairly pay, and it is the pay as you earn taxpayers of Australia who have to compensate for that. Members of the Government believe that that is an inequitable situation and should not continue. Who is the Opposition protecting? Let me tell all members of the House, who have not been able to work through the Opposition's language on the sanctity of individual freedom, the sorts of arguments they use: 'The individual has a right to operate within the letter of the law providing that fraudulent practices are not engaged in. The public has a right to expect that the government it elected will make every attempt to ensure that all pay tax according to their ability to pay, and that it will distribute that revenue for the benefit of the public'. One would think that that is a legitimate aim but members of the Opposition obviously claim that they are in this House to protect people who have benefited unjustly over a period of years. Remember that this is not prospective legislation; it is only retrospective. It is only to make people pay the contribution from which they have gained benefit over a number of years. So what I think members of the Opposition mean by individual freedom is that those who have got the benefits, those who are wealthy, get wealthier, and conversely, those who are poor get poorer. The people who have been paying their tax legitimately over those eight years continue to pay more while the people who have avoided paying tax continue to benefit from that money. This Government will not stand for that. What the Opposition calls initiative, the Commissioner of Taxation and the courts call tax evasion. What the Opposition calls fair reward, the Commissioner of Taxation calls tax avoidance. It is crucial that so called initiatives and fair rewards which hide beneath the cloak of individual freedom are exposed for what they are. Quite clearly they are methods of cheating ordinary Australians of tax revenue and of goods and services. The House must understand that that is clearly the implication of the Opposition refusing to pass these retrospective Bills. This Government has no illusion that tax avoidance and evasion stops with the cash economy or with the schemes devised by the Clynes and the Mahers of this world or the bottom of the harbour type of variations. This Government will be vigilant in its task of smashing tax avoidance. It is time that the Opposition supported this principle and permitted the Government to get on with the program for which it has a mandate. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.37) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I commence by asking after the health of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). Is he well? Is he in good voice? We do not see him in the House any more when we are debating tax measures, particularly when the tax measures before the House deal with avoidance or evasion. Let us remind ourselves that the Minister has first hand knowledge of tax avoidance. He should be able to give this House the benefit of that knowledge and of his great insight into the social issues that tax avoidance and evasion raise. He has had his affairs detailed, somewhat embarrassingly, by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and has not ventured back into the House to debate avoidance or evasion legislation since then. Why is he not back here? He is not back here for two reasons: First, he is afraid to come back here when avoidance or evasion measures are before the House and, secondly, no doubt he has been given his orders by that very able tactician , the Leader of the House (Mr Young), and has been told to stay out. However, I do hope that he summons up his courage and comes back because we would all like to hear his contribution on the subject of avoidance and evasion. Perhaps he could give us a few hints on new fields of avoidance on which we can concentrate our attention in the future. He is, after all, the leading practical expert in these matters on the Government benches, so far as we presently know. The legislation before the House seeks to amend the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act 1982 and the allied measure passed with that Act. The Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act, introduced and passed by the Fraser Government in 1982, has recently been upheld in all respects, by the High Court of Australia save for one minor procedural matter. If one wants to get a clear understanding of what that measure sought to do, there is no better way of understanding such a complex measure than going to the judgment of the High Court and to the joint judgment of the Chief Justice and Justices Wilson, Deane and Dawson, which in the opening paragraph, describes the Act in these terms: . . . legislation aimed at the collection of moneys found to be irrecoverable by way of company tax from companies which were stripped-- I emphasise the word 'stripped'-- of their assets, including profits before tax and any assets representing provisions for tax, from which payment of the tax might otherwise have been made or recovered. I emphasise again the word 'stripped'. The judgment went on: Such companies may conveniently be referred to as 'target companies'. The legislation seeks to impose liability upon the vendors of shares where the sale of the shares was followed by a stripping operation and upon those who promoted the scheme of which the sale formed part. There we have it encapsulated in a few words. The emphasis clearly in the minds of the justices of the High Court was on stripping operations. The importance of that fact lies in this legislation. Under the Bill before the House the stripping element is to be removed. I shall return to that later. A great deal is said about tax avoidance. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), attacked anyone, as I understood her, who says that retrospective laws are not good for the purposes of dealing with avoidance or evasion. Those who sought to oppose retrospective laws have been categorised by this Government as supporters of the tax avoidance industry. Indeed there was , until his recent banishment from the House, when these matters came before the House, no more virulent a critic than the Minister for Finance. Certainty of the law is not just a trite statement. It is an essential need in civilised society. It is essential that people know what the law is and how it affects their actions and their lives. There is a basic presumption in our legal system that actions within the law should not be struck down; that is, struck down by legislation which reaches back from the present to the past. It is, of course, always open to the legislature to pass retrospective laws, but retrospective laws are generally regarded as unjust. This is not a sinister view of the world; it is an essential view of the world and of law. Although we are talking about taxation measures, let us consider for a moment criminal law. Would anyone in this House think that it was a good principle that criminal law should be altered so as retrospectively to make criminal actions which when they took place were not criminal and to punish people by fines or imprisonment? Would that be just? Would that reflect community values? Would that be a course which should commonly be adopted? In the case of civil conduct, would it be wise, just, and in accordance with our view of the world, to change retrospectively contractual rights, to extinguish retrospectively rights under contracts, to set aside retrospectively contracts entered into at a time when the law was quite different? Would it be right to create by statute new civil rights of action to apply to past transactions or to impose new civil liabilities in relation to past transactions? Is that just? Is that the kind of legislation we should adopt? Is that the kind of approach we should have to law making? What is the essential difference in relation to tax cases? There is in truth none. We are dealing with a civil obligation and a civil obligation imposed by statute. One need not approve, support or condone tax avoidance or tax evasion. Certainly, that is not part of the view that one needs to have to take as a general principle that laws should not have retrospective operation. None of us on this side are supporters of the tax avoidance or tax evasion industry, least of all the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). We oppose this legislation because it is basically unjust. The Government's counter to this can only be described as the big lie, and one in which, I regret to say, the honourable member for Canberra, who spoke previously, inadvertantly, I think , found herself mired. What does that amount to? It amounts to this: If one criticises measures of this kind one is to be condemned. If one opposes measures of this kind one is guilty of complicity and support. Opponents of measures of this kind are not merely wrong but dishonest it is said, as are those the Government claims to have raped the revenue. It would have been a far easier course for us to let these measures pass and to let the effects be felt by the Australian people. It would have been far easier for us to say that we were not concerned with the injustice of the measures; that we were not going to trouble ourselves about the injustice of the measures but would allow them to be passed. Mr Griffiths —But you passed retrospective legislation in any event. Mr SPENDER —I will come back to that. If the honourable member had read and understood that legislation he would know that the legislation was designed to fix on transactions involving evasion from which, at the end of the day, someone profited, whether knowingly or unknowingly. The second reading speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), when the legislation was originally introduced in November 1983 stated, in the context of the big lie: The Bill proposes to remove one of the pre-conditions to liability for recoupment tax-the requirement that the company was by a stripping scheme rendered unable to pay its tax-which was inserted by the previous Government, it seems for presentational purposes. It is the stripping arrangement which is central to the legislation which is now on the books; that is, deliberately stripping a company so that it was rendered unable to pay its tax. It is that element which the High Court of Australia fixed on in the opening passage in its judgment to which I have referred. It is that element which is to be taken out by the legislation now before the House. The rationale, in short, is destroyed. The innocent are to be treated in the same way as those who profited from evasion, whether or not they knew that evasion was involved. Those who have suffered commercial misadventure are to be treated in the same way. I have no basis for saying-nobody here has any basis for saying-what the percentage would be, but we should not, as a general principle, pass laws which will affect some innocent people and affect them in a way that everyone would regard as wrong. All members of this House know of instances under the Fraser Government's 1982 legislation in which people have been caught by that legislation who were not intended to be caught by it. If the Minister for Finance were to venture into this House he would no doubt claim that when he was caught by that legislation he was perfectly innocent. If one assumes that he was perfectly innocent when he was caught-making, as I do, for the moment, that charitable assumption in his favour-it is perfectly obvious that many other people would be in the same position. Some months ago I drew the attention of the House to the case involving an electrician, as I recall, who found himself caught by the existing legislation when he was totally without fault, that is fault in the sense of complicity of any intention to evade. We oppose, therefore-I put my own view on this very directly-legislation of this kind which takes out the stripping element. I remind the House precisely what that element is. Connected with the imposition of tax on aspects of past transactions going back to 1972 which attract the retrospective legislation which was passed by the Fraser Government is this element: That there was an arrangement or transaction which secured or achieved the result of the company being unable to pay its tax; in short, the stripping of a company. That element is to go out. It is that element which underpinned the introduction of the previous Government's legislation. I wish to refer to one other specific matter; that is, the introduction of a specific provision to allow persons to be named. That provision is to be found in clause 6 of the Bill. It provides that the Commissioner of Taxation in his report, under section 14 of the Act, may draw attention to a person's failure to pay vendors or promoters recoupment tax. I say again that a failure to pay a tax may be due to a number of things. If the failure is not due to any evasion or any breach of the law, that kind of provision should not be introduced. It has been introduced for one purpose and for one purpose only-to place pressure on people to meet obligations whether or not they believe that they have a legitimate or fair defence to meeting them. I should like to say one or two things about the previous Government's record. That record has been brought into question. The honourable member for Canberra said that there was more to be done. For the purpose of demonstrating the correctness of her argument she called on the services of Mr Clyne. Mr Clyne is a well known, self-confessed tax dodger. I have no support whatsoever for the kind of proposals that he puts forward. It is absurd, and it demonstrates the poverty of the argument, for anyone on the Government side to have to turn to advertisements of Mr Clyne for himself to find an argument to buttress this legislation. The previous Government outlawed about 28 specific schemes. It introduced the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act 1980, making a wide variety of schemes and actions criminal. It introduced Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act in May 1981. This Government has been in office since March last year. It came into power on a raft of promises, many of which have been discarded. One of its promises and one of its major criticisms related to tax avoidance and evasion. Anybody who listened to the speeches made by members of the Government when they were in Opposition would think that a vast number of things had to be done and that the law was generally deficient. What have we had? We have had from this Government no single general provision dealing with tax avoidance or evasion. Legislation has been introduced to deal retrospectively with certain matters but we have had no prospective legislation. The best possible indication of the adequacy of everything the previous Government did is the failure of this Government to introduce any prospective legislation. It says: 'We cannot find anything. We have been in office for over a year and we and our advisers are quite unable to find any deficiencies in the general legislation you have introduced'. Despite that we will have an election campaign based on the big lie by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), perhaps supported by the Minister for Finance, deliberately obscuring the previous Government's focus on fraud, deliberately equating evasion with avoidance, deliberately condemning the innocent with the fraudulent and categorising any opposition as wrong, criminal and supportive of tax dodgers and tax crooks. Nobody was more virulent than was the Minister for Finance in slaying with his tongue the reputation of people outside this House. But we have not seen him in this House debating this matter. I very much fear that we will not be seeing him, but I hope he is still in good health. We look forward to his coming back one of these days to debate one of these measures. He , after all came to this House with impeccable left wing credentials. But what do we find of this champagne socialist, this poacher now pretending to be a gamekeeper? Why, he is a member of the same class that he reviled. He is a member of the same class that he so ruthlessly stigmatised from this House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I suggest to the honourable member for North Sydney that he remember standing orders 75 and 76. Mr SPENDER —Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot recall for the moment what those interesting regulations deal with. The Minister's own affairs have been examined . We have had no answer from him as to his involvement in schemes of estate planning and interest capitalisation. The Dawkins scheme is, I hope, alive and well. We have seen no legislation to outlaw that scheme. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Standing order 76 states: All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly. Mr SPENDER —Madam Deputy Speaker, I have not averred an improper motive against the Minister; I have referred to his conduct. This gamekeeper, as he now is, will not come before the House for the purpose of dealing with these matters. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(10.57) -This legislation and the developments which have given rise to it probably represent one of the most appalling reflections on the genuineness of the present Opposition in connection with tax avoidance that could possibly be imagined. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), attempted to find some kind of contradiction between a statement which was made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and a statement which the honourable member alleges was made by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) when he was addressing a conference in Sydney. The statement by the Prime Minister was to the effect that tax avoidance would be an issue at the next election. The alleged statement by the Minister for Finance in Sydney shortly after that was to the effect that as far as the Government is concerned tax avoidance is no longer an issue in Australia. The honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) in her contribution earlier today said that in answer to a question the Minister for Finance indicated that his claim that tax avoidance was no longer an issue in Australia was based on his knowledge of the fact that the tax avoidance industry was now sufficiently aware that this Government would not tolerate tax avoidance and tax evasion and would, if necessary, take retrospective action in order to make sure that those people who would otherwise be able to avoid tax paid tax and that as a result tax avoidance was no longer a political issue. Does that contradict the statement made by the Prime Minister? I suggest that it contradicts it in no way at all. Tax avoidance will be an issue at the next election because the Australian community knows-we will reaffirm its knowledge-that if the present Opposition were ever to be returned to this side of the House, to government, it would again go soft on the tax avoiders and the tax evaders as it did in the past. There is no question about that. Let me make sure that some of this is placed on the record. If members of the Opposition come before this Parliament and proclaim before the Australian community that in some way they have some cause to be proud of their record in relation to tax evasion and tax avoidance, let them justify it in the light of these details: In 1975-76, the last year of the previous Labor Government, 861 individuals and companies were identified in Australia as having been involved in tax avoidance. In 1982-83, the last full year of the previous Government for which figures are available, almost 40,000 schemes were identified. The number of people and companies involved in tax avoidance during the term of the Fraser Government absolutely exploded. It exploded because of the insufficiency of the legislation for which the Opposition claims credit, the legislation it was obliged to introduce. The then Government, formed by the parties now in Opposition, was dragged literally screaming into this legislature in order to introduce and enact that legislation. The Opposition knows that what I say is the case. I refer now to the number of taxpayers who understated their incomes or lodged false returns between the last year of the last Labor Government and the last year of the Fraser Government for which figures are available. In 1975-76 roughly 25,000 taxpayers understated their incomes or lodged false returns. In 1981-82, the last year of the Fraser Government for which figures are available, almost 43,500 did so. So the number went up from 25,000 to 43,500. I have made the claim before-I have indicated that my claim can be substantiated as a result of research and analysis by institutions and academics within the community who are far more competent to carry out that analysis than I am-that the tax avoidance and tax evasion industry in Australia in each year of the previous Government, on average, cost the Australian community and the public revenue something like $7,000m. That is every year. What an appalling reflection on the record of the Fraser Government. What an appalling reflection on its concern for equity. What an appalling reflection on its suggestion that in some way it was concerned about ensuring that all individuals and all companies in Australia paid their appropriate contribution to public revenue. What does that represent in terms of the pay as you earn taxpayers who are left to pick up the bill? It represents something like $30 every week from every household in Australia to make up the difference for the tax dodgers, the tax crooks, the tax lurks and all the rest of the individuals and companies in Australia who were involved in these shady shyster practices. If honourable members need any further evidence I will go to the report of the Commonwealth Auditor-General that was brought down in March of this year. That report indicated that the amount of tax outstanding had risen from about $1 billion to $3 billion over the last six years. Is that evidence of the former Fraser Government having shown any concern about stamping out tax avoidance and tax evasion? That report also indicated that the tax outstanding, as a proportion of collectable tax, had risen from 9 per cent in 1976-77 to 23 per cent in 1982-83-almost to one-quarter. What reason did he give after this creditable record of the Fraser Government! He said it was mainly because of the increase in the amount that was outstanding from taxpayers involved in artificial tax avoidance schemes. If those figures, by themselves, do not give the lie to the claims that have been made by the Opposition, I do not know what will. The Opposition should not come before this Parliament, nor should it go before the Australian people, and suggest it has a proud record in this area. We all well remember the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong, the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition, introducing the Government's initial Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Bill on 23 September 1982. Why did he introduce it? I said earlier that the then Government was dragged screaming into this legislature to enact legislation against the tax dodgers. It was forced to act. The anger, the wrath and the concern of the Australian people were such, as a result of the disclosures of the McCabe-Lafranchi report and the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, that their vengeance forced the Government to act and on 23 September it introduced and tabled legislation concerning bottom of the harbour arrangements. That legislation lay on the table. The corridors of this Parliament were literally filled with the tax dodgers, the friends and the benefactors of the Fraser Government and the Liberal Party. They were hiding in the dark corners of the corridors, trying to force the Government to weaken that legislation-and weaken that legislation it did. Did that Government respond? Did it respond to its benefactors? It did indeed. The legislation which it finally introduced in modified form on 21 October 1982 had been considerably sanitised, considerably watered down and considerably weakened to make sure that all of its friends, members and benefactors were not named. In addition considerable concessions were built into that legislation to make sure that the full amount of tax was not collected. In the couple of minutes remaining to me I make these points: We indicated perfectly clearly not only at the stage that that initial legislation was considered, but also prior to 5 March last year when we were elected to government, that given the opportunity we would legislate retrospectively to pick up the tax that should have been picked up. We introduced legislation on 18 May last year, about 10 weeks after we took office. That legislation did not index the amount of tax, as we intended originally, to make sure that the real value of that money that the tax dodgers had the benefit of was picked up by the Commonwealth. Had we done so we would have been attempting to pick up $840m that they had the use of in real terms. We chose not to do so. Our original legislation was intended to pick up only $570m, not the indexed $840m. That legislation was opposed by the Opposition in this House and by the Opposition, in collusion with the Australian Democrats, in the Senate. As a result of that the legislation was defeated in the Senate. What did we do? We modified our legislation to take out the question of those capital profits taxes about which so much concern had been expressed. We did that and reintroduced the amended legislation on Budget night on 23 August last year. The amount that we would have then picked up would have been only $270m. Again it was defeated by the combined forces of the Opposition and the Australian Democrats in the Senate. We then introduced a further modified version of that legislation on 3 November last year. We had to come down from the original figure of $840m, to $570m and then to $270m. What did we propose to pick up then? We were going to pick up $ 35m, but it should have been $840m. That is what was ripped off the public revenue. That was the difference that the Australian taxpayers-the pay as you earn taxpayers, the ordinary taxpayers, the households in Australia-had to make up. We finally wanted to pick up $35m but the legislation for that was also defeated by the combined forces of the Opposition and the Australian Democrats in the Senate. Now we have introduced this legislation-mark II-which is exactly the same as that which we introduced on Budget night. This Government has a clear and unequivocal mandate to enact this legislation and to collect this avoided tax. The Opposition, together with its Democrat allies in the Senate, has on previous occasions denied this Government the right to exercise its mandate. In the process, the Opposition and its Democrat allies have repudiated the judgment made by the Australian electorate on 5 March last year. They have betrayed the ordinary Australian wage and salary taxpayers, who must now pay more tax to compensate for that loss caused by the tax avoiders. They have aligned themselves clearly and unconscionably with the tax avoiders of the Australian community. They have indicated that they will use their combined numbers in the Senate to frustrate the expressed will of the Australian people. If they again fail to pass this legislation, the judgment of the Australian people will be on them. The Australian electors, in their anger at this betrayal of principle, will relegate more members of the Opposition and more Democrats to political oblivion. There is no place in this Parliament for people who betray Australia and betray Australians. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(11.02) —It is interesting to note the number of times that we have had to sit in this House and listen to the rantings of the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown), who poses in here, and displays cant and mock seriousness in regard to matters for which he knows in his heart he feels absolutely no sincerity. He thinks because he can throw his arms around and raise his voice a little and throw in a few fancy words like 'mandate' and 'the people of Australia' here and there-as does his Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-that that will add some sort of semblance of respectability to his behaviour. That is absolutely outrageous, and the honourable member knows it is outrageous. He knows that the community has no respect for the stance he and his Government are taking. I say to the Government that when it is dealing with retrospective legislation it is dealing with something that is terribly dangerous. If the Government is dealing with retrospective legislation it has a heavy responsibility to deal with it in a way which is totally responsible. As we have said in this place and in the other House on a number of occasions, what the Government is doing with this legislation and the way it is being handled is not responsible. That is the critical thing. I am not saying that the Government does not have the right to bring in retrospective legislation. Mr Robert Brown —We have a mandate to do so. Mr LUSHER —You do not have a mandate. Mr Robert Brown —Yes, we do. Mr LUSHER —You have a mandate to deal with tax avoidance; you do not have a mandate to deal with retrospectivity. There is a hell of a difference between the two, and you need to understand that. If you claim a mandate in terms of retrospectivity, it is a very limited mandate. It is not a mandate that would justify the sort of legislation that we are debating here today. The Taxation ( Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill and its cognate Bill seek, in their retrospective intent, to tax people who did not get a benefit. I believe that is a very serious point. Whether a scheme was successful or not, you will issue an assessment. You will do so whether or not a benefit resulted from any scheme entered into. In my mind, that is a total abuse of retrospective principles. If you are going to introduce retrospectivity-and I am not saying that it is unconstitutional; it is not and it can be done-you have to be very careful about it. The retrospective legislation that was introduced by the former Government was incredibly tight. Mr Griffiths —So it was retrospective legislation. Mr LUSHER —Of course it was. Mr Griffiths —That is right. Mr LUSHER —Yes, of course it was. Mr Griffiths —You ought to tell that to some of your colleagues who have denied it. Mr LUSHER —No. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! I ask honourable members to cease calling out to each other across the chamber. I ask the honourable member for Hume to address his remarks through the Chair. Mr LUSHER —Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the point that I make is that the legislation that was passed by the then Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who is now the shadow Treasurer, was legislation which was extremely tight and it was limited in two very specific ways. The first way was that there had to be a benefit. If there was no benefit, there was no assessment. I believe that is a principle to which we must adhere. This legislation says that recoupment will not be avoided because a tax avoidance scheme which related to a sale proved to be unsuccessful. It is pretty clear to me that if one entered into something which fell down and was not successful, the Government's legislation would still enable an assessment to be made. That is something which we are not prepared to tolerate. The financial benefit element in the previous Government's legislation is extremely important. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I say to honourable members opposite that this is a very important principle and one that ought not to be taken lightly because the power of a government to create a liability in a retrospective fashion is one which must be treated only with the utmost care and caution. If we are going to start creating precedents which the Opposition will agree with and the Senate allows legislation of this type to be passed, we will be creating precedents for all sorts of horrific legislation that will not be in the interests of Australia. People need to understand that. This legislation seeks to lay down a principle whereby we can redefine retrospectively something which is not income, call it income, and having so redefined it, apply a retrospective tax on it. That is something which I think is absolutely objectionable. It is the reason why I have opposed this legislation from the day it was introduced. I will continue to oppose it and I believe that the Senate is on sound grounds in also opposing it. I think that we need to repeat, make clear and make it understood that retrospective legislation is something which is abhorrent. It should be used only in absolutely essential circumstances. The need for retrospectivity does not apply in this case. If the Government intends to use it, it should do so tightly and not create precedents that can have a broader range of application by future governments which can say: 'Yes, but remember the TUCTA legislation, the good old taxation unpaid company tax assessment legislation that was produced by Mr Keating back in 1983-84'. Everyone said that was wonderful legislation. That legislation redefined income. Having redefined something which was not income at all when a scheme was entered into, five or six years later it is reprehensible to apply income tax to such a scheme. It ought to be seen as being reprehensible. That is why we will continue to oppose such legislation. It is shabby. It is the sort of legislation that ought not be brought forward in any self-respecting parliament. What would the honourable member for Hunter do if someone came to him, in his electorate, and said: 'This land on which your house is built will be rezoned and called industrial land. We will say that it has been industrial land for the past five years and we will apply rates on that land as if it was industrial land for the last five years'? That is the same sort of thing that the Government is doing. It is saying to people who entered into perfectly legitimate arrangements that were sanctioned by the law at the time, and from which they made money which was not assessable income, it is assessable income. It is applying a retrospective tax to that income. That is absolutely reprehensible. I say to honourable members opposite that the Opposition will not have a bar of that sort of nonsense. That is why we will continue to oppose it. The Government can keep introducing such legislation time and again. The Government can make this a double dissolution issue this year if it wishes, but we are prepared to stand on that principle and the Government ought to understand that. Honourable members opposite may laugh, but they know that I am right, and they would not have had a bar of this sort of legislation. If we had introduced the same legislation, they would have said in here that it was outrageous, and so they should, because such legislation is outrageous. There has to be someone in this place and someone in this country who will stand up for honest people and honest taxpayers who did nothing wrong at the time. What they did was absolutely legal; it was absolutely within the law. Interestingly, the legislation we passed has been validated by the High Court. It is also interesting that the Commissioner of Taxation, when asked in March or some time early last year by the then Treasurer, who was about to be the ex-Treasurer, whether anything needed to be done in this area, said, as I understand it: 'No, everything is okay'. Then honourable members opposite came to power with their high-minded attitude towards taxation avoidance. They have been running around the country talking about it and saying that all sorts of outrageous things were going on. They got into government and called for a report. They were told that: 'It is all fixed, it is all over-there is nothing more to do'. They said: 'Well, there must be something to do because here we are, we have been raising the expectations of all sorts of people across Australia about this. We have to have some legislation about it.' They were told: 'There is nothing that you can do. It is dead, it is all finished, it is over. The legislation of the former Government has fixed it'. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), of all people, went to the Australian Society of Accountants and said: 'It is over. Tax avoidance is dead'. The honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), unlike the honourable member for Hunter, made a very reasoned speech here this morning. Like yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, she is one who brings a lot of talent into this Parliament, unlike others. She understands these things. But she tried to redefine and put into another perspective, in the way that so many members of the Hawke Government try to do, the very clear and unequivocal words of the Minister for Finance when he said: 'It is over. As an issue, it is finished'. Yet the Government came into this place last week with its cherry-picking legislation. This was another phoney attempt to try to drum up in the minds of the public the fact that this Government is doing something about all of the outrageous tax avoidance that is going on. In the case of the cherry-picking scheme, it has been shown-the Commissioner of Taxation himself has said it on earlier occasions-that there is nothing to worry about and that anything that the Government does in order to get at one or two who may be creating some abuse will upset an awful lot of quite legitimate arrangements. The Treasurer then had to go to the Taxation Commissioner and apply pressure by saying: 'Look, I know you said all these things to the previous Government, but give me some more advice. Give me some more advice as to why this legislation is okay'. I do not want to cast aspersions on the Taxation Commissioner because I have a lot of respect for him. But he was put in an impossible position in that he then had to provide advice and redefine what he had said on an earlier occasion. He had to try and say that in a different context the legislation might have some value. That is absolutely outrageous. People in the community need to understand that this Government is putting at risk the fundamental rights that people have. Anybody in this country is entitled to enter into legal arrangements. They are perfectly lawful. There is nothing wrong with them. There they stand. Yet, the Government is going way beyond what any government has ever considered before under this arrangement. It is going back into the past, way back into the 1970s. It is re-defining something, creating a totally new situation and then saying: 'Okay, having done that, we are now going to issue you taxation assessments and we are going to collect taxation on that basis'. Is it any surprise that there is opposition to such a proposal? Is it any surprise that the Australian Democrats in the Senate who are not necessarily any friend of the Opposition-the Democrats over there do not support us on very much-have had the courage in this particular instance to stand up and say: 'There is an important principle at stake here. We are not going to have a bar of this sort of legislation'. So they should because nobody ought to have a bar of this sort of thing. The legislation that the then Treasurer introduced was responsible legislation. I did not agree with it at the time. It was legislation that many of us would rather we never had to introduce. However, he believed that if we were going to do something in a retrospective way it would have to be done extraordinarily tightly. It was done extraordinarily tightly. The only people who were disadvantaged by that legislation were those people who got a benefit from the original tax arrangement. Where a company had been put through a procedure, which was an illegal procedure, and as a result of that illegal procedure it was put in a position where it was unable to meet its tax liability properly assessed, it was deemed appropriate that a liability ought to attach to people who had got the benefit of that illegal action and that it was proper to be able to issue an assessment against them. But the legislation before the House is a totally different thing. It takes this matter way beyond that. The effect of the Government's legislation is to say: 'We do not care whether there was an illegal act or not. This will apply. We do not care whether the scheme you entered into was successful or not. This Act will apply'. This is absolutely outrageous and it is proper that the legislation be opposed. That is why the Government-- Mr Robert Brown —Your Part 4A would deal with the situations in exactly the same way! Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member for Hunter will cease interjecting and holding conversations across the chamber with the honourable member for Hume. Mr LUSHER —The interesting thing that I suppose I should make some comment about , without referring to anybody at all in the chamber, is simply that if Part 4A is okay, what are we doing sitting here for the fourth or fifth time debating this legislation? We are debating this legislation because the Government wants to go back in time and collect some money from people whom it adjudges were part of some terrible taxation rip-off. What they were doing at the time was not a taxation rip-off. It was something that was totally legal. There was no law against it. People were entitled to order their affairs in such a way as was permitted by the legislation of that day and so they did. It is very difficult to argue that they should not have had the right to do that. Yet, the Government is now saying: 'Well, to hell with all of that sort of principle. That does not matter any more. Nothing is sacred in this country. We are prepared to go back and undo all that. We are prepared to make those people the recipients of taxation assessments.' As I said before, whatever the provisions of this Bill might be, the principle that is at stake is the way in which retrospective legislation ought to apply. It is that which is my particular interest in relation to this debate and to earlier debates that we have had on the same legislation. I do not care what the provisions are. Any time that this Government comes in here with legislation that has an adverse retrospective impact on people I will stand up and I will speak against it. A line has to be drawn beyond which it is not possible for governments to go. There needs to be an understanding of that. The people of Australia need to be able to understand that if they indulge in some commercial activity today or tomorrow or, if they indulged yesterday, that is within the law, no government will come back to them tomorrow or next year or five or seven years down the track and say: 'Hey, we do not like what you were doing back then . We are going to undo that and we are going to tax you on it'. That is outrageous. One of the principles that ought to be written in blood on the floor of the chamber of this Parliament is that people will not be put in the position of having their arrangements undone in that sort of a fashion. Mr Robert Brown —Yes, the wage and salary earners' blood. Mr LUSHER —The honourable member ought to understand it. He is supposed to be a person who understands these sorts of matters. He has had some professional association and experience in this area. Yet, he comes in here and defends this outrageous legislation that is impossible to defend. I have just been looking back through the Hansard record of the Committee debate that took place on the last occasion this legislation was being discussed. We had old tangle tongue, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), in here trying to defend it on behalf of the Treasurer. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the honourable member for Hume that he should refer to Ministers and members of this House by their correct and proper name and not make offensive comments. I would ask him to withdraw the comment that he just made and to name the Minister in the correct manner. Mr LUSHER —I withdraw. I think it is the Minister for Housing and Construction. Mr Scholes —Territories and Local Government, I think. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the honourable member for Hume that standing order 80 requires that members refer to other members of this House by the name of the electorate they represent. I again call the honourable member's attention to this and ask that he adhere to the standing order. Mr LUSHER —I thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —It was my direction, sir. Mr LUSHER —I apologise-your direction. On the occasion of that Committee debate, the Minister for Housing and Construction, representing the Treasurer in that debate, was unable to give satisfactory justification as to why the legislation had been introduced and gave unsatisfactory answers to the questions that had been raised by the Opposition as to the effect and impact of the legislation and how it would operate. To my knowledge, those matters remain unsatisfactorily dealt with. It is pretty apparent that this time around the same thing is going to apply. One thing needs to be understood: The Opposition is not going to have a bar of legislation of this nature. We have made our position clear. The Government keeps bringing the legislation back. It keeps serving it up again and again. It can keep serving it up again and again. The Opposition will take the same attitude because there is an important matter of principle involved. Mr Robert Brown —My word there is. Mr LUSHER —Yes there is. I agree with the honourable member for Hunter. There is a very important matter of principle. That matter of principle is that people must be free to go about their business. They must be free to go about making their commercial arrangements and to enter into agreements, contracts or whatever one likes. They must be free to do that within the law of the land as it applies at the time they do it. What sort of uncertainty does it create for anybody making a contract today if he thinks that we are living under a regime by which that contract may be declared null and void in five years time and that some advantage that he may gain out of the contract will be penalised. That is the sort of thing with which we are dealing. That is why the Opposition will oppose and will continue to oppose this legislation, because it is a matter of deep and abiding principle. The legislation before the House is an absolute outrage. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —I draw honourable members' attention to the fact that, under standing order 59 and according to the practice of this House and other Houses of Parliament, it is customary and a requirement to debate through the Chair. That does not mean honourable members saying 'Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker' and then shouting out directly to honourable members on the other side. What it means is that direct comment and argument from honourable members on one side of the House to honourable members on the other is not permitted or encouraged within the House. I understand that there has been some leniency by the Chair and that the standing order cannot be too rigidly applied. In drawing the attention of the honourable member for Hume to this fact and the fact that one must use the correct name when addressing other members I am following on the point made by Mr Speaker this week when he said that he wished to raise the level of debate within the House owing to the fact that it has really deteriorated to a great extent, particularly over the last couple of weeks. Mr Braithwaite —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would you please direct the chamber's attention to the standing order that prevents interjections during an honourable member's speech? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will certainly do that. Standing orders Nos 75, 76, 77, 79 and 81 all deal with different aspects of abuse such as referred to by the honourable member for Dawson. I thank him for drawing the attention of the House to that. I impress on honourable members that those standing orders should be adhered to. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(11.32) —At the outset I will make a couple of comments with respect to the contribution by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), through the Chair of course. Unfortunately for his colleagues, the honourable member for Hume quickly unloaded them on the issue of retrospectivity . We had the spectacle in here earlier today of seeing and hearing the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) put a most eloquent speech in support of the view that there was no retrospectivity implied in the previous Government's legislation. We also heard the honourable member for North Sydney ( Mr Spender), who once again waxed lyrical on the supposed lack of retrospectivity in the previous Government's legislation. However, up in their rooms they would have been horrified to hear the honourable member for Hume quite blandly concede that the previous Government's legislation was retrospective in its impact. What he said was that the issue was the way retrospectivity ought to apply. So here we have a massive contradiction by members of the Opposition in putting their contributions in this debate. My own view is a strong one. It is not a common thing in terms of the contributions of the honourable member for Hume in this House, but on this occasion he is absolutely correct. That is something that I wish to stress very strongly indeed . I hope that the honourable member for Bennelong and the honourable member for North Sydney have time to reflect on the contribution made by the honourable member for Hume because it will be referred to often in the future. The honourable member for Bennelong indicated that the previous Government had an excellent record in relation to tax avoidance. Certainly, it did! My colleague, the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) has adverted to that excellent record. It was the best record on tax avoidance in the history of this nation. We ought not to forget that. The legislation currently before the House has been before the House, in one form or another, on numerous occasions. Because its intention is to give effect to this Government's election undertaking to recover personal tax avoided by former owners of companies that were the subject of bottom of the harbour schemes, it is opposed by the Opposition. Why is it opposed? It is opposed simply because the large number of people associated with the Liberal Party will be required to pay, under this legislation, their share of the tax burden that is currently being shouldered by the ordinary pay as you earn taxpayers of this country. This legislation will be passed. If it is not passed on this occasion it will be passed in the future. It will be passed because there is no other option for any government whose objective is to ensure that the taxation system impacts fairly upon all members of our community. If this legislation is frustrated by the Opposition it will be people such as the constituents of the electorate of Maribyrnong, my constituents who will be obliged to further carry the burden of taxation in this country. That is not an option that I am prepared to accept. The former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong, also adverted to the danger of bankruptcies leading to joblessness. Two points ought to be made about that smokescreen. The first is that the Commissioner of Taxation is more concerned with obtaining the appropriate dues than any precipitate action that would lead to unemployment. To this end it is quite common in dealings with the Australian Taxation Office for arrangements to be entered into that provide for repayment over time. The second point is that, even if the owner of a company is bankrupted that does not mean that the company stops practicing. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of how legislation operates in this country would understand that the company is put up for sale and is continued by someone else. That happens every day of the week. There is no reason why, if this legislation were enacted, that situation would change. As I have indicated, the argument is simply a smokescreen. I do not blame the former Treasurer for attempting to create a smokescreen or two. Any smokescreen would be better than an analysis of his period at the reins of Treasury. Under the Fraser Government, while the honourable member for Bennelong was Treasurer, this, in part, was the record: Ninety-eight per cent of taxpayers paid a greater proportion of their incomes in tax than under the previous Labor Government. The greatest increases under the former Government were borne by those in the lowest income groups. Once again, that is an indication of the philosophy of the Opposition. Under the former Treasurer, grossly increased tax burdens were encountered by ordinary PAYE taxpayers whilst non-PAYE taxpayers and companies had their respective contributions slashed. Under the honourable member for Bennelong promises relating to tax cuts and to tax indexation were thrown out the window. Tax changes favoured the wealthy. The 1977 tax cuts and surcharges were an example of this. They were both absolutely regressive in impact. Under the former Treasurer a wide array of tax concessions were given to the wealthy, often without any regard being paid to the fundamentals that ought to be taken account of when one is considering various ways of imposing taxation . The taxing policies of the coalition obviously took little heed of these essential requirements. Firstly, their impact was totally inequitable. The former Government's proposals benefited a very small and very powerful minority at the expense of the great majority of taxpayers. Secondly, its taxation system was entirely non-neutral. It favoured particular activities, often without any rhyme or reason. Thirdly, it did little to promote efficiency. Instead, its taxation systems tended to encourage the overcapitalisation of both rural and manufacturing industries and, hence, often led to direct negative employment implications. Fourthly, those policies resulted in an increasingly complex taxation Act which directly resulted in a massive increase in the levels of tax avoidance because of the opportunities that were thus presented to practitioners in that shameful industry. This important legislation is an attempt to recover some $270m. My colleague, the honourable member for Hunter, has already outlined that if this Government were to act directly on its mandate it would pursue a sum in the vicinity of $ 840m. The legislation that was knocked back in this House some time ago proposed a recovery of some $500m. These amounts are peanuts in the context of sums like $7 billion that have been mentioned in this House today. The smart operators in our community avoided $7 billion in tax. I reject absolutely any approach that results in the ordinary PAYE taxpayers of this country, such as those in the electorate of Maribyrnong, paying massive amounts of tax far in excess of what they should have to pay under a fair and equitable system. The honourable member for Hunter struck a figure of $30 per week. I am not sure, in the context of this debate, how accurate that figure is. I have heard mention of figures in excess of $30 per week; I have heard of figures less than $30 per week. Whatever the actual figure is, one fundamental consistent theme remains and that is that the ordinary PAYE taxpayers of this country are paying significantly higher levels of tax because of an involvement by many members of the community, and many people associated with the Liberal Party of Australia, in the tax avoidance industry. I am confident that when the next opportunity presents itself those ordinary Australian PAYE taxpayers will take note of a couple of points raised during the debate today. They will concede that the honourable member for Hume was correct, that the argument is not about retrospectivity. As he, a member of the Opposition, conceded, the previous Government's legislation was also retrospective. He was not talking about the principle of retrospectivity; he was talking about how it ought to be applied in certain circumstances. This Government does not resile from that fact. We do not believe that retrospectivity should be embraced across a range of policy areas. That, in a democracy, would be an absurdity. But we do strongly believe, as do many members of the community, that the only way we can guarantee that this industry will be stamped out forever is to embrace selectively, as we have done with this legislation, the necessity of retrospectivity. It is by that mechanism and that mechanism alone that the ordinary taxpayers of Australia will have to meet only their fair share of the burden. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(11.43) — This debate is a continuing one. I believe that the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill 1983 [No.4] has been introduced into this House-I think the people of Australia also believe this-for the sole purpose of providing what the Government believes will be a trigger for a double dissolution. If the Government is using this Bill as the basis on which to go for a double dissolution, for an early election this year or early next year, it will be surely disappointed. The people of Australia will find out the depth of the Government's conviction in this regard by its actions to date. Its actions to date have revolved solely around retrospectivity in relation to attacks on tax avoidance. I want to draw the distinction immediately that what we are talking about here is tax avoidance, not tax evasion. The many figures that have been quoted by members of the Government imply that this involves $7 billion, or $30 a week per taxpayer, as a result of tax avoidance. But the problems with income tax in Australia today do not relate to the piddling amounts involved here; they relate to the massive amounts that are evaded by many of the taxpayers of Australia today. If the Government goes forward with the conviction that this is a threat for a double dissolution it is sadly misguided. This is an attack, through retrospectivity, on tax avoidance. One has to repeat time and again the comment of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) who, I believe, and this House believes, has practised a form of tax avoidance within his own affairs. Tax avoidance is not a crime. Tax avoidance involves using the taxation legislation to do things with minimum impact on taxation, Federal or State. That is what tax avoidance is about. When we are talking about avoidance, let us get to the point: A tax avoider is a person who lodges an income tax return. He is a person who discloses in full everything related to that tax return. That tax return is based on the laws of the day or the laws of the preceding year in which he earned his income. Mr Robert Brown —He abuses the law though, doesn't he? Mr BRAITHWAITE —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your protection from interjections. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Honourable members on my right will not interject. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I am trying to bring a bit of sane debate into this very ticklish problem. That is basically what tax avoidance is. As I have said, the Minister for Finance probably would confess to practising tax avoidance, as probably would many in this chamber, both on the Government side and on the Opposition side. At a meeting of chartered accountants in Sydney recently, the Minister said that, as far as the Government was concerned, tax avoidance was no longer an issue in Australia. Why did he say that? I had very close working relationships with the Treasurer in the previous Government. He reacted to advice given by the Australian Taxation Office to the extent that, from the time I came into this place in 1975 to the time of the change of government last year , the Income Tax Assessment Act practically doubled in size. That happened for one reason only-the enormous number of tax avoidance measures that were introduced into this House. There were 43 in all. Of course, the main one to which the Minister for Finance was referring was that all encompassing provision that was used to strengthen section 260, a very discredited section of the Act, wherein the Commissioner of Taxation had very little power under decisions handed down by the High Court of Australia. I practised tax accounting for over 20 years before I came into this House. I can say that those accountants to whom the Minister was addressing his remarks would probably be the most honourable of the profession. They would have abided by the laws of the country and would have lodged returns in accordance with the laws. The point is that there is no truth in the Government's comments and claims in this and every other debate on taxation. Government members talk in terms of millions and billions of dollars lost. But they are not talking about avoidance; they are talking about evasion. Some such comments were made earlier in this debate. I listened very intently to the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) when he said that the tax avoidance industry, the tax dodging industry, blossomed in the Fraser years. I will give some facts and figures in connection with where this started. It is up to people to decide whether they want to blame a government for it. A few things are relevant. In the early 1970s the Curran scheme was in fashion. I believe it was Mr Crean who, as the Federal Treasurer at that time, indicated in his Budget Speech that he would attack the Curran scheme. But absolutely nothing was done from the time of that announcement to when Labor lost office in 1975. There is another relevant fact. Look at the overall statistics through the 1970s, of people paying personal income tax in the highest tax bracket. At the moment the highest figure is 61c in the dollar. Go back to the early 1970s and compare the figure with that of the late 1970s. If honorary members do so they will find that only half of the taxpayers who were paying tax in the highest bracket in the beginning of the 1970s were paying in that same bracket at the end of the 1970s, or even in the mid-1970s. This implies to me that right through the 1970s, in which there were three governments in power-Liberal, Labor and Liberal again-people were looking at the Act and arranging their affairs in such a way as to avoid, legally, higher amounts of tax. Of course our taxation Act provides encouragement for people to earn income in certain directions, and people's actions in that regard could be claimed as being tax avoidance in that the income earned is exempt because of the Act or is an allowance in the form of capital which is transferred as a deduction as far as tax is concerned. Let us get this legislation into perspective. At the moment the Government would say that this practice of tax avoidance is massive, that it arose during the Fraser years and that the Fraser Government did very little in regard to it. I deny that. That is why the Minister for Finance conceded only a few months ago that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) and former Treasurer had introduced 43 separate changes to the Act to try to stamp out tax avoidance. The Minister now admits that that was effective. So how shallow is the Government's action of coming in here with this legislation on two or three occasions and using it as a matter of great public interest to trigger a double dissolution? Mr Blunt —It is a political stunt. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I believe it is a political stunt and I believe it would be political suicide if the Government thought that it could go to the people on this matter. We have heard the same rhetoric from Labor on all of these Bills and I believe it is time we had a look at its position. As I mentioned, tax avoidance is a separate issue altogether from tax evasion and I wonder whether the Government can quantify for me how much of that $7 billion lost every year, according to the honourable member for Hunter, applies to tax avoidance. I assume, from the figures of the Commissioner of Taxation, that it would be less than $1 billion, compared with tax evasion which totals $6 billion. I then ask what the Government is doing about the collection of the tax being evaded in this way. People lodging their returns, who the Government might claim are tax avoiders, might do so on the clear understanding that their returns comply with the laws of the time and in every respect are legally correct. I am not talking about morals; I am talking about legality. There are no morals in a government that would change the rules, to make illegal the situation where a person lodged a return on that basis, by retrospecting those laws. Retrospecting those laws the Government is, right back to 1972. If this is a case of pure tax avoidance, no government, no person and no Prime Minister has the mandate to change the laws to make illegal what was legal. So I do believe very firmly that this matter should be treated in the way I have suggested. I go one step further and suggest that the Government has done very little in regard to stamping out tax evasion. What would the situation be if the Government were determined to take the further step of retrospectively making illegal today what was legal yesterday? How does it intend to attack, for instance, the Dawkins scheme? Will it retrospectively apply laws that will bring into account the optional capital gains made in connection with those companies, and will the Western Australian Government retrospectively apply its laws on stamp duties to collect the tax avoided in that regard? Let us talk in terms of capital gains. Will the Australian Labor Party introduce capital gains measures in such a way that they will retrospectively apply to incomes, including capital appreciations and inflation effects of the past? The same applies to the wealth tax. We already know that the assets test for pensioners certainly will be retrospectively applied, back to August of last year. Will it apply-this is a very personal matter-to our own parliamentary superannuation scheme? We had rushed through the House last year a law that permitted parliamentarians to take only one half of their superannuation in a lump sum, the other half having to be taken in the form of a pension. That Act has not yet been proclaimed, in spite of the speed with which it was put through this House just to satisfy the Government, so it could say it had done something about it. Does that mean that the former member for Hughes, who retired just three or four months ago, will suffer retrospective application following proclamation? Will his receiving of a full pay-out of his superannuation become illegal? The former member for Hughes took that full amount in light of the Act at the time. I understand he received his full superannuation payment. Will the Government now apply that law? Tax evasion is something greater. I believe that the $30 a week extra tax that we are paying-I am one of those taxpayers-should not be regarded as making up the loss created by tax avoiders. That $30 a week, if it is a true figure, is an amount which could quite well be taken by one's neighbour who is moonlighting on a second job under a false name. It could quite well be taken by the businessman who is tickling the till and not disclosing his full income, or is making false claims for quite a few other expenditures. I refer to the non-disclosure of income. That is the subterranean economy. That is the billion that people talk about. In fact, I have heard that $16 billion is the actual amount lost through non-disclosure of income in the subterranean economy. What has the Government done in regard to that? It is prepared to penalise some taxpayers in connection with avoidance, but not evaders. I come to the point that if people who are avoiding tax in this regard are tax evaders, not tax avoiders, and if they did not make a full and true disclosure or were doing something that was incorrect, they can be caught under the provisions of the present Act without the necessity of this legislation, which I say lacks depth. All of us have to examine our consciences in this matter. I refer particularly to those officers from the Australian Taxation Office who now sit on the advisers' benches in this House, as they will be the people administering the Act. Is there a taxpayer in Australia who can say that he is honest, pure and clear as far as his own tax matters are concerned? How as parliamentarians can we do it? I ask any parliamentarian whether, in regard to the disclosure of his income and particularly allowances and his claims for them, he has made an actual check list and audited that with the Taxation Office before the claim was allowed. So do not let us be hypocritical in this House in regard to this legislation when we know that a greater problem exists out there and that perhaps each of us is guilty. It is nonsense for the Government to pin its hopes on tax avoidance when actually we should be concerned with tax evasion. Perhaps what we are looking for is plastic policemen-identity cards so that we can identify people with income and readily associate that income with the manner in which they take money from the public purse. I know that the card would be said to be an affront to civil liberties and it would be an offence under the Income Tax Assessment Act, but that is the only way we will be able to get to the bottom of the problem that faces us. I have mentioned the 1,200 or so pages of the present Act. It is time that this Government and this Parliament got their act together and made sure that the taxation laws of Australia are, both directly and indirectly, fair and equitable . For that reason I believe we should be funding a type of taxation foundation which is on tap all the time to supply information to the Taxation Office, to suggest reviews and also to rectify present inequities. We will not correct the taxation system by bringing these spurious Bills before the House and talking about great sums of money being lost when so little of it applies to tax avoidance itself. For that reason I will be voting against the Bill. I believe it is as shallow as the Government's argument on this matter. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(11.59) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it would be true to say that so far as the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill and associated Bill are concerned, the issues involved have been exhaustively canvassed in this House, both in this debate and in the earlier debate as a result of a Budget Bill last year when the same legislation was dealt with. I guess the matter has also been considered in the context of the other variants of this legislation that have been introduced. So I will not talk for long. I begin by simply drawing attention to the centrality of the introduction of a greater degree of equity into the tax system to the prices and incomes accord. As honourable members would be aware, the prices and incomes accord is the central element of the Government's economic program. An element of that accord is the introduction of a degree of tax equity. That assumes particular significance at this point of time given the smallness of the consumer price index adjustment that we are likely to see in October because of the Medicare adjustment. Hence there is a need to avoid a collapse of the accord resulting from the smallness of that adjustment; hence also the recognised and perceived need for some tax relief, particularly for people in lower and middle income brackets. In terms of increasing the scope for tax relief on the one hand and increasing the revenue available for the Government's social objectives-raising basic social welfare benefit payments, for example-it is obviously important to minimise the degree of tax avoidance. There could be no more equitable revenue measure than rigorously to police and enforce tax avoidance measures and to introduce new forms of tax avoidance legislation where earlier legislation has proven to be inadequate. As earlier speakers have pointed out, the Government does not see this Bill as being the first best option. There will be no inclusion of capital profits within the ambit of the Bill. There will be no inclusion of revenue profits for years other than years in which there was an evasion of primary company tax. Those two exclusions will reduce the expected revenue from some $540m to $270m. As the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) pointed out, if we take into account what the amount would have been had the $540m been indexed we are looking at something like $840m. So really there is no doubt that this legislation recoups only a small proportion of what the Government had hoped to recoup. We have heard a lot from the Opposition about the allegedly draconian retrospective facet of this legislation. I do not think that the Opposition would oppose either in rhetoric or in actions the retrospective collection of a tax in a case in which avoidance of a then existing tax had taken place. Its own legislation, the 1982 principal Act of this legislation, involved the retrospective collection of a tax liability that had been improperly avoided at an earlier time. The Opposition argues, of course, that this legislation retrospectively imposes a new tax liability. It tends to focus on the fact that the totality of the retained earnings so far as the revenue profit is concerned is to be imputed as a dividend and it is claimed that a complete dividend distribution would not in practice occur; that if the business continued to operate only a proportion of the retained earnings would go out in the form of a dividend, but another part of the retained earnings arising from revenue profit would in fact be ploughed back into the company and may possibly ultimately result in a capital gain. That seems to be the basis of the claim that what we are dealing with here is an effective capital gains tax. I just make the point that a more reasonable way of considering this sort of issue would be to look at what would happen in the case of a company that was liquidated either voluntarily or involuntarily without any avoided company tax liability being involved, without that type of stripping operation involved, rather than considering what would have happened had the company continued to operate. As I understand the existing law, upon liquidation after meeting the obligations of the creditors anything left over that was distributed, would, in fact, be treated as income and subject to personal income tax in the hands of shareholders in the normal way. That being the case I do not think it is unreasonable or inconsistent with that general situation that this Government is seeking to impute a dividend based on the total after-tax retained earnings arising from revenue profits. I think it is a reasonable thing to do and that it is consistent in point of fact with the existing set of arrangements that apply in respect of companies going into liquidation. Furthermore, I understand that there is a growing body of legal opinion that holds that the amounts which the Government seeks to recoup with these two Bills could in fact have been recouped given a situation in the High Court different from that which prevailed under Barwick. The opinion is that the amounts could have been recouped under the old section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Given an interpretation of legal doctrine different from the literalistic interpretations of the Barwick High Court, it may well have been feasible for these moneys to be collected under the old income tax legislation that applied during the period with which we are concerned. Thus, I really do not think that there is some draconian new principle involved in what is being imposed here; nor is there a question of the retrospective introduction of a tax which did not apply at the time. I do not think that those interpretations are valid. We are dealing here with the fact that there was an effective distribution of a dividend, to the people involved, the vendor-shareholders. They benefited as if a dividend had in fact been distributed. Therefore, it is reasonable that that should be taken into account in the Government's tax legislation. A tax liability should be attached to the personal income arising from those dividends at the time. Thus I think that the legislation is reasonable. I certainly think that it is equitable and that the pursuit of legislative measures of this type are central to adherence to the prices and incomes accord. Without the vigorous pursuit of anti-tax avoidance measures we could see a real problem with the viability of the prices and incomes accord. I call upon members of this House to support this legislation fully and to reject the specious arguments advanced by the Opposition. Debate (on motion by Mr Donald Cameron) adjourned. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —by leave-In opening the thirty-third Parliament on 21 April 1983 the Governor-General said: My Government is committed to bringing self-government to the Australian Capital Territory. As a first step a broad range of local government powers will be transferred to the ACT House of Assembly. On 9 November 1983 I appointed a Task Force of four members to advise me on implementation of self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. The membership of the Task Force comprises Mr Gordon Craig, OBE, as Chairman and Ms Llois Cutts, Mr John Wood and Mr Alan Ashley. The Task Force was asked to examine a broad range of matters in respect of implementing self-government, to consult widely with the Australian Capital Territory community and to report to me in mid-1984. Because of the significant implications of self-government in the Australian Capital Territory to the people of the Territory and to the nation as a whole, and therefore the need to proceed with maximum consultation and minimum disruption, the Government has decided to take a number of steps which I shall now outline. Firstly, the Government affirms the objective of a phased introduction of self- government in the Australian Capital Territory, involving a transfer of powers and functions to a newly elected Legislative Assembly. So that there is no misunderstanding, I would like to explain that this affirmation of the objective of self-government refers in broad terms to both the concept of self-government and the process of implementation. The concept of self-government which this Government is prepared to consider involves the election of a Legislative Assembly with powers to make laws and administer functions wider than those traditional to municipal government in the States, but of course, not statehood. The process of implementing self-government which this Government favours involves a staged transfer of powers and functions to allow the smoothest, fairest and most efficient transition to remove unfounded fear in the Australian Capital Territory community about instability or hardship. In this regard, I want to make it clear that the financial arrangements for the Australian Capital Territory under self-government would be generally modelled on the Commonwealth-State financial arrangements and principles of fiscal equalisation to ensure that citizens of the Australian Capital Territory are treated fairly and equitably compared with the wider Australian community. Those financial arrangements would be built around a five-year transition period involving appropriate financial guarantees and designed to minimise disruption and enable the fullest opportunity for the negotiation of future funding levels. At this stage the Government is committed to the widest possible process of public consultation and discussion of self-government options. To facilitate this process and enable the people of the Territory to understand and contribute to proposals, I am releasing the report of the Self-Government Task Force so that public comment can be sought. The Government is not necessarily committed to particular arguments or recommendations of the Task Force and will take full account of community response to the report in the development of its position on implementation of self-government. The Government also expects soon to receive the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission on Australian Capital Territory finances. That report will be released as soon as possible and will provide additional information and options to guide community and Government consideration of self-government implementation. In the light of public comment on the Task Force and Grants Commission reports, and in consultation with members of the Task Force, the House of Assembly, the Trades and Labour Council, relevant departments and authorities and other community organisations, the Government will publish a White Paper on self- government implementation in the first half of 1985. The publication of the White Paper will allow for further public consideration of the Government's intentions. In addition, the consultative process will include the establishment of a committee of relevant unions and Government officals to give particular consideration to the question of an Australian Capital Territory administration separate from the Australian Public Service. Following this wide consultative process the Government will give consideration to commencing the implementation of self-government in the second half of 1985. The smooth implementation of self-government necessarily involves a range of complex administrative tasks. In line with the consultative process I have outlined, we will also be taking steps to co-ordinate necessary administrative arrangements so we are properly positioned to meet a 1985 implementation timetable. I would like to express my thanks to the members of the Task Force for the work they have done and the way they have carried out their tasks. I now table the report of the Task Force on Implementation of Self-Government for the Australian Capital Territory. I present the following paper: Self-Government for the Australian Capital Territory-Ministerial Statement, 10 May 1984. Motion (by Mr Howe) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.14) —I welcome the opportunity to speak to the statement made by the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) and the report of the Task Force on Implementation of Self-Government for the Australian Capital Territory. I know that the Minister is anxious to get away, because he has an obligation to speak to the Press in relation to this matter, rather than to hear the whole of the debate. To facilitate that he has brought the matter on for discussion now. I am more than happy for him, as he suggested, not to listen but to read my comments in Hansard so that he can meet his commitment. But before he leaves I ask for some undertaking from him and the Government that this very detailed document which I have before me-it runs to something in the order of 177 pages-dealing with the concept of self-government will be debated not only in relation to this short statement but also in relation to some of the wider principles canvassed. Can the Minister give some assurance about when the matter will come on for debate? Mr Uren —I cannot give any undertaking. Only the Leader of the House and the Government as a whole can give that undertaking. Mr RUDDOCK —I will seek further advice from the Government on the opportunity to debate this matter more fully. It is a very important question, particularly to the people of the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister's statement today needs to be read very carefully against the Government's promise in this area. I pulled out the Australian Labor Party platform documents in relation to the Australian Capital Territory just to remind myself of the formal nature of the promise that was made by the Government regarding self-government. In the platform under the heading 'Federalism' this statement appears: Self-government for the ACT with devolution of powers on terms and conditions suitable to and agreed by both the Federal government and the ACT House of Assembly. That statement was made in the Government's own document. Statements were also made in the run up to the last election. I understand that in May 1982 the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, made some comments about self-government, because this was the centre of the Labor Party's policies regarding the Australian Capital Territory. If the then Opposition said anything else in relation to the Australian Capital Territory it said: 'There shall be self- government for the Australian Capital Territory'.Mr Hayden, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, said in May 1982, regarding the forthcoming House of Assembly election, that within 12 months of a Labor government being elected there would be self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. Mrs Kelly —You did nothing about it when you were in government. Mr RUDDOCK —The Opposition, when in government, was very conscious of the matter of self-government. It was of the view that a great deal more information was needed before it could realistically pursue the matter. It took the view that it needed to have an inquiry in relation to the National Capital Development Commission to look at any relationship that it might have in the context of self -government for the Australian Capital Territory. It was of the view that before anything else it should look at the financial arrangements for the Australian Capital Territory, because unless it was certain as to what those financial arrangements were there was no point in proceeding to put such a policy in place . The Opposition has always voiced its concern that the community in the Australian Capital Territory needed to have before it information on the financial arrangements before any proposition for self-government could be realistically advanced. It referred to the Commonwealth Grants Commission responsibility to look at the matters in relation to the Australian Capital Territory and gave it a particular term of reference. The Minister made reference to that in his statement today. The reason I point out these matters with the clarity that I have is that the Labor Party had a commitment. The Opposition clearly said right from the beginning that we have to be very cautious about the way in which the matter is approached because the community needs to have information before it. I might welcome the Government's conversion to this more responsible approach, but I think that it needs to be looked at against its rhetoric. There is a great deal of concern about the question of self-government in the Australian Capital Territory, particularly in the context of the financial arrangements. On every occasion on which I have spoken about self-government I have emphasised the need to have that information available before this matter is pressed. We are now in a situation in which those people who have been determined to put self-government in place, such as the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) , who interjected, are now putting this initiative on the back burner. They are aware of the very considerable concern in the Australian Capital Territory. They are aware that in the context of any early Federal election the question of self -government will be a higher profile concern in the Australian Capital Territory than it was on the last occasion. I suspect that that fact has the honourable member for Canberra quivering in her shoes or boots today. She is quivering at the prospect of the people of the Australian Capital Territory looking more clearly at this question than they have done in the past other than in the context of a referendum and that matter was addressed by the previous Government . We know that the Labor Party wants to have the best of both worlds. It wants to put the issue on the back burner and to ensure that it is not discussed in the context of an election, so it has brought down this report. It does not want these issues raised and it will not give the people of the Australian Capital Territory an opportunity of looking at them by way of a referendum. Clearly, the Minister makes no mention of it in his statement. It is interesting to note some of the matters that the Minister has mentioned in his report. While he has had this Task Force report before him over the last couple of months and while there has been this toing and froing between him and the Task Force to get extra information there has been a great deal of discussion on this question within the trade union movement of the Australian Capital Territory. Mrs Kelly —So there should. Mr RUDDOCK —Of course there should be. I would be the first to admit that there should be discussion in the trade union movement and that the matter of self- government is of concern to the Public Service. But when we read this statement we wonder whether any other organisations in the Australian Capital Territory are to be interested in this question of self-government. The Minister said in his statement: In the light of public comments on the Task Force and Grants Commission reports -- when the latter is to hand-- and in consultation with members of the Task Force, the House of Assembly, the Trades and Labor Council, relevant departments and authorities and other community organisations, the Government will publish a White Paper . . . The statement continues: In addition, the consultative process will include the establishment of a committee of relevant unions and Government officials to give particular consideration to the question of an Australian Capital Territory Administration separate from the Australian Public Service. While I think it is very appropriate that the unions be involved, I do not think they ought to be the only organisations involved and I do not think other organisations in Canberra which have an interest in this subject ought just to be grouped together under the amorphous title 'other community organisations'. It is an emphasis of the concern that exists within the Public Service unions in Canberra and the reasons for their holding a meeting to consider the self- government question that the Minister in his statement has put such emphasis upon those organisations and consultations and largely, in my view, ignored other organisations that ought to be involved in the discussion of this question . I mention two other matters in the context of this report and the Minister's statement. There is wide uncertainty in the Australian Capital Territory about the implications of self-government. People in the Australian Capital Territory have demanded that they be given an opportunity to comment on proposals, to play a role in reaching the decision as to what form self-government might take and to have a say by way of referendum. I have tabled, as have other honourable members, a number of petitions signed by concerned citizens of the Australian Capital Territory seeking a referendum on these proposals. I think the most clear reason for the people of Canberra, through those petitions, seeking to put a view in relation to self-government is the uncertain arrangements for the finances of the Australian Capital Territory in the event that self-government proceeds. The people of the Australian Capital Territory could not fail to notice the tremendous uncertainty that is left in abeyance and unresolved by the Minister's statement. The Grants Commission, chaired by Mr Justice Else Mitchell, has been inquiring into Australian Capital Territory finances and has to produce its report. The Minister gives us to understand that the Grants Commission is likely to report shortly, but that report is not yet before us. I do not believe that any realistic decisions can be taken on the question of self-government until that report is before the Parliament. There needs to be certainty in the Australian Capital Territory about the financial arrangements before this question of self- government can be considered realistically. If it is to be considered in the context of the Minister's statement I think there will be even further concern than there might otherwise have been. The Minister said in his statement: . . . I want to make it clear that the financial arrangements for the Australian Capital Territory under self-government would be generally modelled on the Commonwealth-State financial arrangements and principles of fiscal equalisation to ensure that citizens of the Australian Capital Territory are treated fairly and equitably compared with the wider Australian community. I think people of the Australian Capital Territory will want to know not just that their taxation base is to be looked at in the context of fairness and equity vis-a-vis the wider Australian community; rather they will want to be aware that the very special factors that affect the citizens of the Territory because it is the national capital will be taken into account. There is no indication in the Minister's statement that those factors will be taken into account in any self-government situation to the extent to which they are taken into account now. The honourable member for Canberra will be aware that Canberra has very significant national capital buildings and open spaces and that its buses have to travel much greater distances between centres of population than is the case in any other capital cities in Australia. These factors make Canberra unique. There is no indication in the Minister's statement that those special factors that result from Canberra's position as the national capital will be taken into account. I think the more alarming statement from this Minister for citizens of the Australian Capital Territory is this: Those financial arrangements would be built around a five-year transition period involving appropriate financial guarantees . . . In other words, notwithstanding the permanence of the buildings, structures and design of the capital which would entrench special cost factors that might have to be met, the transitional arrangements to take those factors into account would be limited to five years. All I can say is that I think it is important that the Else-Mitchell document be got into this House as quickly as possible so that we are in a position to see what the judge says about the special position in which the Australian Capital Territory may now be and, on the basis of factual information, to examine the implications of the Minister's statement. The Minister's statement clearly envisages very considerable increased costs being handed on to the people of Canberra to bear in relation to this capital and its special design. I think the Minister's statement is the clearest statement that I have seen from any Minister that the people of Canberra will be called upon to pay a great deal more in the event of self-government. I think the five-year transition arrangements spell that out with great clarity. If honourable members think that they can add to the statement and clarify what the Minister has said, let them do it, but that is the implication of what he has said. The other matter to which I wish to draw the attention of honourable members concerns the electoral arrangements. The electoral arrangements were clearly matters of great concern to the people of the Australian Capital Territory. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Mrs Kelly) adjourned. [COGNATE BILL: DIVIDEND RECOUPMENT TAX BILL 1983 [No. 2] ] Debate resumed. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(12.30) —in reply-In closing the debate on the second reading of the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill 1983 [No. 4] and the cognate Bill, the Dividend Recoupment Tax Bill 1983 [No. 2], I convey thanks to those who made contributions to it. There has been some fine political rhetoric from both sides of the House and, in the case of my colleagues, the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin), the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) and the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths), there has been some good reasoning as well. There is a glorious feeling of deja vu about this debate. We had it a few times before. As we know, there is overwhelming support for these Bills in this chamber, but a majority of the Australian Democrats, with Senator Harradine plus senators of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia have been rejecting the will of the popularly elected Government. This must be about the seventeenth time that I have heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the shadow Treasurer, make the same speech. I must confess that it does not get any better. I am reminded of the phrase 'empty kettles make the most sound' because his speech on this subject has been characterised by a great deal of noise-on a previous occasion I called it huffing and puffing-but very little reasoned argument to substantiate the points he was making. I have said before and I will say it again on this occasion: In my view there is an inverse ratio between the volume of noise made in some of these speeches and in the quality of the arguments contained in them. Whereas the Deputy Leader of the Opposition boomed at us, the speakers whom I have mentioned from this side were, I believe, very effective in putting forward reasons for these two Bills. I think the Deputy Leader's contribution can be summed up like this: Some of the biggest tax avoiders in this country are not his best friends but he wants to help them by opposing this legislation. Our argument, which was put by the honourable members for Canberra, Hunter, Maribyrnong and Sydney, is that the bottom of the harbour companies which were sold were virtually liquidated, a quasi-liquidation. We are dealing with these quasi-liquidations in this legislation. It is inconceivable in our view that when the shareholders of those companies came to sell their shares they did not know that they were taking part in a scheme which was contrived not just to avoid tax but indeed to evade tax. The community we represent has every right to expect that we should apply the same tax provisions to these contrived schemes which would apply if those companies had been liquidated. In fact under these Bills we are not imposing all of the taxes that would have been applied to shareholders in the circumstances of those companies being liquidated. We are not asking for equivalent amounts of tax to be paid which would have been paid had the companies been normally liquidated. We are recouping only the current year personal tax. We are not going back to earlier years and catching accumulated revenue profits which should have been caught. Some say that the vendor-shareholders are having retrospective tax applied to them. Both the Government and I reject that. My conviction is that section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, including the new Part IVA which was inserted about May 1981, has always contained provisions which should have sounded alarm bells to all of those who took part in schemes to avoid tax. I repeat: There have been provisions in the tax which should have spelt out the word 'beware' to anybody involved in schemes which were indeed evasion schemes and not just tax avoidance schemes. Those provisions were dormant only because of the particular composition of the High Court of Australia at a particular time. It was inconceivable, and so it should have been, that the will of the people of this country, as expressed through this Parliament, be ignored forever by the High Court. Indeed, the High Court is not now neglecting the will of the people in these matters. I repeat that anyone involving themselves in such schemes had a duty to themselves to recognise that they were taking a risk, that they were taking part in a scheme to avoid tax and that there have been provisions in the legislation to attack just those sorts of schemes. Tax advisers, lawyers and accountants, with any ethics and pride in the work they do, would have so advised their clients to be wary. So with these events put in this perspective it is clear that no injustice is being applied to anyone. Under this legislation $270m is owing to the Australian people by those who took that risk with their eyes wide open, a risk which they should not get away with and which they will not get away with if this legislation becomes law. There is more in this legislation which is opposed by the majority of the Australian Democrats, by Senator Harradine as well as by senators of the Liberal and the National parties than just the recoupment of $ 270m, although that is the most important part of this legislation. These Bills also remove the innocence clause, sub-section 3(12) of the Liberal legislation, and by doing so make the Liberal legislation fairer. If this legislation goes through it will mean that these companies which are caught now will go to the bottom of the harbour, just as many hundreds of other companies were. The only difference is whether the tax avoidance promoters to whom the companies were sold went through the pretence of putting the companies through a post-sale tax avoidance scheme. Usually that was merely the luck of the draw. Some promoters used the technique of post-sale tax avoidance schemes while others did not. The vendors of these companies benefited just as much as the vendors of companies that were not put through a post-sale tax avoidance scheme. It has consistently been the policy of the Australian Labor Party, both in opposition and in government, to get rid of sub-section 3(12) from the Liberal legislation. It was part of our election commitment on tax avoidance, and we have made two unsuccessful attempts to carry out that mandate given to us in the election by the Australian people. Sub-section 3(12) is said by some to be an innocence clause. It was clearly stated by the former Treasurer last year that the disability under the former Government's legislation did not turn on guilt or innocence but on the fact that benefits were derived from the evasion of company tax. Cases presently let out by sub-section 3(12) involved conferring a benefit on vendor-shareholders. That is why the provision defies logic. It selects a particular small group of bottom of the harbour schemes and exempts them from the legislation. I also point out that this legislation not only removes that innocence clause but it also contains machinery measures to improve the administration of existing law. So arguments from the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and others, about the naming of persons and about the stripping arrangements, have all been answered already and all came up in earlier debates on this legislation in this chamber and I need not turn to them now. In summary, a vote against these two Bills is to deny the Australian people what is owed to them, $270m, and it is to deny administrators of the existing legislation proper provisions to carry out their duties. A vote for these Bills is a vote for fairness and for good administration in tax avoidance legislation. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 41 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Brown, John Keogh, L. J.Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Fry, K. L. Scott, J. L.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.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. Adermann, A. E. Lusher, S. A.Andrew, J. N. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Fife, W. C. Robinson, IanGoodluck, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Groom, R. J. Ruddock, P. M.Hall, Steele Shipton, R. F.Hawker, D. P. M. Sinclair, I. McC.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Spender, J. M.Hodgman, W. M. Tuckey, C. W.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Katter, R. C. Bowen, Lionel Dobie, J. D. M.Blewett, N. Fisher, P. S.Simmons, D. W. Aldred, K. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being past 12.45 p.m., the proceedings are interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106A. The proceedings may be resumed at a later hour. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(12.47) —I move: That this House- (1) expresses its grave concern over the pressures put on public hospitals throughout Australia under the so-called 'free public hospital' provisions of the Government's Medicare scheme, and because of the Health Minister's coercive measures against doctors practising in public hospitals; and (2) calls on the Government to abandon these aspects of the scheme. Our public hospitals all around Australia are in a state of crisis which is being made worse because of the Medicare agreement between the Federal and State governments. This Medicare agreement, signed between the Federal Health Minister (Dr Blewett) and State health Ministers, provided for the State governments to give free outpatient treatment to anybody who came along to an outpatient department and free public hospital beds to anybody who was not privately insured. That was the basis of the agreement. On an annual basis it is costing the Australian taxpayer an extra $700m or so for payments to the States to provide the so-called free services. Medicare, according to the Minister for Health and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) provides free hospital beds. Now we all know that they are not really free; that they are in fact paid for partly through the Medicare levy and also through general taxation. I also want to say something about the so-called free hospital beds in the public hospitals as they affect insured patients. A person who is quite well off and is not insured privately for private hospital treatment pays absolutely nothing for a hospital bed in a public hospital. A person with the same level of income, the same sort of expenses, who takes out private insurance cover in order to have a choice of his own doctor, could go into the very same hospital bed and be charged $80 a day through his insurance, for the same privileges that are given free to a person on the same income, uninsured. Now that is one of the most unfair aspects of this scheme and it is something that everybody who takes out private insurance ought to understand. I think they should still take out private insurance because, if they are really very ill and want to change their doctor, they will have the opportunity to do so with that private insurance. If they are not privately insured, they take the doctor that the hospital gives them and they have not any right to change that doctor if they are unhappy about the service. There are certain aspects of the agreement as they relate to Queensland which I think I should mention. In Queensland there has been a free hospital service for over 40 years. When Medicare came in Queenslanders were asked, indeed forced, to pay the one per cent additional levy on their taxable income for a free service which they were already getting through their State Government, through their State hospital system. Queensland, under these cost-sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States, is paid on average $29 per head of its population for hospital grants versus $50 a head for the other States. So the Queenslanders for a start were totally robbed by this Medicare situation but even if it were not for that, Medicare does not pay for free hospital beds; Queensland gets $6m a month from Medicare to run its hospital system and in fact it costs Queensland 10 times that; it costs $60m a month to run the hospital system. Much the same applies in the other States. In fact the money going from the Commonwealth to the States pays only a tenth, or perhaps slightly more in other States, of the amount it actually costs to run the hospitals and provide those so-called free services. When this deal was done, the Commonwealth assumed that there would be about a 4 per cent increase in outpatient services and that there would be a drop in privately insured patients in the private part of the hospitals of 4 per cent or 5 per cent. That is what the Commonwealth said and, of course, the reimbursements from the Commonwealth to the States depended on that sort of calculation. The Commonwealth was saying: 'Listen, States, we think that you are going to have more outpatients and we also think you are going to have a drop in your insured private patients who would, of course, provide money to the public hospital system through the private insurance funds'. I have been doing some scouting around the public hospitals and I am told that in the teaching hospitals in Sydney there has in fact been a 15 per cent increase in outpatients. In other words, because free treatment is provided to outpatients, regardless of means, there are longer queues, more people are being seen and some of those who had to rely on outpatients before, such as pensioners , are having to go back in the queue. But, of course, there is an additional expense in meeting a 15 per cent increase in outpatient services. Perhaps more seriously for the State hospital systems, there has been a 10 per cent-not a 4 per cent as estimated by the Commonwealth-decrease in insured inpatients. In other words, the number of people taking private hospital cover for private hospital insurance has dropped by 10 per cent. It means, simply stated, that the hospitals are getting far less money out of the private health insurance funds than they were told they would get by the Commonwealth Government. I estimate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it will probably cost the Commonwealth on an annual basis a hundred million dollars more than was estimated to provide the so-called free hospital services. I believe that if the Commonwealth Government were fair-dinkum about the health levy and the costing that it put out originally it would need to increase the levy from one per cent up to a more likely figure of 1 1/2 or 2 per cent to come anywhere near meeting the real costs or the additional costs of its scheme. Of course, if so-called free services are offered greater numbers of people want those services and therefore additional pressures are placed on public hospitals from new patients coming in. That is not really possible in most public hospitals because they were already pretty stretched under the previous funding arrangements. But there is a further squeeze on the public hospitals because the Government has made it less satisfactory, from a cost point of view, for people to go into private hospitals. My information, again from round the Sydney area, is that there has been about a 30 per cent drop in occupancy rates in private hospitals and those people, if they are not going into the private hospitals, are trying to get into the public hospitals and are adding to the pressure on already stretched facilities. This matter is becoming extremely serious. I quoted the other day in this House from the Age on 1 May an article headed 'Chief Surgeon Quits Over Long Delays for Patients'. The article said: The chief of orthopaedic surgery at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Mr Kingsley Mills, has resigned because he says he can no longer take the frustration and worry of watching patient waiting lists grow. Mr Mills said yesterday that about 900 patients, most with painful conditions, faced indefinite delays for orthopaedic surgery at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. The list was increasing and many of the patients, needing knee and hip replacements, could not afford private hospitals. 'There is a constant anxiety at the back of your mind about it. Our registrars are getting six or more calls a day from people on the waiting list hoping something can be done for them', Mr Mills said. 'I feel I have done everything in my power to improve the situation . . . I have reached a point where I really feel I can't go any further.' Mr Mills said that because of the hospital budget cuts, orthopaedic surgeons were now largely concerned with emergency work while patients with painful, non- fatal conditions waited indefinitely. There was also a news report in the Melbourne Herald of 1 May, again about the Royal Melbourne Hospital. It stated: The Royal Melbourne Hospital is 'extremely concerned' about its finances. 'Any more financial cuts and we will have to say to the State Government you come and run the place', the hospital's director of medical services, Dr G. H. Dreher, said today. 'We simply cannot absorb more financial cuts, and there has to be a point where we say we can't run it at that level.' Dr Dreher warned that the Royal Melbourne Hospital's board of management was concerned that the hospital was 'very close' to crisis. 'We are in a situation of having to restrict everything, including our specialties such as the heart and renal areas, to meet our budgetary restraints' , Dr Dreher said. 'If we go on too long with that our standards will drop. 'We need to have a minimum number of patients so that our specialists can keep their skills at the highest pitch.' 'By reducing the amount of drugs dispensed and chasing the patients away all you do is save money but drop the standards. 'All the financial strategies we've had are to try maintaining standards. 'But we are terrible afraid that if we are pushed down any more than this we are going to eat into the area of standards. Behind those reports, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a tragedy which has been reported with a three months waiting list for heart surgery cases. People have been dying before they have been able to get into the hospitals for heart surgery. I understand in New South Wales also there is a three months waiting list for heart surgery, and that is an impossible situation in a so-called civilised country like Australia. This squeeze was already there under the cost control measures of the State governments and the way they were organising themselves. There was a pressure on the major public hospitals and they were asked by their State Ministers to reduce their costs, in some cases very seriously. They are being further squeezed by the fact that the Federal Government has seriously underestimated the revenues available from private sources and also underestimated the increase in outpatients services, with a result that additional budget cuts are being forced on the State hospitals. I understand the State Ministers, most of them from the Australian Labor Party, are very concerned about this. They are preparing submissions to the Federal Government asking for more funds urgently under the Medicare arrangements to try to overcome some of these problems. Mr White —That is what we have been saying all the time. Mr CARLTON —That is exactly it. As the honourable member for McPherson says, we have been saying this throughout. I advise the House that the motion I put down today has been slightly amended but it was actually put down in May of last year , where we forecast, and even before that in the Medicare debate in September last year, that these things would happen. The Minister said that they would not happen, but we now see them tragically happening. If that were not enough, the Minister has added insult to injury by his attacks on the hospital doctors. I had no latitude as to when the Government would bring this motion on although it is on the Notice Paper for General Business on Thursday. I regret that the Minister is overseas, but I have to say these things here and now. The present Minister for Health is the first Minister for Health in the history of Australia to bring on a doctors' strike. We warned the Minister in the Medicare debate last year that by trying to bring in direct Federal control of all the contracts of doctors in the public hospitals of Australia he was touching a very sensitive nerve. The doctors in these hospitals are very independent people. They are the sort of people who have trained for many, many years. Surgeons, for example, spend six years in medical school; five years in some cases. They spend another seven years or so in training before they are able to practise fully as surgeons. They are people who are independent private, you might say, small businessmen. They are people who have to maintain their own skills. They are people who have to worry about the state of their eyesight, the steadiness of their hand. They are people whose working life is limited by their capacity to carry out their extraordinarily skilled task on which lives depend. These are very fiercely independent people, and this Minister for Health in his Bill last year in trying to control absolutely in some trade union fashion the incomes and the conditions of service that these doctors had negotiated with their hospitals, put them into such a state of mind that they actually went on strike, for the very first time in Australia's history, and this was a further burden on a hospital system which was already seriously overstrained. I have raised this matter many times in the House already. The reasons given by the Minister were spurious. The Minister claimed that he was only wanting to control the costs of diagnostic specialists operating their private practices through the public hospitals. He said that that was his only intention. Yet we found out that in a speech to the Doctors Reform Society he had disclosed that at a State Ministers conference last year it had been decided to begin with the diagnostic services and to extend the control to other specialties in due course . The surgeons and other specialists believed that they had been cheated, that they had been given totally incorrect information. I believe that from the beginning the Minister had the intention of controlling all medical specialties, their contracts, their fees and producing the state of mediocrity where the very best surgeon at the height of his powers would be able to charge no more, and no less, than the most recently graduated surgeon or the person who was not capable of carrying out extremely highly skilled operations. If that is the sort of health care that this Minister has in mind for Australia he ought to be open about it. The doctors believe that they now see that as his objective and that is why they have objected so strongly and that is why they went on strike for the very first time in Australia. That strike, and there is a threat still over us because the matter has not been resolved, is now with the Penington Inquiry into the Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals. There is a threat still that there will be further disruptions. Those disruptions are caused by the actions of the Minister for Health. Those actions make the running of the hospital systems, which are already under extreme pressure with people dying on the waiting lists for heart surgery and people with painful orthopaedic conditions waiting up to two years for surgery, very difficult. The condition of all these people will be made worse if there is any return of that kind of industrial difficulty. What do we have from the Health Minister, who is supposed to be concerned about bringing some calm into this situation? I have the most scandalous report from the Brisbane Sun of 29 April. It is really an unbelievable report but unfortunately I have to make this information available to the House because it gives some indication of the thinking behind these attacks on the doctors. The report is of the Health Ministers Conference in Melbourne recently, and states: It was a big night for Dr Blewett. After a day of discussions at a Health Ministers' conference in Melbourne, he was taking out the State ministers and directors general for a night on the town . And what better place to choose than a theatre restaurant called-The Last Laugh . It was certainly the night Dr Blewett was going to have the last laugh over Medicare. On the bus journey back to the palatial Windsor Hotel, Dr Blewett's press secretary went around handing song sheets to each of the Ministers. Now I have checked this out to see whether Dr Blewett was actually present on the bus and I am informed that whilst a school bus was provided to take the other Ministers back to the Windsor Dr Blewett indeed was taken back in a Government car. The report continues: And then the bus load of the country's top health dignitaries was told to join in the sing-along to the tune of 'O' Christmas Tree, O' Christmas Tree'. This is the wording of the song: O' AMA, O' AMA, How ever green your bank notes, From Vaucluse Heights to Toorak, There's nothing like being a filthy rich quack. O' AMA, O' AMA, Neil Blewett says you're bastards, With lots of money, In tax lurks, To keep up the payments, On the Mercs. And it goes on for four more verses. Mr McVeigh —The Minister said that? Mr CARLTON —This song sheet was handed out by a member of the Minister's staff, according to this newspaper report. I have checked with one of those present as to whether this happened. I checked whether Dr Blewett himself was personally there. He was not. The report goes on to say that the other Health Ministers seemed to think that it was in poor taste and it was mainly Dr Blewett's staff who did all the singing. Now that indicates, I am afraid, an underlying view of the medical profession and gives an insight, if not immediately and clearly shown by the Minister on this particular occasion, at least shown by the staff of the Minister's office, into the kind of discussions that must go on about this profession within the Minister's office. If, indeed, this is the attitude that is taken to a profession that we, our families and our children depend on for our health and which runs the hospitals throughout Australia under extremely difficult conditions and if the Federal Health Minister and his staff think and act in this way in relation to a highly honoured profession, heaven help Australia, and heaven help the future of its health. I think that the House ought to be shocked at this. I think that it is sufficient for the Prime Minister to call for a report from Dr Blewett as to whether this is the way his staff members treat the medical profession, the way they think about it or whether it is the way he thinks about it. MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Is the motion seconded? Mr White —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(1.7) —In the absence of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), as Acting Minister, I welcome this opportunity to join in the debate on the free public hospital provisions of the Government's Medicare scheme. I want to begin by expressing my disappointment at the tone taken by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). I think that the idea that the Government wanted to coerce doctors into mediocrity is an absurdity which is unworthy of the honourable member. It traduces the Government , quite unjustly, and it runs contrary to common sense. It was a measure of the paucity of the case that he had to offer that he had to rely for the bulk of his argument on the account in the Brisbane Sunday Telegraph of 29 April of high jinks that are alleged to have occurred in the bus after the Health Ministers Conference in Melbourne. Mr White —Did they occur? Mr BARRY JONES —I have no idea whether they occurred; it sounds like a bit of extracurricular activity and it has no policy significance whatever. It has nothing whatever to do with the general thrust of what this debate ought to be about. I am grateful anyway for the opportunity that is provided for me to point out the aims and the virtues of Medicare and to expose the weakness of the Opposition's position on health care policies. Members of the Opposition came into government in 1975 pledging to preserve Medibank but almost immediately repudiated that undertaking as they did to so many others. The previous Government had almost as many Health Ministers as it did health schemes. At the end of more than seven years of reactionary and contradictory health policies, its only achievement was to leave nearly two million people without access to health services. Two million people who could not afford private health cover were not covered by any form of government assistance. This Government sought to overcome this intolerable situation by introducing Medicare, a health scheme which provides basic medical and hospital treatment to all Australians regardless of their insurance status or their financial means. My colleagues and I believe that it is a fundamental human right that every person should be eligible for medical and hospital services based on his or her health needs. Medicare guarantees that right for every Australian. For all of the Opposition's cheap rhetoric, its gimcrack and opportunistic politicking and its attempts at cheap point-scoring, there is one unassailable fact which it must always recognise: The Government has been able to achieve in one year what it was not able to achieve in seven years-a simple, fair and affordable health scheme which covers all Australians. The Opposition took more positions than the Kamasutra describes in that seven-year period in trying to work out an appropriate health scheme for Australia. There was no security because when Medibank Mark 3, Mark 4 or Mark 5 came in, there was no guarantee how long it was going to last. This lack of certainty was one of the most appalling things in the previous Government. What is the substance of the motion before us today? How will the introduction of Medicare create this so-called pressure on the public hospital system? Does the honourable member for Mackellar feel that a change in the health insurance arrangements will somehow increase morbidity and result in greater utilisation of hospitals? Perhaps he feels that Medicare will make doctors view their patients differently so that they admit patients to hospitals more often, or for longer periods. Perhaps he feels that Medicare will lead to a significant reduction in the number of public hospital beds available, or could it be, as indeed he stressed, that he sees Medicare leading to a substantial shift from the treatment of patients in private hospitals towards public hospitals? As it happens none of these trends is likely. I will explain the facts about hospital utilisation in this country to expose the weakness of the logic in the motion. On the first point it is clearly nonsense to suggest that it is the availability of health insurance rather than the state of their health that determines whether patients become hospital cases. One could put a stronger case ; that chopping and changing policies lead to increasing anxiety and debility. On this basis the previous Government deserves the strongest censure because of its many changes to the health scheme over seven years. It is also nonsense to suggest that people will go to hospital simply because a free service is offered; people are admitted to hospital on the basis of their condition. If there is no increase in the incidence of illness there is no reason to suppose that there will be any increased pressure on hospital facilities. It is true that there has been a general increase in the utilisation of hospitals over the past decade, but this has been a steady increase. It has been related more to population growth and to the aging of the population than to any other factor. It has been an increase quite independent of any changes in health insurance arrangements, including the introduction of Medibank in 1975. It is expected that the increase will continue in the future and continue to be related to population growth rather than the type of health scheme. The second proposition was that the increased pressure would result from changing attitudes by doctors who will suddenly admit patients for appendicectomies or tonsillectomies where previously they would not have done so . After all, it is the doctors, not the patients, who admit people to hospital and determine their length of stay. If the Opposition believes that the increased pressure on hospitals will come from this source then it clearly has a lesser view of the medical profession than the Government has. It is quite insulting to most of the profession to suggest that they would admit patients for any reasons other than medical need or to prolong the stay of their patients simply because the accommodation is 'free'. The Government does not believe that the medical profession would act irresponsibly by unnecessarily admitting patients or keeping them in hospital longer than needed. We do not believe that there is any real risk of the additional pressure being generated from this source. Perhaps the increased pressure could come from a reduction in the number of public hospital beds available. I am glad to report to the House that the introduction of Medicare on 1 February this year did not herald any massive reduction in the number of public hospital beds in Australia, nor am I aware of any plans to reduce it in the future. It should be recognised that by international comparison Australia has a high ratio of hospital beds to population, 6.2 beds per thousand of population, while the generally accepted international average is 4.5 beds per thousand population. We also have an unusually high proportion of medical practitioners, one of the highest in the world, I think, second only to that of the United States. The United States has one doctor for every 480 people; we have one to 500; Canada has one to 540 and the United Kingdom has one to 600. We are also fortunate that as a nation we seem to be a good deal healthier than many countries with fewer hospital beds. I make the general observation that on average the occupancy rate of public hospitals throughout Australia in 1982-83 was around the two-thirds mark, although I accept that this has not been equitably distributed. For example, there are some disadvantaged areas where there are fewer hospitals and fewer beds pro rata and correspondingly higher pressure. I refer to the western suburbs of Melbourne-the area that I represent-and the western suburbs of Sydney . Let me give the figures for the elective surgery waiting list at the Western General Hospital in Melbourne in the electorate of Gellibrand. In March 1983 there were 670 on the waiting list; in September 1983, 707; and in March 1984 after Medicare had been introduced the figure had fallen to 666. So in an area where there is great pressure, far above the national average, the figures are lower than when the Fraser Government went out of office. Overall there is spare capacity in the public hospital system, but it will require some redistribution of resources by the various State governments. If the beds are redistributed the increased pressure on public hospitals will come from a shift away from the private hospital system, but surely this would be a natural operation of the law of supply and demand which should be dear to the heart of the honourable member for MacKellar. It is true that we are anticipating a change in the mix of patients being treated in public hospitals but treating more public patients in public hospitals does not automatically imply a greater utilisation overall of public hospitals. What it means is that there is a change in insurance status of those patients being treated within the public hospital system. The Federal and State governments were aware of this likely change in proportionality and made appropriate financial arrangements in the Medicare agreement to cover it. There is also provision within the agreement to vary the estimated shift between public and private patients should actual demand vary significantly from the original estimates. As yet no firm figures on the shift are available from the States. There are no early indications that our original estimates were wrong. The Government was also conscious of the impact that Medicare would have on private health insurance and, through it, on the private hospital system. We took deliberate and careful action to ensure the viability of private health funds and, in so doing, to guarantee the continuity of the private hospital system. Whilst we regard basic health services as a fundamental right which must be freely available for all, we acknowledge the role that must exist for the private hospital system. This Government will ensure that those who wish to exercise their right to be treated in a private hospital will not be denied proper access. People wish to retain private hospital insurance for a number of reasons. In recognising that fact the Government took steps in its Medicare planning to ensure that the cost of private health insurance was not beyond the reach of those who wanted it. The most notable of these steps was the substantial reduction in the cost of public hospital accommodation for patients choosing treatment as private patients in public hospitals; it went from about $130 a day to only $80. This allowed health funds to reduce significantly the rates for their basic hospital tables and ensured continued access to private health insurance for those who wanted it. Now there are as yet no firm figures on the numbers of people who have retained their private health insurance but there is some indication that the health funds have not lost as many members as they had first estimated. The Launceston Examiner on 4 May reported that a major health fund in that State, St Lukes, had lost only 9 per cent of its members since the introduction of Medicare rather than the 22 per cent which was at first estimated. I think it is reasonably clear that the personal reasons which lead people to take out private health insurance have not significantly changed and that there will continue to be a strong demand for private hospital services in this country. The honourable member for Mackellar claims that the Government's Medicare estimates were wrong, that we have seriously under-estimated the use of public hospital outpatients departments. He mentioned this on Tuesday in his speech on the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Amendment Bill 1984. He repeated today the phrase that he had been 'scouting around the public hospitals', but sometimes this impressionistic and anecdotal treatment may be wrong. He is able to point to some harsh cases, where people have been waiting for a long time for cardiac surgery. Has that happened overnight? Is it only a recent phenomenon? Mr Carlton —I did not suggest that; it is getting worse. Mr BARRY JONES —Of course you did not. It is a chronic situation because of the shortage of particular skills in particular disciplines, and that is something-- Mr Carlton —Not orthopaedics. Mr BARRY JONES —Certainly in the case of the cardiac area those delays are very long term. It is quite clear that the Opposition is using every tactic to try to obstruct the successful implementation of Medicare, one of the great triumphs of this Government and one of the great achievements of the Minister for Health. Opposition members simply will not accept that it is a well planned, well received social reform and they seem intent on trying to discredit it at every opportunity. Their plans have so far not succeeded, nor will they. At no time during any debates on Medicare has the Opposition made any constructive suggestion or offered any viable alternative to the scheme. The people of Australia deserve better health policies than those inflicted under the previous Government. Medicare will meet the people's needs. I have the utmost confidence in the public hospital system and its ability to maintain high quality services to the people of Australia. The Opposition's scare tactics bring it great discredit. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) — The Minister's time has elapsed. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(1.22) —This debate was called on by the Government and we on this side of the House are only too happy to oblige in any debate that concerns health care in this country and Medicare in particular. What we are talking about today, in particular, is the place of doctors and hospitals in the health system. I want to look first at that part of the debate about the coercive measures that are being used and have been used against doctors in this country. I think it first instructs us to look at what the Government was trying to do in those months leading up to Medicare and then in that recent dispute between the Government and the diagnostic specialists in public hospitals. What happened, in fact, as we all know now, is that the Government backed down in the end in that dispute. It backed down because in many cases it was on fragile ground in its arguments and, of course, it also backed down to clear the decks for an early election. 'Let us have nothing contentious' says the Government. 'Let us put all the contentious things to one side, like the assets tests and disputes with doctors. Let us soften it up a bit and put it to one side, we will not have any of those decisions. Let us get the election out of the way soon'. So that is the other reason that the Government backed down, and it was not only a decision by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who seemed fairly firm that he was going to pursue it to the end. It was intervention by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in exactly the same way as he intervened with his Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) when it came to contentious issues about the assets test, which was abandoned and put to a committee. We have got to look at why the diagnostic specialists were objecting. They were objecting because their future was being put in the hands of one man, a Minister in whom they had no confidence. They were being denied any appeal or any arbitration. The very principles that the Government is always espousing as being so essential in industrial disputes were being denied to the specialists in public hospitals. Why would they not object? A highly competitive, highly individual, highly professional group of people in the Australian community were being put down by the Minister into some amorphous classification where their very rights were being eroded. In fact, in some cases, they had no rights at all . It is not as though no restraint was being shown in public hospitals. As far as I know the diagnostic specialists were sticking to the scheduled fee, almost without exception, throughout Australia and in all cases were working under contracts between themselves and the hospitals. The hospitals, to a large extent , of course, were controlled by the State governments, and it may be that to which this centralised and socialistic Government was objecting. It wanted a piece of the action, but we have to ask the question: Why not let continue the system of contracts between the doctors and the public hospitals? In particular, why not allow the Penington Inquiry into the Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals to come forward with its recommendations before the Minister's philosophy was imposed on the specialists? In the event, the Minister backed down, after intervention by the Prime Minister and assistance by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). The Government has now agreed to wait until the Penington inquiry reports, and I will come back to the Penington inquiry in a moment. One of the things that I think needs repeating during this debate on health care is the philosophy and the attitude of the Minister. During the Medicare debate and recently during the debate over specialists in public hospitals he compared the doctors to the Builders Labourers Federation. Apart from the fact that the doctors are savers and preventers and builders labourers are thugs and destroyers, that statement indicates the contempt that the Minister has for the private practitioners and for private enterprise in this country, and he should not be allowed to forget it. The Minister's attitude to health care is clearly expressed in the speech that he made to the Australian Hospital Association in Adelaide in 1982. He said: The Party-- That is the Labor 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,- I am glad he recognised that at least. He goes on: . . . 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. What is now clear to the profession and, I think, becoming much clearer to the great bulk of the Australian people, is that he has not put his philosophy to one side but is just approaching his objective from a different direction and the objective is the socialisation of medicine in this country. Let me turn for a moment to the Penington inquiry. On 24 January this year, just prior to the introduction of Medicare, the inquiry was announced by the Minister for Health. It is worth quoting from a part of the terms of reference. It reads: The Committee shall inquire into and report on existing administrative and financial arrangement for providing medical services to private patients in public hospitals in the States and Territories, with particular reference to the provision of certain prescribed diagnostic services. In particular, the Committee will consider mechanisms for review or appeal in relation to arrangements determined by the Minister for Health. The inquiry was set up to examine the role of diagnostic specialists in public hospitals. Having set up the inquiry, the Minister goes on to impose section 17 on the profession, regardless of the fact that the inquiry had been set up and was under way. It is very difficult to understand, and I would be very happy if someone on the Government side could explain, why the Government set up an inquiry and then ignored the fact that it had set it up. It will ignore the report that is yet to come in and will go ahead, in a very stupid and pigheaded fashion, to try to impose on the medical profession conditions which an inquiry has been set up to look into. It must have given the committee great confidence to be set up and then have the ground cut from under its feet. But as far as the Penington inquiry is concerned, of course, the conditions for diagnostic specialists are now back in its court, to a large extent, and we look forward to its report, I think are at the end of June. Let me turn to the role of hospitals in the health care system. There is no doubt, despite what the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) said in his previous speech, that Medicare has been an assault, and is an assault, on the private hospital system in this country. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) cited figures from some public hospitals to show the strain they are under. But many private hospitals in this country are going out of business. The smaller country hospitals are under threat, and it is not only the smaller country hospitals. In my own area let me give examples of two out of three private hospitals. In one of them the daily average occupancy has dropped to 18 per cent, and of course no hospital, no business, can continue under such conditions. In another hospital in my own area the occupancy rate has dropped to 54 per cent-somewhat better than 18 per cent-but certainly hardly in the black. These private hospitals simply cannot survive under this system and the reason is that the balance of funding has been changed in favour of the public hospitals. Mr John Brown —That is bad, is it? Mr WHITE —Yes, it is bad, and if the Minister cannot understand that he should not be sitting on the front bench because what he is doing is putting pressure on all the public institutions while all the money and all the facilities that are in the private institutions are lying idle, and he should be able to understand that. We will reach a position where the Government will be forced to pour more and more money into public hospitals while at the same time half the private hospital facilities in this country will be lying idle. I have given two very good examples. I expect the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), who will be speaking shortly, to give other examples. It is no use getting up and blandly saying that there is no evidence that the private hospital system is being underused; it is happening all around this country while the public hospital system is under great pressure and, in some areas, in a state of crisis. We will see, to relieve that pressure on public hospitals, more and more public money going into them, great monuments to the Minister's ego, while the private hospital system continues to suffer. It would seem that there is a good case for not building any more public hospitals, certainly in certain areas, but contracting out to the private hospitals the public patients, which would be cheaper and more efficient and would use the facilities that are already in existence. We have to ask ourselves what sort of a health system we want in this country. It is quite clear, from this side of the House, that we want a system that is based, firstly, on freedom of choice; secondly, on a system that restores the doctor-patient relationship; and, thirdly, a system in which private hospitals are encouraged to play a significant part. Let me deal briefly with our view on the freedom of choice. At the moment a one per cent levy is paid, whether people like it or not. How long will we be able to hold the levy at that rate? Why do we not allow people to make their own arrangements? They can pay the levy if they wish or they can go into some private insurance system. Why cannot we allow gap insurance instead of forcing bulk billing on this nation? Our Government is always talking about the rights of the individual but when those rights-that is, the freedom of choice-conflict with some of its own philosophies about socialism then it is the rights of the individual that go out the window and a centralist-socialist philosophy that predominates. We want to see the restoration of doctors to their rightful place in the health system, the restoration of that close relationship between doctors and patients and the removal of the intrusion of the Government into that relationship. We should stop threatening doctors and encourage them instead to play their part. We have to ask, in view of the honourable member for Mackellar's statement about the song that certainly the Minister for Health's staff were singing in a bus, why the Minister hates private doctors. In every utterance and every philosophy of the health system of this country that is becoming more and more clear. But it is not just the specialists he is after, it is the medical profession as well. Private hospitals must be encouraged. We must stop duplicating the resources that are scattered around this country. Private hospitals are going broke or standing half empty while we are being asked to contribute more and more to the public hospital system. We do not want to go down the United Kingdom path. That has failed, and in fact one of the biggest growth industries in the United Kingdom right now is putting money back into private health care because the public system has failed, and that is the dead-end track that we are going down. I stand here unashamedly putting the case forward for private enterprise in our health care system, and this Minister and this Government have set out to destroy that system. I am here to defend the system, to speak in favour of a better health system and to improve the future and the right of choice for all Australians. Mr FREE(Macquarie)(1.38) —I join with the Acting Minister for Health (Mr Barry Jones) in rejecting this motion. I join with him also in expressing disappointment at the speech of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) . It was at least in part a rehash of a speech which he made on Tuesday, and I suggest to him that the additional material certainly did not improve it. It was a speech that was characterised by a mean misrepresentation of the excellent work of this Government and the excellent work of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). It was a speech which was characterised by a lack of concern for the disadvantaged people in our community, the 1.8 million people who even in January of this year after the disadvantaged health care card was introduced were still not covered. I want to take up a number of matters that were raised during the debate by the honourable member for Mackellar and the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). The honourable member for Mackellar raised the question of the negotiation of the agreement with the States. He referred to that process the other night as haggling with the States. In fact they were proper discussions and a satisfactory agreement was reached. The honourable member referred in particular to Queensland, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating, because Queensland agreed. The Premier of Queensland, Premier Bjelke-Petersen, signed that agreement, and why should he not have signed it? He knew-and the honourable member for Mackellar also knows, although he will not admit it-that Queensland is better off under Medicare. Queensland received additional funding because it was in a special situation because of its free hospital system introduced by a Labor Government, in Queensland many years ago. Queensland is better off under Medicare than under the Liberal health scheme, its predecessor. The Premier of Queensland signed that agreement because he knew that, and he certainly knows when he is on a winner. He is one person in this country who certainly does, and he went ahead and he signed that agreement. The honourable member for Mackellar also raised, quite correctly, the basis of the agreement, the expected 4 per cent drop in revenue which was based on an expected 4 per cent growth in outpatient services and an expected 4 per cent drop in the number of private patients in public hospitals. During this debate he suggested different figures. He has obtained these figures on the basis of scouting around hospitals in Sydney and other places, but I would point out-the Acting Minister pointed out in the debate that anecdotal type evidence is one thing and proper statistical evidence another-that the scheme has been operating for less than four months. For heaven's sake let it settle down. If we are to have figures let us have figures collected on a proper objective basis and over a proper period. I concede to the honourable member for MacKellar that maybe the patterns will be different from those anticipated. Maybe they will. But let us have proper figures collected over a proper period and give Medicare a chance to settle down. The honourable member for MacKellar also expressed great concern for privately insured patients in public hospitals, pointing out that they are required to pay , or at least their funds pay on their behalf, $80 a day. He did not say that the present Government has reduced this charge down from $120 a day, and there are a number of other things he did not say in his comparison of the Medicare patient and the- Mr Carlton —It is still $80 different. Mr FREE —Right, but the honourable member should give credit too where it is due . In his comparison of the private patient and the Medicare patient there are number of things he did not say. Certainly the Medicare patient enjoys a free hospital bed but as the honourable member said later during his speech, in fact it is not 'free'; there is no such thing as a free hospital bed because somebody pays in the process. In fact the Medicare patient has, of course, paid for it in his Medicare levy. The private patient, as I mentioned before, joins a fund by choice and his fund pays on his behalf $80 a day; it is down from $120. Of course, the additional service that he gets in that process is his choice of doctor. Now if he wishes to choose his doctor he then chooses to join a fund and gets an additional benefit. It is only reasonable that he should be expected to pay for it. The attack which the honourable member has made on free beds I have dealt with in part, but I should point out that many of the things that he said are illustrative of the great philosophical difference between those on the Opposition side of the House and we in the Government. Of course there is no such thing as a free hospital bed. Somebody has to pay sooner or later. But whether we allocate health care on the basis of need for that care, or on the basis of ability to pay for that care, appears to me to be the great difference between those in the Opposition and those in the Government . We believe that health care should be allocated on the basis of need for that care. Those on the Opposition side clearly believe that it should be allocated on the basis of the ability of the patient to pay. We believe the system that pays for care by a levy related to income, in other words capacity to pay through income and a levy based on that income, is a much fairer system. The honourable member for MacKellar referred to pressures that he believes will be applied to public hospitals because of these free services and he refers also to pressure which he believes will be applied to public hospitals as a result of a reduced occupancy rate in private hospitals. MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! It is now 1.45 p.m. In accordance with standing order 109 as amended for this session, the debate on the motion is interrupted. Motion (by Mr John Brown) agreed to: That the time for the discussion of Notice No. 1 General Business be extended until 2 p.m. Mr FREE —I thank the House. As I was just saying, one can test those assertions in an historical sense by looking at what happened to occupancy rates and bed days over the period of the original Medibank and in the years subsequent to it. I think that kind of historical perspective is also quite useful because there has been a great deal of misinformation about the original Medibank scheme, as distinct from Medicare. The facts are that in 1975 there was no significant shift towards public hospitals. The prophets of doom did not see the end of the private health insurance companies as they predicted. There was indeed a shift within the public hospital sector between private and public but not a significant increase in the utilisation of public hospitals. The major growth under Medibank was the diagnostic specialties over which the government is seeking to implement some measure of control through section 17, to which I hope to refer shortly. It is a matter of people's tastes really dictating whether or not they want private hospital insurance. In the Medibank period people's taste did not alter significantly and nor is it expected to do so under Medicare. The change in health insurance arrangements does not really lead to increased utilisation of hospital services at least as evidenced by the figures during that time which, as the Acting Minister mentioned, showed a steady increase related to population , but a steady increase despite those repeated changes, almost annual changes, to health insurance arrangements since 1975. The peak year for bed days in public hospitals was in 1978-79, well after the Liberals had destroyed the original Medibank and of course during one of the many Fraser health schemes. The private hospital statistics are even more revealing. There was a drop of only 100,000 bed days, not a significant drop, at the introduction of Medibank. There was a continuation of this decline under the Fraser health policies and in fact private hospital bed days reached their low point in 1979-80, again under one of the Fraser health schemes; but the main point is that the number of bed days has remained reasonably constant, indicating a fairly stable demand for private hospitals despite successive changes to health schemes. The implication is that if private hospital demand is reasonably constant then there should not be any additional pressures on public hospitals. The honourable member for McPherson and the honourable member for Mackellar made some reference to section 17, and I want to put the record straight there too. I think it should be clearly understood that section 17 of the Health Insurance Act refers to diagnostic specialists only in public hospitals-not all specialists. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason why other specialists would consider leaving the public hospital system. If one wants to defend section 17 one has only to look at a whole range of reports talking about the need to control specialist areas. I refer to the high cost of the high technology services and those with little patient contact, those services that are doctor generated rather than patient initiated. Honourable members ought to read the reports that have been calling for this control for years. One would have expected also during the course of this debate at least some recognition of the concessions that have been made by the Government to meet the reasonable concerns of the medical profession. The Government has amended the original guidelines, it has set up the Penington Inquiry into the Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals and it has amended the Act to allow parliamentary scrutiny. The Government has reached a compromise position with the doctors; they are working together on a submission to go to the Penington inquiry. They are having their first meeting tomorrow in Sydney. Penington will formalise the conditions under which doctors operate private practice in public hospitals and will provide a sound basis on which doctors will be in a position to base their hospital practice. Much of the Opposition's argument is that there will be an increase of public patients in public hospitals. Doctors have never indicated that they would not treat public patients; rather they have said they would withdraw from private practice in public hospitals. If the recent dispute has shown anything at all it has shown that doctors are responsive to public opinion. If the public requires treatment by doctors in public hospitals we have faith in the medical profession to provide that treatment. People in the Opposition might want chaos and strife. They think that they can get a bit of political advantage out of doctors' strikes, but we certainly do not and we do not think that the bulk of the medical profession does either. This is a motion of a dedicated privateer, the leader of the Thredbo summit session on privatisation. This man wants to privatise Medibank Private, the Australian Industry Development Corporation, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation and Trans Australia Airlines and sell Telecom and, as a long term goal, he believes that schools and airports and hospitals should be privatised. He ignores the needs of the disadvantaged and the needs of that 20 per cent of the population who need free care because they cannot pay for it. The disadvantaged health care card, under the former Government, was a failure. Do honourable members remember the 1.8 million people who had no cover back in January? This motion ignores any proper criterion for treatment, and the only proper criterion for treatment is the health needs of the patient. For heaven's sake, hospitals are not motels; they are places for sick people. People do not go along and book themselves into a hospital. They have to be referred and admitted, and the criterion on which people are referred and admitted is, of course, their health needs and so it should be. It should not be their ability to pay. The motion also ignores the removal of pressure from the public hospital systems in that bad debts no longer have to be chased. In that sense, far from imposing a pressure in the terms that the motion suggests, Medicare has removed pressure from public hospitals and now, at last, we have a universal publicly funded and very popular health scheme supported by 57 per cent of the population . In fact, the levy was supported by 42 per cent of people who voted for Opposition candidates, and honourable members opposite should not forget that. People have wanted the scheme for many years. It is a scheme which has been promised by the Labor Party since 1969, and I am proud that it is in place less than 11 months after this Government was elected. It is one policy that has been adhered to by the Labor Party over all those years and has been so solidly supported by the population following the Nimmo report, the report of the Commonwealth Committee of Inquiry into Health Insurance. It is one of the truly great achievements of this Government. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(1.53) —I rise to support this motion so ably put by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). I think we should not be under any illusions. We are talking about Medicare and Medicare is nothing more and nothing less than the nationalisation of health. It seems that this Government has learnt nothing from the overseas experience, the experience in Britain in particular, and I wonder if there is anyone in this House who has not met an English doctor who left Britain for one reason and one reason only, and that was to get away from its national health service. There is no doubt, and it is already starting to appear, that there will be long delays for non-emergency surgery, and these delays will increase. Under this nationalisation of health we are seeing bulk billing. We have seen the Government trying to force bulk billing on doctors. And what does bulk billing do? It destroys the doctor-patient relationship. We are also told that it probably will promote over-servicing, but the Government has a great solution to that; we will have a computer surveillance system. I am sure that the Acting Minister for Health (Mr Barry Jones), who is also Minister for Science and Technology, would love this as it will be a new sunrise industry. He might even feel that he has picked a winner this time, too. I think the Minister missed the point completely by not reading the motion. He was talking about the number of beds in hospitals still being utilised at the same sort of rate, but the point he missed was that the motion related to public wards, not to hospitals in toto. I think the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) has already instanced many examples of where private hospitals are now losing their numbers, and we are seeing the pressure coming on to public wards. The honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Free) seems to miss a point too when he was saying that we should let this system have a go until we have the statistics . I would say to him quite plainly. If something is going off the track, do we wait until we get statistics to tell us it is wrong before we do anything to try to correct it? He was also, I think, quite mistaken when he said something about section 17 not covering all diagnostic specialists. It certainly does. I think it is a very timely debate brought on by the honourable member for Mackellar to see how Medicare, after three months of operation is progressing. I turn now to some of the problems in the State of Victoria. Just prior to Medicare, the State Labor Government forced a 1.5 per cent cut in the funding to all hospitals, and on top of it it forced the hospitals to revert to a 38-hour week. Honourable members can imagine what the combination of cutting the working hours of staff and the funds has done to the Victorian hospitals. So, what have we already emerging under Medicare? I think it could be summed up very simply as a situation where we now have unlimited access to public beds, to public wards, and we still have hospitals working with limited funds. I do not think it takes much to work out what problems this will create. There is no doubt that it is increasing demand for public wards which still have the same limited funds. I think the motion is very timely when it says that we express our grave concern over the pressures put on public hospitals throughout Australia under the so- called free public hospital provisions of the Government's Medicare scheme. Mr Andrew —How can you have a free public hospital? Mr HAWKER —The honourable member should ask the honourable member for Macquarie; he might know what 'free' means. And what are the results of these pressures? We have a problem already growing in the areas of elective or chronic surgery, surgery that is necessary but not an emergency measure. I refer to surgery related to varicose veins or hip joints replacement, surgery that to the people who have it relieves a lot of pain, but, I guess people can say, is not an emergency measure. I can give an example of quite a reasonable size hospital in my electorate that has already run out of funds for elective surgery. For non-urgent surgery there is now a complete shut-down. There will be no elective surgery for the rest of the financial year because the hospital has run out of funds. At another hospital in my electorate, the State Government has limited the funds for the provision of free glasses for pensioners, so we have cut out the free glasses for pensioners in this hospital, but at the same time the State Government has brought in another scheme for subsidised dentures for pensioners. It seems strange that pensioners can have false teeth but cannot get free spectacles. In other words, pensioners are allowed to eat but they are not allowed to see. In another hospital in Wannon, a smaller one, patients are continuing to have private cover but they are going into the public wards because they know they will get their own doctor because there is only one doctor in the town. So what are they doing? They are keeping that 35 days of private cover up their sleeve, just in case they should have to be transferred to a bigger hospital. One can imagine the pressure this is putting on that small private hospital. As I have said, I think the whole point could be summed up by saying that under the new Medicare proposal we have unlimited access to public wards and limited funds to try to keep them running. Mr Speaker, as my time is running out I will just very quickly touch on what I think is the greatest bit of propaganda I have ever seen. I would call it the great con of 1984. I am referring, of course, to this letter which is signed ' Bob Hawke'. The letter states: To my fellow Australians. We have all suffered from a health insurance system which is both too expensive and too complicated. So much so that for two million Australians health insurance was simply out of the question. I think we ought to lay this one to rest once and for all. There is a very good reason why these two million were not insured. Many of them would not have been, not because they could not afford it but, with the free hospitals in Queensland, why bother? We had many young people who believed they were fit and well and healthy and did not need insurance. I think under the previous system there was no doubt that anyone would ever be refused health care. This letter goes on to say that Medicare is not only a cheaper and simpler system but it is also fairer . I defy the Government to prove that it will be cheaper in the long run. I think I would just label this letter as the great con of 1984 and I think the Government will rue the day that it allowed this letter to be issued in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Mr SPEAKER —Order! It is now 2 p.m. In accordance with standing order 104, as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence to General Business has expired. The honourable member for Wannon will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting. Mr SPEAKER —Before proceeding to questions without notice, I draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Roger Steele, the Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I offer him a warm welcome on behalf of the House. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr PORTER —My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Following objections from the Australian Mining Industry Council to the lack of consultation regarding the sacred sites legislation, has the Minister received a telex from five Aboriginal tribal groups also expressing their concern about lack of consultation? In addition, I ask whether the Minister has received a submission from the National Farmers Federation expressing concern about the lack of consultation in which the Federation said: NFF is very critical of the extremely limited time given for response to the drafting instructions. An adequate response is not possible in the very tight time frame. This approach to introducing legislation of such a sensitive and profound nature is most unsatisfactory, and is completely contrary to the Prime Minister's public commitment to adequate consultation. Further, has the Minister received-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows that he should quote only as much as is necessary to make his question intelligible. It is rather a long quotation . Mr PORTER —Has the Minister received a similar submission from the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association? Will he withdraw the Bill and undertake proper consultation with interested groups? Mr HOLDING —Proper consultation has taken place with interested groups. Proper consultation is continuing to take place with interested groups. More consultation has taken place on this matter with this Government and interested groups than has taken place before with any other organisations. No, we will not withdraw the Bill. Mr LINDSAY —Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of the statement by the Premier of Queensland that he had studied proposed national land rights legislation and that he found the proposed legislation 'absolutely wicked and disgusting' and that the Bill had placed the future of the nation at risk? Can the Minister inform the House whether proposed legislation is in existence and whether it substantiates the claims made by the Premier? Mr HOLDING —Yes, I am aware of the statement. I have seen it. I do not know whether the Premier of Queensland is lapsing into a situation of advanced senility, but I would have thought-- Mr Sinclair —If I were you I would be worried about him. Mr HOLDING —Well, if he is not senile, I do not know why he is saying he is not supporting the right honourable member and the Leader of the Opposition. I would have thought that at this stage of the political career of the Premier of Queensland he would know what draft legislation looks like and he would be able to distinguish between draft legislation and a discussion paper. What the Premier has seen, and what is a public document freely available to anybody who wants it, is a discussion paper circulated by the National Aboriginal Conference which deals with a whole range of issues which are being discussed in respect of national land rights legislation. Those issues are quite specifically referred to as not being in any way representative of the view of the NAC and, equally, as not being in any way representative of the views of the Government. But it is a discussion paper. Of course, it is thoroughly mischievous and wicked for the Premier of Queensland, holding the important position that he does, to distort a discussion paper and say it is draft legislation. There is no draft legislation. I say: If the Premier of Queensland has got draft legislation, let him publicly produce it . He has not got it and he has lied to the people of Queensland about this. But, more important than that-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! We had a ruling earlier in the week asking that expressions like that not be used. I ask the Minister to withdraw it and use another term. Mr HOLDING —With great respect, Mr Speaker, I understand that that is a term I cannot use in respect of honourable members of this House. Mr SPEAKER —That is so but it would be preferable if it were not used with reference to other persons. Mr HOLDING —In deference to you, sir, I will withdraw it. I will simply say that the Premier of Queensland mendaciously and dishonestly misrepresented the situation in Queensland for the purposes of fanning black-white hatred. It is time he, as a responsible political leader, was prepared to set an example and not go around in a public way creating a situation in which he knows what he is saying is untrue. The reason he is saying it is to secure narrow political advantage on the basis of misrepresenting the most disadvantaged section of this community. I deplore the dishonest actions of the Premier of Queensland. They are just one further example of the way racism is being fanned in this country by irresponsible conservative politicians. I invite the Leader of the National Party of Australia and the Leader of the Opposition, who have been so recently repudiated by the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, to get up in this House on this simple issue of racism to give him what he has given them and to repudiate him and his actions on this matter. Mr SINCLAIR —I address my question to the Minister for Defence. Were the A4 aircraft of the Royal New Zealand Air Force used in the fighter defence of Australia in Operation Pitch Black 84-1 last week together with elements of the United States Air Force the same as the A4s of the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Australian Navy which are about to be scrapped? Can the Minister be sure that the Mirage aircraft now in operation, subject to some operational difficulties, will not suffer some similar grounding requirement if there should be an outbreak of any sort of hostility which would require a fighter defence and that A4s might not again be required? In the light of these circumstances, will he review his decision to scrap the A4s and the Trackers of the Fleet Air Arm, even though they might have to operate from ground bases, so that at least we can be dependent on aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force or the Royal Australian Navy instead of on elements of the Royal New Zealand Air Force and the United States Air Force? Mr SCHOLES —It is quite strange to ask whether or not the elements of an exercise constitute one form of the forces involved or another. Exercise Pitch Black is an annual exercise which is conducted to test defence. This exercise simulates a defence situation in Darwin. It is and has been the practice of the Royal Australian Air Force under successive governments, in respect of problems which affect safety, for aircraft to be grounded during the period under which an examination of the aircraft takes place to ensure the safety of those who fly them and other personnel. I hope that the right honourable gentleman is not suggesting that that practice should cease. I will not give any guarantees that aircraft will not be grounded in the future for safety reasons. The facts relating to Australia's defence capabilities and to our future air defence are that we are currently initiating a program whereby the FA18 aircraft is about to come into service with the Royal Australian Air Force. I have been advised that it is considered that the Mirage aircraft will be satisfactory and will meet the requirements of the Royal Australian Air Force for air defence, given our strategic situation, until such time as the FA18 is in service. It is important-I think that even the Opposition would subscribe to this fact-that, given the strategic situation, we devote the resources that are available to us to the introduction of the FA18 as quickly and as efficiently as possible and to the training and the provision of support services which are needed. If the right honourable gentleman is suggesting that we should delay the introduction of the FA18 I suggest that he is a fool and the Opposition's defence policies are completely incompetent. Mr BRUMBY —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs aware of the recent campaign conducted by the Australian Union of Students highlighting issues in tertiary education? Will the Minister inform the House of the Government's policy in relation to tertiary education participation , educational opportunity and living allowances for students? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question. I acknowledge his great interest in this matter and, particularly, his interest in the Bendigo College of Advanced Education. I acknowledge that the principal of the Bendigo CAE has acknowledged-- Mr Coleman —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on standing order No. 144 which states that questions should not ask Ministers to announce the Government's policy. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The initial part of the honourable member for Bendigo's question dealt with another matter. Mr DAWKINS —To put the honourable member for Wentworth's mind at rest, I will not be announcing any new policies. I will simply be outlining the policies which this Government has been consistently following since its election. I begin by pointing out that what this Government inherited in relation to higher education was a situation nothing short of a crisis. We saw, during the period of the Fraser Government, a dramatic decline in the enrolments of young people going from schools to universities and CAEs. In 1976, something like 10 per cent of 17 year olds to 19 year olds participated in higher education and, by 1982, this figure had fallen to something like 8.6 per cent. That was a very dramatic fall and a serious decline. We should have been encouraging even greater participation of young people in higher education given the fact that even at the older levels we were not comparing favourably with other countries around the world. During that time we saw that not only had the value of the tertiary education assistance scheme fallen but also that the number of people eligible for it had fallen from two-thirds of students to less than half of the students who were enrolled in universities and colleges. We saw capital expenditure halved in real terms between 1976 and 1983. We also saw recurrent expenditure held to levels which were seriously affecting the operation of universities and colleges. In our last Budget we embarked upon a policy to turn around that process and to provide greater opportunities for young people in universities and colleges, to boost both capital and recurrent expenditure and, most importantly, to provide, immediately, for 3,000 new places in universities and colleges. We recognised that in order to ensure a greater participation in universities and colleges we first had to ensure that a greater number of students finished their secondary schooling; hence, the attention that has been applied to the participation and equity program to ensure that more students at secondary schools remain until their final years. It is true that we were not able to go as far as we wanted in the area of TEAS. The assistance increased by 5 per cent and the income test was eased. That is a question which will be again addressed in the next Budget. Honourable members are probably aware that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs will shortly table the report of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. Naturally the Government will be giving attention to the recommendations in the Commission's report. It will be doing that in the light of the constraints which we have imposed upon ourselves in the lead-up to the Budget. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. In view of the experience of the Northern Territory land rights legislation, why does the Minister not agree with the Opposition, miners, the National Farmers Federation, Senator Walsh and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie that the principle of Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land should be reviewed? Furthermore, how does the Minister reconcile his principle of Aboriginal control over mining on Aboriginal land with stated government policy that mineral rights are to remain vested in the Crown? Mr HOLDING —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question because it enables me to inform him that it has always been the policy of this Government that mineral rights vest in the Crown. That is the position in respect of the land rights legislation of the Northern Territory. The Aboriginal people receive mining equivalent royalties, which means that the Commonwealth forgoes the royalties due to the Commonwealth. They go to Aboriginal communities. However, there has never been any concession by this Government or any previous government that there has been any change in that policy. That is one of the grave misunderstandings that runs through the community as a result of the propaganda that is put around by groups which, fundamentally, are opposed to Aboriginal land rights. I think it is fascinating and interesting-I do not say this in any way derogately of the honourable gentleman-that the Leader of the Opposition, who voted for this legislation, can ask me a question in this House which shows that he too has become a victim of the propaganda campaigns of those who say, basically, that they are opposed to Aboriginal land rights, per se. The honourable gentleman mentioned the National Farmers Federation. The National Farmers Federation makes no secret of the fact that it is opposed to Aboriginal land rights. It says the matter of heritage legislation should be a responsibility of the States exclusively despite the fact that the High Court of Australia said that that is not the law. The honourable gentleman wants me to have regard to an organisation which says: 'Although the High Court said this we want you to do something which is not the law of Australia'. He referred to the attitude of the Australian Mining Industry Council and of some other leaders of the mining industry. I am sorry; I cannot accept this latest theological doctrine which says that miners have divine rights. I would advise the Leader of the Opposition, whose sincerity in asking this question I have no doubt about, that one of the real issues for which Malcolm Fraser could claim credit was his stand in respect of South Africa and his commitment to legislation which is on the statute books. I think that legislation goes to the credit of the Fraser Government. I advise the honourable gentlemen opposite that the Fraser Government established a basis which I think will give him real credit in history. I believe it will be to the discredit of honourable gentlemen opposite if they yield to the lunatic right-wing fringe groups around Australia who are, at the moment, attacking Asians, supporting the Government of South Africa, and engaging in an unprincipled attack on the rights of the most disadvantaged section of this community, the Australian Aboriginal people. I commend to the Leader of the Opposition, and to those who support him on his side, that he move his Party back to the position in respect of Aboriginal land rights where there was a very large measure of consensus on both sides of this Parliament. Mr MILDREN —Is the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment aware of an article which appeared on the front page of the Age on 23 April titled 'Australia misled US over roos, say papers'? Can the Minister explain the circumstances surrounding this Press report? Mr COHEN —I thank the honourable member for Ballarat for the question; he has a lot of kangaroos in his electorate. An article did appear in the Age, which was an extremely misleading one. Mr Goodluck —When was that? Mr COHEN —On 23 April. Mr Goodluck —Who wrote it? Mr COHEN —It was written by Bronwyn Cran. Does the honourable member want a question and answer session or will he let me go on? The article was extremely misleading. She is the environment reporter for the Age. She did not contact my office. When asked why, she said: 'You have had your say. Anyhow I am opposed to killing kangaroos, any kangaroos'. What the House has to be concerned at is a trend among some journalists not to find out the facts but to push their own particular views. This article was based on some disinformation provided- Mr Ian Cameron —Have you counted all the roos yet, Barry? Mr COHEN —Not yet. The information in that article claimed that the previous Government had misled the United States of America about the real numbers of the Australian kangaroo population from 1980 and many other things. This reference, to the former Leader of the National Party of Australia, in particular, was based on an article written by Mrs Marian Newman, of fond memory, who is a leading anti-kangaroo culling lobbyist in the United States. The United States Government has sent us the text of a letter written to Mrs Newman. It reads as follows: We were very disappointed with your recent Press release concerning the fish and wildlife service's withdrawal of its proposal to delist the red, eastern gray, and western gray kangaroos: It contained so many erroneous statements and distortions of fact that we feel a response is necessary. Some of the more obvious of these are the following: Your statement that the Australian Government is seeking to eradicate the kangaroos by opening markets for skins and meat of the animals is simply untrue. Australia, as you well know, needs to control kangaroo numbers to prevent undue killing by ranchers. To accuse that Government of seeking to eradicate its national symbol is nonsense. Mr Sinclair —Hear, hear! Mr COHEN —I am defending your previous Leader's performance. The telex continued : You claim that the Australian Government gave the US an estimate of 60 million kangaroos: Actually the Australian Government gave, in its 1982 petition, an estimate of about 18 million with approximately 50 percent of the country surveyed: We interpreted- that is, the United States Government- this to mean that there might be over 32 million kangaroos all told. The Australian Government, however, promptly provided us with the latest population estimate of 19.2 million continent-wide when that figure became available in 1983. You charge that the Australian Government duped the United States on the kangaroo issue, and has demonstrated extraordinary deceit. As far as we are concerned, nothing could be farther from the truth. The Australian Government has been completely open in its dealings with us- That is, the previous Government, and this Government- and has been very willing to provide any information we requested. In fact, it was the Australian Government's honesty in providing the latest data on declines in numbers that led to the withdrawal of our delisting proposal. The Australian Government has never tried to dupe the US, and it has not been deceitful in any way. Your statement that the US rejected the Australian petition to remove the kangaroos from the threatened list is also incorrect. The US accepted the petition, published a proposed rule to act upon it, and was prepared to issue a final rule to implement it when it received word of the unforeseen occurrence of a decline in kangaroo numbers due to drought. The proposed rule was therefore withdrawn, but the petition was certainly not rejected. There are a number of other examples of distorted views and facts presented in your Press release, but the above should suffice to demonstrate why we are concerned. Such a document can only stir up antagonisms and resentment, and will not assist your cause. It is decidedly not in the best interest of kangaroo conservation. In another program later, Dr Peter Rawlinson-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr COHEN —I will finish. Honourable members should contain their excitement. Dr Peter Rawlinson repeated this misinformation and, with the aid of the American Government, I want now to refute publicly the lies and distortions being told about this Government and its kangaroo management program. Mr WHITE —My question is to the Minister for Defence. I refer to the fact that three Mirage aircraft have crashed in the last few weeks, the fact that all Mirage aircraft are now grounded and the report in the Australian of 5 April which said: The support problem has become so desperate senior RAAF officers comment privately they would have difficulty maintaining any sort of war for more than a long weekend. In view of the foregoing, I ask the Minister: Is it true that the 1983-84 flying hours for Mirage squadrons has dropped to 12,890 hours? Is it true that the Royal Australian Air Force requirement to meet all its commitments, including fleet support for 1984-84, is in excess of 17,000 hours? Is it not a fact that RAAF officers are expressing concern at the lack of flying time for the categorisation of their Mirage pilots? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to come to the conclusion of his question. The question he is asking is more a question on notice than a question without notice. I will give him the opportunity to round off. Mr WHITE —What is the position regarding Mirage spares? When will the squadrons become fully operational again? Mr SCHOLES —If the honourable gentlemen opposite have finished their smart remarks, firstly, I should indicate that the Chief of the Air Staff is extremely concerned about suggestions which have been made that he, as the person responsible for the Royal Australian Air Force, would in any way permit pilots to fly aircraft which were in an unsafe state or in any way less safe than was required for the safety of operations of those persons concerned. I also point out that over a period of years there have been regular losses of Mirage aircraft, the greatest number being in 1976. Currently, Mirage aircraft are in fact grounded because two have recently been abandoned because of a failure of the safety warning apparatus to indicate that landing gear was locked into position and that it was safe for the pilot to undertake a landing. It is standard procedure that where the pilot is unable to be certain that the aircraft can be landed safely-especially in built up areas but also when the pilot's life or the lives of others may be endangered-the plane is to be abandoned and the pilot is to eject in order to ensure his own safety and the safety of others. The honourable gentleman draws attention to the number of hours available for flying by RAAF Mirage personnel. I point out to the House that in 1982-83 the number of hours available for flying these aircraft was substantially reduced by the then Government and the then Minister who is now the Leader of the National Party of Australia. In fact, a reduction of 30 hours per pilot took place that year. The number of flying hours for the RAAF was substantially increased in the last Budget and stands at a higher rate than was the case in the previous year. Mr White —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question referred to the Mirage squadrons, and not the RAAF. Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr SCHOLES —In 1982-83, 13,082 hours were available in the Mirage aircraft and the allocation in the current Budget-we are not completely through the year-is 13,280 hours. That represents an increase for each pilot of 15 hours in actual flying time per year over the very low level to which the previous Government allowed those hours to sink. With regard to the availability of aircraft, I am assured that the Mirage aircraft are capable of and will remain capable of providing air defence for Australia until such time as the FA18 aircraft come into service. There has been a change in the scheduled refits of the aircraft. That change was brought about by the previous Government's decision to reduce the refurbishment program planned and to allow a run down of the aircraft. There are equipment gaps in a number of areas in the Defence Force and substantially that is because the previous Government deferred decision making until such time as it became too late to replace equipment in time. Mr Sinclair —Rubbish. Mr SCHOLES —We had another example of the honourable member's tardiness and neglect last year when the first vessel of the minesweeper fleet was tied up because it had reached the end of its life, and no decision was in train for its replacement at the time the former Government went out of office. When honourable members are in opposition they are good at telling people what should be done but the facts are that they gutted the defence program and this particular former Minister was responsible for a substantial reduction in the defence vote only two years ago. He stands condemned not only because of his failure to carry out his undertakings but also his failure to be man enough now to stand up and admit what he did while he was in office as the Minister for Defence. There will continue to be gaps in our defence preparedness until such time as we can catch up with the long lead time items on which the previous Government procrastinated and over which it put off decisions for years. Those replacements cannot be acquired in short times. There are repeated examples of where the previous Government made no replacement decisions on items of equipment which are now going out of service. Those decisions should have been made several years ago. When members of the Opposition were in government they neglected defence and they now try by cheap and shoddy means to blame others for their own neglect in order to acquire some short term political points. They are absolutely without conscience and their defence record ever since this nation was formed has been one and the same. They talk and they talk but when it comes to a defence emergency the nation has to throw them out of office. Mrs KELLY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer the Minister to his answer to the House on Tuesday concerning the industrial dispute at the new Parliament House site. Can the Minister inform the House whether there have been any further developments in the matter? Mr WILLIS —There have been developments in this dispute. The House will recall that a meeting was to be held this morning of members of the three unions which initiated the dispute and whose members were employed on the Parliament House site. That meeting was held this morning and I am pleased to say that the members decided on a return to work at the site next Tuesday. The Government and I welcome these developments which will allow Commissioner Brown to hand down his decision on the site allowance. As the House will recall, he has heard the argument and was waiting on a return to work before handing down his decision. I hope that we now have the basis for a settlement of this dispute, that the decision of Commissioner Brown will be accepted by the employees on the Parliament House site and that we can get this important national project going once again. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Minister for Defence. In light of his commendable and apparently new decision to take decisions, can he advise the House what decision he has taken to offset the delays in service postings in the current financial year which have affected service efficiency and morale? Mr SCHOLES —There has not been a cancellation of service postings, as the honourable gentleman suggests. There are some delays, largely because that section of the Budget has been overspent. That situation has occurred in a number of recent years and obviously it is necessary for sections of the Defence Force to comply with their Budget allocations. Mr HAND —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Minister aware of media reports indicating dissatisfaction amongst industry representatives over their exclusion from the so called working party to examine the export of live sheep from Australia? I further ask: What are the terms of reference for this group, why was it established, who will participate and why were they chosen? Mr KERIN —I am aware of the media reports. I say at the outset that the working group is a very honest attempt by the Government to arrive at an agreement about the facts and the possible resolution of this issue. As members of the House will realise, this issue has been bubbling along for some 10 years. The Government does not believe that expedient action or reactions are appropriate in the circumstances given the longevity of this issue. In answer to the honourable member, the terms of reference are firstly to examine the factors which have contributed to the decline in employment opportunities in the meat processing industry and, secondly, to examine the effect that the live sheep trade has on employment in ancillary transport, feed lot, wharfside operations and abattoir employment. The working party will discuss these matters in the context of the Government's overall structural adjustment policy and the problems of displaced workers with the aim of determining a permanent solution to the dispute which reflects the interests of all groups involved in the live sheep trade. The working party will consist of representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, the Department of Primary Industry, the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, the Government Committee on Industrial Relations and the Government Primary Industry Sub-committee. Mr Goodluck —No sheep? Mr KERIN —No, no sheep. The composition of the working party reflects its basic purpose, which is to bring the industrial and political wings of the labour movement together clearly to identify and resolve the areas of agreement and disagreement between government and unions on the facts of the live sheep export trade. As I said at the start, the establishment of the working party is an attempt to put consideration of this long-running dispute where it belongs, and that is clearly in the industrial relations area. The working party should start its deliberations next week. The honourable member for Melbourne may even have a hand in it. Mr McVEIGH —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware that the draft balance sheet of PT Indomilk for the year ended 31 December 1983 shows a further net operating loss of $3.2m on top of losses of $2m in 1982 and $2.5m in 1981? Given the fact that the amount owed to Australian dairy farmers by PT Indomilk is now $14m, and recalling the inexplicable decision of Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd to relinquish management control of PT Indomilk to the Indonesian partners, does the Minister still hold the view which he expressed to this Parliament on 5 April this year; namely, that PT Indomilk can trade out of its difficulties? Alternatively, is the liquidation of the company now inevitable? If so, did the Minister mislead this House on 5 April or was he badly advised on that occasion? Mr KERIN —I do not know who is advising the honourable member for Darling Downs on this issue, but as he probably knows the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations is examining the whole question. The Australian Dairy Corporation and I will give evidence to it tomorrow. I would hope by that process that at last the facts of this matter will come out and be very clearly laid before the Parliament and the nation in terms of the background to this issue, the reasons that the problem has arisen and the actions of the previous Government with respect to this whole question. I am not going to go into the detail of this issue, except to say that the advice of the previous Government was that the Australian Dairy Corporation and ADI should exercise their best commercial judgment in this matter. The facts and figures as related to the House by the honourable member are probably as stated. I am not aware of the exact dollar amounts, but I take it on trust that he has the same figures that I can easily recall. The issue is well appreciated by the industry itself. The Australian Dairy Industry Conference has moved resolutions about the ADI Board. The ADC has responded to these resolutions. It is a matter that the industry is vitally and properly concerned about and it is an issue that it is investigating. In my statement on 5 April I said that I had been advised up until quite recent times that there was every prospect that PT Indomilk would trade out of its difficulties. I refer the honourable member to the report of Coopers and Lybrand that gave qualified advice to the ADI to that effect. I was simply relating to the House that advice that had been passed on to me by the ADC. This issue is extremely complex and I understand the honourable member's interest in it. But I think after tomorrow we may have a clearer explanation of the processes that got us to the stage we are at. It is still a matter for the industry to resolve. It is not for the Government to take any peremptory decision in this matter. It is an issue that the Government is fully aware of but, as I said, it is largely an issue for the industry to resolve. Mr O'NEIL —Has the attention of the Minister for Transport been drawn to the fact that the Senate this morning rejected government legislation seeking to introduce some flexibility into the tendering system which applies to Commonwealth funded road projects? Is it a fact that this legislation was introduced at the specific request of the States to introduce economies and efficiencies into road construction programs? What implications will this action have for the States? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the effective and hardworking honourable member for Grey for his question because it is an important question for people who live in the country. Sitting on the right hand side of the chamber to me we have those members who masquerade as representatives of country Australia. Let me assure the House that it is a masquerade. The Senate's action this morning in removing from the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill and the Roads Grants Amendment Bill those two clauses that would have enabled the Federal Minister for Transport, on application from a State Minister for Roads, to provide an exemption from the calling of tenders for work on arterial or national roads under the Bicentennial Roads Act or the Roads Grants Act means-- Mr Hunt —It got you off the hook. Mr PETER MORRIS —I know the honourable member for Gwydir does not care about people in the country. He is part of the masquerade. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to continue with his answer and not to provoke interjections. Mr PETER MORRIS —It means that the Federal Minister for Transport will not have the power not to call tenders in situations where it could be proven, as I was outlining, to the satisfaction of the Federal Minister that substantial numbers of employees of public road authorities, be they State or local government, would suffer retrenchment, or that there would be substantial inefficiency as a result of the calling of tenders, or that technical or safety factors warranted such a decision. I am talking about work which normally is the responsibility of public utilities, such as shifting a railway bridge or reconstructing a railway bridge. Because that is not the case, the future and employment of those employees is now at risk thanks to the National Party and to those senators who seek to represent the States. I advise the House that the amendments to the two Acts I referred to earlier were unanimously supported by all State and Territory governments. In fact, the two strongest proponents of the changes were the governments of Queensland and Tasmania. In respect of Tasmania, this morning I received a telex from the Tasmanian Minister for Main Roads. It is worth noting that the Queensland senators and the Tasmanian senators voted against this legislation. Mr Young —Not the Labor Party senators. Mr PETER MORRIS —Just to make it clearer, the Opposition senators from Queensland and Tasmania voted against this legislation. The telex sent to me this morning by Mr Braid, the Minister for Main Roads in Tasmania, says: I wish to advise that Tasmania supports the relaxation of tendering procedures provided for in the Bills, and the following is the content of a telegram I forwarded to all Tasmanian senators, urging their support for the amendments: 'In the interests of the Tasmanian civil construction industry and the Tasmanian Government's efforts to encourage development of that industry, you are urged to support the Commonwealth Government's relaxation of tendering procedures as proposed in the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Bill 1984 and the Roads Grants Amendment Bill 1984'. Mr Hawke —Another Tory split! Mr PETER MORRIS —The Prime Minister says that it is another split. What is the policy of the Opposition? When these Bills were dealt with in the Senate initially the Opposition removed altogether the relevant clause of the legislation. Mr Sinclair —In view of all the money you took away from bush roads you ought to be ashamed to speak in this place. Mr PETER MORRIS —The right honourable member would not know much about bush roads at Darling Point. Initially the Opposition in the Senate removed clause 5 of the Bill. Subsequently, having had another think about it, it decided to have the Bill recommitted, have a portion of the conditions re-inserted but still adhere with its opposition to the expressed requests of the State governments right around Australia, particularly Queensland and Tasmania. Again this indicates the division, the lack of direction and the difficulty which the Opposition is having in trying to come to some concerted view about policy. In this case the National Party, which claims to represent country people in Australia, is selling out the people of the country, the employees of the various departments of main roads in each State and the local government work force. Let me say in conclusion that so often in a time of emergency in the countryside, be it bushfire or flood, it is the people in the local authority work force who are called upon, along with their equipment, to assist in those natural disasters. Members of the Opposition have done the people of this country and the road workers in this country a great disservice. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 7 of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, I present the Remuneration Tribunal reports and determinations for 1984. Motion (by Mr Uren) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Steele Hall) adjourned. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Homelessness and Inadequate Housing in the Australian Capital Territory and Surrounding Regions. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Homelessness and Inadequate Housing in the Australian Capital Territory and Surrounding Regions; (2) That the report be printed. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission's report on certain nitrogenous fertilisers (anti-dumping) . Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Defence Support) —For the information of honourable members, I present a statement on Government commitment to continuation of reforms for Williamstown Naval Dockyard, together with the text of a statement relating to the document. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Kalgoorlie seeks to make a personal explanation. Is it on the ground that he has been misrepresented or is it for another purpose? Mr CAMPBELL —It is on the ground of misrepresentation of those who are unable to answer for themselves. It arises out of an error in Hansard. Mr SPEAKER —If the honourable member wishes to correct an error I will grant him that indulgence. Mr CAMPBELL —On behalf of all the meleagris Gallopavo of this country I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to the grave injustice that was done to these birds- if that is not a sexist term-on page 2163 of Hansard. While I am not generally-- Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr GEAR(Tangney) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr GEAR —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr GEAR —I refer to an interview conducted on radio station 6PR in Perth between Chris Gillam, a reporter, and the retail operations manager of Charlie Carter Stores, Mr John Gjergjevica. The interview was conducted as a result of a speech I made in the adjournment debate on Monday night. During that interview Mr Gjergjevica claimed that I had declined to visit one of his supermarkets for a variety of reasons, including lack of time. To put the record straight, I wish to refer to a letter I wrote to Charlie Carters which in part states: Thank you for the invitation to visit your store. I have seen a scanner supermarket in Victoria and am well acquainted with their operations. If I can arrange a visit to Wembley, I will get in touch with you. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The misleading expectations being created by the Government regarding taxation cuts in the forthcoming Budget. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(2.58) —As much as anyone can be certain of anything from this Government, one can be certain of one thing-that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is determined to have an early election close on the heels of a Budget that contains a tax cut. I notice from the response of Government members already that that is the strategy. Between now and August the Australian public will be told again and again that their kind, benign, friendly Prime Minister will give them a great big tax cut and that as a result of that great big tax cut we will all be so much better off. The dogs are already barking about the amount. The amount that gets most of the coverage and is most regularly referred to is about $1,000m. One can imagine the Prime Minister-Santa Claus Hawke- running around the country saying: 'Look how generous I have been. I have given you a tax cut of $1,000m. Look what that means. Look what that means to the average Australian family'. He will be trying to create this great big expectation that everybody will be a lot better off as a result of the tax cut. He will be saying to the trade union movement: 'Because of my generosity you will all be rewarded for supporting the prices and incomes accord'. He will try to persuade everybody that they are so much better off. There is only one thing wrong with that description and that scenario, only one fatal flaw. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister's tax cut in the coming Budget will be a totally phoney tax cut. At the weekend the Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Peacock) told us all that the tax cut that was coming up in the Budget would be a phoney tax cut. It is not only because the Government has swept a whole lot of undesirable tax proposals under the carpet in the hope that if it wins the next election it will then be able to implement those changes and it is not only because of the effect of inflation on a progressive taxation scale which will mean that people in the same real situation will pay a higher level of taxation; it is also because of a large number of taxation decisions that have been taken by this Government and their full year effect in 1984-85. I have prepared a table which I will table and make public. That table shows some very interesting things. It is headed 'Tax Rises due to Government decisions'. One very interesting exclusion at the top states 'Direct taxes on individuals (excluding anti-avoidance)'. Of course, the Government has not done anything in that area because the whole area has been totally covered. The table shows that in 1983-84 the direct decisions of this Government in the personal tax area removed no less than $700m from the pockets of Australian taxpayers. In other words, by its deliberate decisions in the area of direct taxation on individuals, it lifted taxes by $700m. In the indirect area it lifted taxes by $ 1,100m, making a total of $1,800m in 1983-84. Even more significantly than that, if we project those decisions into 1984-85, next financial year, the financial year in respect of which the Prime Minister and all of his colleagues will be running around saying 'As a result of our munificence you will all be a great deal better off', personal taxation will rise by $2.6 billion and direct and indirect taxation will rise by no less than the staggering sum of $3.5 billion. Mr Lusher —Can you substantiate that? Mr HOWARD —The figure is here in the table. The source of these figures is none other than the Budget Papers themselves. No doubt my friend the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will have a few things to say about the source. I caution him because the source is his own Budget documentation. This shows that just to break even in the next Budget he will have to give a $3.5 billion tax cut. Pre-emptively looking at this forthcoming Budget, I say to the House, and particularly to the wage and salary earners of Australia who between now and that inevitable election at the end of the year will be treated, day after day, week after week, by the Prime Minister to these stories of how generous he has been in giving them a tax cut, that unless he gives a tax cut of $3.5 billion in this forthcoming Budget nobody will be better off; we will all be a great deal worse off. The words of the Leader of the Opposition at Thredbo last weekend were very true when he said at one of his Press conferences that the tax cut being offered by this Government is a totally phoney tax cut. That is to say absolutely nothing about the effect of fiscal drag on personal tax collections next year. It is to say nothing about the inevitable discretionary increases in indirect taxation that will take place in the Budget. It is to say nothing about the Government's intention if it is successful in the election to increase the Medicare levy. It says nothing about other taxation increases that this Government has in mind. It says that on the basis of decisions that this Government has already taken in the May economic statement last year and in the Budget last year, tax next year will go up by $3.5 billion. If the Prime Minister gives us a tax cut of $1 billion we will not be $1 billion better off; we will still be $2.5 billion behind. Those figures have been calculated on the basis of the Government's own decision. Their source is the Federal Budget documentation from last August. I naturally look forward with very great interest to the Treasurer's response. This demonstrates the way in which this Government, in the area of tax cuts as in so many other areas, is building for itself a record of deceit and deception. Not only has this Government been willing to misrepresent the attitude of this side of the House on subjects such as tax avoidance but also, on top of that, it has been prepared and will continue, week after week, month after month, to try to kid the Australian people that they will get a $l billion tax cut in the Budget. I bet that when the Budget is brought down the Treasurer will not tell anyone in his Party or in this Parliament that in 1984-85 the cost of the abolition by the Hawke Government of the tax rebate for health care that was introduced by the Fraser Government will be no less than $575m. I bet the Government will not tell the home owners of Australia, the people who are paying interest on their home loans, that the cost of the Government's abolition of the interest rebate was $395m. I bet that it does not say that the effect of the superannuation changes on a seven-year basis will amount to about $300 billion. In other words, the taxpayers will not be given any of this information. They will be told again and again: 'Gee, you are lucky, you are getting $l billion from this Santa Claus Treasurer and this Santa Claus Prime Minister and you all should be so terribly grateful about it'. Of course, the taxpayers will not be told that the effect on consumers of services offered by Telecom Australia and Australia Post in 1984-85 will be about $101m as a result of decisions taken by the Hawke Labor Government. The Government will not tell the taxpayers that they will pay $354m in increased excise on petrol, diesel and aviation fuel. It will not tell them that the indexation of excise rates will cost them $236m. It will not tell them that the cost of the Medicare levy alone is $l,050m, that health costs will increase by $1,050m. Of course, all of the additional tax has been put on in order to fool the Australian people into believing that they have a much cheaper health care system. This Government will endeavour to convince us that if it adds $3.5 billion to the community's tax bill and takes away $l billion the community will be in front. I do not think anybody on this side of the House or any of the Australian public listening on Budget night will be fooled about it. Undoubtedly, just as we will hear a great deal from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer from now until the Budget and after the Budget about the taxation cuts and the Government 's generosity in the Budget, I can assure honourable gentlemen opposite that they will hear a great deal from us about the tax increase of $3.5 billion under the Hawke Labor Government. The tax slugs, not only on personal taxpayers but also through indirect taxation-- Honourable members interjecting- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER( Mrs Child) —Order! Honourable members on both sides of the House are impeding the speaker. Mr HOWARD —What I am saying makes very great sense. This Government, in just over a year of office, has earned for itself a well-deserved description from the Secretary of the Australian Taxpayers' Association. Mr Risstrom said that we have seen the most dramatic increase in personal taxation since World War II. He records that a typical family man with basic medical insurance, a mortgage of $ 30,000 at an interest rate of 13.5 per cent and a dependent wife pays $2,684 in tax on an income of $17,000. Again and again one finds increases occurring across the board. Over the months in front of us we are going to hear a lot from the Prime Minister about how good , clever and generous he has been in giving us $1,000m worth of tax cuts. It is by any measure a phoney tax cut, a non-tax cut which goes less than one-third of the way towards wiping out the tax increases that have been put upon the Australian taxpayers by the present Treasurer and the present Prime Minister. I invite the Treasurer in his response to tell me where this table is wrong. I invite him to repudiate his own figures. I invite him to deny that as a result of his decisions and the decisions of the Prime Minister in the personal tax and indirect taxation area he will put no less than $3.5 billion more upon the backs of the Australian taxpayers next year. Yet in the face of that he will undoubtedly have the gall, and his colleagues will have the gall, on Budget night and thereafter and in the coming election campaign to go around Australia and say: 'You ought to vote for us. We have held the prices and incomes accord. We have cut taxes because a $1,000m tax cut cancels out the $3.5 billion tax rise.' That is a proposition and a distortion that the Australian people will not wear. They will know that this is part of the elaborate deception, camouflage and deceit to try to induce them into giving this Government a second term of office in a totally unnecessary, unjustified and premature election that is going to take place in a little over 18 months after the Government was elected. The Government is unquestionably rushing to the polls in order to avoid the consequences of governing with all of the difficulties that are undoubtedly going to mount in 1985. Part of the package of deceit by this Prime Minister will be to try to persuade us that if we increase taxes by $3,500m and then reduce them by $1,000m miraculously, Houdini-Hawke-like, we will all be a great deal better off. The truth of the matter is that we will not be any better off. We will all be a lot worse off. We are worse off now. We will get worse off in 1984-85 and the Opposition will tell the Australian people that we will be even worse off if they re-elect the Hawke Government at the end of the year. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Before I call the Treasurer, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition indicted that he would request leave to table a paper. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.13) —One thing is certain, and that is that the Liberals have no shame. We will never find a Liberal with any shame, least of all the former discredited Treasurer, the man who presided over the highest taxing government in Australian history. Indeed the degree of doublespeak on his part is simply unbelievable. Just a few weeks ago he was saying that he would give no tax cut if he were Treasurer, he would rather hold down the Budget deficit. This is from the man who in 1982, through his own fiscal irresponsibility in handing out a tax cut which by all standards was fiscally irresponsible to save his miserable political hide and that of his colleagues, blew out the Budget deficit in prospect for 1983-84 to $9.6 billion. Indeed, in the 1982-83 Budget he blew the Budget from a planned $1.6 billion to $4.4 billion because he and Malcolm Fraser believed they could dupe the public by hiding their high tax record with a tax cut which they thought would save their skins. They gave their tax cuts and they were defeated in the poll anyway. It is worth remembering, when one looks over the record of the former Treasurer and at the increases in personal income tax alone in his period of stewardship of the Treasury, that in 1978-79 personal taxation increased by 5.6 per cent. In 1979-80 it increased by 17.5 per cent. In 1980-81 it increased by 16.6 per cent. In 1981-82 it increased by a massive 21 per cent and, of course, in 1982-83 the Opposition then went to the tax cuts to try to save itself and as a result we were landed with this shocking deficit position which we have today. So there is the record for anybody to look at in terms of the approach to taxation of the former Government. It was the highest taxing government in the Federal history of this country. Everybody understands that. Let us not be duped by the credentials of the former Treasurer. Indeed the Australian Labor Party in Opposition said that given a position which we thought was going to apply in 1983-84, we would look at tax cuts, which is what we said in the election campaign. But we found, when we came to office, that instead of having a deficit in prospect of $6 billion, it was $9.6 billion. Of course, it would have been highly irresponsible to have considered a tax cut in 1983-84 in terms of national economic management. One has to ask oneself why there was such a rapid fiscal deterioration between those two years. The answer simply is because of the economic mismanagement and incompetence of the former Treasurer and the former Prime Minister and, of course, because of their massive unprincipled tax cut of 1982-83 to try to save themselves. I will just make a couple of observations about the figures which the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the shadow Treasurer, produced, which very quickly demolishes the phoney case he has built up. He quoted Mr Risstrom from the Australian Taxpayers Association, who I have discredited in this House on a number of occasions and who, indeed, the former Treasurer has discredited on a number of occasions. After holding the Taxpayers Association spokesman, Mr Risstrom, to derision for years he now embraces him, the man who has admitted now on two occasions that he has had his numbers wrong, that his computers have broken down, that he has misjudged it or that it has come out badly. Let me make this point, which is the same point I made in respect of the charges made by Mr Risstrom, and that is that the Opposition cannot do this phoney accounting number without recognising the facts. According to the statement of the honourable member for Bennelong a few minutes ago he includes in one of the charges $1,050m for health insurance, for Medicare. He is saying: 'Why, the Medicare levy cost $1,050m'. What he does not say is: 'You do not pay $10 to $12 a week any more to a private health insurance fund'. Why does he not say this? He does not say it because he wants to deceive anybody in the Parliament and he wants to deceive everybody who is listening on the radio and the public in general. When I challenged Mr Risstrom about this I said: 'Look, you have made this claim about taxation. You have put the Medicare levy on one side because we are changing from a privately funded basis of health insurance to a publicly funded one but you have not made any offsetting savings in respect of the $10 to $12 a week each Australian family was paying for private medical health insurance'. He said: 'I am not doing that, I am only a tax man. I am not a health insurance man'. I said: 'Well, I don't care if you are a tax man. You cannot make the claim that the Government has increased taxation when in fact we have substituted a cost which families were paying privately. Whether you pay it out of your pocket after tax to a health insurance fund or whether you pay it through the tax system, it has to be offset in terms of any calculation'. The honourable member for Bennelong, to discredit himself further, came into the Parliament today and did the very same thing. He spoke about the $1,000m of the calculation that he has, which is the Medicare levy. He did not mention the fact that Australians no longer have to pay a private health insurance of $10 to $12 a week as they did before. Another phoney number he mentioned is the housing rebate-$395m. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was heard in peace so he should show some courtesy. In respect of housing rebates, the former Government was not concerned about getting young Australian families into housing. People were living in caravans with their in-laws, in back rooms and in garages. The previous Government was not concerned about putting a roof over those people's heads; it was concerned about trying to win a few more votes by taking again the sleazy road to power. In the 1982-83 Budget it offered to all those people who already had mortgages and who had had them for years-people whose equity in properties had risen dramatically as the inflationary impact on prices in the Howard and Fraser years of high inflation affected house prices around Australia as their mortgage costs had gone down relative to the overall value of their properties-as a sop, as a very poor electoral handout, an interest rate subsidy on existing mortgages which people, particularly people on middle and high incomes, had had for years. What justice was there in directing Commonwealth assistance to people on middle and high incomes for existing mortgages on houses which they owned and which they were paying off comfortably, and had been doing so for years? What this Government did was abolish those rebates and hand out the funds to young Australians for their first home, under the first home owners scheme. As part of his deception the honourable member for Bennelong never even mentioned a few minutes ago that the $395m which he charged the Government with taking away from the taxpayer this year was handed out in the first home owners scheme, which has seen thousands of young Australians, married couples and single people, put their own roofs over their heads for the first time. This year we have seen the housing industry building new homes at a record rate of somewhere between 135, 000 and 150,000 homes. That is almost an Australian record. Why is that? It is because this Government wanted to target Commonwealth financial assistance to young families in need, and it did so. The former Treasurer has not had the common decency to mention that while we did take away the rebate, and we are proud of it, we gave that money back to first home owners. What is the point in his coming here with this piece of jingoism, this phoney calculation, without mentioning offsetting factors in respect of health insurance or housing rebates and the rest? The honourable member for Bennelong mentioned, amongst other things, the indexation of excises. As a former Treasurer, he knows that in this country we cannot afford to have the real value of excises declining. Most excises are adjusted only in a discretionary way once every few years. Because we have in this country, particularly under the Liberals, a propensity to have more and more elections, we find that governments have not been game to adjust the excises for cigarettes, liquor or any other category of product covered by the excises. The result is that the high inflation which the former Treasurer was able to manage ripped away at the real value of the excise base of the Commonwealth. The outlays of the Commonwealth never diminished. They have grown, because as we have moved into recessions we have picked up the high levels of unemployment for which we have had to pay and we have had the losses in revenue from those who were formerly employed and from whom the Commonwealth is no longer reaping income tax receipts. So with growing outlays what government can afford responsibly to have the taxation base of the Commonwealth decline? We were not prepared and, I will say again, we are definitely not prepared to have the excise base of the Commonwealth eroded because, as the former Treasurer knows, if excise goes down direct taxation through income tax goes up. Treasurers and governments have to make the revenue, and the honourable member knows that. It is no good his bleating about matters affecting the pay packets of ordinary taxpayers when he knows the direct income tax burden will rise if other categories of tax receipts fall. By adjusting excises for inflation each half year, as this Government has done since the last Budget-every six months they are adjusted for inflation-the real value of the tax does not change. Hence, again, that is another phoney entry in that list of phoney entries in that compilation which the former Treasurer tabled in the House a few moments ago. I think I have dealt adequately with all of the phoney elements in the former Treasurer's supposed case, this attack on the Government. Let me get to the principal matter. I say to honourable members opposite: Yes, the Government will provide tax cuts in the next Budget. It will do so for very sound reasons related to the progress and well-being of the economy. The first is that because of the operation of the Government's prices and incomes accord and the effect of the Medicare deduction upon the consumer price index, we will see, for the first time in a decade, the back broken of the high levels of inflation in this country. That is something which the former Government was incapable of doing. It could not restrain inflation into recovery. We will be breaking the back of inflation while at the same time we have an economic recovery, with growth occurring very strongly through the year. That is something the former Government could never do. Of course, there is a cost involved, and the cost is that wages will not be adjusted as they would otherwise have been had that Medicare deduction on the consumer price index not operated. In compensatory terms, to the degree that the Government believes that budgetary flexibility will permit it, we will look at tax cuts to compensate wage and salary earners in the Budget as a result of that Medicare deduction. Of course, with that money being funded back into the taxpayers' pockets it will add considerably to consumption in 1984-85 or to the capacity for an increase in disposable incomes, which will lift consumption. One of the pegs upon which growth in the economy will be placed in 1984-85 is a very strong increase in consumption, which will put the Australian economy back on the road to a full recovery; one which can then be the basis of higher levels of private investment and continually higher levels of employment growth and the amelioration of unemployment. That is why we are looking at giving tax cuts in the next Budget. There is no point in the former Treasurer talking about early elections and the rest. Members of the Opposition are the early election specialists. For sound reasons, we are looking to promote consumption and at the same time to break the back of Australian inflation, which the former Treasurer could never do. So let us not talk about any records of deceit, because the former Treasurer has a record of deceit which is unsurpassed in this Parliament. He went to a national election deceiving the nation about the size of the Budget deficit in prospect at a time when economic strategies were being framed upon that deficit. We reject absolutely the charges made by the former Treasurer. I regard his compilation on taxes as trash, as rubbish. I have already addressed all of the offsetting factors relating to that. If that is the best he can do, he will be in Opposition for a long time in the future. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The discussion has concluded . Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-I thank the House. Over the past few days, powerful emotions have been unleashed in this country and in this Parliament over the issue of immigration. We in this place have a particular responsibility to ensure that what we do and say on this matter is judicious, calm and constructive. There is a risk that if the debate on immigration loses touch with facts and departs from a civilised approach, racism and racial intolerance could be promoted to the detriment of our national unity and our basic values. I know I speak for this Government, for the Australian Labor Party and for the overwhelming majority of Australians in rejecting racial intolerance and in calling for a measured and humane discussion of these issues. One of Australia's greatest achievements has been its acceptance of people from widely diverse nationalities around the world. The enrichment of our national life by new settlers since World War II, predominantly of European stock-has been palpable. Over the past decade, we have buried the white Australia policy for ever. We have shown our capacity to accept people from Asian cultures, many of whom have sought a new life in Australia following the tragedy of the wars in Indo-China in which Australia itself participated. Surely no member of this Parliament would wish to allow that achievement to be called into question now by prejudice and intolerance. As the Australian stated in its editorial of 9 May 1984 in discussing the need for informed debate on immigration: Unless it is carried on with moderation and respect for other points of view we shall come to no sensible conclusion and Australia will become an ugly place to live in. It is therefore imperative that our debate be based on a clear understanding of the facts and that the facts be presented honestly and without a view to political point scoring. Senator Chipp, whose views on this matter I respect, pointed yesterday to the dangers of ignoring and distorting the facts and their causes in a speech which I commend to all honourable members. My purpose here today is to place in perspective the facts and implications of the Government's immigration policy. On coming to office, the Labor Government took the view that at a time of high unemployment, unprecedented in the post-war era, we should reduce the total migration intake. We decided in particular to curtail drastically recruiting for the Australian workforce. I believe that that decision was correct. As the same time, we acknowledged the aspirations of new settlers in our community to reunite with their families by allowing an increased component for family reunion. We also accepted our responsibilities to the international community and our moral obligation as a participant in the Vietnam war to continue the bipartisan humanitarian policy of accepting refugees, particularly from Indo- China. It is worth pointing out, as I said in this place on 8 May, that the Australian Labor Party in opposition wholeheartedly supported the Fraser Government's efforts in offering Indo-Chinese refugees a new life in this country, notwithstanding our Party's opposition to the war itself. Inevitably, Australia' s bipartisan acceptance of Asian refugees has carried with it bipartisan acceptance of their right to participate equitably in the family reunion program . As Senator Chipp has said, it is inconceivable that we could accept refugees in the late 1970's and refuse their families in the 1980's. This Government is not going to designate any group of Australians as second class citizens. We are simply not going to tell people who are here legitimately in this country that they have second class rights, that they are not allowed to exercise their rights under the family reunion program. When the intake of Indo-Chinese refugees was at its highest under the previous Government in the period 1979 to 1981, we as an Opposition responsibly and constructively sought to make no political capital out of that fact. There is some irony in the fact that now, when the absolute number of Indo-Chinese refugees-and indeed the total number of Asians-coming into Australia is dropping , we find ourselves being subjected to criticism from some quarters for allegedly contributing to the 'Asianisation' of Australia. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has in this place and in statements to the media indicated that he is not opposed to the present number of Asians coming into Australia. Indeed, he said on Nationwide on 8 May that the 'right number' of Asians was now coming in. He has however, expressed concern about the 'mix' or the 'balance', as he put it, of the present migrant intake and has called for an increase in European migration. The fact is that the proportion of settlers-excluding refugees-coming to Australia from Europe, the United Kingdom and Ireland is still higher than from any other area. In the nine months to 31 March 1984, migration visas issued to people from that area constituted some 45 per cent of the total number granted. This high proportion of visas issued has occurred despite a diminution of migrant applications from that region and repudiates claims of anti-British bias or anti-European bias in our migration program. In the same nine months, 39.5 per cent of total migrant applications came from Britain and Europe compared to 44.4 per cent for 1982-83, 63.1 per cent in 1981-82 and 66.6 per cent in 1980-81 . European migration posts have been recently asked by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) to offer explanations for the diminution in interest in migration to Australia from Europe. In the case of Britain, for example, migration applications have declined dramatically-from over 130,000 in 1980-81 to some 13,000 in the first nine months of this financial year. The post in London attributes particular importance in this decline to publicity given in Britain to the recession in Australia, the unemployment situation in 1982 and, especially, unemployment among British migrants. It may well be that as the improving economic circumstances here become more widely known in Europe this situation will turn around. One can imagine, Mr Speaker, the impact in Britain of reports of steel workers, recruited for the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd under the former Government's employer nominations program, being sacked within nine months of their arrival in this country. Nothing could be better calculated to have a longterm negative impact on migration from Britain. At the same time, while the absolute number of Asians now coming to Australia is declining because of the lower target which the Government has set for refugees, their percentage share of the intake is increasing. This partly reflects the decline in interest from Europe to which I have referred. More relevantly, since the Opposition has raised the issue of alleged distortions in the 'balance' or 'mix' of the migration program, the percentage increase of Asian migration also reflects the fact that the Opposition during its final year in government reduced the total migration intake at a much faster rate than the refugee intake. In that year, it reduced its migration intake by 21 per cent from 118,000 to 93,000. Yet at the same time, it reduced the Asian refugee intake by only 12 per cent, from 14,557 to 12,758. We did not then, nor do we now, criticise it for that decision. By contrast, under the Labor Government, the reduction in the overall migration program has been closely paralleled by that in the Asian refugee intake. The point that I wish to emphasise is that in government the Opposition had no particular regard for the so-called 'balance' or 'mix' it is now promoting as a policy objective. Not only that, the number of Asian refugees included in the overall intake during the period that the Opposition was in government is now being strongly reflected in the family reunion program. There are ample grounds, therefore, for suggesting that the Opposition's stand on this issue smacks of hypocrisy. For my own part, as I said on Nationwide on 8 May, I do not believe that one can honestly say that there is an immutably right figure for any migrant group within the overall intake. Rather the approach of the Labor Government reflects the application of economic criteria in determining the total intake and of economic and humanitarian factors in breaking down this total among different categories of migrants. This Government does not consider that a balance or mix in our migration program determined on racial grounds can have any place in our society. It categorically rejects the discriminatory concept of quotas, which is implicit in what the Leader of the Opposition has said in recent days about increasing the number of European migrants. It also categorically rejects any proposals to introduce covert discrimination through differential standards in selection criteria. We, of course, acknowledge the need to ensure that our migration program does not threaten the stability and fabric of Australian society. But in working towards this end the Government considers that not only is the size and composition of our intake important, but also the programs within our community to promote the integration of migrants into our society from initial concentrations of ethnic groups, and the broader promotion of racial tolerance in our country. In the past few days, the Leader of the Opposition has supported his criticism of the Government's immigration policy by reference to statistics which he described as official government statistics. The basis for his claims has caused some puzzlement to the Government because my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has received no request from the Opposition for up to date immigration information. Inquiries have now revealed that some figures were in fact obtained by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) directly from a junior officer in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The Department has now had those figures re-checked because they do not square with other statistics available to the Government. Our figures-figures confirmed and released yesterday by the Minister-show that overall migration applications from Europe are in decline. The Opposition's figures purported to show that family reunion applications from Europe were increasing against this trend. It emerges that the Opposition's figures are in fact wrong and that even these figures have been used in a statistically unsound manner. My colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has today written to the honourable member for Mitchell pointing out this error and giving him revised figures which confirm the Government's consistent advice that the trend of family reunion applications to migrate to Australia from traditional sources in Europe is in fact declining. The Secretary to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr McKinnon, has also provided the Minister with statistical and other material which clarifies the factual basis on family reunion and the trend in Australia's immigration program. Furthermore, it sets out in some detail the highly dubious fashion in which these incorrect statistics were used by the Opposition. Mr McKinnon said: Migrant application statistics You asked me to explain the apparent conflict in applications for family reunion in European posts as used by Mr Cadman in the Adjournment Debate on 7 May 1984 with the advice given to you related to the decline in interest from traditional countries of migration. Mr Cadman's office approached the Department direct by telephone. The figures supplied are derived from the Migration Program Management System. They comprise recorded applications for family migration by class, by country of last residence for 1982-83 and the first half of financial year 1983-84. Mr Cadman then doubled the half-year figures to produce an annual rate which he compared with the 1982-83 figures. On the basis of this comparison, he concluded that there was an increase in family migration applications in the United Kingdom and Europe. A number of qualifications need to be made: 1. The figures are wrong. Mr Hodgman —They are your figures. Mr HAWKE —The honourable member will have every opportunity to try to get his way out of this one and he has no chance. Mr McKinnon said: The data included in MPMS, which is still being developed, are notoriously unreliable. They depend upon input from a number of posts using a number of classification methods. When supplying such figures, a caveat is normally included which draws attention to their limitations, but on this occasion the caveat was not included. A complete re-run of the figures, including recourse to the basic data, has been undertaken. The revised results are attached. You will note that they considerably alter the picture portrayed by Mr Cadman. 2. The figures are seasonal and should not be treated by doubling a half-year figure. Applications in European posts are seasonal. An example using U.K. figures for total number of persons covered by applications shows: July-December 1980 46,504 January-June 1981 77,854 July-December 1981 43, 883 January-June 1982 60,317 July-December 1982 29,357 January-June 1983 22,766 Thus a doubling of the figures for July-December in any category runs the risk of grossly under or over-estimating the annual rate. 3. The series is not consistent. A higher proportion of persons applying in European posts have been applying under family reunion as the opportunities for skilled migration, which does not depend upon sponsorship, have declined. As the occupational Demand Schedule has narrowed, persons who would normally have applied otherwise are now applying under family reunion. Furthermore, the increase in the scope of family reunion to include Category C only commenced in the first half of 1982 and the influence of this widened eligibility would have been felt increasingly through the period used by Mr Cadman. 4. The data are not complete. One of the other indications of declining interest in migration is the number of persons put into processing who do not respond to an invitation to interview. For example, the current response rate in the Athens post is as low as 50%, which indicates that about half of the people being sponsored by relatives in Australia are not interested in migration. Although the non-response rates for other European posts are not as high, they are still significant and well above the equivalent rates for Asian posts. I should point out that the figures for applications relate to actual arrivals approximately one year later. Thus, even if family reunion interest were to be regenerating in traditional migration countries (which is contrary to the advice from virtually all our posts), this would not be reflected in current arrivals figures. The current figures on the balance of source countries for arrivals would reflect the applications in 1982/83 at the latest, before any changes in immigration policy of the current Government became operative. In any case, I should point out that the only changes made since the change of Government affect the family reunion Category C. This represented less than one quarter of all family reunion arrivals in 1982/83. Thus the changes introduced in the Points Assessment System will change marginally the proportion from different sources in future arrivals. I would like to give you my unqualified assurance that no policy or operational instructions have been promulgated which would inhibit migration from traditional source countries. You would be aware that special efforts have been made to lift the number of Category C family reunion migrants once the shortfall became evident. Furthermore, with the declining overall level of applications in these countries, we have been able to improve significantly our processing times for family reunion migrants particularly from those countries. For example, for the United Kingdom the average time between receipt of the application (M47) to the approval letter is now approximately 3 1/2 months, compared to 9-11 months two years ago. It is now one of the shortest periods anywhere in the world. I believe that Mr Cadman should be informed of the adjusted figures and the limitations on the use of the figures in measuring interest in family reunion.' I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a number of supporting tables, provided to the Minister by Mr McKinnon. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- FAMILY MIGRATION: APPLICATIONS PRESELECTED IN(1), BY COUNTRY OF LAST RESIDENCE ( CASES)(2)-TOTAL OF FAMILY MIGRATION CATEGORIES A, B AND C. UPDATED FIGURES AS OF 9 MAY 1984. FIGURES IN BRACKETS ARE THE TOTALS OF THOSE SUPPLIED TO MR A. CADMAN , M.P., ON 5 APRIL 1984 July- 1982-83 Dec. 1983 Abu Dhabi 59 (0) 30 (21) Algeria 2 (2) . . (0) Austria 132 (109) 40 (41) Bahrain 29 (24) 8 (4) Bangladesh 24 (23) 8 (9) Belgrade 1,008 (750) 485 (552) Buenos Aires 413 (341) 198 (205) Burma 56 (48) 22 (18) Canada 615 (591) 269 ( 337) Chile 300 (204) 127 (116) China 272 (227) 88 (112) Cyprus 119 (109) 76 ( 75) Denmark 53 (49) 38 (48) Egypt 286 (254) 151 (139) Fiji 435 (428) 208 (225 ) France 239 (223) 130 (158) G.D.R. 5 (5) 1 (1) Germany 700 (602) 299 (339) Greece 502 (468) 261 (306) Hong Kong 1,700 (1,327) 844 (903) India 1,052 (813 ) 391 (363) Indonesia 383 (321) 153 (184) Iran 44 (31) 43 (30) Ireland 200 ( 174) 108 (129) Israel 148 (142) 45 (48) Italy 391 (352) 164 (187) Jamaica 28 (25) 11 (11) Japan 90 (86) 51 (68) Kiribati 4 (4) 2 (2) Korea 311 (285) 210 ( 166) Kuwait 31 (29) 14 (12) Malawi . . (0) . . (3) Malaysia 746 (671) 393 ( 353) Malta 204 (197) 101 (125) Mexico 27 (24) 12 (17) Nairobi 470 (420) 94 ( 61) Nauru 2 (2) . . (0) Netherlands 402 (384) 160 (178) New Caledonia 14 (9) 17 (18) New Zealand 157 (151) 66 (79) Pakistan 118 (116) 56 (54) Papua New Guinea 96 (80) 55 (52) Philippines 2,599 (2,380) 1,221 (1,488) Portugal 178 ( 170) 82 (100) Saudi Arabia 72 (56) 24 (15) Singapore 450 (334) 174 (177) Solomon Islands 9 (9) 6 (7) South Africa 875 (710) 365 (377) Spain 138 (133) 43 (56) Sri Lanka 204 (192) 841 (868) Sweden 112 (102) 65 (80) Switzerland 154 (129) 48 (56) Syria 809 (726) 580 (662) Thailand 196 (183) 94 (139) Tonga 7 ( 0) 5 (9) Turkey 830 (676) 303 (366) United Kingdom 6,254 (5,340) 2,541 (3,054) USA 1,242 (1,122) 567 (784) USSR 17 (8) 4 (4) Vanuatu 4 (4) 5 (5) Vietnam 662 (654) 669 (1,003) Warsaw 227 (206) 300 (362) Western Samoa 21 (17) 9 (8) Zambia 11 (9) 10 (10) The following countries were omitted from the December table: Laos 1 0 Tanzania 11 3 Footnotes: (1) Preselected in = prima facie eligible applications only. (2) Cases = applications. A single application may cover one or more members of the family unit. ALL MIGRATION*-APPLICATIONS (M47) AND PERSONS VISAED BY REGION 1983-84 to Region 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 31.3.1984 No. % No. % No. % No. % U.K. & Ireland Applications 137,112 (39.6) 105,011 (31.6) 53,057 (18.1) 13,202 (10.7) Visas 35,602 (43.6) 39,711 (41.9) 25,822 (38.1) 8,794 (25.6) Europe Applications 93,500 (27.0) 104,597 (31.5) 77,087 (26.3) 35,631 (28.8) Visas 21,826 (26.7) 26,584 (28.1) 15,763 (23.2) 6,728 (19.6) Asia Applications 54,242 (15.7) 47,963 (14.4) 67,827 (23.1) 35,301 (28.5) Visas 10 ,970 (13.4) 13,155 (13.9) 12,882 (19.0) 10,970 (32.0) Other Applications 61,124 (17.7) 74,524 (22.4) 95,580 (32.6) 39,711 (32.1) Visas 13 ,225 (16.2) 15,319 (16.2) 13,366 (19.7) 7,807 (22.8) Total: Applications 345,978 (100.0) 332,095 (100.0) 293,551 (100.0) 123,845 (100.00) Visas 81,623 (100.0) 94,769 (100.0) 67,833 (100.0) 34,299 (100.0) * excluding refugees. FAMILY MIGRATION(a)-APPLICATIONS PRESELECTED IN AND VISAS ISSUED BY REGION ( PERSONS) Region 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 (b) No. % No. % No. % No. % UK & Ireland Applications n.a. n.a 13,534 24.9 6,591 18.5 Visaed 6,046 30.7 6,917 30.6 6,178 34.1 5,971 25.2 Europe Applications n.a. n.a. 8,627 15.9 5,440 15.3 Visaed 4,115 20.9 3,817 16.9 2,628 14.5 4,129 17.5 Asia Applications n.a. n.a. 17,220 31.7 14,533 40.8 Visaed 5,071 25.7 6,425 28. 5 5,039 27.8 7,607 32.1 Other Applications n.a. n.a. 14,909 27.5 9,022 25.4 Visaed 4,480 22.7 5,411 24.0 4,276 23.6 5,955 25.2 Total Applications n.a. n.a. 54,290 100.0 35,586 100.0 Visaed 19,712 100.0 22, 570 100.0 18,121 100.0 23,662 100.0 (a) The definition of Family Migration has changed during the period 1980-81 to 1983-84. (b) 1 July 1983 to 31 March 1984. n.a.=not available Source: DIEA manual statistics for 1980-81 and 1981-82 and MPMS data from 1982- 83 onwards. MPMS data are preliminary and subject to revision. SETTLER ARRIVAL DATA Source: DIEA Incoming Passenger Card Statistics (1983-84 data is for July 1983 to December 1983) 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 % % % % % % Total Settlers UK & Ireland 13,107 19.0 16,397 20.2 31,590 28.4 38,863 32.7 27,249 29.2 8,477 23.9 Europe 9,538 13.9 13,918 17.1 20,424 18.4 24,981 21.0 19,731 21.2 5,964 16 .8 Asia 20,214 29.4 23,183 28.5 24,914 22.4 26,528 22.4 24,486 26.3 11,773 33.2 Other 25,890 37.7 27,773 34.2 34,262 30.8 28,328 23.9 21,711 23.3 9,274 26.1 Total 68,749 100 81,271 100 111,190 100 118,700 100 93,177 100 35,488 100 Family Migration UK & Ireland 4,442 25.8 4,999 27.2 5,657 28.9 6,126 28.2 9,411 34.9 5,176 31.2 Europe 3,884 22.5 4,162 22.7 4,130 21.1 3,883 17.8 4,951 18.4 2,967 17.9 Asia 4 ,171 24.2 4,451 24.2 5,276 27.0 6,752 31.0 6,928 25.7 4,587 27.6 Other 4,728 27 .5 4,747 25.9 4,507 23.0 5,008 23.0 5,662 21.0 3,879 23.3 Total 17,225 100 18,359 100 19,570 100 21,769 100 26,952 100 16,609 100 Refugees (Country of last residence) UK & Ireland 6 0.0 7 0.0 195 0.9 56 0.3 17 0.1 3 0.0 Europe 1,302 9.7 4,605 23 .1 5,774 26.4 7,176 32.7 4,155 24.4 1,142 16.9 Asia 12,064 89.7 15,254 76.5 15, 767 72.2 14,557 66.4 12,758 74.8 5,452 80.6 Other 78 0.6 88 0.4 111 0.5 128 0.6 124 0.7 170 2.5 Total 13,450 100 19,954 100 21,847 100 21,917 100 17,054 100 6,767 100 Other (including Labour Shortage, Business and other Categories applicable at that time) UK & Ireland 8,659 22.7 11,391 26.5 25,738 36.9 32,681 43.6 17,821 36.2 3,298 27. Europe 4,352 11.4 5,151 12.0 10,520 15.1 13,922 18.6 10,625 21.6 1,855 15. Asia 3,979 10.5 3,478 8.1 3,871 5.5 5,219 6.9 4,800 9.8 1,734 14. Other 21, 084 55.4 22,938 53.4 29,644 42.5 23,192 30.9 15,925 32.4 5,225 43. Total 38,074 100 42,958 100 69,773 100 75,014 100 49,171 100 12,112 100 Mr HAWKE —I just refer honourable members to the point that is so clearly made on page 3 of the first table, which is alluded to in the letter from Mr McKinnon . Honourable members will recall that Mr Cadman, and then the Leader of the Opposition, grabbing upon it, took the figures for the United Kingdom for 1982- 83 and then doubled the half-year figure for 1983-84 to get a picture, he said, of the increase in the number of applications. The figures that he used, incorrect as I have explained they were, were not derived in a straightforward way by going to the Minister and saying: 'What are the most reliable figures?' He rang up a junior person in the Department. What were the figures that he used ? The figures for 1982-83 were 5,340 and the figure was 3,054 for July to December 1983-84. So he had 5,340 for the year 1982-83 and doubled the half-year figure for 1983-84 of 3,054 and said: 'That is more than the figure for 1982-83' . So he, and then the Leader of the Opposition, came in and said: 'Look, there is an increase in the number of applications. What are you doing about it?' What are the facts as shown by page 3 of table 1? The correct figures for 1982-83 are not the 5,340 used by the Opposition but in fact 6,254. What are the half-year figures for 1983-84? It is not the 3,054 used by the other side but 2,541. So I have pointed out, on the basis of Mr McKinnon's statement, why it is totally improper in any conceptual terms to double the half-year figure. For the sake of illustration I will use the Cadman Opposition technique and see where we come out. The figure for 1982-83 is 6,254. The half-year figure for 1983-84 is in fact 2,541. So, using the illicit Cadman Opposition technique, if we double 2,541, we come up with 5,082 against the previous year's figure of 6, 254. So with the correct figures, even if we use what is an illicit technique, we still get the opposite picture of the one pointed out by Mr Cadman and on which the Opposition based its whole miserable attack. I make the further point that the Opposition made no effort to consult the Minister before obtaining the figures. Having obtained them, it made no attempt to discuss the matter with the Minister, notwithstanding the Government's citation of other statistics which argued a contrary trend. Given the sensitivity of these issues, one might have expected a little extra care to be shown, a little more time to be spent, a little more effort to be invested, before bipartisanship and national consensus were put at risk by public political attacks based on false premises. Put simply, the Opposition's case is based upon inaccurate statistics, improperly used. It has at its heart the false allegation that the Government has somehow sought to deter migration from Europe . Mr McKinnon's statement refutes that allegation-if it ever needed to be refuted-when he says, and I repeat: I would like to give you my unqualified assurance that no policy or operational instructions have been promulgated which would inhibit migration from traditional source countries. For several days now, the Opposition has vilified my colleague, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, who has steadfastly and honestly set out the facts to this House regarding the trend in Australia's migration flow. He has been completely vindicated by the information released today. The Government has throughout emphasised the importance of a bipartisan position on this crucial issue. For its part, the Opposition has paid lip service to the concept of bipartisanship but claims that it no longer exists as a result of Government policies. It is not enough for the Opposition to assert that it seeks bipartisanship and then by its behaviour to undermine it. The Opposition's behaviour in this place in recent days has diminished the dignity, decorum and reason which ought to surround this issue. As the Sydney Morning Herald said this morning: The Opposition's claim that the Government has departed from bipartisan immigration policy by running a 'pro-Asian and anti-British' policy is nonsense . . . it is the Opposition and not the Government that is seeking to depart from bipartisan policy . . . it seems that Mr Peacock does not want a constructive debate. The Opposition just wants to make a quick killing. It is not too late to restore decency and common sense to discussion of this issue. At this point, Mr Speaker, I repeat the call which I made to the Leader of the Opposition in the House on 8 May to put an end to this debate as a party political dispute and in particular to dampen down the racial overtones which it can so easily assume. I said that it would be to the great service of this country and all its citizens, and to our relations with countries in this area, if we did not allow this very dangerous issue to be raised and to become something that is in the forefront of political debate. As Senator Chipp said in the statement to which I referred earlier, the rhetoric which is surrounding the debate does not match the facts and the danger is that the consequences of the rhetoric will be to fan those underground elements of racism and prejudice. A bipartisan policy in this area is of crucial national importance. Splitting the debate along political and partisan lines would only serve to cause wholly undesirable divisions within our society. Is there anyone in this place who wants to see discrimination reintroduced into our immigration policies, with all the tragic social damage and conflict which that would bring to this great country? Does anyone here want to see Australia turn its back on those in our region who have known anguish and human suffering? Do we want to see Australia lose its reputation as a tolerant, open-hearted country which can hold its head high in the world? I know where the Government stands on this matter. I would like to believe that the Opposition stands with us. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I note with interest the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). He has spoken at length and covered many areas of the debate which is of fundamental interest not just to members of this House but to the Australian public at large. At the outset, let me reaffirm the Opposition's right and indeed duty to question any policy, any action or any intention of the Government. There were indications during this week that the Government would have had it otherwise. Be that as it may, I reaffirm that right -a right from which we will not resile. The Opposition raised this issue on Monday. It had been running in the community for a lengthy time prior to that. From the time we raised it until now , we had no response from the Government to our specific questions. We have had no response until now to the specific matters raised but we have had a torrent of vilification of the basest nature from honourable members opposite. For three full sitting days the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) did not respond to our direct questions. The Minister failed to address or answer the questions and the uncertainty bred by his own inability to respond to specific questions, and he fanned the debate. The fact that he still sits mute and that it is the Prime Minister who in reality has taken over the handling of the immigration portfolio is a damning indictment of the Minister. Before we go any further, the Prime Minister should recognise that he has a public duty to put a member of the Government in charge of this portfolio who has the ability and the sensitivity to handle it. All the fine sentiments that have been expressed throughout the Prime Minister's statement-I put to one side the statistics that I will deal with in a moment-do not allow the cloud of sentiment to fog the fact that the man who is handling this portfolio has done it in an abusive, abrasive and insensitive manner and has not had the ability to articulate the case for the Government. He was a major contributing factor to this debate being fanned in the community even before the matter was raised in this Parliament. I again call upon the Prime Minister to act now to replace the Minister. I reiterate that the Opposition's record in the field of immigration and ethnic affairs is impeccable. We have nothing to answer for. The previous Fraser Government responded to pressures unknown in our region. I know that only too well. As Foreign Minister, with respective immigration Ministers, I had to sell that case to the electorate. I know the sensitivities in the community. We achieved the largest per capita intake of Indo-Chinese refugees in the world. That was something to be proud of. The fact is that coalition governments, which have been in charge of Federal government for most of the time since the Second World War, have maintained in immigration an enlightened record of both humanity and decency, and we retain that attitude now during our period in Opposition. Throughout those lengthy periods in government we took the Australian community along with us, each step of the way. We understood the sensitivity of the matter , we sought to take the community with us and we did. Mr Dawkins —With help from the Labor Party. Mr PEACOCK —Indeed, we did have some help from honourable members opposite. I said earlier this week that in the latter period of the Fraser Government we welcomed the bipartisan support which developed for our immigration program. I pay particular tribute to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who was then Opposition spokesman on immigration. So let us keep the record straight in this area. We have nothing to answer for, either in our conduct in government or indeed in opposition. Let me indicate why we have nothing to answer for with regard to any matter we have raised in recent days and why we will be prepared to continue to ask questions and to make statements. It is because the acceptance of bipartisanship simply on the terms laid down by one side strikes at the very root of democracy. Unless we are satisfied that we can support a case put forward by the Government, we are duty bound to question the policies of that Government. Let not one cubit of rhetoric intrude to override that fundamental element. Bipartisanship in many more fields of governmental activity would probably be welcomed by both sides of the House. It can be accepted, no matter who is in power, only if the case is one that both sides find acceptable. Much of the Prime Minister's case today rested on an attack on our claim that the intake balance has been upset. He has produced new sets of figures. On behalf of the Opposition I want the House to examine these figures which show that the proportion of settlers coming to Australia from Europe, the United Kingdom and Ireland is still higher than from any other area. He said that in the nine months to 31 March 1984, migration visas issued to people from that area constituted some 45 per cent of the total number granted. But this is not the issue and these figures do not answer the questions we have asked. The issue of concern as we have stated time and again, is the balance and the mix. In fact, the figures from the Prime Minister today are less relevant than those circulated by the Minister yesterday. The Minister's figures on all migration to Australia excluding refugees show that there has been a major shift in the source of migrants. In 1982-83, according to the Minister's figures, 38.1 per cent of visas were issued to people from the United Kingdom and Ireland. In 1983-84, up to 31 March 1984, the figure was 25.6 per cent. In the same period of time the percentage of visas issued to Europeans dropped from 23.2 per cent to 19.6 per cent and those from Asia rose from 19 per cent to 32 per cent. Of course, this has come about, as we accept, for a number of reasons. First, there has been an increase in the number of family reunion visas given to Asians. This will be a long term trend that no one should continue to question. We have never questioned the propriety and correctness of continuing to do this. We categorically reject any attempt to create first and second class citizens by discriminating against specific groups' rights to bring in their families. Secondly, and significantly, there has been a massive drop in the number of migrants coming to Australia in the category of labour and business migration. These migrants traditionally have come from the United Kingdom, Ireland and Europe. This category has been cut dramatically by the Minister and cut without consultation with the Opposition with which the Government is supposed to be in full support, and without consultation with interested community groups such as the council that we questioned the Minister on yesterday which has simply been disbanded. The membership of that council's term expired without even a note of thanks from the Minister for services rendered, let alone a discussion as to what the council may contribute to the migration debate and the migration mix in future. There is also, of course, the unilateral decision to cut assistance to the Big Brother Movement without any consultation prior to the determination being taken by the Minister. The decision was taken solely on the advice of his Department without the advisings of community groups which have helped so long in the field of immigration. As I have said time and again immigration policy has to take account of two groups in particular: Those who want to come to Australia and those who are already here. The community consultative mechanism in this area is of extraordinary importance. That too has been swept aside. The reason that the category I referred to has been cut is because of consultation with but one group in the community, the Australian Council of Trade Unions. As a consequence of trade union pressure, that category has diminished. This has contributed to undermining the bipartisan nature of our migration policy and community acceptance of it. It could be so easily restored by actions of this Government, not by actions on our side. For the traditional balance of our migration policy to be pursued in a bipartisan manner many require the Government to improve on its record in those areas. The pursuit of short term and sectional policies by the Labor Government is what is threatening community acceptance. Thirdly, the cut in immigration, in independent migration and in a special eligibility category relating to self-supporting retirees has cut again the number of UK and European migrants coming to this country. That has further undermined the traditional balance. I wish now to return to remarks made about the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). I want to say how the Prime Minister, in his statement, misrepresents the honourable member for Mitchell. Firstly, at page 9 of his statement the Prime Minister criticises the honourable member. Why? He criticises him for believing information provided by the Department. Is he serious? Mr Maher —Not officially provided. Mr PEACOCK —I have seen that information and it was provided on the letterhead of the Department. Secondly, the Prime Minister tries to denigrate the honourable member by saying that the Minister released information yesterday on overall applications from Europe. As the Prime Minister knows, the honourable member's request for information and the information supplied related purely to family reunion. That was the request and that was the response. It was not related to total migration. Why try to mislead the House on this issue? Thirdly, the Prime Minister made this claim: The Opposition's figures purported to show that family reunion applications from Europe were increasing against this trend. He was referring to the trend in total applications. This was not the case. The honourable member for Mitchell was simply saying that the Government's information disproved the Minister's claim, made in this House-is in the record of the Hansard of 7 March-that family reunion applications from Europe and the United Kingdom were falling due to declining interest. Fourthly, the Prime Minister, at page 4 of his statement, says: . . . The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has received no request from the Opposition for up-to-date immigration statistics. I refer the Prime Minister and his Minister not just to telephone calls or letters, but also to the actions in the Parliament which, I am sure, the Minister follows assiduously. I refer him to page 25 of the Senate Hansard for the Estimates Committee B meeting of 30 April. As we know, transcripts of Estimates committees are mandatory reading for any Minister who is administering his portfolio efficiently. At Estimates committee meetings no junior officers speak for the Minister; senior officers designated by the Minister do so. On page 25 of the report of that Estimates Committee Senator Walters, a Liberal senator from Tasmania, asked the Government representative from the Minister's Department, Mr L. Woodward, whose rank is a Deputy Secretary, the following question: Could you give me the number of applications and the number of approved migrants for the United Kingdom and Ireland, for each country separately in Europe and Asia, and in North America and South America? Mr Woodward replied: We have the information, but it would take a fair time to extract it for the countries that you have mentioned. Senator Walters to date has received nothing. Let me say for the record, in relation to that question, that as Leader of the Opposition I specifically asked the Opposition shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to have an honourable senator obtain these figures at the Estimates committee hearing. Furthermore, is it not interesting to note, bearing in mind the alleged bipartisan spirit that the Government would wish to embrace and the readiness with which it alleges it would consult with us, that we asked for this information on 30 April and have still not received it, but the Government asked for the information and received it in 48 hours. So much for the co-operation retrospectively offered now. I will use the Prime Minister's own phrase so far as this is concerned. I will use a phrase in regard to that behaviour which I think is fairly apt from our point of view. At page 8 of the statement-I will use the words as if they were my own-the Prime Minister said: Given the sensitivity of these issues, one might have expected a little extra care to be shown, a little more time to be spent, a little more effort to be invested, before bipartisanship and national consensus were put at risk. Let him take back his words. Even when the Prime Minister seeks to rely on Mr McKinnon's letter to rebut the figures produced by the honourable member for Mitchell he is on shaky ground. Mr McKinnon, in his letter, acknowledges that the Department's data base for applications to emigrate to Australia are ' notoriously unreliable'. Yet I assume that his revised figures, or as he calls them 'a re-run of the figures' are based on the same data that is described as notoriously unreliable-the data that was the basis of the figures given to the honourable member for Mitchell. Mr McKinnon also alleged that the figures were seasonal and that the honourable member's doubling of the six-month figures to December to get an indication of the likely figure for the full year was invalid. In relying on this, the Prime Minister is also wrong. As Mr McKinnon's figures show, in two out of the three years cited in his letter, applications from people in the United Kingdom to emigrate to Australia were higher in the second half of the financial year than in the first half. Only in the 1982-83 financial year was the figure lower in the second half than in the first half. As Mr McKinnon himself admitted in his letter-let me add that everyone on this side of the House has enormous regard for Mr McKinnon; this is no criticism of him or his officers-a doubling of the figures runs the risk of not just over-estimating but also of grossly under- estimating. I suggest to the House that the honourable member's doubling of the six-month figures in that year to achieve an estimate for the 12 months of the number of applications from people wishing to emigrate can, therefore, be assumed to be as valid as any figures produced before this Parliament. The Prime Minister stated today that his Government does not consider-I want the House to hear this-that a balance or a mix in our immigration program, determined on racial grounds, can have any place in our society. He then went on to acknowledge the need to ensure that our migration program does not threaten the stability and the fabric of Australian society. I invite honourable members to read what he said at page 8 so they can put these two statements together. I am approaching this in the most restrained way, having become used to the cloud of sentiment, the smokescreen that overrides the facts, the misleading argument, the duplicity of argument, and the contrast, paragraph by paragraph; when one has time to analyse prime ministerial statements of recent days. At page 4 of the statement the Prime Minister said: This Government does not consider that a balance or mix in our migration program determined on racial grounds can have any place in our society. That is a fine statement. In the next paragraph he said: We of course acknowledge the need to ensure that our migration program does not threaten the stability and fabric of Australian society. But in working towards this end the Government considers that not only is the size and composition of our intake important-- He has put it down before. Earlier he said that the composition was not important; we had no need to worry about the composition, the balance, the mix-- but also the programs within our community to permit the integration of migrants into our society . . . That is a point with which I concur. It is our contention that a balance, a mix and a proper composition in our migration program is essential to ensure the stability and the fabric of Australian society. Dr Theophanous —I raise a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is misleading the House in making this interpretation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —There is no point of order. The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I remind the House that the Prime Minister was heard in silence. The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to the same courtesy. Mr PEACOCK —I refer to comments I made in the House on Tuesday, 8 May and which I briefly touched upon earlier in this address. A successful immigration program takes into account two factors in particular. They are: Those people wanting to come to Australia and those people who are already in Australia, for we have to recognise, as I think the majority of Australians do and try to adhere to- extremists do not; we will have no truck with them-the fragility of the concept of community acceptance. Do not override it; do not throw it out. Honourable members opposite seem to put it to one side. The fragility of the concept of community acceptance is fundamental to the continuation of our migration program . All we have fought for for many years will be put at risk if the Government continues in the way it is at present. Creating an imbalance is reflected in community concern. This Minister and this Government have done just that. I reiterate that I have heard too much sentimentality and have witnessed too much hand wringing by the Prime Minister who thinks he can override facts. He thinks that by simply appealing to the heart everyone's heart and mind will automatically respond. Some of us take the time to analyse what he is really about. If he were to come in here with a statement that was not so easily torn apart on a factual basis, we could be moved by the sentiment, but the cloud of sentiment must not fob the facts. Let me repeat: All honourable members on this side of the House dissociate themselves from racist groups. There is not a member here who will not totally reject such groups. There is not a member here who does not have the right to say that there has been a change in the balance of the migrant intake. Honourable members have a right and a duty to raise that matter while the Minister continues to administer his portfolio in this way. As I come to the conclusion of the statement, let me say that there is not one thing that we have alleged from which I would resile. When I search my mind I rest with ease on what we have said. The Prime Minister's statement is misleading. As I have said, one can share the cloud of sentiment, but the figures do not diminish in any way the Opposition's claim, nor do they even sit squarely with the Minister's figures issued yesterday. It is just not enough for the Government to appeal for bipartisanship and by its own behaviour seek to undermine it. Those opposite have no monopoly on human understanding, decency or compassion. It seems that over the past few days to question is to be smeared. Evidently to ask is to allege. They are the oldest techniques of smearing in the book. We affirm our actions, we affirm our questions and all my analysis of the Prime Minister's statement today leads me to affirm our stance. We will not be deterred from pursuing this matter in a measured, balanced and proper way until we have the same response from the Government. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CADMAN —Yes, I do indeed, by the Prime Minister. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CADMAN —The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during his speech made several references to me and to matters pertaining to the production of figures by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I wish to address my remarks to those matters. I wish first to outline for the House the process by which those figures were obtained. Following the statement on 7 March by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) in regard to immigration I requested my secretary to phone the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on my behalf requesting up to date figures on applicants for family reunion, which she did. The Department subsequently supplied those figures in the form with which honourable members are familiar. The figures were provided to me and I tabled the document yesterday so that everybody could be aware of it and of the figures that I had obtained. The letter from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was signed by Mr Phillip Richards, Immigration Policy Branch, Central Office of the Department. It did not come from the regional office but from the Central Office, the Canberra office of the Department. The response was addressed to Joan Andrews, who is my secretary, at my office address. The figures were supplied on 5 April and received in my office on 16 April. Attached to the letter were tables supplying the information which I sought. The information is headed: 'Applications for family migration by category by country of last residence (cases)'. I have noticed that the Minister's figures have always been supplied to me and to the House in a similar form, with the tables attached to a covering letter. I take very great umbrage at the Prime Minister hinting that I have taken the figures supplied to me and in some way dealt with them in an unfair way, that I may have changed the figures, that the figures were unofficial and were not in a recognised form. I think that a request made by a member of Parliament to a department on that basis should be responded to and I am happy with the way in which the Department responded to my simple request. I take umbrage at the attitude of the Prime Minister and at the inference that he has made against me in the House today. He indicated that I had gone to a junior officer in some furtive way, drawn from him figures that would suit an argument of the Opposition or my own personal attitudes and, if the figures did not suit my cause, changed the figures and presented them to the House. That is untrue and I resent the implication. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable gentleman is now debating the matter. Mr CADMAN —The Prime Minister, I believe, has offended the record that I have set up in this House for truth and honesty. I will seek to match his own record for truth and honesty in this House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable gentleman is now debating the matter. Has he finished his personal explanation? Mr CADMAN —No, I have not, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are other matters relating to the Prime Minister's statement that I wish to cover. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member is permitted within his personal explanation only to explain how he personally has been misrepresented. Mr CADMAN —Yes, indeed. My remarks are restricted to that area. I will continue in that vein and in that vein alone. When I received the figures I adjusted them in that I added family reunion by categories A, B and C together. For the financial year 1983-84 I had only the half year figures, which I doubled to supply a full year comparison. When I presented the figures in the House on Monday night, I explained very carefully precisely what I had done. Anyone can read that speech and confirm for himself that I did that. Again yesterday I explained to the House by way of personal explanation precisely the process that I used. In fact, at the head of the table that I produced are the words: 'Table detailing the number of applicants of family migration by country of last residence. Note: Figures supplied by Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, figures for 1983-84 achieved by doubling half year to December 1983 ( latest figure)'. Mr Rocher —Even the Prime Minister could understand that. Mr CADMAN —I am sure that the Prime Minister is capable of understanding that. The Prime Minister has in this instance again misrepresented me and again sought to besmirch my reputation in this House by the words he used in the chamber today. I will go further. I will now deal with the figures themselves and whether or not they are reliable and were obtained in a way-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think the honourable gentleman has established for his own benefit and the benefit of the House the way in which he has been misrepresented. Mr CADMAN —Indeed not, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —He is now seeking the indulgence of the Chair to go further into the debate. Mr CADMAN —No, I am not. I am going to continue my personal explanation. The Prime Minister's speech, I believe, attacked my integrity. He covered three matters. I have dealt with two. I wish to go on to deal with the other matter affecting me that the Prime Minister raised. The Prime Minister has said that these figures are notoriously unreliable and that I should have used the Minister's office to confirm them. I think that is an unreasonable statement to make to any member of parliament. The request was made properly by a member of my staff on my behalf. The figures were produced by the Department and sent to my office. In fact, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in his letter to me, undated but received today, said: I should point out that the figures which your office obtained-- he referred not to me but to my office-- and you used in the House are wrong. The Minister knows that the Prime Minister was not accurate in his comments in the House today and his letter indicates that. The Prime Minister then went further and spoke about the unreliability of the figures. He said that I should have been aware of their unreliability. What is there to indicate that the current figures are any more reliable? The Prime Minister made the comment: ' These figures are notoriously unreliable'. In fact he has condemned the figures produced today, as well as the figures produced properly for me, as being ' notoriously unreliable'. I ask the House: Are the Prime Minister's figures reliable? What guarantee have we-- Mr Young —What about the personal explanation? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Will the honourable gentleman please return to his personal explanation, otherwise I will have to ask him to resume his seat. Mr CADMAN —I am dealing with the reliability of the figures. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable gentleman may not go through the Prime Minister's speech figure by figure. He must prove to the House how he has been personally misrepresented. Mr CADMAN —The Prime Minister claims that the figures he produced are more reliable than the ones I received. I ask: Are his figures reliable or are figures produced after a major political controversy more likely to be reliable or unreliable? I made the assumption on the figures produced for me by the Department that regular assessments are made to produce statistics for the use of the Department. Three months after the end of a half year seems a reasonable time to obtain figures from the Department. My figures were produced in April and the Prime Minister's figures were produced in May. It seems that either the Department is incompetent or it does not keep statistics as there is a difference between the two months in the figures supplied to me and those supplied to the Prime Minister. The figures should be regular and easily accessible to members of parliament. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair cannot continue to hear the personal explanation. The honourable member is debating the entire issue of the Prime Minister's statement. I ask him to resume his seat. Mr CADMAN —No, I am not. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. Mr CADMAN —No. I have not concluded my comments. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair has asked the honourable member-- Mr CADMAN —I have not concluded my comments. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member. Mr CADMAN —Madam Deputy Speaker, in fairness, the Prime Minister spent half an hour-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Young —Madam Deputy Speaker, there were several matters in the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about which quite legitimately the honourable member for Mitchell may wish to make a personal explanation. I have been showing a fair degree of tolerance in allowing him to do it. I have not raised any objection, but the honourable member is mixing a lot of argument with his personal explanation. He was given figures by the Department. If he has run out of making a personal explanation I think he should be sat down. Mr CADMAN —I have not finished making my personal explanation. I wish to conclude the point that I have partially completed, and that is on the reliability of the figures and the accusations made against me by the Prime Minister. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair is now asking the honourable member for Mitchell for the last time to complete his personal explanation. He cannot go through the speech page by page and figure by figure. Mr CADMAN —I am not intending to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker. The reliability of the figures is the point that I wish to discuss. On three occasions-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The reliability of the Prime Minister's figures has no relativity to the figures you used or to your personal explanation. Mr CADMAN —Madam Deputy Speaker, on three occasions during the last week I endeavoured to gain up to date figures which will either confirm or deny the figures I produced in the House. I approached the Parliamentary Library on three occasions and was told that I would have to join a queue to get information from the Department. I have not been able to obtain figures by any other method to substantiate or deny the figures that were produced for me by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The Minister was asked by me on three occasions in the House, by way of speech and by way of question, to produce the current and relevant figures but he has not done so until today. Now if statistics are to be used in assessing migration programs, I would have thought that they would be available to any member of the House-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. He has gone far beyond a personal explanation. Mr CADMAN —Madam Deputy Speaker-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. Mr CADMAN —Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to move for the suspension of Standing Orders to allow me to conclude my remarks and I shall so move. Mr Young —Madam Deputy Speaker, could I make a suggestion? I am in no way putting the responsibility on the Chair to prevent the honourable member from making a proper personal explanation. If the honourable member thinks there are still one or two matters about which he has been misrepresented, we do not need to debate the suspension of Standing Orders or to place the Chair in that complex situation. As long as the honourable member believes that he has a personal explanation to make I am happy to allow him to proceed, but I will have to take objection, and I am sure the Chair will, if he starts debating the matter. Mr CADMAN —I accept those conditions. I do not believe that to this point I have debated the speech. I have dealt specifically with the matters that have affected me in relation to today's statement by the Prime Minister. Following Question Time yesterday I wrote to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs requesting him to provide figures for me. The Prime Minister said: 'No written information has been asked for. No written contact has been made with the Minister'. But yesterday, after Question Time, I requested the figures in writing from the Minister because he continued to muddy the waters by his comments. Late last night, after the adjournment, I received some figures from the Minister but they were not related to family reunion. They were general figures on total applications by those seeking to come to Australia by normal methods. The family reunion figures were not supplied until a few minutes before the Prime Minister spoke. I believe that we need a strong and balanced immigration program. My attitude in this place has never indicated that we need anything else. I was seeking proper information. The Government has brought this debate and these problems on its own head. The belligerent, uncomprehending and divisive attitude of the Minister has created the problem. I will put my reputation against that of the Minister and the Prime Minister any day. For truth and honesty, let us match each other blow for blow and see how we get on. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I present the seventh report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the Chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Dr THEOPHANOUS —by leave-On behalf of the Joint Committee on Publications I draw the attention of the House to the increased incidence of corrections and alterations being made to annual reports by departments and authorities after the reports have been tabled in the Parliament. The Publications Committee is concerned at this trend as it delays the timely production of the parliamentary papers series and naturally limits the usefulness of the original annual reports . I understand that arrangements have been made to have all such notifications of amendment tabled in both Houses and distributed to all honourable senators and members. The Joint Committee on Publications will continue to monitor the situation and will draw the attention of the House to any substantial amendments which are made to annual reports. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, I present the report of the Committee entitled 'Payments to Athletes and Teams who did not participate in the 1980 Moscow Olympics', together with the minutes of proceedings, the transcript of evidence and documents authorised for publication . Ordered that the report be printed. Mr LEO McLEAY —by leave-I thank the House. Madam Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, I present the Committee's report on payments to athletes and teams who did not participate in the 1980 Moscow Olympics. Unfortunately limited numbers of copies are available. More copies should be available within three weeks. The inquiry was brought about by statements in the Press by Raelene Boyle in late November last year which suggested that she had received a 'Federal Government pay-off' in 1980 for her withdrawal from the Australian team for the Moscow Olympics. In the ensuing controversy it was reported that some six athletes who had withdrawn from the Australian Olympic team had received payments of $6,000 each and much larger sums had been paid in respect of seven teams who had also withdrawn. In fact, in a statement at the time, Miss Boyle said she felt that the Government was saying : . . . here you are kid, take this money and shut up. It was only a small career and who cares anyway? That was what Miss Boyle thought of the Federal Government's attitude to her at the time. The Committee's concern was aroused by the highly unusual nature of the payments, the apparent secrecy with which they had been made, which carried the hint of impropriety, and by the contradictory explanations of the parties involved-that is, the athletes and the various Ministers. At the time of Ms Boyle's statement the Committee was in the stages of concluding an inquiry into Commonwealth Government assistance for sport and recreation. The Committee decided to extend the terms of reference of that inquiry, which dealt with the efficiency and effectiveness of Commonwealth sport and recreation programs, to include payments to athletes and teams who did not participate in the 1980 Moscow Olympics. The Committee's report on the earlier terms of reference, 'The Way We P(l)ay: Commonwealth Assistance for Sport and Recreation', was tabled in this House on 8 December 1983. The Committee, in pursuing its second term of reference in relation to payments to athletes, decided to ascertain: The nature and purpose of the payments; whether the payments were properly and lawfully made; whether they were made through the appropriate channels; and whether the recipients were equitably treated. The objectives of the inquiry reflected the Committee's concern, expressed in previous inquiries, about standards of government financial management and public accountability. In dealing with public controversy concerning a highly specific item of government expenditure, the inquiry represented a divergence from previous Expenditure Committee inquiries. The Committee would like to signal to the House its intention to take up for prompt inquiry and report, in the future, instances of specific apparent breaches of proper financial procedures by government departments and authorities. It was not the object of this inquiry, however, to pass judgment on the merits of the payments to athletes and teams, or on the propriety of the government of the day in making them, or of the recipients-that is, the athletes-in accepting them. Such matters were, in the Committee's view, not the proper preserve of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. They were decisions that could properly be made by government. The object of the Committee's inquiry was to examine matters of proper administration and equity of treatment of the athletes. The Committee took evidence at public hearings in Canberra on 28 November and 7 December 1983 and in subsequent correspondence with Commonwealth departments. I would like to record the Committee's appreciation of the assistance of officers of a number of departments, especially the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism and the Department of Finance, who responded expertly and thoroughly, at short notice, to the Committee's requests for information. As Chairman of the Committee, I would like to thank also my fellow Committee members and the staff of the Committee secretariat, particularly the Secretary of the Committee, Mrs Sue Harlow, the Secretary of the Sub-committee, Mr David Worthy, and Mrs Betty Williams for her secretarial support. Between June and December 1980 over $524,000 was paid to sporting organisations and individual athletes with respect to individuals and teams who chose not to compete in the 1980 summer Olympics in Moscow. Over $448,000 was paid in respect of seven teams for the purpose of meeting the cost of alternative high level international competition by the seven teams which withdrew from the Australian Olympic team. Payments totalling $36,000 were made to six athletes competing in individual sports who withdrew also from the Australian team. It was intended that these individual athletes would be financially assisted to compete in alternative high level competition. However, these arrangements proved not feasible and the Government finally decided to make 'flat rate ex gratia payments' in the words of the former Minister, of $6000 to each athlete to be used for alternative international competition or to further the athlete's careers in sport. The payments to athletes and teams were made by the Government as compensation to persons who withdrew as a consequence of Government policy decisions, either in support of the Government's actions or as a result of the ensuing public controversy. Shortly after its decision in January 1980 to support a boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics, the Government publicly announced that it was prepared to compensate athletes and teams who chose not to compete in the Games in Moscow . Payments made with respect to one team which withdrew received considerable publicity at the time. However, there appears to have been no public announcement of the subsequent payments to individual athletes. Although the Government had the authority to make such payments, the Committee found that, with respect to payments to athletes, appropriate accounting procedures were not always followed, the payments were not made through the most suitable channels and the treatment of competitors in team sports was inequitable. On the other hand, the eligibility tests applied to payments for teams were far too lax. Specifically, the payments to individual athletes were not properly authorised because of an oversight in the appropriation legislation. A decision to not require individual recipients to vouch for the monies received was inadvisable. Payments to individual athletes should have been made in consultation with and through the relevant national sporting organisations. Eligibility for payment should have extended to competitors in team sports, and the eligibility tests which were applied to the assessment of payments to individual athletes should have been applied to the assessment of payments for teams. The lapses in accounting practices resulted in part from shortcomings in a number of financial regulations and their interpretive guidelines. The Committee was pleased to note that, after the inquiry had brought to light the shortcomings, the Department of Finance took prompt action to effect appropriate changes to regulations and their guidelines. The shortcomings in the execution of the payments could be attributed, to a degree, to the unusual if not unique circumstances of the case and the pressure on officers to expedite the payments as quickly as possible. The Committee did not wish to dwell on these historic events and has recommended to the Government a number of guidelines for compensation of sportspeople which, the Committee believes, should be incorporated in a broader statement of Commonwealth policy towards international sporting ties and events affected by government foreign policy actions. I hope that the Committee's findings and recommendations, if taken up, will serve to ensure that, in future, Australia's elite athletes, involved as sometimes they unavoidably are in the international political arena, will receive more justice than they sometimes have received at the hands of governments. However, we should not single out governments for the less than fair treatment of our sporting heroes. As events of recent weeks have shown, Australia's athletes have suffered too often at the hands of their own sporting organisations. I believe the decision of the Australian Amateur Swimming Union to exclude Michelle Ford from Australia's Olympic swimming team was deplorable. That decision would have been less deplorable if hers had been a special case. Unfortunately, as is indicated by evidence given to the Expenditure Committee last year during its inquiry into Commonwealth assistance for sport and recreation, the Australian Amateur Swimming Union appears to be especially heedless of the claims of and unresponsive to the needs of its own athletes. Mr Forbes Carlile, one of Australia's foremost swimming coaches, in evidence to the Committee, said: The Amateur Swimming Union of Australia is considered by many, by acts of commission [instance the Commonwealth Games mismanagement] and omission . . . to be infamous for incompetence and backwardness. In July 1983 Michelle's mother, Mrs Jan Ford, gave evidence to the Committee. One might say that this is ironic in regard to what has happened recently. Mrs Ford said: Clearly the bottleneck offered by the ASU of A to progressive ideas presented by the coaches . . . has as much of a chance of reaching government bureaucracy as 'hell freezing over'. Progressive ideas are not implemented in the present structure of the Swimming Union within 10 years or so, particularly if there seems to be a possibility of disturbing the status quo and the position of officers elected by narrow entry and demanding a very long period of time- serving. I would like to see the Government's early endorsement of the recommendation of the Committee's previous report that Commonwealth financial assistance to sporting organisations should be conditional upon those organisations instituting a democratic decision-making process. I think that the recent decision of the Amateur Swimming Union showed that that organisation has an extremely undemocratic process of government, and it should be widened to include representation by sportspeople who are actually involved in swimming. A number of other sporting organisations could come in for the same criticism. I thank the House. Mr LUSHER(Hume) —by leave-I thank the Leader of the House (Mr Young) for his co- operation. I support the remarks that were made by my colleague the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), who is Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. I think it is necessary to add that some of the remarks that the Chairman made in his speech were not specifically related to the report that has been brought down. I know that he would not want to misrepresent the bipartisan nature of the Committee's work; neither would any of the members of the Committee. I think it ought to be said that the remarks he made at the conclusion of his speech about the Australian Amateur Swimming Union, Michelle Ford and a range of other things were not matters directly related to the report and ought not to be seen as confusing the sentiments of the report that had been brought down. I just want to make that clear to the House. Consideration resumed. Clauses 1 to 10-by leave-taken together. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.01) —I wish to raise a matter of considerable concern on these clauses which in general deal with the recovery of additional amounts of tax from persons who were shareholders in companies previously dealt with by the Fraser Government's unpaid company tax legislation. In fact, this objective represents a classic example of government double-dipping. I think that the Government has completely overlooked the fact that the previous Government under the then Treasurer Howard went to the trouble of introducing the Taxation ( Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act 1982 which gave a very clear definition of the taxes that were proposed to be collected. The following definition appears on page 2 of the Act: 'company tax' means ordinary company tax or undistributed profits tax; Undistributed profits tax is a penalty, if one likes, applicable in respect of all proprietary limited companies. Let us face it, by far the largest percentage of companies that went to the bottom of the harbour were in this category; very few, if any, public companies were involved. The facts are that any company trading as a private company that fails to make a distribution of a certain percentage of its after-tax profits to its shareholders in whose hands it would be taxed attracts a penalty tax known as undistributed profits tax. This having been done, the funds can be kept within the company structure. There might be all sorts of reasons why directors of companies make that decision. But having made it-and this is happening today somewhere in Australia-no other tax burden is put upon the shareholders. The company picks up a 50 per cent surcharge for failing to have made a distribution. I gather from the second reading speech of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) and other sources that the Government is arguing that it has missed out on the tax that shareholders would have otherwise paid when companies went to the bottom of the harbour and, in fact, made no distribution of profits. When I looked at the amount of tax that some of my constituents were paying on the profits that were recorded in their books of account, I found that they were up for 50 per cent more than what appeared to be the profit. I contacted the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in Western Australia and, of course, had pointed out to me that the previous legislation allowed the Commissioner to collect both ordinary company tax and undistributed profit tax. In fact, that was what was happening. So, in fact, the Tax Commissioner has applied the normal penalty that would apply if those companies were still operating and happened to take their decision not to distribute their dividends which it is now claimed, by these devices, they failed to distribute. All sorts of suggestions have been made about the liquidation of these companies. Most, of course, have not been liquidated. They just ceased to exist because they were stripped of their assets and given directors who were very hard to find. But, to the best of my knowledge, no conscious effort has been taken by any State commission in fact to wrap up and liquidate the many hundreds of thousands of these companies. Therefore, I say that they are still applicable to the rules that apply that the proper tax is being collected under the previous legislation by way of the undistributed profits tax. I do not know whether the Government is contemplating in the near future bringing in some other retrospective legislation which says that in the normal course of taxation practice, the Government will collect a fee which is 50 per cent or otherwise of the burden on all companies which fail to distribute on the due date. I put it to the Committee that the Commissioner of Taxation will impose such a tax that if a company even reports, having failed to make a distribution on the due date. Even if the distribution is made the day after, the Commissioner will impose that tax. Companies are paying that penalty under the legislation brought forward by the previous Government. Therefore, this piece of legislation clearly is totally unnecessary and amounts to double- dipping. It can be classified only as some sort of punishment of people who have been involved in these schemes. If that is what the Government's intention is, let the Minister say: 'We are going to give these people a hiding for the temerity of taking the advice of their accountants and lawyers'. We know that the Government appears to support the practice of another Minister who did that. The real facts are that at the moment people are being levied a certain amount of money by the Commissioner of Taxation. They are paying the normal penalty applicable for failing to distribute their profits. So why is it necessary to bring in another piece of legislation? The Minister has mentioned a figure of $270m, nearly all of which will be collected by taxing the dividends that people are deemed to have received but which they did not receive. Is the Minister going to tell us: 'Fine, I will go down that track but I will contact the various deputy commissioners and tell them they must refund people 50 per cent of the undistributed profits tax that they have already paid'? If one deems a distribution, surely to goodness one is not also going to deem an undistributed profits tax which people are paying at present. I beg the Government to consider what the Opposition is on about. The Government should get away from the paranoia it has of members of the Opposition being people entirely committed to assisting those who have otherwise acted improperly in respect of matters that come before the Taxation Commissioner. It should realise that the necessary legislation to collect the money that it says it is seeking has been brought down and it should wake up to the fact that this piece of legislation is not necessary. It is an unnecessary burden particularly to a person who has received the type of dividend that the Government is going to deem in this legislation may have had no tax liability anyway if he had had personal losses in some other part of his business career which, of course, is to be ignored also. If that is the case, why cannot the Minister admit that this is a piece of window-dressing that has been brought in to satisfy the union movement that the Government was going to do something and, of course, to satisfy its own ego that there was something left to be done. If the Government does that, it will recognise that this piece of legislation is not in any way necessary. The money that the Government seeks to raise, the $270m, is being picked up already under the previous legislation because the definition of company tax is ordinary company tax and undistributed profits tax. I can give the Committee no better reason for my personal opposition and the opposition of the parties on this side of the chamber. We do not agree with the Government double-dipping. The Government tells us that it does not like pensioners double-dipping but apparently on this occasion, as with its cherry- picking legislation, it is directing its attention in the wrong place. Of course , it has yet to come to the conclusion that the losers in the cherry-picking schemes were the people who did not get their superannuation entitlements, not government revenue. I do not think that the Minister can answer my question. If he cannot do so, I ask him to support the Opposition in opposing this piece of the legislation. Question put: That clauses 1 to 10 be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Fry, K. L. Scott, J. L.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.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. Wells, D. McM.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J.Jones, Barry Adermann, A. E. Lusher, S. A.Andrew, J. N. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) O'Keefe, F. L.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Robinson, IanColeman, W. P. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Bowen, Lionel Dobie, J. D. M.Blewett, N. Fisher, P. S.Simmons, D. W. Aldred, K. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 2 May, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Bill presented by Mr Young, and read a first time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(5.22) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill before the House seeks to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act 1983 and the Representation Act 1983. The amendments proposed result from a further review of electoral legislation. The amendments are in the main of a minor or machinery nature. There are, however, a number of proposed changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act which honourable members might note. The Bill provides for the consecutive renumbering of provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. A reprint of the Act incorporating the renumbering will be published as soon as possible after this Bill comes into effect. The franchise of Service personnel on overseas service at the commencement of the 1983 amendments is also preserved. Under section 39A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act as it stood prior to the 1983 amendments, Service personnel overseas and persons accompanying Defence Force units in an official capacity were eligible to vote even if unenrolled. Consistent with the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act 1983 repealed this section and substituted a new provision, new section 39A, which broadly speaking allows persons going overseas to retain their enrolments if they notify their divisional returning officer in the month prior to their departure. However, the 1983 amendments did not preserve the franchise of those Service personnel and persons accompanying them in an official capacity who were already overseas. To avoid a situation where some 1,500 servicemen are disenfranchised, clause 6 of the Bill provides that they have until the issue of the writ for the next general election to apply for registraion as eligible overseas electors as if they were about to depart for their postings. Once the Service personnel are registered, their spouses and dependants will also be able to register as overseas electors. Clause 6 does not cover Service personnel who have been posted since the commencement of the 1983 amendments. Still on the question of overseas electors, doubts have been expressed whether the provisions of section 39A enable an enrolled person who is going overseas to register as an eligible overseas elector if, at the time of his departure, he is intending to return to the place of living for which he is enrolled. The proposed amendment will remedy this situation. The format of the Senate ballot paper is also to be changed. Currently the Act provides that in the printing of Senate ballot papers the letters A, B, et cetera be printed before the squares opposite the names of grouped candidates. This requirement is reflected in the Senate ballot paper which appears as Form E in Schedule 1 of the Act. The Government has accepted an interim recommendation from the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform that the present statutory requirement of printing letters before the squares should be repealed. If in the Committee's final report some form of lettering to identify groups is recommended for Senate ballot papers, this and any other recommendations regarding format can be given effect to by regulations made under the Act. Section 42 of the Act provides for a claim for enrolment or transfer of enrolment to be lodged with any divisional returning officer, but does not provide for such claims to be lodged at the central office or State head offices of the Australian Electoral Commission. This may disadvantage some electors in a close of roll situation. The proposed amendments will enable a claim to be lodged with an Australain Electoral Officer in addition to the divisional returning officer. A new section 58W is proposed to provide for separate registers of candidates for each Senate election, general election for the House of Representatives, and for each by-election. New provisions are also to be inserted requiring candidates seeking registration to do so before the close of nominations. Similarly, parties and candidates desiring to receive public funding in respect of their campaign expenditure will have to register for that purpose respectively by the issue of the writ and by the close of nominations. There are a number of proposed amendments which deal with the preliminary scrutiny of postal votes. The amendments will expressly permit divisional returning officers to do this in stages as the votes are received and to this extent they will reflect current practice. Divisional returning officers will be required to give notice of any such scrutiny on the day before. This will enable scrutineers to attend. In the past the substantive provisions regulating absent voting have been contained in the Electoral and Referendum Regulations. The Government has decided that it is more appropriate that they should be dealt with in the Commonwealth Electoral Act itself. The Bill contains a number of amendments to this end. The Bill amends the Act in a number of respects to allow the scrutiny of Senate ballot papers to be conducted at a central point in each State or Territory rather than in divisional offices. The introduction of the 'fractional transfer' Senate scrutiny system last year will greatly increase the number of counts required at a typical Senate election. If a centralised scrutiny is not adopted, the need for communication between divisional offices and State head offices of the Electoral Commission as part of every count would greatly lengthen the time required to conduct a Senate scrutiny. The proposed amendment of section 135 (26) is intended to make it clear that the transfer of all surplus votes of an elected candidate constitutes a single, separate transfer of votes. This clarification becomes important where the transfer of a particular elected candidate's surplus elects two candidates. If the distribution of a surplus were regarded as a series of separate transfers, the order of election, in the case of two candidates, would be dependent on which of them first received his share of the surplus. However, if the distribution of all the elected candidates' surplus is regarded as a single transfer, the order of election of the two candidates depends on which of them has the larger surplus over quota. This latter process of determining the order of election is not as arbitrary as the former process. Section 135 also provides that at a Senate scrutiny where, in a transfer of votes, the number of continuing candidates is equal to the number of remaining unfilled vacancies, those continuing candidates shall be elected. The section, however, requires an unnecessary transfer of votes to be carried out before these continuing candidates can be elected. The amendment of sub-section 135 (16 ) is designed to remedy this situation. The current legislative requirement in respect of disclosure of gifts also requires amendment. The effect of the existing provisions is that candidates are required to disclose gifts, even of an entirely personal nature. The proposed new paragraph 153J (5) (b) excludes such gifts from the disclosure requirements. The final Commonwealth Electoral Act amendment to which I draw attention of honourable members is proposed new section 216B. Over the years the electoral administration has had a real administrative burden arising from the need to retain original claim cards in respect of new enrolments and transfer of enrolment. The new section will enable these claim cards to be destroyed where a record of their particulars is kept on microfilm, microfiche or another approved permanent form. The new section further provides for these records to be admissible in evidence in any proceeding and to be prima facie evidence of any such particulars. As I have already said, the amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act are of a minor nature. They are designed to correct a number of drafting anomalies which have been detected since its passage, and will have no substantive effect on its operation. The two amendments proposed to the Representation Act are in the same category. The amendment to sub-section 5 (7) is designed to correct an anomaly. At present, the formula for determining which of the successful candidates at the next Senate election will take their places on 1 July 1985 and which will take their places on the date of the first meeting of the next House of Representatives would be incapable of operation if the date of the first meeting were to fall after 1 July 1985. The amendment resolves this problem. The introduction of this Bill demonstrates the Government's ongoing commitment to sensible reform of our electoral laws. The changes involved here are not controversial and deserve the support of all honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Steele Hall) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.32) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to change the structure, functions, and powers of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. Concurrently I will be introducing four further bills that together with the Australian Meat and Live- stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984 will result in the restructuring of the administration of the live-stock and meat industry. These Bills constitute an integrated package of measures designed to produce an organisational structure that will improve the industry's ability to work co- operatively to develop policies to resolve its problems. This legislation will also clarify the functions and powers of the AMLC, with particular attention to increasing its accountability to the Parliament and to those in the industry whose levy payments provide the source of its finance. In addition to the restructuring of the AMLC, these Bills provide for the establishment of a new Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council and an Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee. There are also consequential changes to the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964 and the Live-stock Export Charge Act 1977. This package does not include proposed arrangements for restructuring future administration of meat and livestock research and development. The final details of this measure are the subject of further development and discussion with industry. I expect to bring a Bill on this matter before the House during the 1984 Budget sittings. Honourable members will be aware that the livestock and meat industries have been through a prolonged economic recession. Whilst the capacity of producers to respond to the economic changes that continually buffet them has been well demonstrated, there is no adequate mechanism to enable the respective industry organisations representing processors, exporters, livestock agents, public abattoirs and other groups to join with producers to develop a co-ordinated approach to the analysis and discussion of industry problems for the formulation of new industry policies. For example, the industry has been discussing over a number of years such important initiatives as single meat inspection, objective product description, AMLC sole trading and industry stabilisation or rationalisation measures. There has been slow, inconclusive and often divisive debate on such issues. The industry's poorly structured policy and decision-making processes have prevented clear advice reaching Government on required actions that would have the full support of the industry. The AMLC-primarily a market development, promotion and export control body-has attempted to fill this void through its producer and processor consultative groups. This approach has tended to heighten industry divisions and draw the Corporation unnecessarily into agro-political industry debates, although many of the industry's problems cover matters that lie totally outside the Corporation's charter. In its search for an effective leadership structure the production sector of the industry has pressed for industry problems to be addressed by the Corporation. There has been a general lack of understanding that the Corporation 's ability to exercise industry leadership is restricted not only by the States' constitutional responsibilities for the regulation of domestic meat marketing but also because matters concerning, for example, animal health, welfare and hygiene, research, abattoir construction and legislation are the responsibilities of other bodies. This situation is clearly unsatisfactory and in presenting these Bills the Government is fulfilling its election commitment to introduce new administrative arrangements to reform the policy and operational arms of the Australian meat and livestock industry. The details of these Bills have been developed from the continuous consultations I have had with leaders of the key industry organisations since the Government first came to office. The final package was negotiated with the industry last August, whilst in October the Government endorsed the principles underlying the new arrangements, and empowered me to establish an Industry Selection Committee and Industry Policy Council on an interim basis pending the introduction of this legislation. In future the Industry Policy Council will be responsible for the examination of all broad industry policy issues, and this will require a shift in the industry's present expectation for industry leadership on all issues from the Corporation. The proposed functions for the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation will remove its responsibility for general policy advice and require it to be more directly concerned with, and confined to, commercial activities associated with market development, the promotion of meat and livestock sales, and finally the regulation of export trading. The more commercial role of the AMLC will require a different approach to the selection of its board. The interim industry selection committee is already at work to choose members of the new Board on the basis of their professional qualifications and work experience in the fields of cattle production, sheep production, livestock exporting, meatworks operation, meat exporting, product promotion, finance, international commodity marketing, business management and industrial relations. To select highly competent people in these specialised fields is a demanding exercise. Board members will, in future, be recruited from a wider spectrum of Australian business sources. They will not be selected, as in the past, on the basis of their industry 'representation' but for their expertise and direct ability to contribute to a professional team. Whilst this formula guarantees producers a place on the Board, it recognises that a wider balance of commercial experience is essential if the Board is effectively to perform its commercial role. I now turn to specific clauses and provisions in the Australian Meat and Live- stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984. Under clause 4 of the Bill honourable members will note that the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation will no longer have a broad policy-advising function. The removal of this responsibility is a deliberate move on the part of the Government to ensure that the Industry Policy Council becomes the primary focus on policy development activity. The Corporation, however, will be expected to develop policies as required on areas concerned with its commercial functions and to contribute to policy development for the industry as a whole by means of the AMLC Chairman's membership of the Policy Council. In order to help foster better consultation clause 7 of the Bill gives the Corporation power to arrange consultations, as necessary, with relevant industry groups, on matters concerned with its operational responsibilities, and to be responsible for the costs of meetings that it arranges. It is not intended to retain the present formal consultative groups which have not achieved as much as had been expected, but to give this operational corporation the greater flexibility it requires to develop a more direct and meaningful consultative process with producer and processor/trader organisations according to its actual operational needs. Such meetings can be expected to be irregular, possibly shorter and more directly concerned with technical matters. Industry organisations can be expected to give more attention in the future to the consultative an analytical needs of the Industry Policy Council, which is also expected to require considerable assistane from industry in its examination of industry problems. A number of other modifications to the powers of the Australian Meat and Live- stock Corporation are included in the Bill. They are designed to upgrade the Corporation's commercial powers and place the day to day responsibility for commercial decisions within these heads of power more squarely on the Corporation Board. The Bill provides for the removal of the restriction that the Corporation can only trade in livestock and meat that it owns. This will enhance the Corporation's flexibility and allow it, as an agent, to co-ordinate trading activities by competing Australian exporters in the exercising of its overseas trading powers. The Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation will now have increased power to engage in sole trading to a particular market where, in the opinion of the Corporation, such action would be beneficial in developing the market for Australian meat or livestock. Honourable members will note that, under the Bill, the Corporation is required to develop criteria for deciding to exercise this additional power and such criteria will require ministerial approval only as a part of the five-year corporate plan, not for specific actions as a sole trader. Consistent with this principle it is proposed that the Corporation will no longer be required to secure specific ministerial approval in exercising its power to act as a sole trader to a market where a monopoly import situation exists. Criteria for such action are well defined in the existing provisions of the legislation. I am hopeful that the broadening of the Corporation's trading powers that I have outlined will move the focus of the industry debate away from the limits of those powers to a conscious examination of the trading policies that best serve the commercial interests of the industry. I would expect that the meat and livestock industry would play a big part in setting the industry's policies in this area. The financial powers of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation have also been expanded under the Bill in line with the more commercial role expected of the Corporation. The scope for the raising of moneys by the Corporation, which will require the approval of the Minister for Primary Industry, will be widened to the issuing of securities. A provision has been made in the Bill for the making of regulations to enable the Corporation to charge fees for the licensing of exporters and to recoup the costs of the services it provides to industry, in keeping with the user pays principle. Under clause 25 of the Bill the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation is to assume responsibility for meeting the costs associated with the Policy Council's industry conferences. The Corporation is also to be responsible for all costs and expenses of the Industry Selection Committee. The rationale for this is that the Corporation, funded as it is from industry levy and export charge contributions, is the convenient point from which these other industry endeavours can be funded and so avoid the need to establish separate industry funding arrangements. Honourable members will recall that I earlier outlined that Corporation members will be chosen on the basis of their professional qualifications and work experience. Under the Bill, the Corporation is to consist of 11 members, namely a chairman, a government representative, the Managing Director of the Corporation and eight other members. The part time Chairman and the government representative are to be appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry. The Managing Director is to be appointed by the Corporation and will become an ex- officio voting member of the Board. The eight other members with the special professional skills and experiene that I have already outlined will be selected for my appointment by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee. The Bill contains a number of requirements of the Corporation to increase its accountability to the industry and to Parliament through the Minister. The main provision to make the Corporation more accountable to industry members who are affected by its activities, and who contribute to its annual income through payment of slaughter and livestock export levies, is the requirement for the Corporation to convene an annual general meeting of industry members who meet particular eligibility requirements. Voting entitlements of livestock producers will be determined by livestock ownership. The Bill allows wide-ranging powers for the AGM. The AGM can comment on or query any aspect of the Corporation's annual report or general activities. The AGM can vote on resolutions with the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council to be notified of the outcome. Under the Bill the Corporation is required to put as a motion to the AGM any planned variation to levies or charges. The AGM will also have the power to endorse or decline any proposed increases in levies to fund the Corporation. Finally the AGM under clause 22 will have the power to cause the removal of the Corporation's Chairman or Board. The Bill defines the actions required of the Minister for Primary Industry in the event that the AGM passes a vote of no confidence in the Chairman, or Board. Their appointments are to be terminated within one month of the AGM. Such a vote would only be carried if 75 per cent of the votes of persons registered in each of the livestock producer and processor-exporter categories are cast at the AGM in support of the motion, either in person or by proxy. Other arrangements to ensure the Corporation carries out its responsibilities in a business-like manner and provide the bases for its relationship with the Minister are included in clause 22 of this Bill. Under clause 22 the Corporation is required to prepare a five-year corporate plan to apply from a date no later than 1 July 1985. The corporate plan is to set out the objectives, key programs and priorities of the Corporation to provide the framework for the Corporation's administration of its functions and powers for the five-year period. Complementary to the five-year plan is the requirement under clause 22 for an annual operational plan to set out the Corporation's objectives and programs for the relevant 12-month period ahead. Honourable members will note that under the Bill there are requirements for both the five-year corporate plan and the annual operational plan to be submitted for approval by the Minister for Primary Industry. These obligations provide an accountability arrangement which focuses the Minister's and the Corporation's attention on the strategies of the AMLC and the basic directions and policy approaches it will be following. Approval of both the corporate and the annual operational plan provides the Minster with overall supervision of the Corporation's activity, but enables the Corporation to get on with its functions without constant reference to the Minister for detailed approval of each major activity. The development of the annual operational plan and the five-year corporate plan are of particular importance as they will provide an opportunity for better definition of the Corporation's functions and strategies within the broader functions allowed under the Bill. Hopefully this will remove some of the confusion of the past. I would anticipate that the highlights of the Corporation 's corporate plans would be made widely known within industry. However, the Corporation may wish to keep some elements confidential for trading purposes. 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)(5.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill which is complementary to the Australian Meat and Live- stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984 is to provide for the establishment of an Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council. Honourable members will recall that I earlier outlined the broad role of the Australian Meat and Live- stock Industry Policy Council in my second reading speech on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984. The objects of establishing the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council are: To facilitate the participation of the industry in the development and formulation of industry policies; to provide a forum for consensus-building between its different sectoral interests; to provide opportunities through its working groups for all interested parties to work together on factual examination of industry problems; and to present practical proposals to government for its solution. A main task of this Council will be to provide a forum for resolving industry differences and, with the assistance of an independent chairman and a small professional secretariat, to develop industry consensus on the action necessary to deal with its problems. Its establishment with statutory status is necessary to provide a binding charter and to help me ensure its accountability. I now turn to specific clauses and provisions in the Australian Meat and Live- stock Industry Policy Council Bill 1984. Of the 14 members of the Council four will be selected from the leaders of the cattle and sheep industry commodity councils and four from the meat processors, exporters and meatworks representative organisations. They will be joined by a representative of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and of State meat industry authorities as well as by the chairmen of the main operational arms of the industry; that is, the chairmen of the AMLC and the Australian Meat Research Committee, pending the establishment of the proposed new Research and Development Corporation and the Inspection Policy Council. There are a number of industry groups that are not included on the Council, as I considered it essential to keep it to a manageable size if it is to operate effectively. However, if experience indicates the necessity for additional membership there is provision in the Bill for this development. I would expect, however, that the Council will ensure that specific industry interests will be given every opportunity to contribute to the Council' s work, and indeed the Bill specifies this as an obligation of the Council. Clause 5 requires the Council to ensure that the views of all interested parties are taken into account. Clause 18 of the Bill allows for the establishment of working groups to provide advice to the Council. The working groups can play an important role in terms of developing concepts into practical propositions and for advising Council on topics for which a wider viewpoint is desirable. Under clause 7 a report of a working group may be adopted as the report of the Council. Reports from the Council will be made to the Minister. The Bill requires that the Minister release such reports publicly unless he judges it is not in the public interest to do so. Clause 6 of the Bill requires the holding of an industry conference at intervals not exceeding two years. The purpose of the conference is to assist the Council in identifying matters of concern to the industry, to promote a better understanding of problems within the industry and to foster a consensus on policy. The widest industry participation can be achieved at the conference. It is envisaged that depending upon needs the Council will meet about four times a year with the additional terminating working groups being established and reporting to the Council as necessary. The Council will have the resources required to exercise its responsibilities as provided under clauses 20 and 21. A small professional secretariat, reporting directly to the Council and responsible to it is to be provided by the Department of Primary Industry. In addition the Council will have the ability to draw on the expertise and resources of member bodies and other organisations as required. Under clause 22 of the Bill the Council is required to provide an annual report to the Minister for tabling in Parliament. 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)(5.52) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill which is complementary to the Australian Meat and Live- stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984 is to provide for the establishment of an Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Selection Committee. Honourable members will recall that I earlier outlined under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984 the broad role of the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Selection Committee in terms of its task to seek out highly competent people who can meet the demands and responsibilities for appointment to the Board of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. Following the Government's decision to establish this Selection Committee on an interim basis, pending introduction of the legislation, I announced in February the appointment of Mr Frederick Millar, CBE, to the position of independent, part time Chairman of the Interim Selection Committee, together with the names of three representatives of cattle and sheep producers and those of three representatives of meat processors and exporters. I am pleased to report that this Committee has met a number of times and with the assistance of a consulting firm is currently reviewing a wide range of candidates for recommendation to me of eight future members of the new Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. I now turn to specific clauses and provisions in the Australian Meat and Live- stock Industry Selection Committee Bill 1984. Under clause 5 of the Bill the Committee is required to select and nominate persons to the Minister for Primary Industry for appointment to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. Clause 8 of the Bill provides that a person is not entitled to be nominated for appointment unless the person possesses qualification or experience relevant to to one or more of the following fields of activity: Cattle production, sheep production, livestock exporting, meatworks operation, meat exporting, product promotion, finance, international commodity marketing, business management and industrial relations. The Bill requires the Committee to make its selection to best ensure that the Corporation collectively possesses this full range of skills. The composition of the Selection Committee ensures that the Meat and Livestock industry is closely involved in the selection of board members. The Bill provides for a Committee of seven part time members; a chairman selected and appointed by the Minister; two members appointed on the nomination of the Cattle Council of Australia; one member appointed on the nomination of the Sheepmeat Council of Australia, and three members appointed on the nomination of the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council. Unlike current arrangements where the Minister makes his own selections for appointment to the Board from a short list of two or three names provided by the consultative groups, under the new arrangements the Selection Committee's nominations will be the only names presented for appointment but the Minister may reject a nomination and call for another. Clause 22 of the Bill provides for the engagement of staff an consultants. Honourable members will recall that under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill the funds required for staff, consultants and the general operation of the Committee are to be met by the Corporation. 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)(5.56) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill which is complementary to the Australian Meat and Live- stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984 is to amend the live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964 to allow for the changed process of consultation with respect to livestock slaughter levies under the restructured administration of the meat and live-stock industry. Honourable members will recall that I earlier outlined the role of the annual general meeting under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984. An important feature is the provision made for the annual general meeting to examine Corporation proposals for any increases in levy charges, and to endorse or decline any proposed increases in levies which fund the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. This will replace the present responsibilities of the AMLC's consultative groups which are to be abolished. This is consistent with the principle underlying the establishment of the annual general meeting to represent all those who pay the levy and therefore contribute to the finance of the Corporation's activities. Under clause 4 (2) of the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1984 the Corporation is to be required to put to the annual general meeting any planned variation to levies before any recommendation to the Minister for Primary Industry is made. To allow for the situation where a variation to the levies is necessary before the first annual general meeting is held, clause 4 (1) requires the Corporation to consult with the Cattle Council of Australia, the Sheepmeat Council of Australia, the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council, the Australian Meatworks Federal Council, the Council of Australian Public Abattoir Authorities and the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia before any change is made. These are the constituent members of the present producer and the meat exporter and abattoir consultative groups of the AMLC. Clause 4 (1) also requires the Australian Meat Research Committee to be responsible for making recommendations to the Minister on any variations to the rates of levy for research purposes, after consultations with the Cattle and Sheepmeat Councils of Australia, and the four organisations representing meat processors, exporters, meatworks and public abattoirs and meat traders I mentioned earlier, before any change is made. Past practice has been for the AMLC to be responsible for such recommendations. This approach has been followed as a consequence of the arrangement whereby the annual general meeting will review proposals for changes to levies that fund the AMLC. It is inappropriate for that annual general meeting to review research levy proposals. I would envisage the annual general meeting of the proposed Research and Development Corporation to carry out this function in due course. 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)(5.59) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill which is complementary to the Australian Meat and Live- stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984 is to amend the Live-stock Export Charge Act 1977 to allow for the changed process of consultation with respect to the rates of charge under the restructured administration of the meat and livestock industry. Honourable members will recall that I earlier outlined the role of the annual general meeting under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1984. Under clause 4 (2) of the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1984 the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation is required to put to the annual general meeting any planned variation to the rates of charge before any recommendation to the Minister for Primary Industry is made. To allow for a situation where a variation to the rates of charge is necessary before the first annual general meeting is held, clause 4 (1) requires the Corporation and the Australian Meat Research Committee to consult with the Cattle Council of Australia, the Sheepmeat Council of Australia and the Australian Live-stock Exporters Association before any change is made. As in the case of the Livestock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill clause 4 (1) of this Bill also requires the Australian Meat Research Committee to be responsible for making recommendations to the Minister on any variations to the rates of charge for research purposes after consultations with the cattle and sheepmeat councils of Australia and the Live-stock Exporters Association before any change is made. Past practice has been for the AMLC to make such recommendations. Financial Impact With regard to the financial implications of these Bills, the bulk of these proposals-including all costs of the marketing corporation and the selection committee-will be met by the industry. It is estimated that cash costs for the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Policy Council will amount to $48,000 in the current financial year. This covers remuneration of the Chairman, the meetings expenses of Council members and the provision of secretariat services by my Department. Approval for an increase of two in the Department's average staffing levels is presently being sought. This is justified by the considerable value of the Council's advice to the Government and provision of the secretariat will ensure that the Council's policy proposals are practicable and based upon full industry consultation and endorsement. It is expected that the Council's operating costs, including secretariat salaries, will amount to around $215,000 in a full financial year. In seeking this financial assistance, the industry has drawn comparisons with the manufacturing industry's advisory councils, and pressed strongly for equity in treatment. It is claimed that in each case the councils provide similar assistance in the development of Government policy. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(6.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. There is a need to amend the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Collection Act 1964 for reasons not related to the proposed restructuring of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the collection Act to provide for payments to the Northern Territory from the National Cattle Disease Eradication Trust Account. Section 10C of this Act provides for moneys standing to the credit of the National Cattle Disease Eradication Trust Account to be expended, with my approval, for payments to the States or to meet Commonwealth costs to eradicate diseases of cattle that are endemic in Australia . After achieving self-government in 1978, the Northern Territory assumed responsibility from the Commonwealth for animal disease control in the Territory , and has received payments from the Trust Account as if it was a State in its own right. Subsequently the Government has received legal advice that this practice is invalid. This Bill will retrospectively validate past payments to the Northern Territory and provide due authority to continue payments in future. Payments to the Northern Territory since February 1983 have been made pursuant to a special interim agreement with that Government which will expire on 30 June 1984, or on enactment of this Bill. Financial Impact The Live-stock Slaughter Levy Collection Act 1964 sets out various administrative and appropriation arrangements relating to the levy imposed on the slaughter of cattle, sheep, buffaloes and goats. The Amendment Bill will have no effect on the rate of levy or on total levy collections. The amendment to validate past and future appropriations to the Northern Territory for cattle disease eradication purposes will not commit the Commonwealth to any particular level of funding for this purpose. Annual appropriations to the Northern Territory and the States will continue to be subject to agreements negotiated from time to time. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(6.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence I will just mention how pleasing it is for me to have supporting me in the chamber the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), who has played such a significant part in bringing insurance reform into this Parliament. The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Life Insurance Act 1945 to effect a number of changes consequent upon the provisions of the Insurance Contracts Bill 1983. In general terms this Bill recognises the introduction of the wide- ranging provisions contained in the Insurance Contracts Bill and the fact that, in a number of important areas, these provisions are more comprehensive than related sections of the Life Insurance Act. The amendments here proposed are also necessary to eliminate certain anomalies as between the Life Insurance Act and the Insurance Contracts Bill. In particular the amendments will provide that in respect of contracts entered into after the enactment of the Insurance Contracts Bill, its provisions will supersede provisions in the Life Insurance Act relating to age misstatements, the consequences of written misstatements made when effecting insurance and the specification of interests that must be present if valid policies of life insurance are to be effected. Another amendment will ensure that, in situations where a policy owner does not wish to continue with a life policy and requests a paid-up policy, the relevant contract shall be varied, rather than a paid-up policy issued in lieu, to recognise the policy owner's right to payment of the varied amount as determined in accordance with the rules relating to paid-up policies and to ensure that provisions of the Insurance Contracts Bill relating to misrepresentation will carry over to paid-up policies. Finally, a technical amendment is considered desirable as a result of the abovementioned changes relating to insurable interest. The Life Insurance Act currently contains a number of provisions relating to the payment of claims on the death of children under 10 years of age. However, a savings section in the Act provides that those provisions are intended to apply only in situations where there exists a family or personal interest, as distinct from an economic type interest, in the life of a child. The amendment will remove any doubt those provisions will continue to apply to contracts entered into after the enactment of the Insurance Contracts Bill. I should add by way of general background that as I foreshadowed last November when introducing the Life Insurance Amendment Bill 1983, the Government is continuing with the process of developing a number of other proposed amendments to the Act. I refer, in particular, to possible administrative improvements to the Act, suggested by the former Life Insurance Commissioner, proposals arising out of a recent comprehensive review of the Act, and any comparable changes of the kind that may be developed to amend the Insurance Act 1973 in the light of the failure of Bishopsgate Insurance Limited. I assure the House that it remains the Government's intention to pursue these possible further changes to the Life Insurance Act at the earliest opportunity. I commend the Life Insurance Amendment Bill 1984 to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(6.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to regulate the activities of life and general insurance brokers and, to an extent, life and general insurance agents. The Bill is largely based on the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill 1983 which was introduced into the Senate on 7 December 1983 and which, in essence, reflects the regulatory arrangements recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its report on insurance agents and brokers. That Bill has been lying on the table of the senate to enable public submissions to be made on its detailed provisions. The Government has recently completed a review of the provisions of the 1983 Bill against the background of the submissions received from the States, the Northern Territory, insurance industry and consumer organisation, and a wide range of other interested parties. In addition, the Bill has been the subject of discussions with representatives of the industry and other related interests. As a result of those processes the Government has decided to make a number of amendments to the 1983 Bill which have been incorporated in the current Bill. For the most part the changes have been designed to improve and clarify the regulatory arrangements reflected in the earlier Bill and to take account of certain practical and technical considerations raised in various submissions on the Bill. A description of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honourable members for informatiom. In very general terms, the Bill is aimed at strengthening the financial stability of the insurance industry overall; protecting the insuring public against the negligence or misconduct of an agent or broker; and encouragement of practices consistent with the interests of the insuring public and the maintenance of standards of conduct of, and quality of advice offered by, agents and brokers. The main provisions will: Establish the responsibilities of insurers for the conduct of their intermediaries; determine the arrangements concerning the discharge of financial obligations between an insured and intermediaries. Deal with questions of misrepresentation by insurance intermediaries; require annual registration of brokers and permit suspension or cancellation of registration; establish financial controls and requirements for insurance which indemnifies brokers in respect of liabilities arising out of their business operations; and establish measures to minimise the risk of compromise of a broker's impartiality. I will now outline for the information of honourable members some additional brief background on a number of the provisions. The provisions of the Bill do not apply to State insurance or Northern Territory insurance. I should mention, however, that the Government firmly believes that private and public sector insurers should as far as possible compete on the same terms and conditions. To this end, the Government will be continuing with its efforts to seek the agreement of the States and the Northern Territory to adopt the requirements of the Bill in respect of their Government insurance offices. In order to assist in promoting improved standards of conduct on the part of insurance agents, new provisions have been included in the Bill which will prevent an insurance intermediary-other than an insurance broker-from holding himself or herself out as entitled to arrange contracts of insurance as agent for an insurer unless he or she has been authorised to do so in a written agreement with the insurer. In addition to the above requirement, agents will be required to provide copies of their agency agreements to intending insureds or insureds on request or to the relevant insurance commissioner. As I shall mention later, the Bill will also impose a number of other disclosure requirements on insurance intermediaries. Under a provision of the Bill as introduced into the Senate, a person who arranges contracts of insurance incidentally to carrying on some other business or profession-other than the Business of insurance-would not be required to observe the requirements of the Bill that are imposed on insurance brokers. Many of the submissions received on the Bill drew attention to the potential difficulties and confusion that this provision would create and it was suggested that in the interests of equity and equal competition all intermediaries carrying on business as an insurance broker should be subject to the requirements to register as a broker. Against the background of these considerations, the Government has agreed to omit that particular provision from the Bill. The Bill also contains provisions which will impose responsibilities on the relevant insurance commissioner for keeping a register of life insurance brokers and a register of general insurance brokers. Additions to and deletions from these registers will be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and the registers and certain documents lodged by registered brokers will be available for public inspection. Following a review of the provisions of clause 24 of the Bill, as introduced in the Senate, the Government has remained firmly of the view that it will promote industry stability and add to the protection of the insuring public if appropriate controls are imposed over the maximum credit periods allowed for remitting of premiums and other moneys by brokers to insurers and insureds. While there have been strong differences of view on these issues as between underwriters and insurance brokers, I am pleased to note that in recent weeks considerable consensus on this subject has been reached between the Insurance Council of Australia and the National Insurance Brokers Association of Australia . As a result of that development these bodies have put forward a number of constructive suggestions for improving the clause in a way that would be consistent with the Government's broad objective. The relevant provisions in this Bill largely reflects those suggestions. The main changes will allow insurance brokers a maximum credit period of 90 days within which premium moneys are to be remitted to insurers, this period to be measured from the date on which the cover provided under an insurance contract commences to have effect. The Bill also contains certain adjustments to the information to be provided by brokers to their clients. In particular, a broker will be required to indicate clearly to insureds the amount of any fees imposed by the brokers over and above premiums or other charges relevant to an insurance contract. In addition, a broker will be required to disclose to insureds, on request, any commission or other remuneration or benefits recieved from an insurer in respect of his or her services in arranging insurance contracts. In reviewing these requirements, the Government has decided to omit the provisions which would require brokers to disclose their fees and commissions to insurers. Those provisions have been strongly opposed by broking interests and the omission does not remove requirements necessary from the viewpoint of protection of insureds, particularly given the disclosuer rights available to insureds as noted above. With respect to the prohibition on cross-directorships contained in the 1983 Bill. The Government has decided that it should be sufficient for a broker to be required to disclose to intending insureds or insureds various relationships between the broker and the insurer which may be capable of prejudicing a broker' s impartially or create conflicts of interest to the detriment of clients. The Bill contains further provisions which extend the information that intermediaries are to provide to insureds. Persons who act for two or more insures will be required to inform an intending insured of the name and place of business of the proposed insurer before arranging a contract. This requirement, together with the provisions mentioned earlier concerning the requirements for agents to operate under written agency agreements, should help to pinpoint which insurer is responsible where the operations of 'Multi-agents' are involved. In addition, appropriate information is to be given to an intending insured or an insured where the cover under an insurance contract is to be provided by a foreign insurer not authorised under the Insurance Act 1973. I should add that this provision is closely related to the provisions of section 113 of the Insurance Act 1973 and that the Government proposes to review those provisions in the light of the regulatory arrangements being established under this Bill. Taking the Bill as a whole, the Government believes that it will make a very worthwhile contribution towards establishing appropriate standards and practices in a relatively unregulated area of the insurance market. Clearly, the Bill will provide increased protection for the insuring public and will complement the supervisory systems already established under the Insurance Act and Life Insurance Act. Mr Barry Jones —This is the Jacobi Bill, isn't it? Mr HURFORD —Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said with your indulgence on introducing these two Bills, this is much to the credit of the honourable member for Hawker, Mr Ralph Jacobi, who I am pleased to say is still in the chamber. I commend the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Young, and read a first time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(6.18) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Following the handing down of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's decision in the April 1984 national wage case, the Remuneration Tribunal has issued reports and determinations in respect of offices within its jurisdiction. On 5 April the Tribunal recommended, and determined, for offices within its jurisdiction, salary increases of 4.1 per cent and increases in expenses of office allowances, electorate allowances and other allowances apart from travelling allowances of around 15 per cent. The Government takes the view that national wage case decisions should be applied consistently, and supports the Tribunal's decision to increase salaries by the recent 4.1 per cent national wage increase. The increase of approximately 15 per cent in allowances, however, is not supported by the Government. It considers that it would be appropriate to limit the increase to that which would flow from the two national wage case decisions which have been handed down since the end of the salaries and wages pause, that is, about 8.6 per cent. Details of the Tribunal's findings are contained in its reports and determinations of April 1984 which I presented to the House earlier today. The purpose of this Bill is to vary the rates of expenses of office allowance and electorate allowance determined by the Tribunal; to implement the Tribunal's recommendations with respect to the salaries of the judiciary and the offices of President and member of the Inter-State Commission, while providing an 8.6 per cent increase in expenses of office allowance; and to increase the maximum annual sum payable for the salaries of Ministers of State. Part III prescribes rates of expenses of office allowance, electorate allowance and other allowances apart from travelling allowance in accordance with the Government's decision to modify the Tribunal's determinations. The cost of the 8.6 per cent increase in allowances will be of the order of $84,000 in 1983-84 and $340,000 in a full year. The Constitution provides that the remuneration of members of the judiciary and the President and members of the Inter-State Commission shall be such as the Parliament may fix. Part II of the Bill amends the Schedule to the Remuneration and Allowances Act to implement the increased rates of salary contained in the Tribunal's reports Nos 2 and 3, and to increase expenses of office allowances by 8.6 per cent. Clause 15 of the Bill amends the Inter-State Commission Act 1975 so that the rates of remuneration for the President and members of the Commission may be included in the Remuneration and Allowances Act and amended by the Parliament in the same way as those for judicial office-holders are amended. Clause 15 also passes on to the President and members an increase based on the Tribunal's recommendations accepted by the Government in November 1983. The additional cost of salary increases for these office-holders is of the order of $70,000 for 1983-84 and $270,000 in a full year. The cost of increases in expenses of office allowances is of the order of $9,000 for 1983-84 and $33, 000 for a full year. Section 66 of the Constitution prescribes, subject to the Parliament otherwise providing, a maximum annual sum for the payment of salaries of Ministers. Part IV of the Bill amends the Ministers of State Act to increase the annual sum from $590,000 to $610,000, to cover the 4.1 per cent salary increase recommended by the Tribunal in report No. 1 of 1984. The date of effect for these amendments is the date recommended by the Tribunal, that is, the first pay period commencing on or after 6 April 1984. The Bill also makes a number of amendments to the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. The most significant of these is an amendment to require the Tribunal, when making future reports and determinations, to have regard to the principles of wage fixation established by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 23 September 1983, and to national wage case decisions handed down by the Commission from time to time. An amendment is also proposed to enable the Tribunal to determine that the remuneration of public office-holders should move automatically with the remuneration of an office determined by some other Commonwealth tribunal or authority. This would allow the Tribunal to determine, for example, that the remuneration of the less senior public office-holder group move automatically with its counterparts in the Second and Third divisions of the Australian Public Service. On two occasions in the past, these salaries have moved out of alignment. Finally, two minor amendments are proposed. The first of these removes the Tribunal's power to inquire into, and report on, the remuneration of judges of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. Executive authority in respect of the administration of the Court was transferred to the Northern Territory Government in 1979. That Government has now advised that its own Remuneration Tribunal, established in 1981, has been asked to report to the Administrator on the remuneration of judges of the Supreme Court. The second amendment is one to bring the provisions relating to membership of the Tribunal into line with other statutory bodies, by providing that a member holds office for a period which does not exceed five years. Further information on the clauses of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which is now being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(6.27) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is an omnibus Bill which amends seven Acts. The Acts are: The Social Security Act 1947; the Social Security Legislation Amendment Act 1983; the Repatriation Act 1920; the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954; the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971; the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974; and the Seamen's Compensation Act 1911. The main amendments to these Acts introduce important initiatives and correct significant anomalies in the legislation. A number of other amendments are of a law revision kind, updating and simplifying the legislation and removing minor anomalies and deficiencies. I will address the more important measures directly. Honourable members have been provided with an explanatory memorandum dealing with those measures and the amendments of relatively less importance. Social Security Act 1947 The Bill overcomes several important anomalies in the Social Security Act which currently affect unemployment and sickness beneficiaries and others. Firstly, the Bill removes the bar whereby supplementary-rent-allowance may not be paid to a sickness beneficiary without dependants who is hospitalised. Sickness beneficiaries renting privately are usually required to pay rent while in hospital to secure continued tenancy. The Government considers that ceasing to pay supplementary allowance to such sickness beneficiaries can cause hardship and many contribute to homelessness. The change will ensure equity with hospitalised pensioners in similar circumstances, who currently receive rental assistance. Secondly, under current income test arrangements serious anomalies exist where both spouses of a married couple qualify for unemployment or sickness benefit in their own right, or one spouse is a beneficiary, and the other is a pensioner. In the first case, if their combined income is over the benefits income test ' free area', the combined income is taken into account twice. Where one spouse receives the combined married rate of benefit, however, the combined income is taken into account only once. The total benefit received where both qualify can consequently be significantly less than where only one spouse receives the combined rate of benefit. Similarly, in the second case, the rate paid to the person receiving unemployment or sickness benefit is calculated in such a way that the assistance that should be given to the couple by the less strict pension income test is effectively cancelled. To remove these anomalies, the Bill provides that, in the case of a married beneficiary whose spouse is in receipt of a pension or benefit, only half of the combined income which would otherwise reduce the amount of benefit payable, will be taken into account. Half of the combined income will, of course, also be taken into account in determining the spouse's pension or benefit entitlement. This ensures that the income test operates fairly for all married beneficiaries, regardless of whether the spouse qualifies for benefit or pension in his or her own right. Thirdly, where a person is entitled to a lump sum payment upon termination of employment and the employer pays the person by instalments rather than in a lump sum, each instalment is currently taken into account under the benefits income test. This significantly disadvantages the person, compared with other former employees who receive a lump sum upon termination of their jobs. The entitlement of the latter people to unemployment or sickness benefit generally is not affected as the lump sum payment is usually made before or during the waiting period for benefit. Under the Bill, instalments of a lump sum due to a person upon termination of employment will be regardless as received by the person on the date the employment ceased. Those instalments will usually not be included as income for benefit purposes. Fourthly, payment of unemployment benefit may be postponed at present for a period of between six and 12 weeks if the applicant's own actions caused his unemployment and he did not have a good and sufficient reason for his actions; if his unemployment is due to his misconduct as a worker; or if he failed without good and sufficient reason to accept a suitable offer of employment. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr BARRY JONES —Mr Speaker, before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was dealing with the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1984. I had pointed out that this omnibus Bill seeks to amend seven Acts. I was just concluding my remarks on the implications for the Social Security Act 1947. Situations have arisen where application of the compulsory six weeks postponement period has resulted in persons suffering undue hardship. For example, a man with a wife and three children who is dismissed by his employer for what might have been some minor misdemeanour, can suffer the double penalty of losing his job and losing his benefit for six weeks which, in effect, amounts to a fine of more than $1,000. The Bill will eliminate this compulsory minimum period. It will enable the Director-General of Social Security to apply an appropriate period of postponement, having regard to all relevant matters in an individual case. The 12 weeks maximum period will remain. Fifthly, the Bill will extend eligibility for widow's pension to any woman who is the innocent party to a bigamous marriage and is deserted by the other party. This change follows an unseccessful appeal by a women who was not entitled to a widow's pension in these circumstances. The Government responded to the particular case by approving an act of grace payment, and the woman is to receive payment equivalent to a class B widow's pension until she acquires a legal entitlement to a pension under the Bill. Sixthly, another anomaly concerns remote area allowance. This allowance, which came into effect on 1 May 1984, can be paid to residents of income tax zone A who are in receipt of a pension, benefit, sheltered employment or rehabilitation allowance. At present, where a married pensioner or beneficiary is temporarily absent from the remote area for more than eight weeks, remote area allowance ceases, but the allowance, together with additional allowance for any dependent children, continues to be payable to the person's spouse where the spouse is also a pensioner or beneficiary and remains in the remote area. However, in the case of a married unemployment or other beneficiary who receives additional benefit in respect of a spouse, no allowance is payable where the beneficiary is temporarily absent from the remote area for more than eight weeks, although the spouse remains in the remote area. This is because the spouse in this situation is not paid the additional benefit in his or her own right. This anomaly is overcome under the Bill by entitling the married beneficiary to remote area allowance in respect of his or her spouse in those circumstances, thereby ensuring fairness with pensioners in this situation. The allowance will be paid at the single rate of $7 a week for a dependent spouse, together with additional allowance of $3.50 a week for each dependent child. The Bill makes similar provision for a married person receiving a sheltered employment or rehabilitation allowance, where the rate of that allowance includes an amount for a spouse, and the person is temporarily absent from the remote area for more than eight weeks but the spouse remains in the remote area. The Bill also removes the requirement that children be physically present and have their usual place of residence in the remote area in order to attract payment of additional allowance. This change is made because parents in remote areas can still incur extra costs in respect of their children although the children are away from home. However, the children must still be in Australia before additional allowance can be paid. The Bill also clarifies that remote area allowance is payable during the first eight weeks of any temporary absence from the remote area, provided that it is the person's usual place of residence. Seventhly, the Bill will provide for the payment of supplementary, that is rent , assistance or allowance to pensioners and sickness beneficiaries who live in their own caravan or house-boat and pay for the right to use a site. This will be achieved by including the payment of such on-site costs in the definition of 'rent'. Eighthly, a number of changes are to be made to conform with the spirit of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. For example, references to 'dependent female ' in the context of age, invalid, wives' and spouse careers' pensions, and unemployment, sickness and special benefits, are to be replaced by the neutral, non-discriminatory phrase 'de facto spouse'. Other changes are to be made in part because the existing provisions are discriminatory. One provision, section 22, preventing the grant of an age pension in circumstances reflecting concepts of matrimonial fault which have been of less significance since the Family Law Act, is to be removed. The Bill also will remove the provision whereby additional benefit may be paid to an unmarried male unemployment or sickness beneficiary in respect of a woman substantially dependent on him and keeping house for him and his children. The provision, which was introduced in 1947, became largely redundant when provisions enabling a de facto wife to be treated as the spouse of a beneficiary were introduced in 1974. The current provision is also discriminatory against beneficiaries who are women and have a male housekeeper. The existing entitlement of any beneficiaries who might be receiving additional benefit in these circumstances, will be preserved. Finally, the opportunity has been taken by means of this Bill to make a number of machinery amendments which will enhance the readability of the Social Security Act and will help to improve administration. One such measure I will mention deals with current provisions which assist people to qualify for pensions or family allowance on residency grounds. Those provisions rely on the definition of 'resident of Australia' in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. This in turn requires the Commissioner of Taxation to be satisfied about certain matters. It is administratively inefficient to seek the decision of the Commissioner in these cases, especially if much of the relevant information is held by the Department of Social Security . The Bill will incorporate relevant parts of the taxation definition in the Social Security Act, with the Director-General of Social Security having the power to make decisions. Some of the proposals in the Bill involve small costs, while others involve small savings. The net result is likely to be negligible additional costs. Social Security Legislation Amendment Act 1983 The Bill will make two minor changes: The Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act was changed last year to provide hostel care and personal care subsidies, with effect from 1 January 1984. The amendment enables administrative arrangements made before that date to have legal effect. The effect of an amendment last year was to allow payment of family income supplement to the wife rather than to the husband, where both were eligible in respect of a child. However, the amendment was deficient in that payment could not be made to the wife until the commencement of a new six-monthly allowance period on or after 1 May 1984. The Bill will rectify this situation so that payment can be made to the wife from 1 May 1984. Repatriation Act 1920 The Bill will amend the Repatriation Act to bring provisions in that Act dealing with remote area allowance, government rent, rent and supplementary assistance, into line with the changes made to the Social Security Act in the Bill. In relation to remote area allowance, the Bill also provides that: A married service pensioner and spouse will be treated as single people, with each of them able to receive the higher single rate of allowance, where they are unable to live together for an indefinite period as a result of an illness or infirmity and their living expenses are greater than they would otherwise be; and payment of the allowance in respect of the same child to more than one person, will be prevented. This brings those provisions into line with the existing provisions of the Social Security Act. The Bill will also change the definition of 'benevolent home' in the Repatriation Act consequential upon the substitution of a new definition in the Social Security Act. The overall costs of these measures are estimated to be negligible. Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 As part of the Government's proposals to improve the current imbalance between institutional and community care for the frail aged and disabled, our election policy included introducing incentives for the provision of suitable short term respite accommodation for people being cared for in the community, so that their carers may have a break from the rigours of caring for them. The 1981 Australian Bureau of Statistics survey of handicapped persons in Australia showed that more than three times as many severely to moderately handicapped people aged 65 or over lived at home as lived in institutions. Yet current community services for respite care are minimal. When care support is temporarily reduced or removed, the only alternative may be premature admission to institutional facilities or acute hospitalisation, often to costly private hospitals. The Government has decided to encourage the provision of respite care services in subsidised hostels, and the occupancy of such beds, by making a new subsidy available. Under the existing arrangements, a subsidy is provided to an organisation providing hostel care services or hostel care and personal care services to eligible persons at a relevant facility. The calculation of the subsidy is based upon the number of eligible persons receiving approved services at a facility on a prescribed date, which was 17 January 1984 and each twenty- eighth day thereafter. This Bill provides for the new subsidy as follows: $10 per week for each respite care bed occupied by an eligible person or persons for at least one day, but not more than 14 days, in any four-week period ending on a prescribed date; $50 per week for each respite care bed occupied by an eligible person or persons for more than 14 days in any four-week period ending on a prescribed date. The amendments will operate from a date specified by notice in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. This day will be a prescribed date. The Government considers this initiative will increase the options of frail aged and disabled people who wish to live in the community rather than go into hospitals and other institutions permanently, and assist in relieving the burden of community care which falls on relatives and friends. It is not possible to estimate accurately the likely number of respite care beds progressively becoming available, or the pattern of occupancy. The number of beds that will become available is expected to rise progressively over the next three years to an estimated 1,350 beds. The cost of this provision under present arrangements will also rise progressively, and by year three, assuming a take-up at the present personal care subsidy rate, could cost some $3.5m in that year. However, the proposed measures are not expected to lead to the revision of anticipated Budget outlays in the current financial year. Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 The Bill will make a number of minor changes: Certain provisions are to be amended to bring them more into line with the spirit of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Dependants of a deceased employee and persons dependent upon an employee who is totally incapacitated for work, are to include fathers-in-law and certain de facto spouses of female employees. Under the present provisions, mothers-in-law and certain de facto spouses of male employees are included. The estimated cost of these changes is not expected to exceed $100,000 in a full year. Secrecy provisions are to be inserted designed to protect the confidentiality of the affairs of a person to whom the Act relates. These provisions are based upon section 17 of the Social Security Act 1947. Penalties are provided for offences against these provisions. In relation to the provisions preventing double payments where there is an entitlement to compensation under the Act, and an employee recovers common law damages, a component of damages awarded which does not relate to the injury for which compensation is payable, is to be disregarded. Common examples of such components of damages awarded are damages for pain and suffering and for loss of amenities of life. The present provisions of the Act have a broader operation than this. It is not possible to estimate accurately the costs of this proposal, in part because of differing administrative treatment of the current provisions. The Commonwealth, in effect, will forgo some windfall receipts. The present bar on the payment of compensation under the Act is to be retained where there has been a payment of compensation under workers' compensation legislation of a State, Territory or another country. However, the bar is to be removed with other forms of compensation. That compensation will be treated in a similar manner to common law damages. Under the change, it will be possible for an employee to receive compensation under the Act as well as, for example, no fault motor accident compensation or criminal injuries compensation. Double payments are prevented where that other compensation relates to an injury to the employee for which compensation is payable under the Act. In practice, there are no costs as it ratifies current arrangements. Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974 Under current provisions, a subsidy is payable for maintenance of premises which are not rented, where they are used by an eligible organisation to provide a prescribed service, such as sheltered employment. The Act requires an approval of a maintenance project to be given in advance. The amendment enables a maintenance project to be approved after the project is undertaken. This brings maintenance subsidies into line with other forms of subsidy under the Act, such as capital and equipment grants. It means that maintenance required in an emergency can be undertaken and subsequently approved . In practice, there are no costs as the change validates current arrangements. Seamen's Compensation Act 1911 The Bill makes a number of minor changes. Of these, I will refer only to amendments to certain provisions to bring them more into line with the spirit of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. For example, the scope of the definition of a ' member of the family' is to be extended to include a father-in-law as well as a de facto spouse of a female seafarer. The costs of the amendments are estimated to be negligible. This Bill provides for several important new developments, and for the correction of important anomalies which can cause hardship to certain groups in the community. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(8.18) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill continues the practice of introducing an omnibus Bill into each sittings of the Parliament to make a large number of non-contentious amendments. Not every amendment being proposed by this Bill requires detailed reasons for the change, as this will be self-evident from the provision itself, or the detailed explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill. This statement, therefore, confines itself to addressing the more substantial amendments. Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 The purpose of these amendments is to allow for the appointment of such additional Aboriginal land commissioners as are required to conduct the hearings into land claims made by Aboriginals pursuant to section 50 of the Act in the Northern Territory. The appointment of a second Aboriginal Land Commissioner at this time would reduce the delays in the hearing of land claims and the submission of reports by a Commissioner. That will allow the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to deal with matters contained in those reports sooner than under present arrangements. Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 The amendment of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 applies the Judges ' Pensions Act 1968 to full time presidential members of the Tribunal. The proposed new section 16 does not apply to presidential members who, before their appointment, were contributors to the Superannuation Fund 1976. However, the section will allow such members to elect, within three months of their appointment, to cease being eligible to contribute under the Superannuation Act 1976, thereby bringing themselves within the operation of section 16. Where a presidential member makes an election under section 16 and no pension is payable to him or his dependants, section 16 provides that he is entitled to a lump sum benefit based on his contributions to the Superannuation Fund. New section 16 prevents a person from receiving two pensions, or other benefits, as a result of that person having, before his appointment as a presidential member, been in government employment and entitled to a pension or retiring allowances in respect of that employment. Airports (Business Concessions) Act 1959 The proposed amendment of section 15 of the Act will allow the Minister to delegate to a prescribed person the power to grant an authority under the Act for the supply or sale of alcoholic liquor. It is intended that the regulations made under the Act will prescribe only persons holding senior departmental positions. Applications to sell or supply liquor are frequent and the Minister depends on the regional staff of the Department to carry out investigations and make recommendations. The proposed delegation of powers to senior officers of the Department will allow for greater administrative convenience in processing the large number of applications. Apple and Pear Stabilization Act 1971 The purpose of the amendment to the Act is to enable money held in the Beurre Bosc Stabilization Fund to be paid to the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation and for such money to be held in trust for expenditure on research into the production and marketing of pears approved by the AAPC's Apple and Pear Research Foundation. Under the present provisions of the Act money in the Fund, amounting to some $18,600, should be paid to those growers who contributed to the Fund in the 1971 and 1972 seasons. However, it has not been possible to identify these growers and representative organisations in the pear industry have agreed to the transfer of the money to the AAPC for research purposes. Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967 The Bill will increase the number of commissioners on the Australian Tourist Commission from 10 to 12. The Government, aware of the economic, social, regional and employment potential of tourism, significantly increased the budgetary allocation of the Australian Tourist Commission, Australia's national tourism promotional agency, in 1983-84. The Commission's operations have, accordingly, expanded into promotional campaigns and operational activities, in both domestic and overseas markets, on a scale and complexity not previously possible. A broader range of expertise on its governing body is therefore appropriate and the proposed amendments will make it possible to make appointments from complimentary commercial and professional sectors. Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 The proposed amendment of section 14 of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 will permit the Minister to extend the present period of office of a member of the Corporation for a period not exceeding two years. There are a number of reforms proposed for membership of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation resulting from the review of the institutional arrangements of the wine industry. An extension of the term of office of existing members will avoid the need for the election and appointment of new members to serve for only a short term until the proposed reforms are implemented. Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 The amendments made by the Bill repeal certain provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act which are obsolete, or have no application to broadcasting or television stations regulated under the Act. Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911 The amendment of this Act removes the right to issue bearer securities in respect of new loan raisings. In addition, it will allow two further classes of investor, trustees and unincorporated bodies, to hold Commonwealth securities in inscribed form. There are several advantages in the proposed amendments. One is the substantial reduction in the administrative costs associated with the issue of bearer securities. Another is the concern that some investors choose to hold their inscribed stock in bearer form as a means of evading either income tax and /or the upper limit of $200,000 on holding by any one investor in Australian Savings Bonds. Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 The purpose of the amendments proposed to the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 is to ensure the effectiveness and the consistency of confidentiality provisions under the Act, while providing scope for the disclosure of information in appropriate cases. the amendments extend the current restrictions on disclosure to all members of the Australian Federal Police and their support staff who may, in the normal course of their employment , become privy to the details of an investigation or inquiry under the Act. The amendments will also vest the Commissioner of Police with a discretion to disclose information about an investigation or inquiry to persons or the public. Coral Sea Islands Act 1969 This Act defines the Coral Sea Islands Territory as comprising all islands within a given geographic area. That geographic area overlaps the maritime delimitation jurisdiction boundaries agreed with France under the Torres Strait Treaty and will also encroach upon similar boundaries arising from a proposed treaty with the Solomon Islands. The proposed amendments will redefine the boundaries of the geographic area used to define the Coral Sea Islands Territory so as to contain all the islands which comprise the Territory, whilst avoiding any overlap with current or proposed maritime jurisdiction delimitation boundaries. Customs Act 1901 Of the several amendments of this Act that deserve specific mention, one is the removal of references to 'Comptroller' and its substitution with a reference to 'Collector'. This will have the effect of eliminating the need for a considerable number of delegations in respect of the determination of the value of imported goods for the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act 1982. New section 273GAA will provide for the notification of certain decisions taken by the Minister, the Comptroller or Collector, as the case may be, under a large number of provisions in the Act, including the reasons for the decision, and refer to evidence or material upon which the decision is based. New section 273GAB makes similar provisions for the notification of certain decisions relating to depot licences. Defence Service Homes Act 1918 There are several amendments designed to clarify the definitions in the Act which specify the classes of persons who are eligible for Defence Service Homes benefits. The amendment of section 50 will bring audit reporting requirements of the Act into line with legislation of other Commonwealth statutory authorities. Distillation Act 1901 The purpose of the amendments of this Act is to simplify and modernise a number of definitions in the legislation following a detailed review of legislation relating to wines and spirits undertaken jointly by the Food Standards Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council and Commonwealth Government departments. The amendments will bring the Distillation Act into harmony with the new National Health and Medical Research Council standards for wines and spirits as adopted by State governments. The changes are the first significant reform in this area since 1906 and the Government expects that the industry will be able more readily to comply with the modernised and simplified form. Excise Act 1901 The purpose of the amendments of this Act is to insert new provisions relating to the making of regulations and departmental by-laws. The proposed provisions are similar to the regulation and by-law provisions of the Customs Act. Amongst other things the proposed provisions prohibit the making of a by-law imposing duty where the effect of the by-law is retrospectively to increase the rate of duty payable on goods entered for home consumption. At present the prefatory notes to the Schedule of the Excise Tariff Act 1921 include a definition of ' Departmental By-law' to mean by-laws made by the Minister and published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. Legal advice confirms that that definition is part of the Act. However, it is considered desirable to place the Minister's power to make by-laws beyond question by including it in the body of the Excise Act. Family Law Act 1975 One category of proposed amendments to the Family Law Act arises out of the need to remedy the unsatisfactory situation of States of the United Stated of America being declared under the Regulations to be 'countries' for the purpose of reciprocal maintenance enforcement. In the United States and Canada, the constituent States and Provinces, respectively, exercise legislative power in relation to family law. Reciprocal arrangements have been entered into with only some of these States and Provinces. Accordingly, the word 'jurisdiction' has been substituted for 'country'. That word imports more clearly the notion of a geographical area subject to the authority of one legislature or one body of law . The amendment of paragraph 37A (1) (n) makes it clear that Rules of Court may prescribe certain relatively minor powers of the Family Court of Australia which may be exercised by registrars of the Court. The amendments of section 44 restore the power of a Family Court of a State to nominate a suitable person, or organisation, to assist the parties of a marriage of less than two years duration who are contemplating divorce to consider a reconciliation. That power was formerly contained in sub-section 14 (6) of the Act and was unintentionally deleted by the Family Law Amendment Act 1983. Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 New sub-section 24 (1A) provides that an appeal does not lie to the Court from an interlocutory judgment except by leave of the Court. At present an appeal lies to the Court as of right from an interlocutory judgment. Proposed new sub- section 25 (2) makes it clear that a single judge of the Court has power to determine an application for an extension of time within which an appeal to the Court may be instituted. At present the Act can be interpreted as requiring this to be determined as part of the Court's appellate jurisdiction by a Full Court. The amendments included in new section 35A will permit registrars and deputy- registrars of the Federal Court of Australia to exercise the powers of the Court relating to pre-trial procedural matters and at the direction of the Court or a judge. The exercise of any of these powers would be subject to review by the Court. The effect of the proposed amendments will be to achieve a more effective use of judicial time by enabling judges to devote more time to substantial defended matters. Judiciary Act 1903 Sub-section 39 (2) of the Act invests State courts with federal jurisdiction subject to certain conditions and restrictions. Paragraph 39 (2) (d) of the Act presently requires federal jurisdiction of State courts of summary jurisdiction to be a stipendiary or police or special magistrate, or a magistrate of the State who is specially authorised by the Governor-General to exercise such jurisdiction. The proposed amendment will extend the class of persons who may exercise the federal jurisdiction of a State court of summary jurisdiction to include an arbitrator on whom the jurisdiction, or part of the jurisdiction of the Court has been conferred by a prescribed State law. The exercise of such jurisdiction will be limited to the jurisdiction that is conferred by State law. The proposed amendment of sub-section 44 (2) of the Act will enable the High Court to remit to the Federal Court matters arising under section 75 (iii) of the Constitution. Management and Investment Companies Act 1983 There are two changes of substance to the Act made by the Bill. Under existing section 29 the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board may certify a business entity as an eligible business entity provided the business entity fulfils certain criteria. There was doubt whether all the criteria specified had to be fulfilled by a business entity, or only a certain number had to be met. The original intention was that only three of the five criteria specified had to be satisfied by a business entity. The proposed definition of prescribed business entity clarifies the original intention. The proposed amendment of section 38 (5) will remove a potential conflict with the proposed amendments of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Under existing section 38 (5), it may be possible for a licensed management investment company to issue shares for the full amount of its approved capital, but to issue these shares at a premium. However, under the proposed changes to the Income Tax Assessment Act there will be a tax deduction on the premium element for shares issued at a premium. As a result investors in management investment companies may have been able to claim a tax concession for a larger amount than had been approved by the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board. Proposed sub-section 38 (5) will provide that the amount of paid-up prescribed share capital and the amount in any share premium account of a management investment company shall not exceed its approved capital. National Health Act 1953 The Act is being amended to establish an internal review mechanism through which unsuccessful claimants under the isolated patients travel and accommodation assistance scheme must pursue internal review before exercising their right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Under the internal review procedure a person dissatisfied with a decision may request the permanent head to review it. The Act is also being amended to remove the provision that departmental officers be members of the medical services, dental services and pharmaceutical services committees of inquiry in each state. As investigations are undertaken by departmental officers before matters are referred to those committees, it is considered inappropriate that officers also be members of the respective committees. Navigation Act 1912 The amendments of the Navigation Act 1912 are intended to clarify certain provisions of the Act and to facilitate the administration of the Act. The amendments of sections 392 and 394 of the Act are significant and result from an agreement reached by Commonwealth and State Transport Ministers to provide for penalties, in all Commonwealth, State and Territory marine legislation, for a breach of the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. An element of the agreement is that offences will be dealt with summarily only. Postal Services Act 1975 The financial provisions of the Act are amended to place beyond doubt certain borrowing powers of the Australian Postal Commission. Legal advice is that although these powers already exist in law, there may be reasons to clarify these. A similar amendment was made to the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946 in 1983. Spirits Act 1906 The Spirits Act is being amended for the same reasons that I have outlined above in relation to the Distillation Act 1901. I should mention that these amendments do not alter the compulsory maturation requirements for rum. The Government has recently considered this matter and has decided to retain the compulsory maturation requirement for rum for the time being. However, the Government is to examine this issue immediately, with a view to the abolition of these requirements in three to four years time. Student Assistance Act 1973 The amendments of the Student Assistance Act 1973 will partially implement the recommendations made by the Administrative Review Council in its report to the Attorney-General on the student assistance review tribunals. The principal effect of the amendments will be to enable a party to proceedings before a student assistance review tribunal to request a review of the SART's decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This in part implements the ARC's recommendation 1. Recommended restrictions requiring leave to appeal have not been adopted. In accordance with the ARC's proposals, the right to a review by the AAT will be additional to, rather than in place of, the right to a review by a SART. While the AAT will, for the first time, have jurisdiction to review a decision made by another review body with full deliberative powers, the result will not differ in substance from the mechanism of internal reconsideration and review preceding a right of appeal to the AAT employed in other legislation. A number of amendments are proposed to improve the current procedures of SARTs in accordance with the ARC's other recommendations. In accordance with the ARC's recommendation 2, it is proposed to amend section 28 of the Student Assistance Act to enable legal practitioners to appear before the SARTs. Proposed sub- section 25 (1) implements recommendation 3 by providing that a student who seeks a review by a SART should receive, before the hearing, copies of all material forwarded to the SART concerning the matter under review. This provision will be subject to proposed sub-section 25 (2), which provides that the chairperson of a SART is not to release confidential material. Recommendation 5 proposed that the Minister's power under sub-section 6 (2) to make directions to authorised persons, that is, to the original decision-makers, be clarified with regard to their application to the review body, that is, to a SART. The Government's legal advice is that such directions do not bind a SART, and it is proposed to delete sub-section 6 (2). Recommendation 6 proposed that SARTs be given power to review a refusal of an authorised person to allow further time for the lodging of a request for reconsideration. Recommendation 7 proposed that authorised persons and SARTs be empowered to extend the time for an applicant to request a reference for review. A decision of an authorised person to refuse to extend the time limit for a request for reconsideration or review would be reviewable by a SART. The amendments implementing recommendations 6 and 7 are confined to giving authorised persons discretion to accept a late request for review of a decision or a primary decision. There was no need to make special provision for a SART to extend time as recommended by the ARC as the Attorney-General's Department had advised that the Student Assistance Act already empowers SARTs to review refusals by authorised persons to extend the time limit for lodging requests for reconsideration. Recommendation 8 is implemented by proposed new section 22. This section will provide for the decision of an authorised person to be reconsidered by a senior authorised person. The Bill includes a definition of senior authorised person. The amendments of the Student Assistance Act will not lead to any material increase in government expenditure. There are currently some 200 SART cases a year and, on this basis, the number of additional AAT cases is expected to be about 15 annually. With Bills of this nature it is difficult to indicate what costs/savings are applicable overall and to quantify such costs/savings. There will be some saving associated with the amendments of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act but it will not be very much. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communi- cations)(8.51) —On behalf of the Leader of the House, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), I move: (1) That, for the purposes related to the inquiry into the televising and radio broadcasting of proceedings of both Houses of Parliament and their committees: (a) the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings have power- (i) to appoint a sub-committee consisting of 2 or more Senators and 2 or more Members of the House of Representatives, 2 members of the sub-committee to form a quorum of the sub-committee; (ii) to appoint the chairman of any sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of chairman at that meeting, and (iii) to refer to such a sub-committee any matter into which the committee is instructed to inquire; (b) any sub-committee appointed by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings have power- (i) to send for persons, papers and records, and (ii) to authorise publication of any evidence given before it, or any information obtained in the course of its inquiry, or any document presented to it, and (c) the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings or any sub-committee appointed by the committee have power to move from place to place. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (3) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting its concurrence. Honourable members will recall that both Houses have instructed the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings to inquire into and report upon the televising and radio broadcasting of proceedings of both Houses of Parliament and their committees. The Committee has begun its inquiry into this matter, and has determined that it would be desirable for the Committee to have the power to take evidence from interested members of the public in State centres as well as in Canberra. The Committee has also resolved that it would be desirable to have the power to form a sub-committee for the purposes of this inquiry. The Committee does have the power under the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act to form a sub-committee, but only for limited purposes. The composition of the sub-committee proposed in this motion is identical to that provided in the Act, but the sub-committee will be able to investigate the televising and radio broadcasting reference or advise the full Committee on components of the reference. I commend the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at a later hour this day. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at a later hour this day. Debate resumed from 2 May, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(8.43) —The Opposition will support the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill. It believes that the changes proposed by the Government to the Commonwealth Bank are in the main very worthwhile changes and on behalf of the Opposition I am very happy to say that they are ones that we will support consistent with our policy of supporting sensible measures proposed by the Government. I am very happy to offer a speedy passage to the Bill through this House and undoubtedly my colleagues in the Senate will also give it a speedy passage. Mr Wells —They would not know how. Mr HOWARD —The honourable member might be surprised. The changes proposed by this Bill are very far-reaching on the surface. The proposals effect a change in the name from the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. They establish the Savings Bank as a subsidiary of the Commonwealth Bank. They effect a number of changes in the management structure of the Bank all of which are designed to promote the independence and competitiveness of the Commonwealth Bank and generally enable it to be a total competitor with other banks in the Australian banking system. The Commonwealth Bank is a very great Australian institution. For example, there would barely be a school child in Australia who is not familiar with learning to save through the medium of the Commonwealth Bank. It is an institution that has been part of the Australian scene since 1911. I take this opportunity to say that in the five years that I was Treasurer I naturally had a lot to do with the Commonwealth Bank and with the management of it. In that time I formed an exceptionally high opinion of the quality of the people who work in the Commonwealth Bank. They were in every sense the equals of their private sector competitors. Mr Wells —Does this mean you are not going to sell it off? Mr HOWARD —I will come to that little piece of Hawke mischief in a minute. But those people who work there were and are of very high quality. I counted it a privilege in the time that I was Treasurer to be associated with people such as Sir Ronald Elliott, who was the managing director of the Commonwealth Bank for a large part of the time that I was Treasurer, and more recently Mr Vern Christie, and, of course, a very eminent Australian in the person of Professor Crisp who was, of course, appointed as Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank Board by the Whitlam Government and was readily and with great enthusiasm reappointed by the Fraser Government. I regard and still regard Fin Crisp as a person who has made an enormous contribution not only to the business of banking in Australia through his chairmanship of the Commonwealth Bank but also to many other spheres . He is a person who draws very considerable respect in the Australian community from many different sides of politics. Thus I come to this debate as a staunch advocate of the Commonwealth Bank and as somebody who believes that it has played a very important role in the development of the Australian banking system. I am therefore very happy to say on behalf of the Opposition that we support this Bill. We can have a little bit of bipartisanship on this particular subject as to most of the comments that I will make. I think the decisions of the Government to inject some more capital into the bank, to remove the present exemption from company income tax of the Savings Bank, and generally to put the bank rather more at arm's length-although it has been pretty much at arm's length from governments for many years-are very sensible moves. As I said at the beginning, they are ones that we are very ready to support. The Commonwealth Bank has played an enormous part over the years in providing housing finance for millions of Australians. The Commonwealth Bank is the major single housing lender. It is still basically the cheapest source of finance for a large number of Australians. Under governments of both political persuasions the Commonwealth Bank has played a very significant role in underpinning the mass provision of housing finance for hundreds of thousands of Australian families. I take this opportunity, because we are talking about a great Australian bank and about banks, to say one or two things about banking policy and about the question of foreign banks. I start my section of these remarks by saying that I very warmly welcome the conversion that has come over the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and many other members of the Australian Labor Party on the question of foreign banks. I can say without reservation and quite seriously and deliberately that the Government will have nothing but support and praise from the Opposition if it proceeds down the path of freeing up the Australian banking system. The fact that I am now in opposition has in no way altered the view that I had in government about the need to open up the Australian financial system. I am very pleased that the Labor Party appears to have changed its attitude on this. On the occasions when the Australian Labor Party in government has taken decisions which are consistent with a more flexible and deregulatory approach to the financial system, I have taken the opportunity of giving unstinting support. Honourable members may recall that I gave very prompt support to the decision of the Government to float the Australian dollar because I believed that the decision was the right one. I think that it was a courageous decision in the circumstances and the Government deserved the support of a responsible Opposition on that occasion. I give an assurance to the House that that attitude will continue in this area. If the Government continues on the path of sensible deregulation of the financial system there will not be any political point scoring or nit picking from me on that subject. The goal, the prize, of a more open and competitive Australian financial system playing an increasing role in making Australia a major financial centre is far too important to have a brake put on it by political point scoring in this place. It certainly will not come from me. I really am pleased that the Labor Party, now that it is in government, appears to have changed its spots on this subject. I welcome that very warmly because it is only a year ago that my colleague the Treasurer, when he was the Opposition spokesman on Treasury matters, had a slightly different view. He might not like to be reminded of this now as he waxes eloquent before financial gathering. Some of the things he said might make him blush now. About a year ago, in relations to a decision to admit about 10 foreign banks, which I announced on behalf of the former Government, he committed the Labor Party to vote against it. He accused me of representing the interests of foreigners to the detriment of the little Australian and seeking to disadvantage large sections of the Australian community. It was not the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous); it was not the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand); it was the honourable member for Blaxland, who was then the Opposition spokesman on Treasury matters. He is now the Treasurer. I am delighted that the responsibilities of the office have changed his view. What has happened is that his view has moved over towards the view that I expressed when in government, a view which I continue to express in opposition. Let me say that in the biblical refrain there is more rejoicing about the repentance of one sinner than about the 100 or more righteous. I am delighted that the present Treasurer has embraced the philosophy of the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. I know that it is a bit uncomfortable for some honourable members who sit behind him-they really worry and squirm a bit every time there is some bipartisanship between the Treasurer and the shadow Treasurer in this place on the subject of financial deregulation-but it is to the good of the country that we have agreement on some of these matters. Frankly, it would have been better if a little bit more bipartisanship had been shown by the Labor Party when we were on the other side. I am in a very charitable mood tonight-I think that this is an occasion for charity-and I do not want to say anything unkind because I am being quite complimentary towards the Government. I do want to support this measure because we all support it. The comment by the Treasurer about my not liking the little Australians was not the end of it. He made another interesting comment. I think that this is a comment that would find a ready reception in the hearts of some who still sit behind him. He said that increased pressure for deregulation-that was a terrible thought then; he really hated deregulation in January last year-would place further upward pressure on interest rates which would become unstable along with money supply and exchange rates. Once again he has thrown all that aside because what he did was float the dollar and get rid of exchange controls. There has not been too much instability. I welcome his conversion. I think it is absolutely marvellous. All I can say is that the views that the Treasurer is now expressing on most of these matters are views that I certainly support and welcome. I am very pleased that he has seen the light and he has changed his mind. When the report of the Campbell Committee was tabled in this Parliament in November 1981 I have to say that, on occasions, I felt that I was the only person who supported it. I am very pleased that the Treasurer and a number of others in the Australian Labor Party have now come around. There will be further progress. The Treasurer will not have any trouble, obstinacy or obstructions from us; he can be sure of that. I can also promise him this: The more he looks as though he is getting a bit of stick from his own ranks the more support he will get from me. I will certainly go on doing that and I will give him as much support as I possibly can. I really am absolutely delighted that it has happened . When the Government makes what I hope is an inevitable decision to license a significant number of foreign banks, I hope that there not only will be a reasonable number- Mr Wells —Why didn't you do it? Mr HOWARD —We announced it in January last year. There was a bit of an interruption in March which made it difficult for us to implement the decision. The honourable member for Petrie cannot really score a point on that. We did make the announcement to admit 10 banks. It is 14 months since the Government came to office. Letting in foreign banks is not a matter of partisan political dispute. The Government has our support on that issue now. Presumably it will be tidied up at the Labor Party national conference in July. When the decision is finally taken- Mr Milton —That remains to be seen. Mr HOWARD —The honourable member for La Trobe says: 'That remains to be seen'. This is very interesting. I think I will have to give an honourable member opposite on the front bench my proxy. Would an honourable member opposite take my proxy at the national conference to give the present Treasurer a little bit of support on this subject? I certainly hope so. When the Government finally makes its decision and when the Prime Minister and the Treasurer finally get the numbers-I know they will from the nodding of honourable members opposite who really have the right idea in the Labor Party on this-I hope they do two things: Firstly I hope that they allow in a sufficient number of new participants. I think the Australian banking system can do with a number of new participants. Secondly, I hope that the Government is not too restrictive on the level of foreign ownership. Because the report of the Martin Committee on the Review of the Australian Financial System stated that a maximum of 50 per cent would be appropriate, I know that that has probably created a number of political barriers and political obstacles given the historic hostility of the Labor Party in Australia to foreign banks. I understand that. In a sense it would have been preferable if the Martin report had been a little more generous on that subject because I suppose it is a bit difficult for a Labor Treasurer to go any further than Martin. Judging by the interjection of the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) I do not think he is very keen on the Treasurer going anywhere near Martin. Be that as it may, unless the Government is prepared to allow, in many cases, majority foreign participation in new banks, the real benefits of overseas participation will not be obtained. I make this plea to the Government: Let us have a reasonable number of foreign banks. Let us not be too restrictive about the level of foreign ownership. When the Government decides to do it the balance of the response from members of the Opposition will certainly be supportive. If the Government decides, as it should , particularly in the present climate, to deregulate interest rates totally, it will also have the support of the Opposition on that issue. I would have thought that students of the financial system, particularly the work that has been done by the Campbell report, would have learned over the last few year that, far from interest rate controls helping the underprivileged, interest rate controls have disadvantaged them. I do not think that is better demonstrated than by an examination of the profile of housing loans taken out by people in, say, the western suburbs of Sydney in the latter years of the 1970s. People who were not good credit risks, that is, the people who did not have much money, who were real battlers, could not get money from banks and building societies because this scarcity of funds rationed them out. They were driven into the arms of high interest rate lenders. That is a fact of life. So far from interest rate controls helping poor people, they have created a situation in which low interest rates paid to the less sophisticated investor have subsidised low interest loans to middle and high income earners. Frankly, that is hardly an equitable situation. It is a proposition that I know many people on both sides of politics find very hard to accept. The automatic reaction is that if we have interest rate controls we are really looking after people and holding everything down. The reality is that the financial system is now so diverse, flexible and volatile that if we sit on one part of it it bursts out somewhere else. The cash management trusts which burgeoned in the 1970s demonstrated that very clearly. Cash management trusts were the ordinary guy's way of becoming part of the short term money market. Why should not the ordinary person become part of the short term money market? That also is a difficult political issue, which was the subject of intense political opportunism by the former Opposition. But once again, if the Government wants to move on that subject it will not have any nonsense from me. I would be very happy to give it support and to offer my proxy at that national conference if the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are trying to drum up a few more numbers on that subject. They will certainly have our help on that. There is just one other thing I would like to say. Having spent almost 20 minutes expressing bipartisan support for the policies of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, I am very sorry to say that I will now have to say something critical of the Government on this subject. I will disappoint some of my friends in the Labor Party and say something about a few of the things the Prime Minister has been saying lately, particularly at Question Time, about our economic policy. I am delighted that the Prime Minister has been paying very close attention to our economic policy. I am very pleased that the has felt it necessary to talk about our economic policy at such length in Question Time. The only thing that disappoints me is that he has so totally misrepresented sections of the economic policy dealing with the disposal of assets. Everybody knows that the Prime Minister has tried to create unnecessary fear, alarm, concern and panic throughout Australia regarding some of those proposals. It is nowhere better illustrated than by the Commonwealth Bank. Do honourable members know what the Prime Minister said on 4 May in answer to a question from the Deputy Government Whip, the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham)? He said that the Opposition was talking about the dismantling of the basic economic infrastructure of this country. Nothing could be further from the truth . Nothing could be a more dishonest misrepresentation of what the Opposition is about in this area. Mr Griffiths —What did you say on 12 April? Mr HOWARD —I am glad that the honourable member has the right parts marked. Let me read the section that is relevant to the Commonwealth Bank. It says: The Coalition will undertake an examination of the role, structure and level of Government ownership and control of all other enterprises . . . I named the Commonwealth Bank. I went on to say, as undoubtedly honourable members have read: This examination will include an assessment of the desirability and feasibility of the disposal of the whole or part of the Government's interest in such enterprises. What is so revolutionary and dramatic about that? Does that in any way imply, as the Prime Minister has said it does, that we will flog things off in a careless and indifferent fashion? I will give the Prime Minister credit, as I have for the last 20 minutes, for showing courage and taking the right decisions in this area, but when he embarks upon this kind of misleading nonsense he brings no credit to himself or to his Government. He talked about the $1.4 billion available for housing, and about the 42,000 housing loans. He talked about all these things as though in some way they were under threat, as though in some way the Liberal and National Parties, when they are re-elected to the Government of this country, will take them away. It is totally dishonest of the Prime Minister to do that. It is quite wrong and misleading of him. If that is a sample of the kind of election campaign tactics we will have from this Prime Minister the level of debate will degenerate pretty badly by the time we get to election day. In no way will a Liberal and National Party government put at risk the deposits of people who have their money in the Commonwealth Bank . In no way will we dismantle a great Australian institution. In no way are the charges of the Prime Minister on this subject accurate. In fact, it is very interesting that one of the objectives of the Bill we are now debating is described in the explanatory memorandum in language which is very similar to the language in our policy. Perhaps the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown), the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths), the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) and all the others who are interested in this subject have not noticed that. This is what their explanatory memorandum-it is not the Liberals' policy-said: These changes were decided upon following a major review of the financial structure and organisation of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. That is the Hawke amendment. Our policy said that we would undertake an examination of the role, structure and level of government ownership and control . There is a lot of similarity between those words, but do I come in to this place and say that the Government is about dismantling the Commonwealth Bank and flogging it off? Of course I do not. I come into this place and give the Government a measure of responsible support. Government members ought to take apart those sections of the economic policy on which their argument is soundly based. They ought not to run around Australia making misleading statements about depositers' funds. That is a very irresponsible thing for a Prime Minister to do . He ought, on that subject, to be thoroughly ashamed of himself because he has embarked upon a process of total misinformation. There have been many occasions in the past on which people have talked about change in part of the ownership of the Commonwealth Bank. Would honourable members opposite seriously suggest that if a future government of either our persuasion or theirs decided to sell 20 per cent of the equity in the Commonwealth Bank to Australian shareholders that would be flogging off the Commonwealth Bank? Mr Robert Brown —Yes. Mr HOWARD —They would regard selling something to Australians as flogging off an asset of the Australian people? That is an incredible proposition. In other words, if a government dares to sell anything to ordinary little Australians, those people whom the present Treasurer was so ready to defend about 13 months ago-- Government members interjecting- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I suggest to honourable members that it would be a shame to spoil the bipartisanship. Mr HOWARD —Do not interrupt them, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am enjoying it. All honourable members opposite have to do is agree and we will have total bipartisanship. I have spent 80 per cent of my speech agreeing with them. If they agree with me for the last 20 per cent the whole thing will be complete. If we were to sell 20 per cent of that bank, not to dreaded multinational companies , not even to large Australian companies, but to ordinary Australian shareholders, that would represent, in the view of the Prime Minister, flogging it off. That is not necessarily our policy. I and my colleagues have made it perfectly clear that we will be making detailed policy statements in this area as time proceeds. We will put at rest the nonsense, the deceit and the misleading statements that have been made by the Prime Minister on this subject. As an example I quote the sort of thing that might occur with some of these undertakings. Are Government members seriously suggesting that if 20 per cent of Aussat Pty Ltd were to be sold to the Australian public, that would be flogging if off? If they are, they are disagreeing with their Treasurer, because he argued before the Cabinet about six months ago that more than 20 per cent of Aussat should be sold off to the Australian public. So do not come to me and say that selling 20 per cent to the Australian public represents flogging off the asset. I know darn well that he wanted 49 per cent to be sold to the Australian public. I bet he would not thank honourable members on the other side for saying that that represented flogging off assets. That is just an example of how mischievous and misleading the Government is. What a great pity it is that on an issue where it would be possible to get a real level of bipartisanship, the person who stopped that happening was the Prime Minister. I know there are differences of opinion within the Labor Party, but both major parties have been moving much closer towards common ground because the Government has been putting aside some of the attitudes that it had when it was in opposition. But unfortunately it is all spoilt because the Prime Minister has got to have his cheap political trick. He has got to be able to stir up a bit of fear and concern amongst people. He has got to talk about deposits being at risk and he has to refer to the large number of housing loans by the Commonwealth Bank as if in some way they would be at risk under this policy. Mr Uren —Like your former Prime Minister. Mr HOWARD —I have never heard anything that is more ridiculous. The Minister for Territories and Local Government can interrupt as much as he likes. I know darn well that his views on the financial system have well and truly been rolled. I know that he thought about deregulation when he was the housing spokesman for the Opposition. My God, deregulation was a terrible state and a terrible proposition. There is only one other thing I would like to say on this measure, and that is on the general question of deregulation. I know that on occasions there are some who say that deregulation is just some trendy fad and that people should not get too carried away with the benefits of it. I do not know whether honourable members opposite are fully aware of what has happened to employment in Australia over the last year. There has been a rise in the number of people employed; I am not denying that. There has not been much of a reduction in the total number of unemployed, but we will debate that on another occasion. But it is very interesting that the first of two areas where there has been a very significant rise in the number of people unemployed is in the government sector. I will restrain myself by not saying anything about that. The other area where there has been a rise has been the financial services sector. Over the last year there has been a rise of about 25,000 in the number of people employed in the financial services sector. That is a direct result of the new competition, the variety and the deregulation that have occurred under both governments in that area, and it gives the lie to those in the community who say that there are no visible benefits in it. At a time when manufacturing employment is lower than what it was a year ago, at a time when mining employment is still down, when retail employment is staggered and when in other portions of the private sector employment growth has been stagnant or negative, we find that in the financial services sector there is a rise of 25,000 people employed in a year. That is practical proof of the practical human benefits of deregulation. It is a fact that those on both sides of the House who support the cause of deregulation ought to say more about it, and it is something that gives the lie to a lot of the nonsense that has been spoken against deregulation by many people in the left wing of the Labor Party. Mr BEDDALL(Fadden)(9.14) —I support this legislation with a great deal of pleasure as I had the privilege of serving in the Commonwealth Banking Corporation for 12 years during the early part of my career. During those 12 years I got to know the workings of the Commonwealth Bank very well and to know the dedication of the staff. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) made some comments that we should not raise bogy men about what the Liberals may do if they ever unfortunately come back to power. Perhaps we should look back into history to see what they did when they returned to power after they had been out for some time and what the Menzies Government did to a number of government instrumentalities, such as the Commonwealth Oil Refineries, which it sold to BP Australia Ltd; and the AWA group, and Commonwealth Engineering Pty Ltd which Menzies sold off. I remember in my history lessons with the Commonwealth Bank that early in its time the Commonwealth Bank used to finance motor vehicles. The Menzies Government thought that this was not very fair because those great supporters of the Liberal Party, the finance companies, were finding it very hard to compete with the Commonwealth Bank. So it decided that the Commonwealth Bank could only finance station wagons. Due to the good judgment of the Australian people, station wagons became the biggest selling vehicles in Australia because they were financed by the Commonwealth Bank. The amendments in the legislation bring forward a number of vital changes because over a period the Commonwealth Bank has been criticised by many sectors that it has not been competitive. The Commonwealth Bank has been accused of inefficiency compared with its private bank competitors. Members of the Government, including me, reject that proposition. Since its creation in 1911 by the Commonwealth Banks Act, the Bank has not only had to compete with private banks, but also has had to withstand attacks from conservative State and Federal governments. The Commonwealth Bank has always played a vital role in the development of Australia. It has been consistently the largest lender of housing loans as well as being a major provider of funds for local government. This, in particular, is very important to most members of this House. Without the assistance of the Commonwealth Bank, many local authorities would have found it very difficult to fulfil their works programs and it is a role that the Commonwealth Bank has done for the betterment of this country. For too long whenever the Commonwealth Bank has performed well its opponents have used the criticism that it has an unfair advantage over its opposition. Amendments contained in this Bill address some of the previous criticisms and bring the Commonwealth Bank corporate structure more in line with business practices in Australia. The first of the amendments changes the name of the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia to that of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Secondly, the Commonwealth Savings Bank is now a subsidiary of the Commonwealth Bank, rather than a separate bank. These changes are rational, bring about a very sound corporate structure and enable the Bank to be proficient in the way it operates its business. Other changes include the provision of $20m of the reserves of the Commonwealth Savings Bank at 30 June 1984 to become the share capital of the Savings Bank. This capital is to be vested with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The Government has also provided for an additional injection of $15m to the capital of the Bank and a further transfer of $75m from the reserves of the Commonwealth Development Bank to the Commonwealth Bank as additional capital. These are very necessary changes and will give the Commonwealth Bank a large degree of liquidity and enable it to expand its operations in the future. Also in future the proportion of net profits that are to be paid by the Commonwealth Bank to the Commonwealth will be determined by the Treasurer, but shall not exceed 45 per cent compared with the current 50 per cent mandatory transfer of funds to the Commonwealth. The amendments also allow a more flexible management and board structure of the Commonwealth Bank so that past rigidity of Bank managements will no longer inhibit the operation of the Bank's senior executives. Finally, the amendment to remove the present exemption from company tax of the Commonwealth Savings Bank, Development Bank and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation as a whole, is a very vital change. Previously, only the Commonwealth Trading Bank has been subject to company tax. It is pleasing in this legislation to see that the whole corporate structure of the Commonwealth Bank will be subject to taxation. In my years of service with the Bank, the most common criticism levelled at the Commonwealth Bank by its opponents was that because it was not subject to company tax it had an unfair advantage over its private enterprise competitors. Some people even went as far as to say that if the Commonwealth Bank had been subject to taxation it would not have been able to exist in the corporate market. The proposition that was put by those people is one that I have always totally rejected. I have always found the Commonwealth Bank to be a very efficient organisation. I can remember back to the early computerisation done by the Commonwealth Bank. Computerisation of the Commonwealth Bank was probably the most successful of all banks, because the Commonwealth Bank had the sense to tell the computer companies about the system under which it operated and that the computers needed to work in that system, whereas many of the private banks bought a computer system and then tried to amend their procedures to fit in with the computer. The Commonwealth Bank computer system and its on-line telling machines, which were the first in Australia, were very much at the forefront of technological change in the Australian banking industry. I think they were of great credit to the Corporation. Many of the services that the Bank has introduced were leaders in the banking field. We have looked at a whole range of issues and services that the Bank now provides. It provides a very efficient world-wide network for its corporate clients. The Commonwealth Bank is in the position of being able to compete with a vast range of services. The honourable member for Bennelong mentioned the vast number of school children who learnt how to save through the Commonwealth Bank. I think that is one of the most vital areas in which the Commonwealth Bank used to participate. I can remember very memorable days when I used to do school savings bank transactions. One of our most enjoyable tasks was of great credit to the Commonwealth Bank. It used to have a policy of sending Commonwealth Bank officers to the schools for the handicapped near the branch in which I worked to teach the intellectually handicapped and the disabled the systems of banking. This was a community service that the Commonwealth Bank provided. It was of great benefit to society. In the early days, the private banks were not very interested in savings banks. They learnt, to their detriment later, that many people who learnt to save with the Commonwealth Bank tended to stay with the Commonwealth Bank and bank with it throughout their banking careers. There is now a great cry from many of the private banks that they should get into the system. I understand they have been successful in some schools. The Commonwealth Bank has grown enormously over the last 10 years. In 1974 the Commonwealth Trading Bank had assets of $3,447m. Today it has assets of $13,527m . The Commonwealth Banking Corporation as a whole has assets of some $26,201m. So I understand when the honourable member for Benelong says that he would find it difficult to justify selling off the Commonwealth Bank. I think it would be very difficult to find somebody within Australia with enough capital to buy it. The Commonwealth Bank has shown that an Australian government enterprise can compete with private enterprises in a heavily mixed economy. In fact, I maintain that without the Commonwealth Bank, Australia's banking system would be a much less competitive sector of the Australian economy. In Australia, we have often discussed the banking system in isolation, compared with the financial systems. One of the great recent innovations at the Commonwealth Bank has been the operation of the Commonwealth Bank Finance Corporation. Having worked in the finance industry, I think that the operations and methods of the Commonwealth Bank Finance Corporation keep many of its competitors extremely honest. Without the influence of the Commonwealth Bank Finance Corporation in that sector, I think that many of the interest rates that business has to pay and ordinary consumers have to pay would have been much higher. The Commonwealth Bank Finance Corporation has always operated on a much smaller lending margin than have other private finance companies, even though it raised its capital in similar ways. Other areas in which the Commonwealth Bank has expanded in the last few years include the provision of the Commonwealth Bank Travel Service. This has been extremely successful, with 24 full time officers in Australia, and it operates throughout the thousand-odd Commonwealth Bank branches. At a time last year when travel was restricted and not as profitable, the Commonwealth Bank Travel Service grew by some 21 per cent. This showed that it was fulfilling a further need in the community. The amendments proposed in this Bill are very sensible. I urge the Government to continue to consult with the Commonwealth Bank so that its legislation can be upgraded in many other areas. I urge the Government to look at developing more strategies for the Commonwealth Bank to invest in industry, particularly through the Commonwealth Development Bank. Changes have already been made in that area. With the limited amount of time available, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to this Bill and I commend the Bill to the House. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(10.24) —In this debate on the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1984 I would like to examine the legislation from the small business point of view, to look at the operations of the Commonwealth Bank and the Commonwealth Development Bank from the point of view of small business. One of the greatest problems facing small and medium sized businesses and enterprises in Australia is and has been the lack of appropriate finance, either loan or capital. The Commonwealth Development bank has played its part in making funds available to small business. What are we talking about when we talk about the size of the small business sector? There are some 750,000 enterprises in Australia. Ninety- nine per cent of them employ fewer than 100 people. Ninety-three per cent of them employ fewer than 10 people. So when we talk about small business we are, in fact, talking about the vast majority, the bulk, of firms, businesses and enterprises in Australia. So small business is important. The Commonwealth Bank, particularly the Commonwealth Development Bank, which, under this legislation, will become a subsidiary of the Commonwealth Bank, has been an important lender to small business. I think it is worth reminding the Government that the former Government's commitment to the Commonwealth Development Bank should be remembered. The previous Government had a great record. I pay tribute to Sir Phillip Lynch who, as Treasurer, changed the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank to enable it to lend to small business and greater funds were committed to the Commonwealth Development Bank under the former Government. Let us look at the arrangements that might occur under this legislation when the Commonwealth Development Bank becomes a subsidiary of the Commonwealth Bank rather than a separate organisation. I would like the Treasurer (Mr Keating), in concluding this debate, to give some answers on that. The Government has not revealed what the new arrangements will be. As I have said, the Commonwealth Development Bank is now, and will be until this legislation is passed, a separate bank. Now that it is to merge or become a subsidiary, one has to ask whether the Board and the Managing Director will, in fact, have a conflict of interest, because at present all the private banks act as agents for the existing Commonwealth Development Bank. Will the private banks-this is a very serious question- have the same confidence in the Commonwealth Development Bank now as they have had in the past because they are now dealing directly with a competitor? Mr Uren —You are always against the people's interest and protecting the private interest. Mr SHIPTON —The Minister may interject, but it is a serious question because the amendments may, in fact, defeat the purpose of the Act. I know that left wing socialists such as he is might not understand that, but that is the truth of the matter. I am asking a legitimate question. We might, in fact, be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Mr Uren —Why should you be always protecting the very wealthy? Mr SHIPTON —I am asking honourable members opposite, including the Minister who is interjecting, to state what are the management procedures. I think that the Commonwealth Development Bank, its customers and potential customers, members of this House, the people of Australia and every small business ought to know whether, in fact, they can go to their own bank manager, whether it is a private bank or a government bank, and still deal as a lender of last resort with the Commonwealth Development Bank, which will now be a subsidiary, or whether there will be a conflict of interest and in fact they will not be able to do so. It is a most serious question. All this proves to me more and more that the entry of foreign banks into Australia is needed. Undoubtedly, we need to assist small business by allowing the entry of foreign banks into Australia. However, I will come to that in a second. The Government and the Commonwealth Bank must establish a set of procedures and guidelines so that the private banks can have confidence in the new arrangements and so that the Managing Director and Board of the Commonwealth Bank do not have a conflict of interest. The Commonwealth Development Bank is losing its independence, the independence that it has had to deal with small business. That is at real risk under this legislation. Let us consider the question of the entry of foreign banks into Australia. Before I do that, I pay tribute to the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the former Treasurer and present shadow Treasurer. He has been criticised by the Government tonight, but none of the deregulation that has occurred in the Australian banking and financial system under the Hawke Government, for which the shadow Treasurer tonight gave the Government support, saying that it had bipartisan support in this Parliament, would have come about in Australia but for the honourable member for Bennelong. If he as Treasurer had not caused the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System to operate, we would not have had the Campbell report and we would not have had the climate, the discussion and the debate on deregulation which were started by the former Treasurer, the current shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong. Indeed, if the honourable member for Bennelong had not, in January 1983, made the decision that he referred to during the debate this evening-the decision in principle by the former Government to allow for the initial entry into the Australian banking system of around 10 banks-we would not be having this debate in Australia today. The Government would not have had the report of the Martin Committee on the Review of the Australian Financial System. The whole foreign bank debate would not be occurring. We would still be in the dark ages. I think that the shadow Treasurer has been magnanimous in supporting the Government. But what about a little support and congratulations for the honourable member for Bennelong? What about some recognition for the role he has played in the debate on deregulation? The benefits that are occuring in the Australian financial system to customers and borrowers-and, after all, people are what it is all about-who deal with banks would not have taken place but for the honourable member for Bennelong. I would like the next speaker on the Government side and the Treasurer when he is summing up in the debate, in the spirit of bipartisanship that the honourable member for Bennelong has expressed, to reciprocate in some way because without these achievements we would have had nothing. I return to the subject of foreign banks. I believe that small and medium sized businesses will gain the biggest advantage by the entry of foreign banks. It is time that the Government stepped in and made a decision, and I will say more about that in a moment. More banks mean more competition and that means a better deal for small businesses and customers because if small businesses can borrow and get funds in a competitive financial system they can invest and that will create jobs. Undoubtedly, the flexibility and range of overseas lending techniques and know-how that foreign banks have should make more money available to the small business sector and provide more competition in the Australian banking system that can only benefit Australian consumers. The operation of foreign banks should widen the availability of methods of financing which are not readily accessible to the small business sector at this time. Forms of lending would, I believe, be based on more flexible terms as found overseas. Without doubt, the experience of overseas and international banks which provide a range of services for small business will be of assistance and will widen the availability of finance for Australia's small business. The honourable member for Bennelong, the Opposition spokesman on this subject and shadow Treasurer, talked of the bipartisan approach of the Opposition. I referred to the contribution he made when leading for the Opposition in this debate. But what worries me is that the Government in fact will not be able to act. As I said, but for the former Government and the persistence of the honourable member for Bennelong we would not be here debating this matter tonight. I believe that the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer have nearly gone about as far as the left wing-the socialist Left, some of whom are in the chamber tonight-will let them go. The Government is unable to make a decision on this matter. It is paralysed at present because it is awaiting the July conference of the Australian Labor Party before it can make a decision. Tonight the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman) indicated by way of interjection to the honourable member for Bennelong that in fact he was not too keen in letting any foreign banks in at all. What worries me is that the debate has been deferred. The Prime Minister and Treasurer will have the rug pulled from under them at the July conference and we will not be allowed to have any foreign banks at all. That would be a great tragedy. I think it is a touch and go situation at present as to whether the Government will be able to legislate and allow foreign banks to compete in Australia because the socialist Left is marshalling its forces for that July conference. In the time remaining, I should like to examine the size of the government banking sector and the private banking sector in Australia. Approximately 56.4 per cent of savings banks in Australia are government banks-that is, a combination of the various State banks and the Commonwealth Bank. The Commonwealth Bank represents 32.9 per cent in terms of assets, and the various State banks represent 23.5 per cent. So 56 per cent of savings banks are owned by the government sector. In the trading bank sector, about 30 per cent of the banks are government banks. Considering together the 30 per cent of banks in the trading bank sector that are government banks and the 56 per cent of banks in the savings bank sector that are government banks, one can appreciate that there is only a limited private sector trading bank operation. The mergers of trading banks that have recently taken place have led to a concentration in the hands of the majors-the Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, National Australian Bank and the Westpac Banking Corporation. Those mergers took place in rationalisation preparatory to the anticipated entry of foreign banks under the previous Government. That makes it all the more important to have competition in our banking system from the entry of foreign banks, and this to restore the balance. There is a serious threat of too much government banking and not enough private sector trading banking. After all, competition is what it is all about. To me, this points to all the more need for foreign banks. I believe that we need foreign banks. I conclude my remarks on this legislation by referring to the Opposition's economic policy, to which the honourable member for Bennelong referred. Under the coalition's economic policy, the Commonwealth Bank will be a great bank, a more efficient bank, and a more effective bank. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(9.38) —I congratulate the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Beddall) on his speech, particularly as he is the first Commonwealth Bank employee from Queensland who has been elected to this House. The Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1984 has been formulated with a view to improving the financial and administrative structure of the constituent banks of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation so that they are better able to compete with other major banking and non-banking institutions. It is interesting to note what was said by the Prime Minister and Treasurer, Mr Andrew Fisher, on 15 November 1911, when the Commonwealth Bank Bill had its second reading. He said: This will be a bank belonging to the people and directly managed by the people' s own agents. Of course, in those days, as now, some honourable members were concerned about States rights, and a good deal of the debate was taken up with the unfair competition for the State savings banks which would result from the creation of the new Commonwealth Bank. A major reconstitution of the Commonwealth Bank took place in 1959. When the Treasurer, Mr Harold Holt, introduced the second reading of the Commonwealth Bank Bill 1959, members of my Party at that time were most concerned that the Bill enabled the structure of the existing Commonwealth Bank to be dismembered and, in consequence, reduced its effectiveness as a competitor of the private banks. The present Bill before the House will remove a number of the restrictions in the 1959 Act which were so vigorously objected to by the Labor Party in opposition. The present Bill will re-establish the original name of the Commonwealth Bank and will make the Commonwealth Savings Bank a wholly owned subsidiary of the trading bank. As the then Acting Treasurer, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) indicated, this will mean that there will be far more scope for improvement in the range of services offered by both banks. With the decision by the Board of the Corporation to revalue their premises in accordance with current market valuations and the addition of $15m from the Government plus a $75m transfer from the Commonwealth Development Bank, the capital structure of the Commonwealth Bank will provide a strong financial base for an expansion of its activities. I am not quite sure who said it but the comment that bankers and financiers are generally in favour of tight money, loose regulation and a warm place to count the profits is most apt in relation to the current debate about necessary changes to the banking system in Australia. I am pleased that the people's bank, as the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) called it, the Commonwealth Bank , is to become more competitive in relation to the private banks. However, I am a little worried as to whether the Bank regards itself as the people's bank or whether it will be able, even with its enlarged capital base, to resist an onslaught from the international banking and financial institutions. One of the difficulties of any discussion involving Australian banks is to ascertain exactly how their financial structures are linked with foreign banks. Australian banks are not large by world standards. Even the Westpac Banking Corporation is only No. 72 in world ranking size. The largest banking group in the world is Citicorp, with assets of about $US110 billion. This bank is so large that, by itself, it is larger than all of the major Australian banks put together, including the Commonwealth Bank. It is worthy of note that this foreign bank was accused of evasion of regulations and falsification of documents after an in-house study by a United States House of Representatives sub-committee report. According to the study, the report and the Citicorp documents submitted to the sub-committee indicated that the bank resorted to numerous devices to evade the banking laws of foreign countries in which it operated. If this bank is ever allowed to commence full- scale operations in Australia the Commonwealth Bank would need government intervention to prevent it from being subjected to the questionable trading practices of Citicorp. The documents detailed questionable banking dealings in Germany, Britain, France and 13 other countries, including seven countries in Europe and seven in Asia. Naturally enough, tax evasion headed the list of questionable practices as this is probably one of the most profitable areas for foreign bank dealing in countries lacking the huge financial resources of Citicorp. Citicorp has not escaped retribution for its shady activities as it has agreed to pay over $11m in back taxes on its illegal foreign exchange transactions in at least one country. The dealings of Citicorp pose a threat to the whole international financial system according to the report. A senior Commonwealth Bank official commented to me several days ago when I indicated my fears about the licensing of some foreign banks for trading bank operations in Australia that the Commonwealth Bank had no fears about overseas competition. I am afraid I do not share his confidence. Banks rely on each other for 70 per cent of their loans and, in consequence, the problems of one bank can be transmitted to another through the inter-bank market. The United States report started: Citibank is no ordinary bank; when it gambles the entire financial system is in on the bet. Since Citibank is one of the largest banks world-wide and the largest player in the Eurodollar market, it has the potential for creating a very systemic disturbance. The Euro currency market is relatively unregulated and the trans-financial institutions, such as Citicorp, have a history of continually trying to avoid government regulation. There are lessons for Australia in the mounting statistical evidence of the increasing inter-penetration of foreign ownership and control of our financial system. There is no doubt that the restructuring of the Commonwealth Bank will result in a more flexible and a more efficient organisation, together with an additional strengthening of its financial resources. Hopefully, the efficiency resulting from the restructuring will mean an expansion of activities requiring additional staff to balance the loss of staff which will inevitably result from the technological changes in the financial business of the bank. I trust that the Bank will ensure that the employees do not suffer any financial hardship if staff members are reduced. I am concerned that even a strengthening of the financial structure of the Commonwealth Bank will not withstand the onslaught of foreign banks such as Citibank and Deutsche Bank if those banks are granted licences for full trading and savings banks operations in Australia. It is noticeable that the foreign banks have stepped up their lobbying for banking licences over the last few years. However, it is quite clear from their overseas record that they do not want to be involved in setting up branch networks all over Australia to provide services for the needs of the small business and domestic customers of Australian banks. They are interested only in the highly profitable area of lending money to corporations and to governments and their institutions. The result of foreign banks being allowed a wider range of financial activities would be an acceleration in the present rationalisation of banking operations in Australia with cut-backs in staff and services and a higher cost of banking for the Australian public. The international capital market is one of the main reasons for the instability of the international capitalist system because it acts virtually outside the control of the countries of the world. In this sense it is vital that the Government resists foreign bank pressure to give trading bank status so that the Commonwealth Bank can establish itself on the basis of its new financial structure without being subject to the questionable business practices of the foreign banks. There is one other matter I would like to refer to before I conclude my remarks on the Bill. I commend the Government for repealing section 95 of the 1959 Principal Act and replacing it with a new section 95 which reduces the outdated restrictions on the appointment of university graduates in relation to age and numbers. The new section also covers graduates of colleges of advanced education and other tertiary institutions, as previously they could have been required to complete the entrance examination. However, I notice that there has been no attempt to include some form of employee participation in the decision-making structure of the Bank. It would no doubt be argued by some people that it would be quite inappropriate or even improper for employees to play any part in the decision-making structure of a bank. That is a view which I believe is becoming rapidly outdated, as the number of employee representations on governing boards of public corporations all over Australia can testify. Section 16 of the principal Act in fact appears specifically to disqualify any officer or any employee of the Bank from being appointed to membership of the governing board. The Federal Australian Labor Party Government should ensure whenever it has the opportunity that the participation of employees of all public corporations in the decision-making structures of their work place is supported by legislative measures. The implementation of employees decision-making processes is part of a total process of industrial democracy which in its turn can lead to a greater participation by the people in the processes of government. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(9.48) —I have a number of concerns about the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill before the House this evening insofar as it relates to the Commonwealth Development Bank. One hardly need point out the importance of the Commonwealth Development Bank to rural producers in this country as well as, in later days, to small business. It is interesting to note that no Government speaker, certainly not the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), in his second reading speech, has addressed himself or herself to this very important factor; that is, how does the Commonwealth Development Bank fare under this legislation? My colleague and good friend the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) touched on some of his concerns a little earlier, and I am grateful to him for raising those matters before the Parliament this evening. More particularly, it needs to be pointed out to honourable members on the Government benches that the Commonwealth Development Bank over the last 24 years has made a great many contributions to developments within rural Australia. The Commonwealth Development Bank has always been the bank of last resort to which primary producers and, in later days, small businessmen can go to obtain funding because the Commonwealth Development Bank does not require the same amount of capital from its borrowers. The fact is that so many projects that we see in Gippsland and throughout rural Australia would not have come about but for the Commonwealth Development Bank. My concern, and I wish to raise these questions with the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), is how the Commonwealth Development Bank is treated under this legislation. I have three major concerns. First there is the matter under the legislation of a transfer of $75m from the Development Bank's reserves to the newly formed Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Just how is this to be done? Can any member of the Government or the Minister advise this House and rural Australia how this $ 75m is to be transferred from the Development Bank to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia? Mr Groom —We want the answer tonight. Mr McGAURAN —We want the answer tonight, as the honourable member for Braddon so wisely interjects. Neither the Treasurer's Press release, his second reading speech, nor the legislation details for us how this reserve is to be transferred . How that $75m is to be transfered has the most profound implications for the standing and financial status of the Development Bank. If the transfer is effected by a book entry which reduces the Development Bank's reserves and correspondingly increases the Development Bank's liability to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the CBA will charge interest on what is effectively a loan to the Development Bank. The reason is that from the point of view of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the cost of this loan is the interest which it would otherwise have received had it not lent the money to the Development Bank. Before coming into this House this evening I did some research on the current interest rates both on small overdrafts and uncontrolled overdrafts. Of course, the measure taken by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to determine what interest rate is to be applied will determine the amount of money that must be paid by the Development Bank. But certainly, on my calculations, the mid-point of the range of the various interests rates is 13.6 per cent. Mr Braithwaite —That is before the establishment fee. Mr McGAURAN —That is before the establishment fee. If we apply this rate to the $75m, it yields $10m in interest. So I say to the Minister that, unless he advises this House how the transfer is to be taken, we can conclude only that by way of a book entry the Development Bank will be out of pocket to the tune of $ 10m. Of course, this will have a subsequent effect on the many borrowers of the Development Bank because the Bank will have to increase its interest rates as a result. Mr Groom —Small businessmen will suffer. Mr McGAURAN —Small businessmen also will suffer, as the honourable member for Braddon said. Mr Braithwaite —And primary producers. Mr McGAURAN —Of course, primary produces will also suffer. Most borrowers with the Development Bank have a floating interest rate. Therefore, if the Development Bank has to borrow money or incurs extra charges, those charges, those costs, are passed on to the borrower. I should be grateful if the Government would address itself to this vital issue this evening. The second concern I have with the legislation, so far as the Development Bank is concerned, is the imposition, for the first time in the Development Bank's history, of company tax. This will be at a rate of 46c in the dollar. Last year the Development Bank accumulated, through wise management, good policies and careful management, a profit of $23m. If company tax had been applied last year- we cannot be certain that that same profit will be produced in this financial year; it may be higher or lower-the Development Bank would have paid $10.6m in taxation. The Development Bank is, therefore, left with two alternatives. One is that it can reduce by that same amount the amount it allows out to be borrowed, as a result of which primary producers and small businessmen would not be able to borrow that amount of $10.6m. The other alternative is that the Development Bank can borrow that money in the commercial market-place at commercial interest rates thereby, of course, incurring further interest, further charges, again to be passed on to the borrower. Either one of those alternatives will result in increased cost to borrowers. Mr Braithwaite —And a reduction of loans available. Mr McGAURAN —Or a reduction of loans available. If this Government is fair dinkum about assisting rural Australia or small businesses it will not tax to this extent the Development Bank. The Development Bank has a special place, a special role, to fulfil in our banking system in the economy of rural Australia. Yet this Government in a contemptuous fashion, in a sly, underhanded fashion, is attempting to upset the balance that has been carefully created to assist those disadvantaged and adventurous primary producers who simply want to get on in life. They are people who will work, borrow money and produce for this country, and yet this Government is saying that they cannot do that to the same extent. My third concern, which is not properly addressed by the legislation, is what effect the restructuring of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia will have on the Development Bank. Under the previous structure, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation had three wings, shall we say. It had the Trading Bank, the Savings Bank, and of course, the Development Bank. Presiding over all of these three banks was a managing director and a deputy managing director who reported to the board. This legislation more or less merges the Savings Bank and the Trading Bank by making the Savings Bank a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trading Bank. That appears to be slightly confusing but in plain English it merges the trading and savings banks. Therefore, on the one hand we would have a huge banking organisation and on the other the Development Bank, both of which come under a managing director and a deputy managing director. My point is that a conflict of interests could easily arise between what are now two wings of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. No longer are there three wings; there are two, and one is clearly larger than the other. It is interesting to note that 70 per cent of the Development Bank's clients, its borrowers, are referred to it or are clients of private banks. Only one- third or 30 per cent are clients of the Commonwealth Trading Bank. Therefore we have a situation in which a conflict of interests, a parting of ways, could easily occur. Yet what protection is there of the independence and the strength of the Development Bank to determine its own decisions? Where is the protection of that essential right that the Development Bank remain independent, a fighter and a provider for rural Australia? The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) has entered the chamber-that is a good thing because he represents a rural electorate-even though the debate will conclude in 30 minutes. Where do the honourable member for Bendigo and other members of rural electorates on the Government side stand on this issue? It is interesting to note, although it is quite expected, that only one member of the Government who represents a rural electorate is in the chamber. I ask where the honourable member for Bendigo stands. Does he stand to protect his constituents? Does he stand to protect rural Australia and small businesses or will he fall in line with the overpowering, overriding concerns of his left wing Government? It is of particular interest, besides the presence of the honourable member for Bendigo, that the Minister for Territories and Local Government has charge of the Bill this evening. He is an outstanding member of the socialist Left. As I put these three matters to the Minister, I do not expect an answer of any substance, yet perhaps he will take my concerns, my questions, to the Treasurer and provide this House with specific answers to my specific questions, specific concerns. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(10.00) —At the outset of my remarks on the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill I make a couple of comments in respect of the matters raised by my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) . Some years ago I was a constituent of the electorate of Gippsland but I am very glad that I am not now. Indeed, if it were encumbent upon me to choose an area of country Victoria in which to reside, I would have absolutely no hesitation in choosing Bendigo, because in Bendigo, unlike Gippsland, the representation at the Federal level is outstanding. Mr McGauran —Why isn't he speaking? Mr GRIFFITHS —The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) does not rely on rhetorical flourish. He relies on hard work for his constituents. Let me get back to some of the comments made by my colleague the agrarian socialist from the National Party of Australia. He talked about the need to improve the operations of what will be the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, as well he should . The Commonwealth Bank was formed as a result of a Labor government initiative. The honourable member for Gippsland quite rightly gave credit by implication to a former Labor government for so doing and it is important to note, having regard to his comments, that over time the bank has fallen back because of its relatively antiquated structure. For example, I inform the honourable member for Gippsland about the gearing ratio. Mr Brumby —He would not understand that. Mr GRIFFITHS —He might know about the gearing ratio in England. He is nodding his head. Perhaps he can tell us. No, the honourable member for Gippsland is unaware of the gearing ratio. I inform the House that the gearing ratio in the United Kingdom is approximately 70 to 1. Mr McGauran —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order is simply that a question was put to me but I gave no answer. I do know the gearing ratio. It is a dishonest misrepresentation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) — Order! There is no point of order. Mr GRIFFITHS —Madam Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Gippsland also adverted to the policies of the socalled left wing Government. I shall not comment on that, apart from noting that my colleague the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) nearly fell off his chair when that comment was made. I think that was evidence of the attitude of many people in our community. Let us get back to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. If the honourable member for Gippsland is to represent his constituents properly he ought to dwell for some moments on the comments I am about to make. It is obvious that at the recent Liberal Party Thredbo retreat a group of members of the Liberal Party sat around the fire in the evening, I suppose over a brandy or two, and tried to come up with some policies. What did they come up with? Mr Brumby —Nothing. Mr GRIFFITHS —In a word, nothing. I thank the honourable member for Bendigo for his assistance. In fact they did come up with a couple of suggestions, amongst which was the selling off of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Mr McGauran —Stick to the Bill. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I ask the honourable member for Maribyrnong to keep to the Bill at hand and I ask the honourable member for Gippsland to cease interjecting. Mr GRIFFITHS —Madam Deputy Speaker, I am addressing myself to the Bill before the House. In fact, I was commenting on why the Opposition came to this ludicrous decision to sell off the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. If the honourable member for Gippsland endorses in its totality the role of the Commonwealth Bank, as he has done, and particularly its historical role in country Australia, he ought to show the intestinal fortitude to address his comments to the views of the Liberal component of this discredited Opposition because, in a word, the Liberals want to sell it off. Earlier this evening the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) tried to manoeuvre his way out of that position, as well he might have, but of course on 14 April this year the Liberal Party put out a Press release and I draw the attention of the House to a small component of that release. It stated: A Coalition government would dispose of those commercial enterprises or their assets wholly or partly owned by the Government . . . It goes on to say, mentioning the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and many others : This examination will include an assessment of the desirability and feasibility of the disposal of the whole or part of the Government's interest in such enterprises. The backpedalling tonight on this issue of the honourable member for Bennelong reminded me very much indeed- Opposition members interjecting- Mr GRIFFITHS —Well might Opposition members interject because this will be a major issue at the next election. They want to sell the great Australian institutions to their corporate mates. Well might the honourable member for Bennelong be in retreat tonight, talking about 20 per cent only. Would that 20 per cent go to ordinary Australians? Of course not. Mr Twenty Per Cent would hock the assets of this great Australian institution to his mates. If we go back in history we will find that that is what happened previously. We heard earlier tonight that the Commonwealth oil refineries were sold holus bolus to the corporate mates of honourable members opposite. Let us dwell for a moment on why the Opposition went into retreat on this issue. Amongst other things, it did so because of a couple of editorials from which I will quote. The Sunday Mail of 15 April stated: Nor will the conservative parties win votes by offering to sell . . . the Commonwealth Bank. The West Australian of 16 April, in describing the policy as unimaginative and stale, stated: . . . the coalition could have been expected to produce a few more fresh ideas. That is certainly a view endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the Australian community. That is not all it would do. It would not hock only the Commonwealth Bank and in so doing abrogate its responsibilities to country Australians, those who have benefited over very many years indeed from this great Australian institution. Of course, I do not need to remind the House that this great Australian institution was established by the Labor Party. The National Party member for Gippsland spent a great deal of time- Mr Brumby —He is too young. Mr GRIFFITHS —He may not be aware of that as he is too young. I notice that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) is here. Perhaps the honourable member for Franklin will address himself to the next question. The Liberal Party also wants to sell the Australian National Line. What will that do for Tasmania? I will tell the House what it will do for Tasmania. Mr Groom —Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Apart from being quite untrue, the honourable member's comments are not relevant to the Bill. The Australian National Line is not mentioned in this Bill. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) — Order! I accept the point of order. I ask the honourable member for Maribyrnong to restrict his comments to the Bill under discussion at the moment. Mr GRIFFITHS —There is a well known and long-standing relationship between the Commonwealth Bank and Telecom Australia. I ask the Opposition to state what it intends to do with Telecom. What will happen to country consumers if Telecom is sold off? Mr McGauran —Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe a grave insult has been delivered to the Chair in the last few moments. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the honourable member for Gippsland raising a point of order? Mr McGauran —Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point of order is that he honourable member for Maribyrnong- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr GRIFFITHS —When the honourable member for Bennelong backpedalled so rapidly on this issue tonight I was reminded of a meeting I had many years ago with a gentleman who was describing to me the history of the attacks on Darwin during the Second World War. I said to him: 'You were in Darwin at that time?' He said: 'Yes, I was there for a short while. Shortly after that I was in Tennant Creek'. I said to him: 'How did you get to Tennant Creek?' He said: 'On my bicycle'. I said: 'How long did it take you to get to Tennant Creek on your bicycle?' He said: 'Three days'. I said: 'Three days! That was doing it all right'. He said: 'Well, as a matter of fact it didn't even have a chain on it'. He moved so quickly in the face of adversity that I was reminded of that instance listening to the honourable member for Bennelong tonight. He is the latter day equivalent. There are many complex issues relating to this- Mr McGauran —And you have not addressed any of them. Mr GRIFFITHS —The honourable member for Gippsland inspires me to comment again. Mr Howard —Will you give us a signal when to laugh at that? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Maribyrnong is the only member in this House who has the call. Would others please be quiet. Mr GRIFFITHS —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Gippsland, in his rhetorical flourish, has inspired me to comment once again on the implications for country Australians of the selling off of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The implications are quite clear. Those constituents whom the honourable member for Gippsland would profess to represent in this House would be quite significantly disadvantaged, because the Commonwealth Bank of Australia has a long history indeed of directing most of its attention, or a good part of its attention, to the benefit of country Australians. I hope that the honourable member for Gippsland will show the intestinal fortitude to consult with some of his Liberal Party colleagues this evening and to impress upon them the undesirability of hawking off this great Australian institution to the Liberal Party supporters. My colleague, the honourable member for Bendigo, of course is well aware of the implications of this for country Australians. I know that he has pressed very strongly that this Australian institution not be sold off but that its role for country Australians be enhanced so that he can better represent the electorate of Bendigo. He ought to be given credit for that. The Opposition ought to remember one thing about this issue: It ought to get with the strength and continually support the Government's policies because they have been proven to be successful. To use the Commonwealth Bank term, it should 'get with the strength'. But it should also do something else: It should never forget that the elephant never forgets and that any party that goes to the Australian community with these sorts of policies, particularly a policy that would sell down the drain this great Australian institution, will receive a response from the Australian community that will resound very long in its ears after the next election, whenever that may be. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(10.13) —I use the occasion of speaking on the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill to refer to a great member of the Australian Labor Party. I am not speaking about the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths). He said that he would not want to live in Gippsland. The people there would not want him. The man I want to speak about tonight is the great King O'Malley who formerly represented the seat that I now represent, which was then called Darwin . Mr Robert Brown —A great Australian. Mr GROOM —He was a great Australian and a great character, one of the great characters produced in this House. He was the driving force which established the first Commonwealth Bank in 1912. He had a lot of opposition in those days. There were splits in the Labor Party then as there are now. Many people within the Labor Party worked against King O'Malley and did not believe that his idea was worthwhile. But through his strength of character and perseverance he fought Fisher; he fought Hughes, who was involved in those days; and he fought other colleagues. He finished up getting this great Commonwealth Bank established. He was always proud of the Bank. It was almost an obsession with him. When the doors of the Bank first opened in July 1912, Fisher was the first man to deposit funds. The second depositor was the notorious John Wren. The third depositor was King O'Malley. He was a very interesting character. He was a true troglodyte because he actually lived in a cave for two years. I think that some honourable members opposite should try the same trick. Mr Griffiths —At Thredbo. Mr GROOM —The honourable member mentioned Thredbo. His comments on Thredbo were quite dishonest. I think the Australian Labor Party is playing dirty tricks. Mr Griffiths —Would you like to read the release? Mr GROOM —Yes, I would like to read the honourable member's release. I am sure it is quite dishonest as his comments were quite dishonest. The Thredbo weekend was a working weekend. Frankly, the Liberal Party of Australia is very proud of what was achieved at Thredbo. The thrust which commenced at Thredbo- Mr Chynoweth —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member is not addressing his comments to the Bill. Could you bring him back to it? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Braddon. Mr GROOM —Madam Deputy Speaker, I am addressing my remarks to the subject matter of the Bill because I am going to get on to something that the honourable member for Maribyrnong mentioned earlier. The thrust which was developed at Thredbo will take the Liberal Party on to victory at the next election. I know that the Labor Party is worried about what has been achieved. We have seen this in the House this week. The Labor Party and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have been worried about the enthusiasm on this side of the House. There is certainly plenty of it now. We are full of confidence and running for victory at the next election. Government members have mentioned the policy of the Liberal Party. They have distorted that policy. We have not made any announcement that in office we would sell the Commonwealth Bank. In fact, what we have said-I make it quite clear to the House-is that there would be an inquiry into the Bank to see whether it is serving the public interest. We will look at the role of the Bank, the Government involvement in the Bank and will see how the Bank and its organisation might be improved. What is wrong with that kind of inquiry? That is part of the policy. We are looking at this question of privatisation which is very important. We believe in private enterprise. We believe it is a more efficient system than Government enterprise. We are not going to go off half cocked about this. We would look at the facts and have a proper thoughtful inquiry to see what might be done. I mentioned King O'Malley and what a great character he was. He was a very unusual character. I want to mention some of the great members we have had from Tasmania: The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). There are many similarities. He is another great Tasmanian and a great fighter for Tasmania as O'Malley was and a Labor man and I give him credit for that. That is not the honourable member for Franklin. He is a true Liberal, but, as I say, he is a great character too. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) is also a great character and great fighter for Tasmania. I take this occasion to mention the fact that I will not be standing at the next election. There are personal family reasons for that. One of the great regrets I have is that I will not continue to be a part of this team of Newman, Goodluck and our other colleagues who have fought so hard for Tasmania in this House. Government members interjecting- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask Government members to cease interjecting. The speech of the honourable member for Braddon is very interesting, but I hope he will come to the point of the Bill. Mr GROOM —I want to talk about two particular matters: I refer to the 1983 annual report of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. Page 15 the report mentions the Bank's involvement in lending for housing. It states: The CSB's housing loan approvals for 1982/83 reached a record level of $1,285 million, an increase of 29 per cent over the previous record achieved in 1981/82 . This lending represents 35 per cent of the total housing loan approvals by all savings banks and underlines the CSB's pre-eminent position as the largest lender for housing in Australia. The total amount outstanding in CSB housing loans at 30 June 1983 was $5,050 million. Housing loan interest rates were reduced by up to 1 per cent pa during the year . That is very good. At 30 June 1983 the predominant CSB interest rate for housing was 12.5 per cent pa. This is a very important subject. I just want to make one particular point about housing interest rates. I know it is a matter of some concern to people who have borrowed funds to purchase or build a home. We have had a system in Australia over the years whereby we have had fixed rates of interest, or at least they have been fixed for a period. Let us look at the Commonwealth Bank's own practice. Between 1946 and 1963 housing interest rates tended to be fixed for a 10-year period. At the end of the 10-year period they would be reviewed and would be fixed for a further period which would normally be a further 10 years. Between 1963 and 1965 loans were fixed for five years. Between 1965 and 1969 the interest rate on loans was fixed for three years. The period has been reducing as time has gone on. More recently, of course, the housing loan interest rate has been adjusting from time to time as market rates have changed. So people may have ups and downs in the rate of interest they are paying on their house. In recent times, interest rates have been very high. This has made it very difficult for people purchasing a house. The sad fact is that so many people are not able to reduce the amount of capital they borrow. It may be that for half of the period of the loan all they are doing is repaying interest and not capital. Many people have come into my office most surprised when, having had a housing loan for perhaps 15 years and believing they had paid off a fair bit of the capital, they are told by the bank-perhaps the Commonwealth Bank, another bank or a building society-that they have reduced their capital by only $10 a year. In a sense, those people are just paying rent on their houses. This is a very sad fact. Perhaps there is no simple answer to it. It is a pity that we cannot go back to a system whereby interest rates are fixed for a longer period so that people have a chance to get ahead by reducing the amount of money they have borrowed. There is not much time available in this debate. I do not want to go on at length, but I make the point that we have had a boom in housing commencements in recent times. This has been very good to see. I believe there is a real danger involved here. Some of the expert commentators are seeing the danger and are making comments about it in the daily Press. When there is a boom and a large number of new homes are being built, that boom starts to eat into future demand. The demand is a set factor basically which varies, of course, because of population growth and so on. But if we suddenly build a whole lot of houses this year-more than one would expect to build this year-it will eat into the demand that might be created for next year and the year after. I say to the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), who is in the chamber at present, that he has to watch this. He does not want to get carried away with these housing commencement figures. If we look at the history of housing we will see that Ministers suddenly become carried away with housing commencements and say: 'This is great; the number is up'. We have a wonderful record for 12 months or so and then the bust comes. I warn the Minister and the Government that because of the way the figures are going now we are heading into a bust. That bust might be 12 months or so away. The Minister and the Government have to look very carefully at their policies to ensure that these boom conditions do not continue to the point where they create a major bust. That would be disastrous for the housing industry, particularly because the housing industry has always said-I am sure that the honourable member for Bass, who was at one time a Minister responsible for housing, would agree-that it wants a steady flow of business. If the housing industry has a steady flow of business it is able to best organise its affairs. I wish to make a couple of other points. Generally we believe the Bill is a fair Bill. It contains a number of provisions which, in a bipartisan manner, this side is prepared to support. It is a pity that we do not have the same sort of bipartisan support from the Government side in other areas of policy. This bipartisan approach is breaking down in a number of areas. The consensus about which the Government and the Prime Minister have spoken is breaking down as a result of the attitude and the comments being made on the Government side. I finish by saying that the Opposition supports the Bill. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(10.25) —Obviously as there are only five minutes left in this debate I will not be able to say much. I begin by making an observation that, in listening to this debate on the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill, it is amusing to see the sorts of cleavages which exist in the Opposition coalition between the rural agrarians and demagogue populists and the free marketeers in the Liberal Party wing. Earlier we had the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) lamenting the fact that capital was to be transferred from the Commonwealth Development Bank to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, as it will now be called, on the ground that it might conceivably impose some interest penalty on rural borrowers. I simply say that if he thinks that is the case, if he thinks that will be a consequence of that capital transfer, the logical thing to do, if he is to follow the line of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who is a fan of the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System, would be to have a direct budgetary subsidy to assist people as far as interest repayments are concerned. Of course, that is not what he would advocate for a second. He would prefer to preserve the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and its constituent banks with a totally unrealistic capital structure, with a gearing ratio of 7:1 for the overseas operations of the Commonwealth Trading Bank and unrealistically high level of capitalisation for the Commonwealth Development Bank. I think the threat to the Commonwealth Bank is a real one. We had some discussion earlier about the nature of the Opposition's proposals in regard to it. In considering that I think it is necessary to look at what the Campbell report had to say. It would be true to say that those who are the key determiners of economic thinking within the Opposition ranks-not the rural demagogues-are epitomised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Without any great shadow of doubt, they would favour the sort of course advocated in the Campbell report. That involves, among other things, the absorption of the Commonwealth Development Bank into the normal Commonwealth Trading Bank and ultimately, in a totally deregulated environment, the selling off of the Commonwealth Bank to the private sector. I see the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nodding his head in agreement, so I think the fears that have been expressed are real and genuine. As far as the Campbell report is concerned, it proceeded from an ideological premise. The first paragraph in the report, paragraph 1.1, states: The Committee starts from the view that the most efficient way to organise economic activity is through a competitive market system which is subject to a minimum of regulation and government intervention. That is the starting point. That is not a conclusion arrived at by a systematic and thorough investigation of the operation of financial institutions. That is invoked as an ideological dogma in the first paragraph of the Campbell report. Flowing from that premise we have all sorts of recommendations, including the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank. Again, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition confirms the fears people have about the course of Opposition policy by indicating assent to that. It is worth noting that, notwithstanding Campbell's advocacy of the ultimate privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank, he is prepared to concede in various parts that there are considerations other than the efficient operation of a financial system. There are much broader social objectives that might be pursued . He concedes grudgingly that one possible way of pursuing those objectives may be through the instrument of a government-controlled banking sector. The Commonwealth Banking Corporation and its constituent banks have been criticised at various times because of the inadequacy of their commercial performance, the small rate of return on the assets, et cetera. I think it is worth reminding ourselves that the charter of the Commonwealth Bank provides that its activities are to be directed in this way: . . . to the greatest advantage of the people of Australia and have due regard for the stability and balanced development of the Australian economy. That is an objective that it is required to pursue that is not imposed on the private banks with which it has to compete. There is no doubt that it has had a higher level of activity in the controlled sector of banking activity-the small overdrafts, the housing area-and that largely explains its relatively poor commercial performance. In weighing up these considerations we have to look at the broader social objectives that the Commonwealth Bank is seeking to pursue. I think it would be a very bad thing from the point of view of the people of Australia were it to be sold off. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Hurford-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(10.31) —in reply-I shall take just a couple of moments because I do not want to intrude on the adjournment debate. I thank all those honourable members who took part in the debate for their contributions. I was listening to the debate and I think it might be described as colourful and wide-ranging. The only matters that I think require quick attention from me are the comments which relate to the Commonwealth Development Bank. I just say very briefly that it will not be a subsidiary of the new Commonwealth Bank, which was the Commonwealth Trading Bank and the Commonwealth Savings Bank. It will have exactly the same position in the future as it has now. This position will not alter the relationship it has with the private trading banks, so those people who are worried about the new relationship should disabuse their minds of that worry. The reserves it transfers are surplus to its requirements. In fact, there is a good anticipation that it will have more to lend than hitherto. So I suggest that the rural and small business interests need have no fears whatsoever. We are absolutely-- Mr McGauran —How will the transfer take place? Mr HURFORD —I have been asked by the honourable member's Leader to keep my remarks short to allow for an adjournment debate. I will be very happy to write to the honourable member about the transfers tomorrow. With those few words I think everybody for their contributions and thank the Opposition for supporting this good measure. I suggest that we now pass the Bill so that it can go to the other chamber. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Hurford) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.34) —My first speech in the House, apart from my maiden speech, was on the petroleum industry and I have made several subsequently. Tonight I wish to talk about a certain situation that has occurred in Hobart. It is probably occurring all over Australia. We are all conscious of the price of petrol. It is very important. We all realise that it varies from State to State, from city to city and in country areas. We have all talked about it for many years and nobody seems to be able to come up with a way of overcoming this problem. There is a maximum wholesale price-maximum is the operative word-in every capital city and it varies very little from State to State. However, unfortunately, the oil companies-I do not want to get into an argument about them or criticise them tonight-seem to be able to vary that wholesale price. Certain Labor States-I cannot blame them although some of my colleagues may not agree-have put a freeze on the wholesale price because they could not understand why there was a wholesale price. All of a sudden somebody would start selling petrol below the wholesale price in that city. I come to the point that will interest my Tasmanian colleagues. The Tasmanian people have always paid the maximum wholesale price. As a consequence, they have always paid a high retail price- Mr Hollis —They should get good members. Mr GOODLUCK —It is not a matter of getting a good member. I am trying to be calm and pleasant about this. It is a very pleasant situation. The people in Tasmania have always paid the maximum wholesale price. Admittedly, Tasmania is only a small market. It has 400,000 good people. There is a comparison between the larger markets of Melbourne and Sydney with 3 million people. The Tasmanians have always paid a high wholesale price and the retailers have put their margin on. The price has always been higher than in other States. Mr Cadman —Why do they pay a high price? Mr GOODLUCK —The oil companies over the years have manipulated the market. The Tasmanian people are not silly. They read. They watch television. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin has a handsome head of hair but I would rather see him facing the Chair. Mr GOODLUCK —Tasmanians make comparisons and they realise that it is costing them a lot more money. It has a flow-on effect into the economy, into transportation, et cetera. Am I talking too fast? Can everybody understand? I will keep going. It has been very important to the economy of Tasmania because it has been high but now we have a stupid situation which has thrown the market into chaos in Tasmania, particularly in Hobart, a lovely city of 200,000 people. We have two different types of service stations, leasehold and freehold. I can understand that a freehold person has probably spent a lot of money buying the premises, et cetera, so he expects something different. All the dealers in Tasmania buy at a fixed wholesale price. But the oil companies give a kickback at the end of the month to the people who own their own sites. It could amount to 4c or 5c a litre. The poor proprietors leasing their sites from the oil companies pay everything, employ people and do the normal work that one would expect them to do in a small business. A person down the road can get a kickback . Then the ethics come in. I do not want to criticise him but a particular person has thrown the market into chaos in Hobart at the moment. The consumers are benefiting; they are getting cheaper petrol. Unfortunately the poor small businessmen are suffering. We all talk about small businessmen but when it comes to the crunch, when they are really up against it, we do not give them the necessary support. In Hobart all service station proprietors are finding it very difficult to survive because of this kickback. The oil companies and governments must start to realise that the pricing of petrol has become so complex in Australia. We all need to get involved. I notice the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) is calling for another inquiry- Mr Holding —It is a matter for the State government. Mr GOODLUCK —It is not a matter for the State government. We should get involved . If we are to ask people in Australia to pay a high price for petrol because of import parity pricing, conservation, the need for more exploration, et cetera, we must have a fair petrol pricing system throughout Australia. It is useless to talk about free enterprise and other things if people have to pay unfair prices. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.39) —I would like to draw the attention of the House tonight to the recent statement by the Australian Council for Civil Liberties which calls on all members of this Parliament to observe the policies contained in the United Nations Conventions on racism. The Australian Council for Civil Liberties has adopted, as one would expect, the statements in the preamble of the International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racism which condemns the concept of racial superiority as scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous. It is important that all members of this Parliament who supported the passage of the Racial Discrimination Act and expressed their opposition to racism remember those sentiments in the context of the current debates occurring in this Parliament on issues of immigration policy and Aboriginal affairs. It is important to remember that section 9 of the Federal Racial Discrimination Act states that distinctions in dealing with individuals based on race, colour, descent or national origin offend against the Act. The Australian Council for Civil Liberties has called on all members of this Parliament to observe these statements of national and international policy when considering the current calls for new criteria of skin colour and facial features in the area of immigration law. The Australian Council for Civil Liberties has also called on members of the Parliament to condemn the advocates of racial superiority and to protect the Australian community from the threat of communal disruption. At a time when some would have the debate turn upon whether Australia should follow what they believe to be a European way of life, it is well to remember that there are legally enforceable laws against racial discrimination in Europe. All the signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights are bound by an anti-discrimination provision in Article 14 which states: The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language , religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. I believe that those statements of human rights are as valid in this country as they are in Europe and would be well remembered by members of the Opposition in the context of current debates. While speaking on the subject of anti- discrimination law and practice in this country I would like to take the opportunity to highlight what I believe to be certain deficiencies in the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act. I believe that that Act is an outstanding piece of legislation which was supported in this Parliament not only by the Australian Labor Party but also by all members of Parliament. I hope that members of the Opposition share the view that it is not good enough just to enact legislation which expresses pious provisions in opposition to discrimination if that legislation is not properly administered in the interests of all Australians. I address my comments sincerely in a bipartisan manner. It is my very great concern that the Federal Racial Discrimination Act, while appearing at face value to be legislation that is working, in substance amounts to legislation which for all practical purposes is a toothless tiger. The great emphasis in the legislation is on the process of conciliation. I think all of us would support the need to conciliate allegations of racial discrimination. But there comes a time when the process of conciliation indeed ought to be put aside and that if racial discrimination is perpetuated there ought to be legally enforceable rights in the courts. My concern is that under the Federal Racial Discrimination Act there is not a ready right of access to the courts, and that before a complainant under the Act can bring an action before the court, what is required is a certificate from the Commissioner for Community Relations pursuant to the terms of that Act. It is my concern that those certificates, throughout the nine years of the operation of the Act, have been issued only on very rare occasions. That means that the Human Rights Commission is increasingly seen by ethnic minorities and by Aboriginal people in this country as an apologist for racism. Those are very stern and sincerely directed criticisms. I hope that all of us will give consideration to those enforcement provisions in the Racial Discrimination Act because, in my opinion, the Act is a toothless tiger. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.44) —The annual report of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation says that within the Australian community groups that are likely to employ violent means to achieve their political aims include Armenian terrorist groups. It goes on to say that the major threat currently is from the activities and intentions of supporters of Armenian terrorism in Australia. It notes the murder in 1980 of the Turkish Consul General and his bodyguard. All of us condemn terrorism because terrorism is murder. It is as simple as that. When a terrorist kills, he murders. But we need to know something about the Armenians and we need, as well, to understand what this organisation is really saying. The Armenians, indisputably, were the victims of the first genocide of the twentieth century. It happened in Turkey in 1915. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed, not by chance, not by disease, but as a result of deliberate policy. One can refer to any standard reference work. For example, the World Book Encyclopaedia states: In 1894, the Turks began a campaign to wipe out the Armenians. The campaign reached a peak during World War I. By 1918, about 1,800,000 Armenians had been murdered and thousands more had fled to other countries. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, on the same subject, states: In 1915 the Young Turk government, regarding the Turkish Armenians, despite pledges of loyalty, as a dangerous foreign element with friends among the enemies who had launched the Dardanelles campaign and with cousins in the Russian army on their eastern front, resolved to deport the whole Armenian population of about 1,750,000 to Syria and Mesopotamia. It was a deportation of an entire people. It continues: The chances of survival in these ill-prepared desert regions were slight: it was a death sentence, a 'final solution' that Adolf Hitler was to emulate consciously in Germany. It is estimated that about 600,000 Armenians died or were massacred en route. The Turkish Government has never admitted guilt. It has never offered amends. It has never sought to give reparation to the Armenian people. It has sought to bury the Armenian question as though the acts, the atrocities and the crimes had never happened. Terrorism is a blight on the face of the latter part of the twentieth century. It is one of the most dangerous problems we have to face, because it is so easy for a group to get hold of machine guns, to murder, bomb, kidnap and inflict immense misery in the pursuit of political aims. But the bald statement in the report casts a slur, it seems to me, upon the entire Armenian community in Australia. I know the Armenian community in Sydney well. They are a fine and a proud people. Certainly, they are embittered by the actions of the past. But nothing that I have ever learnt suggests to me that they would in any way be involved in organised terrorism within this country. So all honourable members who read the report should bear in mind how easy it is for government departments to make generalised statements about particular groups without identifying those groups, without our knowing whether they exist in Australia, and without our being able to be sure as to whether that department may not be wholly wrong, and for such a slur, such a comment, to infect our view of the entire people. They are a fine people. They have done a great deal for this country. I certainly hope that they do not think that what is said in that report is a reflection on them. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(10.49) —Honourable members would have this week received a letter from Utah Development Co. and a Press release attempting to justify its action for the recent damage it did to the Australian coal export industry. We were told in the release that it was Utah's view that its action was in the long term interests of Australia. That is rubbish. Its action damaged the Australian coal industry. It will cost this country millions of dollars and up to 1,000 jobs. Some long term interest! In a debate in this chamber the Opposition, which for years vandalised the Australian coal industry, tried to put the blame for this on the Government. Australia is one of the few countries in the world without a national energy plan and direct public participation in resource development. Australia has been considered a pushover by energy multinationals. The events of the past few weeks have demonstrated the need for the Federal Government to intervene in price and tonnage negotiations, particularly when dealing with our major overseas customers. The queue of Australian companies lining up to deal with centralised Japanese customers and undercutting each other is a source of embarrassment and has done enormous harm to the Australian coal industry. In addition, we have often been told by our conservative counterparts that we must be more competitive with coal producers in other countries. However, it must be pointed out that in many cases the same multinationals are involved in different countries. The Australian coal industry is highly productive and is a reliable supplier to world markets, but we must remove some of the uncertainty from the marketing of Australian coal. We need better guarantees of long term contracts with major customers before committing large funds to expanding industrial infrastructure for resource development projects. We hear much about the oversupply of Australian coal. 'It is a buyer's market', we are told. I believe that with a proper marketing authority a deal could have been done in recent negotiations relating to coking coal and steaming coal, thus maintaining the price of both. Be that as it may, we have to ask why we have an oversupply situation. Some years ago the Japanese estimated their coal requirements. I believe they deliberately overestimated their requirements, and because we have no rational development plan for coal production in this country the producers trampled each other, with the support of the conservative Federal Government and indeed some State governments, to get into production. The Japanese must have laughed all the way to their banks, and they are still laughing on the way to their banks as they take Australian coal producers to the cleaners. I believe that for the future of the Australian coal industry there must be rational marketing through a marketing authority, comprising producers, unions and government. The sale of Australian coal is too important to Australian jobs and too important to the Australian economy to be left in the hands of the producers only. They have shown that they are not up to the job. I believe it is essential that to have a rational marketing authority we must have a team comprising producers, union representatives and government. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(11.53) —I wish to make a few comments in connection with the address made by the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis). I say to the honourable member that the multinational company in question is no longer a multinational; Utah Development Ltd is Australian owned under Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. The comments the honourable member made are just the normal rash statements that are made by certain people from another State about the state of the industry in Queensland. The honourable member talked about the centralist Japanese control of buying. The Japanese are also competing on the world market with countries such as Pakistan and the countries of Europe. I suggest to the honourable member that he look at the Pakistani deal before he makes incorrect statements, as he did tonight, for a parish pump purpose. I wish to refer tonight to two matters relating to health. One is in connection with Medicare. I will seek the advice of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) on this matter when he returns. Cases such as the one I wish to discuss will happen right across Australia more frequently than they have in the past. Two cases involving caesarean birth were referred to me by people in my electorate. The case I want to talk about involves a distraught mother who was recently discharged from a private hospital, having given birth by caesarean section. She needed specialist attention. Her family had been fully covered for medical and hospital expenses under the old insurance scheme. They had to drop that insurance-they had no option-and they had to join the Medicare scheme on 1 February of this year. So what happened? On returning home from the hospital she made her claims and found out to her regret and to her loss that the specialist's fees, which had been charged at the approved Australian Medical Association rates, were not the same as the schedule fees set by the Government at greatly reduced values. She discovered that the 85 per cent refund of the schedule fee went nowhere towards the recovery of the actual cost. As a result, that family is hundreds of dollars out of pocket. In that case the insurance cover was taken out when the person was employed. The family now no longer has a breadwinner. That person was retrenched and there is no income coming in. The advice I seek from the Minister in this regard is, what does a family do in such circumstances? The second matter I raise tonight concerns sports health. Over the last few years, I have been privileged to participate in and view the great rugby codes, Rugby League and Rugby Union. There have been certain similarities in their play . Over the last few years there has been an improvement in the standards of play which I think has encouraged a better aspect as far as injury is concerned. I refer to the ball changeover after the sixth tackle in league. The scrums, particularly in Union, are well balanced. Perhaps that could be brought over into the game of League. A fairer scoring pattern has been adopted in League in the last two seasons, particularly in regard to scrum infringements. There is no shot at penalty goal. The points for a try in League are now four as against three previously. Touch football has taken on the good aspects of football in that touch ball, although I will not say it is a great spectator sport, is a sport in which people can participate to the extent they desire. It is available not only to men but also to women. Women can play the game in a reduced numbers team but without tackles or kicking. They seem to enjoy the game and it is taking on in Australia. Last night, after having left this place, I witnessed the 10.30 p.m. replay of the Rugby League match between New South Wales Country and Western Suburbs. A problem with the game still exists. That is the unfairness in a play of an up- and-under within the quarter of the defending team. I did not see any injury last night. But if one considers the record, one will find that the greatest risk of injury in League comes about through the up-and-under where the try could be scored as a result of chance and not of skill. I believe that medical records indicate that the greatest percentage of injuries comes about from that. I suggest that the two rugby codes adopt the touch football rule whereby if there is an up-and-under kick within the defence quarter, it will result in a changeover of the ball and no chance of a score from it or that the points for a drop goal in League be increased from one to two points-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired, and he has confused two Victorians in the House. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(10.57) — In the short time I have available I would like to speak about what can be achieved by a little rational discussion. The Aboriginal people at Ayers Rock have put a blanket ban on filming of the Ayers Rock area. This morning, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) discussed the matter with representatives of the Aboriginal people. I am pleased to say that, as a result of that discussion, they cleared up some confusion that was apparently in the minds of the Aboriginal people about the issue. It seems that, as a result of those discussions, we can reasonably expect the blanket ban to be lifted and the whole issue sorted out by Monday. While I am on the issue of Ayers Rock, I want to talk about the old motel buildings at Ayers Rock. A number of old motel buildings there were bought by the Commonwealth Government some years ago. It was planned that they would be demolished after the Yulara complex was completed. This was to be done for environmental reasons, because of erosion and because they are an eyesore. The Aboriginal people wanted to retain some of those buildings to use for an arts and crafts centre, a store, a shop and so on. Frankly, I think the best solution is that the buildings should be demolished because they are an eyesore. But I cannot see why a store that blended in with the environment at Ayers Rock could not be built for the Aboriginal people so that they could sell their arts and crafts to the tourists visiting Ayers Rock and partake in the tourist industry along with the other residents of the area. I note that a new ranger station has recently been constructed at Ayers Rock which blends in well with the environment. I think that sort of building would achieve the purpose of the Aboriginal people. I think the old motels there should be removed because, as I said, they are an eyesore. I wish to refer to the issue concerning the control and management of Ayers Rock and Uluru National Park that has arisen since the decision of the Government to transfer the lease to the traditional owners. I believe that the bottom line is that the Government should have the ultimate control over the management of a national park. I do not see why Aboriginal people in the area should not play a part in any decision-making process affecting the rock along with representatives from the tourist industry, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 29 May 1984 at 2 p.m. in accordance with the provisions of standing order 40 as amended for this session. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 10 May 1984: Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1984, Nos, 73, 74, 75 Public Service Act-Appointment-Australian War Memorial-Aitken, P. W. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 573) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) Did the Aboriginal Development Commission hold an arts conference in Townsville between 29 and 31 August 1983; if so (a) what was the total cost of the conference and (b) what amount was spent on travel expenses. (2) Was the conference funded by his Department and the Aboriginal Development Commission; if so, what amount was funded. (3) With regard to the conference (a) what was its purpose, (b) what is the status of the report and any resolutions, (c) will he table a copy of the report and recommendations, (d) how many people participated, (e) what were the criteria for selection of the participants and (f) is he able to give the name and designation of each participant; if so, what are the details. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b) Yes. The total amount provided for the conference was $41,041, of which $38,720 was spent on travel. (2) Yes. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs provided $20,000, and the balance was funded by the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC). (3) (a) The purpose of the conference was to discuss major contemporary issues of Aboriginal art and culture and to identify possible future problem areas. (b) The conference was convened by the ADC and the status of the recommendations is derived from the broad basis of Aboriginal Arts and crafts representation. As such I have indicated a willingness to consider those recommendations which relate to a need for Government action, after consultation with the National Aboriginal Conference. (c) A copy of the resolutions has been provided to the honourable member. (d) Between 60 and 65 people attended, of whom 46 were invited participants. The remainder were local people attending as observers. (e) Participants were invited on the basis of regional representation and to ensure a representative range of artistic endeavour. Because of budget restrictions only 50 people could be invited. (f) A list of names and designations of participants has been provided to the honourable member. (Question No. 859) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What inter-departmental commitees (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 Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) (i) My Department participates in the following inter-departmental committees: Civil Coastal Surveillance Operations and Programs Committee Inter-departmental Committee on the Location of Australian Government Employment Inter-departmental Committee on Motor Transport Inter-departmental Committee on the Renegotiation of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement Standing Inter-departmental Committee on Coastal Surveillance (1) (a) (ii) My Department chairs the following inter-departmental committees: Inter-departmental Committee on Environmental Quality in the Australian Capital Territory Inter-departmental Committee to Review the recommendations of the Committee of Review of the National Capital Development Commission Inter-departmental Committee on the Restoration of Historic Buildings-Norfolk Island Inter-departmental Committee on Waste Management Inter-departmental Co-ordinating Committee on Law Reform in the Australian Capital Territory Occupational Health and Safety Committee Standing Inter-departmental Committee on Northern Territory Constitutional Development (1) (b) (i) The National Capital Development Commission, an instrumentality under my control, participates in the following inter-departmental committees: Inter-departmental Committee on the Energy Conservation Program for Commonwealth Buildings and other Buildings in the Australian Capital Territory Inter-departmental Committee on Environmental Quality in the Australian Capital Territory Inter-departmental Committee to Review the Recommendations of the Committee of Review of the NCDC Inter-departmental Committee on Waste Management (1) (b) (ii) No. Instrumentalities under my control chair any inter- departmental committees. (2) Advice on the subject matter of the committees not chaired by my Department is a matter for other Ministers. The subject matter of the committees chaired by my Department is as follows: Inter-departmental Committee on Environmental Quality in the Australian Capital Territory: Matters relating to the environment in the Australian Capital Territory, particularly water quality Inter-departmental Committee to Review the Recommendations of the Committee of Review of the NCDC: Report of the Committee of Review of the Role and Functions of the NCDC Inter-departmental Committee on the Restoration of Historic Buildings-Norfolk Island: Annual restoration program for historic buildings on crown land on Norfolk Island Inter-departmental Committee on Waste Management in the Australian Capital Territory Inter-departmental Co-ordinating Committee on Law Reform in the Australian Capital Territory: Law reform in the Australian Capital Territory Occupational Health and Safety Committee: Development of a framework for legislation to cover occupational health and safety in the Australian Capital Territory Standing Inter-departmental Committee on Northern Territory Constitutional Development: Issues concerning the constitutional development of the Northern Territory. (Question No. 1040) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) Did Justice Hope report in 1977 that the Australian Secret Intelligence Service needed the right to break and enter embassies, steal documents, support underground resistance movements, fund unions and rescue political prisoners. (2) Was forced entry of a United States embassy in Iran condemned by Australia. (3) Is he able to say whether certain Australians, a United States President and certain United States law officers have been sacked from public office for stealing documents or condoning related illegal actions. (4) Is he able to say whether underground resistance movements are distinguishable at law from terrorist organisations, or is the distinction determined essentially by the political preference of the describer. (5) What steps has the Government taken to ensure that its officers conform with international law. (6) Will he publicly disown suggestions that Australians should use illegal means of collecting information. (7) How does Australia's spending (a) in 1982-83 and (b) seven years previously , on peace-building, peace-keeping and peace-making compare with our expenditure on secret intelligence gathering in the same years. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (5) and (6) In accordance with the well-established and bi-partisan practice followed by successive Australian governments, I do not intend to comment on the matters raised in these questions beyond noting that the activities and effectiveness of Australia's security and intelligence organisations are currently being reviewed by the Royal Commission on Australia' s Security and Intelligence Agencies. (2) Australia and many other governments condemned the seizure of the United States Embassy in Tehran and the holding hostage of its staff. (3) I would require details of the specific cases referred to before wishing to offer any comment. (4) I agree that distinction between the two groups is not always easy to draw, legally or otherwise. (7) Although it would be difficult to arrive at precise figures, not least because of the difficulties of definition involved, expenditure on foreign intelligence collection in the periods mentioned would amount to only a fraction of the expenditure by Australia on a wide range of undertakings, bilateral and multilateral, through the United Nations and otherwise, that contribute to the maintenance of peace and the peaceful settlement of disputes. (Question No. 1077) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 2 March 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the community employment program, in each of the months December 1983 and January and February 1984. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) The following numbers of (a) males and (b) females were engaged in the Department of Housing and Construction as temporary employees under the community employment program at the end of each of the months mentioned: December 1983-(a) 980 males; (b) 275 females. January 1984-(a) 1,162 males; (b) 295 females. February 1984-(a) 1,267 males; (b) 308 females. (ii) No temporary employees under the community employment program have been engaged by statutory authorities reporting to the Minister for Housing and Construction. (Question No. 1219) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 30 March 1984: (1) Is he able to say during what periods the International Red Cross has (a) been excluded from East Timor or (b) voluntarily withdrawn because of restrictions on its activities by Indonesian authorities; if so, what are the details. (2) What representations has Australia made to help resolve this grave situation. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) relief activities in East Timor commenced in 1979. Relief operations on the main island of East Timor were suspended in July 1983 as a result of restrictions placed on the movement of ICRC delegates by the Indonesian authorites. However, the ICRC's family reunion, tracing and mailing activities, and its relief program on Atauro Island, have continued uninterrupted. (2) As a major contributor to ICRC operations in East Timor, the Australian Government was naturally concerned by the restrictions placed on ICRC relief operations on the main island. The Government's concerns were made known to the Indonesian authorities last November and were reiterated on a number of subsequent occasions. (Question No. 1228) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 April 1984: Has the United States Government informed the Australian Government of the reasons for the United States' decision to withdraw from the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation; if so, what are the United States' principal grievances. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. The United States Secretary of State, Hon. George Shultz, wrote to me on 27 December 1983 concerning the United States' decision to give notification of withdrawal from UNESCO. The principal concerns relate to the degree of politicisation in UNESCO and perceived inadequacies in the organisation's management and budget practices. A full explanation of the United States' decision is contained in the letter which the Secretary of State sent to the Director-General of UNESCO conveying notification of withdrawal. This letter is now a public document. (Question No. 1247) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 April 1984: Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Asian Wall Street Journal of 12 March 1984 stating that there is hard evidence that in 1982 the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam had decided to embark on a large agricultural program to grow opium to cover its debts; if so, can he say whether (a) any credence should be placed in the article, (b) the information is contained in a Document, 11TT/SN, signed by Ly Xi Po, Assistant Director of Agriculture for the Dong Van district, dated 10 October 1982, (c) the northern provinces of Ha Tuyen, Lai Chau, Haong Lien Son, Cao Bang and Lang Son are included in the program and (d) the purpose of this official production program of opium is for introduction of heroin on a large scale into the international illicit drug market. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The article in the Asian Wall Street Journal of 12 March 1984 on Vietnam's opium production contains a mixture of fact and unproven, and in some cases incorrect, allegations. My responses to the honourable member's specific questions are as follows: (a) While some of the description of the situation given in the article appears authentic, other aspects do not and the overall theme of the article is misleading. The article does not therefore merit much credence. (b) There is no reason to doubt that a document may exist which is designated 11TT/SN and is signed by Ly Xi Po, Assistant Director of Agriculture for the Dong Van district, nor that the document is dated 10 October 1982. There is no apparent cause for the article to describe such a document as 'smuggled'. (c) The northern Vietnamese provinces of Ha Tuyen, Lai Chau, Hoang Lien Son, Cao Bang and Lang Son may well be included in an official Vietnamese program to grow opium: Like Australia, Vietnam has a declared legal opium growing industry, which is concentrated for climate reasons in its northern provinces. It is not in any way secret. (d) There is no reason to believe that the purpose of this program would be to introduce heroin into the international illegal drug market. As with other agricultural industries in Vietnam, opium marketing is on the basis of a contract system under which farmers provide a quota of their crops, set by the Government, to the authorities, and keep any surplus (it is probable that government supervision of the disposal of any such surpluses is particular close in the case of opium). The existence of a government document setting out quotas for opium is therefore routine. The opium supplied to the government for the Vietnamese industry is exported mainly to the Soviet Union and East European countries for the legal production of codeine, morphine and other derivatives. There is no proof offered in the article that the existence of a government quota-setting document 'points to an official government program for the production of illegal drugs that can only be aimed at the international market'. (Question No. 1249) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: Has his attention been drawn to the opinion of Belgian toxicologist, Professor Aubin Heyndrickx, that chemical weapons used against the Iranians came from the Soviet Union; if so, is he able to say whether (a) there is any evidence to confirm the opinion, (b) the opinion is based on tests conducted on Iranian soldiers by Professor Heyndrickx, (c) the chemical compounds found in these tests do not exist in the West, (d) mustard gas and mycotoxins have been used in combination and (e) this combination is the same as or similar to the analysis of yellow rain by US scientists who claim that Vietnam has used chemical warfare in South East Asia and Afghanistan. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am aware of reports, notably in the Wall Street Journal of 13 March, quoting the Belgian toxicologist, Professor Aubin Heyndrickx, to the effect that he has found mycotoxins, as well as mustard gas, on Iranian soldiers flown to Europe for treatment and that he believes that the Soviet Union must be the source of these mycotoxins. (a) Professor Heyndrickx has not published the detailed results of his analyses , although he reports that they have been confirmed by a Swedish laboratory; nor has he described his analytical methods. I therefore cannot comment on Professor Heyndrickx's findings. I know of no evidence from other sources to support the finding of mycotoxins in patients from Iran. Nor am I aware of any evidence which links the Soviet Union with the supply of chemical weapons used against Iranian troops. (b) Professor Heyndrickx says that his findings are based on tests he conducted on Iranian soldiers in a hospital in Vienna. (c) In the reports I have seen, Professor Heyndrickx does not seem to have said that mustard gas or mycotoxins do not exist 'in the West' (mycotoxins have in fact been found in nature in many countries, including countries in North America and Europe). Rather Professor Heyndrickx's point seems to have been that there is little experience 'in the West' in the medical treatment of mycotoxin poisoning. The apparent implication is that Professor Heyndrickx thinks there may be more experience elsewhere, presumably in the Soviet Union. This is a matter for conjecture on which I have no information. There are reports of outbreaks of mycotoxin poisoning from natural causes in the Soviet Union in the 1940s. (d) I do not know whether mustard gas and mycotoxins have been used in combination anywhere. For what it may be worth as negative evidence, a sample of mustard gas collected by the United Nations team of experts which visited Iran in mid-March was analysed for mycotoxins at a Swiss laboratory: the test, designed to find concentrations as small as five parts per million, was negative . (e) United States allegations of chemical warfare in South East Asia and Afghanistan relate to mycotoxins but not, as far as I know, to mustard gas. Please also see my reply to your question No. 751 of 16 November 1983. (Question No. 1288) Mr Peacock asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What advertisements have been placed in the Press or on television featuring either special programs or the general aims of the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election. (2) What was the cost of each advertisement. (3) When and where did each advertisement appear. (4) What are the names of the advertising agencies hired in preparation of these advertisements. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) There have been no such advertisements. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. (Question No. 1357) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to vigils held in Australia and many other countries during the week 23 to 31 March 1984 to draw attention to the plight of Mr Yuri Shukhevych. (2) Is he able to say whether (a) Mr Shukhevych is the Union of Soviet Social Socialist Republic's longest serving political prisoner, having been first confined in a Soviet prison in 1948, when aged only 14, for not denouncing his father as a traitor to the Soviet State and (b) he has served over 31 years in Soviet prison and labour camps for essentially political considerations and has experienced gross violation of his human rights. (3) Is it a fact that Mr Shukhevych has been sponsored for immigration to Australia. (4) Can he confirm that Australian diplomatic personnel in Moscow have endeavoured to interview Mr Shukhevych at the institution for debilitated people , Lesnaya Dacha, at a village near the Siberian city of Tomsk, where he has been required to stay in internal exile from the Ukraine under the terms of his last sentence. (5) Will the Government approach the Government of the USSR to explore the creation of a better climate for mutual relations which would facilitate his coming to Australia with his wife and children to join relatives here. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of public demonstrations of support for Mr Shukhevych during the period mentioned. (2) This information is essentially correct. (3) Yes. (4) The Australian Embassy in Moscow has written to Mr Shukhevych at his place of exile to ascertain whether he wishes to take up the sponsorship for immigration to Australia, lodged by his aunt. No reply to the Embassy's letter has yet been received. (5) The Government considers that the existing state of bilateral relations should be adequate to enable the resolution of outstanding cases of family reunion from the Soviet Union. It is, however, a regrettable fact that the Soviet Government regards the granting to Soviet citizens of permission to emigrate as a purely internal matter in which other governments have no role. The Australian Government's capacity to exert influence is thus severely limited . The Embassy in Moscow will nonetheless continue to make representations to the Soviet authorities on this and other family reunion cases.