Monday, 4 June 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Trade and Acting Foreign Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) left Australia yesterday to visit China for further discussions on the iron and steel co-operation initiative and to open the inaugural Australia-China Business Forum . The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is Acting Minister for Trade and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is representing the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in this House until Mr Bowen returns. I am Acting Foreign Minister until Mr Hayden returns. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for creating uncertainty and confusion amongst pensioners; (2) expresses its alarm that the Government is discriminating against family farm pensioners and their family members; (3) condemns the Government for diverting resources away from pension recipients on small-scale farms to pay the costs of additional public service resources needed to administer this iniquitious assets test; (4) rejects the back-door method of introducing a form of death duties, and (5) calls on the Government to amend its proposed assets test legislation to remove its blatant discrimination against a significant minority of pensioners in the Australian community, and farm pensioners in particular. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear) shall second: That this House notes that- (1) the electorate is concerned with economic matters such as lower interest rates, wage and price stability and economic recovery; (2) the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors reports that for the first time in 3 years the end of the downturn is in sight, and (3) Government policy is proving successful and calls upon the Opposition to address these economic matters during proceedings rather than their present disruptive tactics. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) opposes the Government's intention to impose an assets test on Australian pensioners; (2) deplores the Government's intention to discriminate and victimise family farmers and those involved in small businesses by refusing to include an exemption in the assets test for farms as proposed in the Gruen Committee Report , and (3) condemns the intention of the Government to use 1,500 public servants to enforce the legislation, inspect private homes and assets and process the hundreds of thousands of detailed returns that will be demanded. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Government for the apprehension it is causing amongst old people by introducing an assets test and urges the Government to reconsider its proposal so as to avoid throwing the retirement plans of a great many Australians into confusion. Mr Gorman proceeding to give notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should round off his notice of motion. He is getting into giving fairly substantial information. Mr Gorman continuing to give notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should recast his notice of motion. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest) —I give notice that, on the next day sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) deplores the effect the Government's assets test will have on a significant number of hard-working people such as small business proprietors and farmers; (2) condemns the Government for devising a scheme which will cost as much to administer as it saves in pension payments; (3) expresses its grave concern at the limit of $10,000 on personal effects and the necessary invasion of privacy to police, by public servants, that limit, and (4) requests that the Government rejects the Prime Minister's statement and reconsiders the assets test. The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew). Mr GEAR(Tangney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, in relation to age pensions, this House- (1) notes that- (a) age pensions were subject to an assets test between 1908-1976; (b) removing the assets test by the Fraser Government in 1976 was an easy political decision, and (c) the purpose of an assets test is to direct pensions to people in need; (2) recognises that- (a) the present policy expects working people to make provision for their retirement and that in 1984 780,000 people have failed to do so representing 56. 1% of all age pensioners, and (b) only 40% of Australians have access to employer sponsored superannuation schemes; (3) congratulates the Government on taking the hard decision to re-introduce a test to protect the purpose of the present scheme, and (4) calls on the Government to introduce a national superannuation scheme that has no assets or means test. Mr FISHER(Mallee) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) recognises the value of the Australian Institute of Sport and its de- centralisation to the States in the development of Australia's sport, in nurturing excellence and providing a level of coaching and training required to achieve superior performance; (2) supports the planned extension of the AIS so that the benefits of training, coaching, competition and technical expertise, will be shared by as many as possible, including the disabled, and (3) and welcomes to this Parliament on 4 June 1984 scholarship holders from the AIS. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House commends the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory for his frank acknowledgement on Canberra radio station 2CC on 4 June 1984 to the effect that there is no way that the Liberal and National Parties can win the next Federal election no matter when the election is held. The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves). Mr ANDREW(Wakefield) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Government for- (1) its most recent action in persecuting Australian farmers by imposing an assets test which disadvantages farmers in spite of irrefutable evidence of falling real farm incomes; (2) its attempt to break down viable family farms into smaller uneconomic units by a pseudo death duty, and (3) illustrating its lack of any real understanding of the ambitions and lifestyle of primary producers by excluding Australia's most prudent taxpayers from pension entitlement. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) will second: That this House condemns the Opposition for attempting cynically to whip up fears among Australia's elderly in respect of an assets test which will affect only 2 1/2 per cent of Australian pensioners. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Minister for Health and the Government for their failure to approve a single new nursing home bed since the present Government came to office 15 months ago; (2) expresses its grave concern for the plight of the sick and elderly forced out of hospitals under the 35 day rule, with nowhere to go, and (3) rejects as totally inadequate the new restrictive guidelines for nursing home bed approvals recently announced by the Minister for Health. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with amazement the recent statement by the Northern Territory Chief Minister that the Mt Isa to Darwin railway project is dead; and (2) condemns the duplicity of the Northern Territory Government in attacking the Government over the Alice Springs to Darwin railway whilst failing to keep its joint promise with the Queensland Government to build and fund the Mt Isa to Darwin railway. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Prime Minister for being the mastermind of the assets test; (2) deplores the assets test's cruel impact on Australia's migrant elderly; and (3) points out to the Government that hundreds of thousands of migrants fled to Australia to escape regimes which expropriated assets and property, both before, as well as after, death. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) the US Government is persisting with the policy of an overvalued US dollar and high domestic interest rates, and (b) this policy has been condemned by economic ministers throughout the Western world because of its negative consequences on all other countries; and (2) calls on the US Government to exercise responsibility in its monetary policies and act to reduce interest rates. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the parliamentary program for the final week of sitting, beginning 4 June 1984, omits the Member for North Sydney's notice of disallowance of the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance which must be debated by 6 June 1984; and (2) calls on the Government to bring the debate on, by Wednesday, 6 June 1984, and allow ALP Members of the House of Representatives to have a conscience vote on this outrageous Ordinance. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Government for the- (1) decision to introduce an assets test which will deprive approximately 50 000 pensioners of all or part of their pensions; (2) decision to include in its assessments superannuation lump sum in addition to the proposed tax of 30%, and (3) failure to introduce a comprehensive retirement assistance policy which encourages maximum provision for self-help. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House reminds Members that notices of motion on Mondays are not broadcast. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that due to seasonal and market factors there has never been a guaranteed regular cash return from investment in rural assets; and (2) condemns (a) the Government for its assumption inherent in the assets test that elderly retired farmers can obtain a total living from a property whose value exceeds $ 175 000; and (b) this additional persecution of those engaged in the rural industry. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the recent trip to Tasmania of the Minister for Science and Technology; and (b) that during this trip he continued his vacant preaching to Tasmania about new industries; and (2) calls on the Minister to stop preaching and to produce the 16 industries his Government promised when the Gordon below Franklin project was stopped over one year ago. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that under the asset limitations of the assets test that a pensioner can lose overnight all or a substantial part of the pension benefits, purely on account of the death of one's marriage partner and consequent reclassification to single pensioner, and (2) condemns the government for this heartless persecution of the elderly at such a moment of greatest need. Mr PEACOCK —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. What is the penalty if a pensioner does not complete an assets test form correctly? Dr BLEWETT —I can only say at this stage that the penalties will be similar to those for failure to complete forms correctly now in relation to the incomes test. Mr SIMMONS —Is the Minister for Defence aware that the present lack of precisely defined boundaries in the three areas under consideration in New South Wales for the Army training facilities project is causing a great deal of anxiety for those people living within the study areas? Can the Minister advise the House when he expects to be able to release details of the exact areas under investigation? Mr SCHOLES —It is not possible to give precise details of when the information will be available. Of necessity, the areas are imprecise. They are currently the subject of a study by environmental consultants who have been commissioned to identify areas which will meet the requirements set down by the Government, which were subscribed to by the former Government. As soon as a report is available to us-that should be within the next few weeks-which indicates the areas which are suitable, the Government will make a decision on the preferred location. That will be announced at the earliest possible time in order to reduce inconvenience and uncertainty, which, unfortunately, cannot be avoided. It will then be necessary for the preferred site or sites to be subjected to an environmental impact study, which is a requirement of Commonwealth legislation. Mr Hodgman —Spy flights. Mr SCHOLES —We obey the law; honourable members opposite may wish to ignore it. As soon as that study is completed, definite decisions will be able to be made. It is the Government's intention-I think it has always been the intention of this Government and of others-that inconvenience and the time during which uncertainty remains should be reduced to an absolute minimum. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that all the elderly in Australia will have to complete an assets return to prove that they are not liable for the imposition of the test? Is it also a fact that all the elderly will have to complete an assets return every year and that most will be subject to evaluation by Government inspectors? If not, how will the scheme work? Dr BLEWETT —As the Prime Minister pointed out the other day, of approximately two million social security pensioners, only about 25,000 social security pensioners and about 15,000 Department of Veterans' Affairs pensioners will be affected. The implementation strategy that has been designed by the Department of Social Security will be developed as far as possible to ensure minimal intrusion. Mr Peacock —Minimal intrusion! Dr BLEWETT —To ensure minimal intrusion. On the whole, about 70 per cent of pensioners will not even have to fill in an assets form. On the basis of the information that the Government already possesses in relation to applications for pensions, the Department will be able to send out to about 70 per cent of pensioners an indication that it is the Department's view that they will not be affected by the assets test. It will simply require those pensioners to indicate , if that assumption is not correct, apart from the exempted asset of the home, whether they have assets, in the case of a single pensioner, of $70,000 or more, or, in the case of a married couple, assets of $100,000 or more. I will point out how that calculation is made. About 795,000 pensioners-40 per cent of all age pensioners-do not own their own home and have an annual income of less than $5,000 for a single pensioner or $8,000 for a couple. There is a fair degree of confidence that those people will not have assets of the order that we are talking about. The other group consists of some 603,000 pensioners, or 30 per cent of all pensioners, who are home owners but who have a total income of less than $1,000 single or $1,500 for a couple. Let me say again that there is very little likelihood that those people will have assets, in addition to the family home, of $70,000 in the case of a single person or $100,000 in the case of a married couple. So we can be fairly confident that about 70 per cent of the pensioner population will simply be required to confirm that fact. Mrs KELLY —Is the Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service matters aware of the high incidence of tenosynovitis and other repetitive strain injuries in numerous departments of the Public Service? What action is the Minister taking to reduce the occurrence of this injury? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for the question. It is a matter of considerable concern to the Government that the incidence of this complaint should have increased over the last two to three years. It has, of course, mainly been experienced by keyboard operators, but it has not been confined to that group. About 1,000 compensation claims have been lodged since 1978 on an Australia-wide basis. It has been a matter of concern to a number of unions, which have been particularly concerned about those employees who have been engaged on a probationary basis and have suffered from this complaint prior to the end of their probationary period. There have been some suggestions that people have not been continued in their employment because of the incidence of this complaint. The Government has taken a number of actions and the Public Service Board has set in train a number of processes whereby these matters can be properly addressed. The House will be aware of the fact that there is an interim commission on occupational health and safety. That commission will be addressing this serious question. The Public Service Board last year produced a report and that report is the subject of negotiations and discussions between the Board and the unions involved, particularly the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and the Australian Public Service Association. I assure the honourable member and the House that the Government views this matter very seriously. It is a question not only of addressing the problems of those people who experience this troubling complaint but also of working out ways in which it can be avoided by the provision of appropriate furniture and training so that people can avoid the consequences of some of their work practices. We are far from having resolved this matter, but I assure the honourable member and the House that it is receiving very serious attention. Mr Ruddock —I ask for the tabling of the typed notes from which the Minister was reading. Mr SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member that the relevant standing order refers to a document. Was the Minister quoting from a document on public affairs ? Mr Dawkins —I was not quoting from a document. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. He will recall that earlier this afternoon I asked him what is the penalty if a pensioner does not complete an assets test form correctly. The Government is asking people, as I understand it, to make a self-assessment of the value of their possessions and advise the Government. If, as the Minister says, the penalty is the same as that applying to the incomes test, does that mean that if someone miscalculates the value of a possession the penalty is the same as provided for in the incomes test and could be six months imprisonment? Dr BLEWETT —First of all, let me repeat that there are already under the social security provisions penalties for knowingly incorrectly stating income. Equally, in relation to the assets test we are talking about people knowingly understating their assets. Mr Peacock —It is very hard to value some assets. Dr BLEWETT —We agree. The honourable member will see in the legislation a tolerance in these kinds of matters, that what we are concerned with are penalties that, as in the incomes test, apply to people who knowingly and deliberately provide false information in relation to their assets. Mr GEAR —Can the Special Minister of State inform the House whether the Australian Electoral Commission has struck quotas for each of the States for the purposes of the redistribution of electoral boundaries and when the first maps will be made available? Mr YOUNG —I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the quotas have been struck by the Commission for the purpose of the redistribution. On 18 April a quota of 72,890 was struck for the Australian Capital Territory. In New South Wales on 16 May a quota of 65,907 was struck. In Queensland on 26 April a quota of 62,618 was struck. In South Australia on 8 May a quota of 67,762 was struck. In Western Australia on 27 April a quota of 63,429 was struck. In Tasmania on 30 April a quota of 56,197 was struck. Mr Goodluck —That is to get rid of me, I suppose. Mr YOUNG —I will not do that. In Victoria on 26 April a quota of 65,012 was struck. The first provisional maps that will be made available are the first Commission maps to which objections may be lodged after they are published. I understand that the maps for the Australian Capital Territory should be available within the next few days and the States' maps should be available in the following order: Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, Queensland, Victoria and, finally, New South Wales. All maps should be available by early to mid August. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Treasurer to the secret negotiations between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions regarding the shape of the 1984-85 Budget. Can the Treasurer inform the House of the circumstances which entitle the representatives of a minority of Australian taxpayers to privileged information which the Treasurer has separately declared it is against the public interest to make available to the public at large? Mr KEATING —It has been the practice of this Government, as distinct from our predecessors, to consult directly with the people most affected by measures. I instance, as far as my portfolio is concerned, in more recent times, in respect of the Martin Committee of Inquiry into Australia's Financial System, finance companies, permanent building societies, credit unions and the like; in respect of the insurance amendments, all of the insurance industry; and in respect of the car industry, all the elements of the industry, as my colleague Senator Button knows. In this case, in respect of tax cuts which will affect most of the work force, the most appropriate organisation is, of course, the ACTU. The Government regards negotiations with the ACTU as merely a mechanism for consultations about options within which a tax cut may be given, but not the magnitude of the overall appropriations or cost to the Budget which will indeed be-- Mr Howard —Negotiations? Negotiations about a Budget? Mr KEATING —Yes, it is a discussion and a negotiation about those issues. We have had the same sorts of discussions with the Business Council of Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry and the National Farmers Federation. The Economic Planning Advisory Council communique indicated that that body clearly endorsed that priority should be given to lower and middle income earners. Of course, in this case it is not simply a discussion about a tax cut in the normal course of a Budget. This year we have had the reaffirmation by the ACTU of its support for the prices and incomes accord which will provide this country with a chance, in a very institutional framework, of breaking the back of Australian inflation in a way which no other government has been able to accommodate. The fact is that members of the Opposition are scared stiff of the accord. Well they might be, because it promises to deliver to this country non-inflationary growth. At the moment we are seeing growth in the Australian economy and at the same time a decline in inflation. The remedy of the coalition in years gone past was simply to use the traditional arms of economic policy without having in any sense an incomes policy. The result was high interest rates, high unemployment and negative growth last year for the first time in 30 years. Indeed, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in an uncharacteristic burst of candour, about six months ago said: 'The great weakness of the Fraser Government's economic policy was that we did not have an incomes policy'. Mr Howard —That is right, I did. Mr KEATING —He affirms it, and I recognise that he has affirmed it. Honourable members opposite understand quite clearly-hence the attacks from some quarters on the accord-that if the accord succeeds, and it will, that is the end of their form of economic policy in this country. The result will be that this country can look forward with pride to a pick-up in economic activity, which is in evidence, and a continuing decline in inflation. In the days when consultation took place between various business and interest groups and the former coalition Government, in some cases they would not be described as consultations; one could probably describe them as a break-in, because in terms of the special benefits which were handed out-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Now that the Treasurer has taken so much time in answering this question I wonder whether he might include the bit about my-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. I call the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —The narrow, sectional discussions which took place in the former Government's years, in terms of delivery of some concessions, one can more appropriately describe as a break-in than as consultation, because of the attempt to legitimise payments from the public purse to special interest groups. Let me conclude on this point. What we have in Australia at the moment is consultation between the Government and the Business Council, the CAI, the National Farmers Federation, the ACTU, and EPAC about the strategy of underlying economic policy and Budget strategy. In the years of the Fraser Government there was never any discussion about Budget strategy. All there ever was was consultation after the Budget was put to bed, after the strategy had been put to bed, about particular sectional interest claims. That is all they ever were. What we have here, through a process of discussion and consensus, is an ongoing national discussion about the framework and fabric of economic policy. This year part of that is the maintenance of the accord and breaking the back of Australian inflation, and in that context the whole question of tax cuts is one of continuing economic benefit and of continuing interest in terms of the national economic strategy for this particular year. In that case the ACTU, as the organisation most representative of the Australian work force, is entitled to that consultation which it is getting. Mr Adermann —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I was loth to interrupt the Minister and I had to find in the notice of proceedings the point I want to make . Mr Speaker, could you give me guidance on the question that was asked of the Special Minister of State? There is a question on notice-No. 1461-on this matter . Could you guide me as to the procedure regarding the similarity of a question on notice and a question raised in the House? Mr SPEAKER —I am afraid that it is impossible for the Speaker to memorise all questions on notice. The honourable member should have raised the matter earlier . Mr BLANCHARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Science and Technology. What action has the Government taken to implement the recommendations of the Occupational Safety and Health Management Review Committee of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, better known as the Craig report? Mr BARRY JONES —The Craig Committee review of occupational safety and health management in the CSIRO was commissioned by the CSIRO Executive in April 1983 and that followed earlier action in the same month, when I appointed a committee to review the circumstances of the death from cancer of Dr Ron Bergamasco, a scientist with the CSIRO's Division of Applied Organic Chemistry at Fishermen's Bend in Melbourne. That led to the appointment of first the committee of inquiry under Professor Rod Andrew and later the Committee under Professor David Craig. Other situations where the CSIRO working environment was suspected of threatening the health of staff came to notice during the Craig Committee's investigations. The Craig Committee report was released by the Chairman of the CSIRO on 19 October 1983. It was generally critical of the CSIRO's commitment to occupational health and safety. This unsatisfactory situation reflected seven years of neglect under the Fraser Government and also a low priority within the Organisation, largely due to the willingness of personnel to beaver on under difficult conditions for the sake of the job. The CSIRO Executive has accepted the general thrust of the Craig report's 45 recommendations. A central occupational health and safety unit has been established. Five people are to be appointed, advertisements for appropriate personnel have been placed, and a number have been chosen. Arrangements for safety committee establishment and operations are being overhauled. A new computer based accident statistics system is under development at the CSIRO. Assistance for carrying out safety audits at each of the CSIRO's sites is being designed. Staff access to information on potential hazards is being increased. Efforts are being made to achieve heightened awareness of occupational health and safety throughout the CSIRO. In the budgetary context various essential capital works are being developed to upgrade the appropriate occupational safety and health standards. Other recommendations of the Craig Committee will be implemented progressively. The situation at the Floreat Park Laboratories, which will be of great concern to honourable members from Western Australia, has already been investigated by the Commonwealth Institute of Health and will be subject to further urgent review at my direction. Mr McARTHUR —Will the Treasurer advise the House whether the consumer price index or the gross domestic product implicit price deflator is the more reliable guide to the rate of Australia's inflation? Mr KEATING —About six months ago, I went through the tomfoolery of a play on words with the Opposition about describing the benefits of which particular deflator it would be most appropriate to use. If the honourable gentleman has the time, and we have the inclination, he can come to my office and we will give him some lessons on it. Mr KEOGH —Prompted by the obvious panic and nervous concern shown by the Opposition today in relation to the very responsibly designed assets test that the Prime Minister outlined to the House last Friday, can the Prime Minister give honourable members any indication of how the assets test has been received by the Australian people? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for his question, as I am sure the people of Australia will be, in the light of the quite despicable tactics that have been pursued by the Opposition in this place today. It is no wonder that Professor Gruen, the head of that very representative panel, had something very devastating to say about the Opposition on this matter. Professor Gruen quite rightly reprimanded the Government for the degree of ineptitude it had originally shown. We accept that rebuke; it was well deserved. But it is very interesting to notice what Professor Gruen had to say about those opposite. Professor Gruen said of those opposite-the Liberals: 'They deserve to be regarded as supremely opportunistic cynics'. Indeed they do, because, as the House already knows, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, to his credit, has not been associated with the gutter tactics used on that side of the House. He has retained a silence which is appropriate to the fact that he believes in an assets test. It is very interesting to notice that it is not only that potential challenger to the Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia who agrees with us. One of the redeeming features of a very sad visit which I paid to the Sydney Cricket Ground yesterday, when less than justice was done on the field, was that I had lunch at a large table with a number of people who included Mr John Elliott, the other potential challenger to the Leader of the Liberal Party. When I came to the table, he stood up and said: 'Congratulations'. I wondered what for. I know that there are a number of things upon which the Government is entitled to be congratulated. I wondered what it was. I said, in all my normal innocence: 'What for, John?' He said: 'Congratulations on bringing in the assets test'. Mr Howard, the current Deputy Leader of the Opposition, agrees with the assets test and the external threat to the Leader of the Liberal Party also agrees with the assets test. Thank God that there are still some honest people left in the Liberal Party. The fact that there are, and the fact that Mr Howard agrees with the assets test, the fact that Senator Chaney agrees with the assets test and the fact that Mr Elliott agrees with the assets test will add to the overwhelming fact that is becoming clear as one goes around Australia, namely, that the overwhelming majority of Australians believe that it is the decent and proper thing to do. Dr KLUGMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Health. By way of preface, I draw his attention to the suggestion by the honourable member for Mackellar that no additional nursing home beds have become available since March 1983. Is this correct? Does he agree with the suggestion of the honourable member for Mackellar that nursing home beds be made available to all persons not in the work force? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for his question. It has been part of the Opposition tactic in this matter to suggest that, because the Government had committed itself to a full scale review of the principles whereby nursing home beds would be approved, somehow we had therefore affected the number of nursing home beds that came on stream this year or will in fact come on stream in the next 12 months. Let me say, first of all, that, in the last 12 months, 2,132 new nursing home beds have come on stream, which compares almost identically with the last full year of the previous Government of 2,138 new nursing home beds. In addition, some 4,000 new beds have been approved and are waiting to come on stream. Mr Carlton —Approved when? Dr BLEWETT —The point I am making is that there is a considerable delay between approval and beds coming on stream. There has been no denial to the people of Australia of nursing home beds in the last 12 months. In addition, this Government has taken action which the last Government was not prepared to take and has told people with nursing home approvals that they cannot wait for five, six and seven years sitting on those approvals. That is one of the reasons why we have got so many new beds beginning to come through. I would agree that the decisions that we have taken in the last year of not approving any beds for 12 months would mean that there could be a hiatus in two or three years' time if we did not take action to continue to keep beds coming on stream. Let me say what we have done. First of all, 4,000 beds have been approved ready to come through and they have been coming through in the last few years at 2,000 beds a year, so we will maintain that pattern anyhow. Secondly, we have increased the number of staff in the nursing home sector so that in the next few months we can rapidly catch up on approvals and so that the pattern can be maintained. I think it is about time this kind of fear tactic, which has been spread by the Opposition, was ended. We have, in no sense, denied nursing home beds coming through to the Australian people and the actions we are taking to make sure that people sitting on nursing home approvals already make use of those approvals will ensure a steady flow of beds in the next few years. Mr SPEAKER —Before I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I indicate that the honourable member for Prospect was so appealing that I called him out of order. I will give two questions to the other side. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr HOWARD —I know my limitations. I refer the Treasurer to his less than adequate answer to the honourable member for Corangamite and also to the frequent claims that both he and the Prime Minister make that interest rates have fallen since the election of the Hawke Government. Does the Treasurer claim that real rates of interest in Australia-that is, the real interest cost to borrowers after accounting for inflation-are now lower than when the Government assumed office? Mr KEATING —Do I understand from the question that the honourable member wants me to respond again to this technical question? Mr Howard —No. I just want an answer. Mr KEATING —I do not know what the implication of the first question was-whether in fact the result which the Government is able to procure on the consumer price index is unimportant in this country, or whether indeed some measure of the broadest deflator of the gross domestic product is the one that one ought to be looking at. Obviously the Government will look at each one for different purposes and all the other deflators as well. If the honourable member wants a technical explanation of the differences, Question Time is not the time or the place to give it. The honourable member for Bennelong may break out into hysterics, but he could not get the consumer price index to the point that this Government has been able to get it and will be getting it further. That is something which he was unable to do. The Government has had tremendous success in respect of the decline in interest rates in this country. We had the situation this year in which, for the first time in many years, the Government, because of the float of the exchange rate, closed off the external window to the bringing of currency on-shore to finance the tax rundown period. I believe that in that tax rundown period, given the accommodations which the Reserve Bank of Australia has administered to the market, Australia has done exceedingly well. People have not been able to have recourse to this revenue on-shore because of the operation of the Government's monetary policy. I add that the former Treasurer had this to say a week ago in his Press release: The cost of the Government's loose monetary policy will be felt in worsening of the underlying rate of inflation . . . with monetary policy in disarray . . . He will eat his words when this month's M3 figure comes out because he has been wrong. The previous Government overshot monetary targets year after year after year. This Government has been committed to bringing in its monetary target, despite the fact that Australia took on board $4,000m this financial year in capital inflow, financed a Budget deficit of $8.5 billion, sold Commonwealth bonds to this point of $13.25 billion, closed off the external window and financed the tax rundown period. Of course, interest rates were a bit higher in that period. They will subside, as they have been doing already with the tax rundown period having passed. Indeed, in the last bond tender, rates came off by 0.6 of one per cent. I expect that, in a lower inflationary environment, there will be scope for further interest rate falls as we move through the financial year. This question came from the high interest rate specialist-the man who gave Australian business 17 per cent to 20 per cent interest rates, the man who destroyed most of our manufacturing industry, the man who sent another quarter of a million people to the unemployment queues-- Mr Carlton —Whitlam. Mr KEATING —No, the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong. How dare he ask about interest rates, how dare he ask about the money supply, when such a lamentable record with the fiscal deterioration included simply underlined his gross incapacity as Treasurer of this nation. If he sits back and watches the recovery grow he will see that it will be not only a non- inflationary recovery but also one accomplished by much lower interest rates than he was ever able to preside over. Mr STEELE HALL —I ask the Special Minister of State: How many major shipments of cocaine have been seized in the past two years? How many major figures involved in the trade have been arrested as a result of those cocaine seizures? Mr YOUNG —I shall certainly treat the question as being on notice. I will see what information can be advisedly given to the House. I suspect that the honourable member is asking only about the operations of the Australian Federal Police and that he is not asking about the other police forces or agencies that might be involved in this sort of thing. I will see what information can be given by the AFP and make it available to him. Mr LINDSAY —Has the Minister for Housing and Construction noted reports emanating from the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors to the effect that the demand for engineering construction is recovering? What is the Government's response to these reports? Mr HURFORD —I have seen the reports referred to by the honourable member for Herbert. It is necessary to put those reports into perspective. I remind the House that the reports relate only to engineering construction which is one of the three construction sectors-housing construction and non-residential construction being the other two. Whereas through the efforts of the Government the housing construction and the non-residential construction levels of activity are good-in the housing construction area, very good and in the non-residential area, adequate-the fact is that with engineering construction there are long time lags. It takes some time before the recovery in the economy, emanating from the Government's policies, is able to work in favour of the engineering construction industry. The report from the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors, to which the honourable member refers, notes those time lags and had some good news, namely, that by 1985-86 the recovery in the economy will mean a recovery even in engineering construction activity. The fact is that in 1984-85 unfortunately another downturn on 1983-84 is expected, just as we have had a downturn this year on the previous year. The reason for that downturn is mainly a lack of demand in the private sector. Due to commodity prices there are no new iron ore projects or new coal projects in the offing. However, as the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors has recognised in these reports, and in other places, the work of the Government in the last Budget has had a magnificent effect in underpinning activity even in the engineering construction industry. It recognises that the Government's work on roads, water supplies and sewerage projects has helped to maintain some activity, even though the total level of activity is down. I am very pleased to note that part of that Government activity has, of course, related to the area represented by the honourable member for Herbert. I can tell him that the Burdekin Dam is well under way. Mr Hawke —Our dam. Mr HURFORD —As the Prime Minister has reminded me, it is our Burdekin Dam. I am informed that the construction village is complete. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HURFORD —It is no wonder that honourable members of the Opposition are making some noise about that because they are ashamed that they did not get on with public sector activities during their time in government. I also inform the House that the contractor for the Burdekin Dam hopes to pour concrete for the main wall in August 1984. Of course, this is very much a result of the last Budget brought in by this Government. The Australian Federation of Construction Contractors' forecasts are slightly more pessimistic than my own construction forecasting committee's work. However, we recognise that 1984-85 will show a reduction in engineering activity only offset by what can be achieved in the public sector. What is clear is that those in this industry realise that this Government has made an effort to underpin its activities. The industry realises that the lack of tax cuts that would result if the Opposition took over the Government of this country and the further $2 billion cut in government spending would mean that many millions of dollars would come out of the civil works program. The industry has no doubt whatsoever that its fortunes lie with the re- election of the Labor Government. Mr LLOYD —The Minister for Communications will be aware of death threats made over the phone to Mr Bryan Membry, the Secretary of the Australian Boxing Federation, and of the refusal of Telecom Australia to co-operate by passing on the source of those threatening calls to the police. He will be aware of other recent similar cases. What action has he taken to ensure that Telecom abides by his instruction, announced at the time of the Vincent inquiry into the illegal use of Telecom equipment and activities of certain Telecom employees, that it must assist the police, particularly now that it has been revealed that Telecom continues to refuse to co-operate? Mr DUFFY —I am interested to see that the honourable member for Murray has made a determination that Telecom has refused to co-operate and is anticipating the outcome of the Vincent inquiry. In relation to the specific matter raised by him , as a result of several reports of threatening phone calls since the end of April 1984, successful traces of calls were made by Telecom on 14 May, 23 May, 25 May and 28 May. The last two calls were traced to the same telephone number. At that stage, in accordance with normal procedure, the information was passed to Telecom's special investigation branch. That investigation unit is now discussing the matter with the police, and of course it is a matter for the police to determine what action they take after the discussions with Telecom. Telecom's operating instructions require that, when any offensive call is traced and verified to a particular service, the offended party should not be advised of the number, subscriber's name or other details of the calling number. One of the reasons for this policy is that the person making the offensive or threatening calls may not be the subscriber to the service concerned. Further, one would have thought that in these circumstances the reasons for prohibiting the announcement to people who had been threatened by this type of call of the number of the person who allegedly made the call-the call being from that person 's number and not necessarily from the person himself-would be obvious to those opposite. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —For the information of honourable members, I present the 1982-83 annual report on the Administration and Activities of the National Common Police Services. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —For the information of honourable members, I present the first annual report of the Australian Political Exchange Committee for the period 21 December 1981 to 30 June 1983. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —For the information of honourable members and in accordance with past practice, I present documents relating to the simultaneous dissolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives by the Governor-General on 4 February 1983. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Pursuant to section 12 of the Non- Government Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act 1977, I present the Non-Government Schools Loans Guarantee Scheme Annual Report for the year ended 31 December 1983 , together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relating to the report. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Pursuant to section 40 of the Curriculum Development Centre Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Curriculum Development Centre 1982-83. The report is tabled under an extension of time previously obtained pursuant to paragraph 34C(6) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House, I present the Commonwealth Schools Commission report on computer education, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relating to the report. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967, I present the report of the Council of the Canberra College of Advanced Education for 1983, Part 1, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relating to the report. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has sought my indulgence to make an explanation regarding an answer he gave on Friday. He assures me that the explanation will be brief. I have granted him that indulgence. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —At Question Time on Friday I referred to the allegations by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory that I had refused to speak to him or see him. I stated that I had checked thoroughly with my staff and that all of them had stated that no one had called, either in person or by phone, claiming to be the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and wanting to see me. I repeat that now. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) stated in the House that members of his staff were present when Mr Everingham phoned my office. Once again I called in all of my staff and questioned them about the alleged phone call. Again they stated that no one by the name of Paul Everingham had called. My Senior Private Secretary, Mr Sergi, who is an excellent mimic, then did his impression of Mr Everingham's quite distinct nasal accent and Miss Karen Sellman recalled that a person with a voice like that had called and said: 'Is Barry in? ' She said that I was still in the House and was not sure when I would be back but that a number of people had appointments with me. The person then stated: ' If he returns in the next five minutes ask him to phone this number'. As I did not return for half an hour or so she did not call the number. I can only assume that the mystery call was that of Mr Everingham, and I find it beyond belief that a Chief Minister should conduct business in this way. I repeat what I said before, that no one identifying himself as Paul Everingham called my office. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of honourable members, I table a report titled 'Report on the operation of the Scheme to Compensate Persons Affected by the Government Sanctions Imposed Against the USSR and Iran'. I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Mr DAWKINS —I thank the House. In 1980 the former Government announced the establishment of a scheme to compensate individuals and firms for direct expenditure-excluding overheads and profits forgone-which was unable to be recouped as a consequence of that Government's responses to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and to the holding of United States of America hostages in Iran. Honourable members will well remember the extraordinary double-standards and bullying tactics employed by the former Government and particularly the former Prime Minister in order to enforce selective sanctions against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in particular. While Australian Olympic athletes and organisations associated with Australia's 1980 Olympic Games effort were being pressured by the Prime Minister of the day into withdrawing from their involvement, that same Prime Minister was overseeing record sales of wheat and wool to the USSR. At the time, the Federal Labor Opposition stated quite clearly its condemnation of the actions of the governments of the Soviet Union and Iran. As a government, we continue to condemn unequivocally the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. However, we also made it clear that we did not support trade sanctions because they simply would not work. The establishment of the compensation scheme which is the subject of this report should be viewed in that light. Setting aside considerations of the appropriateness of the former Government's response to developments in Afghanistan and Iran in 1980, it is simply not possible nor, in the Government's view, desirable to compensate all individuals, organisations and firms that are adversely affected by government policies. When a decision is taken to provide compensation, governments must recognise that such a decision has the potential to raise problems of equity and consistency. The then Government, in establishing the guidelines for this scheme , considered several precedents that existed at the time for compensation payments of an ex gratia nature. A summary of these precedents is set out in Attachment 1 of the tabled report. The end result was a set of guidelines which specified that for any firm, organisation or individual to be eligible for compensation, their losses had to be a direct result of government policy or actions and outside the control of that firm, organisation or individual. Only unrecouped direct expenditure was eligible for compensation with lost profits and general overhead expenses not being eligible for compensation. The Minister for Finance had primary carriage of the scheme but was to involve other Ministers with a portfolio interest in a particular claim in the assessment of that claim. Even where compensation is given along such strictly defined guidelines, however, dissatisfaction and ill-will can and did arise. For example, some recipients have considered that their losses were greater than the assessed amount. Furthermore, such schemes inevitably involve relatively high administrative costs because of, inter alia, their one-off nature. In the case of this particular scheme, the direct administrative costs to the Commonwealth have not been trivial in comparison to the extent of the compensation paid. My Department has estimated that government administrative costs probably represent some 6 to 8 per cent of total benefits. Of the 46 claimants offered compensation , we estimated that 14 claims involved administrative costs of the same order, if not higher, than the compensation involved. In addition 17 claimants have received no compensation. There are a number of factors which contribute to these relatively high administrative costs. In lodging their claims many claimants submitted what were , effectively, ambit bids, and as a consequence, assessment of claims required close scrutiny in order to weed out the inappropriate components. As claimants were not charged for the processing costs of their claims, there was obviously no financial disincentive to pad claims. Another consideration is that many of the claims involved consultation between Departments, and also, not infrequently , between relevant Ministers. This inevitably created problems in consistency of treatment between claims with a resultant adverse effect on the cost of the scheme's administration. In addition to the various administrative costs associated with such schemes, there is a less obvious cost. The establishment of schemes such as this encourages the community to devote resources into anticipating, and attempting to influence, future compensation arrangements. Such anticipatory or lobbying activity would not seem to produce any net benefits for the general community. Finally, despite the intent of the compensation scheme and its guidelines, the practical application of the scheme allowed for a further indirect cost. The compensation guidelines state, inter alia, that compensation is payable for unrecouped expenditure. This had the effect that firms could 'dump' products affected by the sanctions without incurring the normal penalty of correspondingly lower revenues. Whilst we are not aware of any specific case in which this took place, it is conceivable that it did occur. A conclusion drawn by the report is that the implementation of specific compensation schemes is fraught with major difficulties and that they should therefore be avoided. Given that this particular scheme was introduced, however, it is not readily apparent that the operation of the scheme was greatly defective. Nor do my criticisms of specific compensation schemes automatically lead me to the conclusion that this particular scheme should have been terminated by the Government. To have done so would obviously have invited complaints of inequitable treatment being meted out to those whose claims had been unresolved by the former Government. These claims were submitted in good faith in accordance with the published requirements of the compensation scheme and had been under consideration for some time. During that time, the claimants had had every reason to believe that their claims would be treated in the same manner as the other claims that were being progressively settled. However, following the change of government a number of unsuccessful applicants sought to have their cases reconsidered. My approach was that it would be inappropriate to re-open cases which may have then been dealt with differently to others settled prior to the change of government. Within the guidelines established under the scheme, I ensured that these cases were properly assessed. In tabling this report and making this accompanying statement, it has been the Government's intention to bring to public notice both certain deficiencies in specific compensation schemes and a factual report on the operation of the USSR- Iran Compensation Scheme. I present the following paper: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Iran-Compensation Scheme sanctions- Ministerial statement, 4 June 1984. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(3.13) —I would like to say one or two words in response to the statement made by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). I have been drawn into making a few comments by the fact that, so far from this just being a factual report on the operation of the compensation scheme, the Minister has not missed the opportunity of taking a few swipes at the policy adopted by the former Government, and particularly by the former Prime Minister, of encouraging a boycott of the 1980 Olympic Games. The Minister for Finance referred to 'the extraordinary double standards and bullying tactics' of the previous Government in relation to the Olympic boycott and, in particular, the actions of Mr Fraser, the then Prime Minister. He neglected to mention that Australia was by no means alone in applying a boycott of the 1980 Olympic Games. In fact, I remind the Minister for Finance that 65 nations declined to attend the Games in 1980. They included the United States of America, Japan, Canada, Kenya and West Germany. I assume, therefore, that the Minister applies the same criticism and condemnation of the governments of those countries as he applies in relation to Australia. Mr Dawkins —I was criticising its double standards. Mr HOWARD —He talked about the double standards of the former Government and he approvingly drew the attention of the House to the condemnation made by the Australian Labor Party when it was in opposition of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Perhaps some members of this House-obviously not the Minister for Finance-will well remember the rather equivocal statements made by front bench members of the Labor Party in 1980 when Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviet Union. I remind the House that there are still 100,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan. I remind the House that on some estimates the number of casualties suffered in the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union is in the hundreds of thousands. I remind all members of the House of the representations that they have no doubt received from refugees who have settled in Australia from Afghanistan, and the stories they have told members on both sides of the House of the atrocities that have been committed in Afghanistan by the Soviet forces. The statement that I think all of us in the Liberal and National parties will remember very well was the statement made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), as reported in the Australian in January 1980, when he said: Afghanistan is . . . far away from our area of interest and Australia is not threatened . . . That of itself was a factual statement. He continued: It is extremely unlikely that the Soviet Union will attack Pakistan or Iran. After all, who would want Pakistan? For that matter who would want Afghanistan? That was the contribution made to the debate by the then Opposition spokesman on minerals and energy, the now Treasurer, who referred in a very dismissive way to a very poor and defenceless country that was then being invaded by the Soviet Union. Therefore, it ill becomes the Minister for Finance, under the guise of making a fairly flat factual statement about the operation of a compensation scheme, to talk seemingly with clean hands about the former Liberal Government having double standards regarding the Olympic Games boycott in 1980. I believe that the stance taken by the Fraser Government in 1980 regarding the Olympic Games was correct. I defended that boycott then and I will defend it again. I believe that, in the circumstances of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, the circumstances in which the Soviets conducted the Olympic Games in 1980 were offensive not only to the people of Afghanistan but also to many people of the free world. Therefore, I take this opportunity of reminding the Minister for Finance of the less than unequivocal condemnation of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, as exemplified by the pathetic statement of the present Treasurer, and of rebuking the Minister for Finance for attempting to score a very cheap and passing political point against the former Government on that subject. Debate (on motion by Mr Keogh) adjourned. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Sales Tax: Confectionery To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery at the rate of 20% is an unfair and unjust burden on this important manufacturing industry and your petitioners therefore pray that confectionery be treated in a similar fashion to all other foods, including snack foods, which are exempt from sales tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin,Mr Beddall,Mr Lionel Bowen,Mr Humphreys,Mr Kent and Mr Rocher. 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 utilizing chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall,Mr Hawker,Mr Macphee and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that . . . 1. Omega, by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water, enables hunter-killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a ''first strike'' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that members and the House assembled will close Omega. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Charles,Mr Kent and Mr Steedman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall and Mr Macphee. 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 conducive to the development, including moral development of their children. Deny to parents their rights to have their children to 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 Mr Blunt and Mr Hicks. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That, having received information from the Attorney-General's Department concerning the New Commonwealth Censorship Procedures for Publication, we are abhorred by the intent of the Government to change the already liberal Censorship Laws into such Laws as will open the doors to nearly complete license where publications are concerned. We most strongly feel that in this way the Government would be intentionally instrumental in perverting the thoughts and actions of young and older Australians. We therefore request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia, electors of the Division of Fadden and other electorates of Australia shows that Federal Government Cheque A /c Tax is a very unfair tax imposed of and on the citizens of Australia, personally and including Parents and Citizens Associations who use these income for the benefit of our School Children and electors. Your petitioners therefore pray for the abolition of this unfair tax and refund all debit charges to those Associations and Persons who have been debited through their Bank Accounts. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change.'' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. 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 A.C.T. 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/discs for non-commercial use to be registered by the Film 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 Burr. 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. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we believe that there are unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental, technical and ethical problems associated with the mining of Uranium and the Development of Nuclear power, in particular: (a) to the proven contribution of the nuclear power industry to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increased risk of nuclear war; and (b) the absence of procedures for the storage and disposal of radioactive wastes to ensure that any danger posed by such wastes to human life and the environment is eliminated. Your petitions most humbly pray that: (1) No new Uranium mines be commenced; (2) No new contracts for the sale of Uranium be approved; (3) Uranium mines presently in production cease with the fulfilment of current contracts; (4) No new Uranium is supplied to countries making or testing nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms Fatin. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Whereas Australians have made and continue to make significant contributions to the field of medical research for the benefit of all mankind Whereas the opportunity exists for Australia to participate in such research in the forefront of the modern science of space medicine and with the potential for gaining significant insights into possible solutions for some of mankind's most destructive degenerative diseases: DR JOSEPH HOH, Reader in Physiology at the University of Sydney, has planned ' slow muscle' weightless studies on humans and animals to investigate how electro -muscular activity and muscle chemistry will work in space. These studies assist in the understanding of neuro-muscular disorders such as Muscular Dystrophy, Multiple Sclerosis, Myasthenia Gravis, etc. DR LEOPOLD DINTENFASS, of Sydney Hospital, has designed experiments on blood viscosity and weight of blood which can be separated in a gravity-free environment without damaging the cells. This can help work on Diabetes, Hypertension and other blood-related disorders, as well as assisting research into the causes and treatment of hereditary blood diseases such as Sickle-Cell Anaemia. These experiments, to be included in the Spacelab 4 payload which will be dedicated to the Life Sciences, are among only 25 chosen from some 800 applications from the international scientific community. Whereas Australia is honoured, with Britain and Switzerland, to be the only other country besides the United States to be represented on this historic flight and is thus presented with a unique opportunity to show the way to the world in the peaceful uses of outer space; Whereas Australia's, and Dr Dintenfass' and Dr Hoh's participation in this venture is threatened by lack of funds to complete their projects and provide transport and accommodation for themselves, their staff and their equipment in Cape Canaveral during the Shuttle flight. Whereas if they do not participate, their years of dedicated research and the public and private funds already invested in their projects will have been wasted. Whereas this matter must be resolved WITH THE UTMOST URGENCY, by mid-April 1984 ; Your petitioners call upon the Government to provide sufficient funds to enable both these projects to be completed; And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jacobi. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that the Soviet Union continues to violate human rights in Latvia. This is clearly demonstrated by the recent case of Janis Rozkalns, a practising Baptist who, on January 6, 1983, had his house forcibly entered into by K.G.B. agents searching for various religious publications. The K.G.B. confiscated 40 Bibles. Mr Rozkalns was charged with ''anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda'' and now faces a sentence of seven years deprivation of freedom plus five years internal exile. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled condemns the religious and human rights persecutions within the Soviet Union. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Macphee. 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 humble pray that the Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the 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 Beddall,Mrs Darling and Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Governments in Australia shows that General Revenue Grants to Local Government under Personal Income Tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2% in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2%, The increase in grants to State Governments over the same period was 11.8%, Increased demands are being made on Local Government Authorities to participate in Federal Government programs, e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in General Revenue Grants to Local Government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to Local Government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain residents of the Divisions of Fadden and Oxley shows that: Concern is felt at the proposal of Australia Post to cease using Roadvale Post Office as a sorting/delivery Office and to transfer these services to Boonah Post Office. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will ensure that the current services offered by the Roadvale Post Office will be retained. by Mr Beddall. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Patersons Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Patersons Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in 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 glamourous 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. Petitions received. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's continued persecution of the elderly in Australia, particularly in the most recent version of Labor's Assets Test. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.22) —It is quite clear that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is not going to speak for the elderly in the community . It is quite clear that it is only members of the Opposition who will be doing that. The nonsense spoken by the Government since this matter was introduced on Friday shows that it is totally unaware of the widespread public concern that exists following the imposition of the Hawke assets test. After 15 months in office the Government has imposed an assets test on pensioners which is intrusive, discriminatory, sectional, unquestionably unfair, confusing and, more to the point bearing in mind the alleged reason for its imposition, devoid of revenue. In fact, it is going to be a cost to the community of $30m next year. It is symptomatic of Labor's cruel, ill-thought-out and piecemeal approach to the elderly. The Hawke assets test puts the lie to the claim by the Prime Minister himself that Labor governs in the interests of all Australians. The millions of pensioners and those on the verge of retirement know full well that that claim is nothing but an empty claim. Last Friday's announcement of the assets test shows that this Government is unquestionably prepared, indeed determined, to continue to persecute pensioners. This is not the first move, after all, that has been taken against the elderly. It is in fact the third attack on them since the Government came to office. They have been reduced to second-class citizens. The Government will continue to victimise those least able to withstand the chopping and changing that is the hallmark now of Labor's approach to the elderly. As the days go by, make no mistake about it, this issue is not going to disappear behind some cloud of Hawkespeak. Pensioners simply cannot plan their lives on the shifting sands of the Prime Minister's broken promises. The Hawke assets test is another blow to the independence and security of the elderly. I want to look in detail at just how wrong the Hawke assets test is, first from the standpoint of privacy. When the forms start to pour out of the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Social Security, when pensioners have to prepare lists of what they own and put a value on such things as cars, furniture , caravans, televisions and personal possessions, when the bureaucrats question the value given by a pensioner and when the inspectors begin knocking on people' s doors, do not tell me that they are going to say they are there to help them. Do not say that they will not come, because there is no way that this test can be enforced without a degree of intrusion that ought never to be allowed by any government into the homes of Australian citizens. When I hear the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) saying 'There will be a minimal intrusion', that is, to use the most apt phrase, the first foot in the door, the first step down the trail of intruding into pensioners' affairs. I repeat: What right has any government to demand of the people of this country that they supply to it a list of their personal possessions and have them valued by a group of inspectors on behalf of a government which is introducing a test that will cost $30m in its first year? It will take until 1986 for there to be some alleged savings-allegedly a move from the wealthy to the poor. However, as the Opposition demonstrated on Friday, if we work it out per pensioner, it amounts to 36c a pensioner. The assets test is a sham; it is a fraud; it is an outright invasion of the rights of individuals; and it will be rejected not just by those who are suffering this intrusion and, by extension, degradation, but by so many others who will see this test for what it is. The full impact of this mean-minded intrusive innovation will hold the Government to ransom. It was interesting to listen to Senator Grimes on the national Today show; he will be the bunny carrying the can for this. He said that a major reason why homes were exempted from the assets test was that every pensioner's home would have had to be valued . I fully agree that the valuation of all those homes would have been a massive task, but why did not Senator Grimes go on to point out that the valuation of personal effects-the hundreds, indeed thousands, of items contained in homes around Australia-will be an infinitely greater problem than the checking of the homes themselves? Yet that is what this half-baked test is about. Let me make it clear. The great majority of pensioners will have personal effects worth more than the $10,000 allowed under the assets test. The Government knows that they will all have to be valued if they amount to more than $10,000. This Hawke assets test guarantees that there will be massive intrusion into the personal lives of Australia's pensioners. It means that the bureacracy will have the right of entry into every pensioner's home. It is blatantly discriminatory, it is a blatant invasion of people's rights, and indeed it is sectional. It means that those who own their own homes will be treated differently from those who rent. Under the Hawke assets test, a person who puts his money into home improvements will not be affected by the test, nor ought he to be because there ought not to be a test of this nature, but those who do not have a home and who invest in other things will be penalised. I will take it a little further and look briefly at the rural sector. Australians who live on farms and properties and in the rural towns which service the agricultural sector are being forcefully reminded that this Labor Government is no different from its predecessors. Rural Australians have already been severely hit by Labor's mishandling of the beef market, the cancellation of the water resources program, and Labor's virtual removal of the liquefied petroleum gas subsidy. Honourable members should bear in mind that these people are just coming out of the drought. Having been hit by the drought, they are now being hit by the Hawke Government. The farm families are being hit with the reality of an assets test which certainly puts at risk their future on the land. Once again this Government has shown its inability to grasp the inextricable link between the land and those who live on it. It shoves aside the work of a family over several generations. As we pointed out last Friday, make no mistake about it, the Hawke assets test will break up farms. It cannot do otherwise. The sons and the daughters of farming families were told last Friday by the Prime Minister that their rights and their futures no longer counted for much at all. They can have a house and that wonderful word 'curtilage', that speck of land surrounding the house. When I was in Portland on Saturday, I was besieged by small farmers who were deeply concerned as to what was to happen for the future. The Prime Minister has imposed this concern on them, and that concern will be felt throughout the rural communities of Australia. With concern about the rights and the future of sons and daughters they enter into this grisly, pay as you die scheme to get their pensions. That concern is impacting on people already. Is it not ironic that we can hear the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and, outside the House, the Prime Minister defending the special relationship with the Australian Council of Trade Unions which allows them not only to consult on personal income tax but also to negotiate on it? That is that special relationship. Yet the Prime Minister's assets test cannot cope with the special relationship which the farming community has, of course, with the land. All this Government could come up with is the invidious, pay as you die scheme. The end result of that will be that farming families will lose their farms. That is it-blunt and to the point. To the rural community, the assets test and the pay as you die scheme are Hawkespeak for death duties. After any premature election, should this unjust Government be returned-and it will not be, because this scheme and this scheme alone will bring it down; but if perchance the Government were to win-there would be death duties as well. Let us look briefly at further examples of the unfairness of the Hawke assets test which are coming to light from every quarter. Due to the special benefits granted to ex-servicemen, a far higher percentage of repatriation pensioners will lose part or all of their pensions. Some great record, some great reward for those who have made sacrifices to defend Australia! It is not just the ex- servicemen who will be affected but also those frail or disabled pensioners who might no longer have a need, for example, for a personal item such as a car. The Hawke assets test will penalise them. Last week I mentioned that pensioners will not be able to give their cars to their sons or daughters. They cannot give gifts worth over $2,000 or, in the case of a couple, over $4,000-the re- introduction of a form of gift duty as well as a further intrusion into the passing of assets of members of a family. Bureaucrats will be empowered to go back five years into a pensioner's personal records to review pension entitlements-a further indication of the intrusions that will go on day after day. What about those who have tried to provide for themselves with superannuation? First of all, the Government gets into their superannuation with a lifting of the 5 per cent tax to a 30 per cent tax on lump sums. I said last week that it was double dipping by the Government. In fact, this new concept is now triple dipping, because a person pays personal tax on what he earns over a working life. He then pays the 30 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation. On top of all that, what remains gets dragged into the ambit of the assets test form which he has to submit. For those who, by nature of their careers, such as those in the Services who are virtually forced to take out lump sum superannuation, the Hawke assets test is another penalty. The intrusions, the inequities go on and on. If those on the other side of the House want to argue the egalitarian line that this is shifting the burden from the wealthy to the needy, the argument will not stand up. Not only is it wrong philosophically-and we will argue that out with the Government time and again-but also a person has every right to provide for his own retirement without a government intruding and saying that he can no longer have lump sum superannuation and can take his retirement benefit only by annuity. No government has the right to tell an individual how he ought to take his pension benefit. On top of that, the Government is going to slam down an intrusive form of test which will deny people the right to improve their lot during their working life and transmit their income into assets. Whatever plan and whatever approach the Government takes to this test, it is intrusionary. It is inequitable. The fact is that, of its very own nature, the assets test that the Government has brought down is absolutely inequitable in operation, no matter how the Government seeks to argue it. The Government now says to us: 'It will cost $30m next year, but we will save $ 45m in a couple of years time'. How interesting it is to look at the figures. Each time the Government has produced figures they have been revised downwards. This Minister stood in the House last year and said that the Government would save $310m. Then it became $100m. Then it became $70m. Now it is $45m. What sort of a spec is that within the context of a welfare budget which is in excess of $ 16 billion this year? All this confusion, all this anxiety and all this inequity will save the Hawke Government about one-quarter of one per cent of the welfare budget. It might save the Government one-quarter of one per cent of the welfare budget, but it will not save its hide at the next election. No Australian will tolerate this sort of phoney test. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(3.37) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not intend to emulate the exaggerated rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) who, as every newspaper in this country has pointed out, has destroyed the quality of this debate because he has pursued simply the creation of fear. He has done the same thing again today. I think it is already clear that this campaign by the Opposition will die of its own fly-blown exaggerations. My task today is simply to identify rationally the reasons why the Government made the difficult decision that it did and the fairness of the test that has emerged. It is absurd to suggest that this test, announced on 1 June, persecutes the elderly of Australia. It is a fair and equitable test that will have the effect of ensuring that pension assistance is directed to those in need and not dissipated to those well able to support themselves. I believe that the fairness of that proposition is widely accepted in the community. It will substantially address the growth in the circumvention or avoidance practices that we all know have proliferated in recent years following the Liberal Government's abolition of the assets test in 1976. These schemes, which have become widespread, have enabled many people, well able to look after themselves, to receive pensions. The Government has had the courage to take this difficult decision in this area and has taken steps to really address the issue and not simply to create the kind of panic mongering which has been the only contribution of the Opposition to this debate. We believe that the test is fair and equitable. For single people, the test will not begin to take effect until the net market value of assets, after excluding the home, exceeds $70,000. This is increased by another $50,000 if he or she is a non-home owner. For married couples, the threshold is $100,000 with an additional $50,000 for renters. The vast majority of pensioners do not have assets anywhere near those values and will be totally unaffected by the test. One of the extraordinary things that the Australian population must be pondering is the enormous and excessive concern for that very small, asset rich proportion of pensioners. The great bulk of Australian pensioners will in no way be affected by these tests. For those few-- Mr Ian Cameron —At least the farmers have produced something. It is better than half the pensioners who sit on their backsides and do nothing. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa is not taking part in this debate. Dr BLEWETT —I would like that remark on the record because it typifies the attitude of the National Party of Australia towards the great mass of pensioners . Mr Ian Cameron —At least the farmers are productive. Mr McGauran —Do you deny that farmers are productive? Dr BLEWETT —I do not deny that farmers are productive. But I-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Minister to ignore the interjections. I ask honourable members to cease interjecting. Dr BLEWETT —I recognise the productive contribution made by farmers in this community. However, I do not believe that enables representatives of the National Party to castigate the rest of the pensioner population. For those few who do exceed these thresholds pensions will be reduced by $20 for each $10,000 of assets. Of course, it is important to note, the assets test operates separately from the income test, with a test which provides the lowest calculated entitlement being that which determines actual pension entitlement. Because of that, many people with assets above the threshold will still be unaffected by the test. This is because such assets will currently be producing income and are currently reducing their pension entitlement. The test also contains a number of provisions that ensure that it is fair and equitable. Hardship provisions will assist people, such as farmers, as well as the concessions of the loan scheme, which have been grossly castigated by members of the Opposition. I quote from one of the papers over the weekend which I think made a very true comment: The scare campaign was at times a gross misrepresentation of advice to the Government . . . Reference to the optional system whereby pensioners with liquid assets can take a pension now and have it charged as a lien against their estate with epithets such as 'pay-as-you-die'- this was repeated here this afternoon- did nothing for the debate and only served to fuel the fears for the aged. Let me just look at the farmers' situation because it has been raised by a number of the speakers here. First of all, let me say that only eight years ago an assets test applied and it applied to farmers. That original test, on both assets and income, was in fact a much harsher test than the present one. It did not lead to any breakup of family farms. There is no real evidence in any of the statistics that this led to the breakup of family farms. As we have said, for farmers living on their property, the principal residence, together with the curtilage-that is, the immediate area surrounding the home, which allowed the Leader of the Opposition to have so many jokes last week-will be an exempt asset . For farmers living off their property, the residence in which they are living will be exempt if they own it and the entire value of the farm is an asset. The market value of the farm property, less home and curtilage if the farmer lives on the property, net of any debts outstanding will be treated as an asset for the purposes of the test. A net market value will be applied to determine the asset. To the net market value of the farm will be added the net value of all other assets, for example, bank balance, car, and household contents. As we have pointed out, the maximum rates of reduction will take place. It is important to note in relation to farms that there will be a provision to exempt the value of the asset in whole or in part where the person is unable or could not reasonably be expected to raise money on the asset or to sell it and would otherwise suffer hardship. Indeed, those provisions are already spelt out in the Bill before the House. For example, a farm may be in the pensioner's name, but his sons have worked the farm for many years for little or no wages on the understanding the farm would be theirs on the farmer's death. The hardship provisions are in the Bill to cover those situations. In other circumstances, if the farmer's assets wholly or largely preclude him from the pension and these assets are primarily of an illiquid nature, he may, entirely at his own election or volition, apply for a fortnightly payment equivalent to the pension subject to repayment from the eventual proceeds of the estate. Such loans will attract interest at market interest rates. We have pointed out already in this House today the efforts we will make to avoid, as far as possible, intrusion into personal affairs. The test will be essentially a self-assessment procedure in relation to personal effects and household contents, and that of course will be in relation to the great mass of the pensioner population. As I said, we expect that 70 per cent of the pensioner population will not in fact be required to fill in a form. We will provide them with the information on the evidence we have that they are unlikely to meet these very high threshold levels and, therefore, they simply need to confirm that. I believe therefore that we can reduce the problem of intrusion, at least as far as is possible. I believe that those self-assessment procedures and the high threshold levels we have set will in fact avoid much of the intrusion that has been talked about. As we have said, overall it is estimated that only about 40,000 pensioners-that is less than 2 per cent of all pensioners-will be affected by the test. That seems to me hardly a persecution. In our effort to arrive at what was a fair and reasonable set of criteria, we were relying very much on the information and criteria provided to us by Professor Gruen. I believe we have directed assistance to those most in need. There is no doubt that, whatever other criticisms may be made about the proposals the Government has now brought forward, they generally direct assistance to those most in need. Indeed, we have corrected a number of the anomalies in our original test which were identified by Professor Gruen; that is , the whole series of extensive exemptions in the original test did, in fact, create anomalies which modified or qualified our ability to direct resources to those most in need. Certainly, the present test no longer favours those with assets in a particular form over other forms, except in the one major instance of the family house. Let me turn to the question of fairness. In doing away with most of the specific exemptions we have created a much fairer assets test system because it does not favour people with particular sorts of assets over people with other sorts of assets. Of course, there is the one big exception; that is, we have exempted the family home. We did this because we believe that there is a special Australian attachment to home ownership and the problems of house prices in different parts of Australia were pointed out by Professor Gruen as an obvious unfairness in that system. The one big inequity that is therefore left when we exclude the family home is in respect of those people who do not own their own home. By excluding or exempting the family home we can be said to be unfair to those many pensioners who do not possess a home. We have tried to relieve that situation in two ways: First of all, by providing a much bigger threshold; that is, adding $50,000 to the basic threshold for pensioners who are non-home owners. Secondly, and much more importantly, because most of these pensioners who do not possess homes do not have assets anywhere near these levels, we will be raising the supplementary allowance-that is, the rent allowance-in the Budget. Again, the lower thresholds that we have introduced will help to overcome avoidance under those particular levels. Of all the schemes that have been presented, this is the most simple of design and the most easy of understanding. When it is said that it brings in very little money, particularly in the first year, there are a number of points to be made. We are not simply concerned with the revenue implications of this scheme. First of all, what we are concerned with is seeing that we have an equitable scheme which makes sure that resources are not directed to those who do not need them. Secondly-this has been entirely ignored by the Leader of the Opposition- already there is an income test, and it is totally unfair that pensioners who have income resources have an income test applied to those resources but those pensioners lucky enough to salt their resources away in assets do not have it applied. As Professor Gruen said, the biggest single argument for an assets test is to ensure that those with incomes and assets are treated alike, not as they are at present in a discriminatory way. In addition, this assets test will minimise the opportunities for avoidance that are proliferating under the present scheme. So there will be savings, which we cannot quantify, in the years ahead. Thirdly, because the cohorts coming into the age pension group will be, on the whole, much wealthier because of the period of our history throughout which they have lived, increasingly, over the years, this assets test will produce greater revenue for the Government. It is true that the Government has received considerable criticism about the assets test that it has introduced. Most of that criticism has come from people who have said that we have not gone far enough; we have not had a low enough threshold. The comment in most of the Press and indeed from many of the pensioners themselves is that perhaps we have not gone far enough and perhaps we have not been equitable enough. There are only two groups in this community that do not take that position: Asset wealthy pensioners and this Opposition. It is interesting that Gruen, who criticised us, reserved his harshest words for: . . . an unholy alliance of greedy, unrepresentative spokespersons for some pensioner organisations and of the Federal Opposition to frighten those Australians receiving pensions. But even more important is this comment in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday : And the Opposition's decision to repeal any assets test when returned to Government has made it virtually impossible for any future Liberal Prime Minister to overhaul the welfare system. The opposition of honourable members opposite to this measure has made it impossible for them to govern this country in the difficult years that lie ahead . Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.53) —I assure the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who is representing the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), that our future health policy and social welfare policy will not be determined by the media. Indeed, as he would know, our policy for social services was to maintain a test to determine eligibility for a pension-one that was based on fairness and equity but one that was based on income. I have listened with some interest to try to determine on what basis this case for the fourth version of an assets test could possibly be sustained. Nothing in the Minister's statement, nothing in the comments of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and nothing in the comments of the Minister for Social Security in any way satisfies me that this is not totally discriminatory against those who, at the moment, are in the age pension bracket. We need to remember that, just by definition, they were born before, during or immediately after World War I. They lived through the Depression years. They essentially had their prime working days in those years before World War II when savings were low and difficult to come by and when incomes were certainly far below those of today. They are a group of people who deserve to be cared for and considered, not just in themselves but in association with their families. This fourth version of an assets test first proposed 10 months ago has introduced a new discriminatory formula that denies to any pensioner an opportunity of being certain about what his entitlement will be. We have heard constant repetition of just what the test will be, what will be included and what will be excluded. But none of us knows what this boundary around the home to which this Government has given the fancy name of curtilage will be. We do not know to what extent particular assets will be valued. We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) about the 'knock, knock' of the Grimes gestapo on the door to assess the value of a person's assets to determine whether he will receive a pension because of the application of this new assets means test. It is of no use for the Minister or members of the Government to come into this House and say that what the Opposition is trying to do is to generate fear. What we are trying to do is to ensure that the social security policy of this country is applied in a fair, practical and honest way. What concerns me is that, from all the descriptions given in this House and outside this House, there is nothing that satisfies me that this is not a peculiarly discriminatory test which apparently will exclude some 40,000 of the two million people now receiving some sort of pension at a cost of $30m this year. But particularly for those of us who come from rural electorates there are three areas of concern. We know that migrants will be disadvantaged. We know that those who are widowed will have to dispose of their husbands' assets within six weeks of their husbands' deaths. We know that there will be discrimination against small businessmen and we certainly know that farmers will be discriminated against. Unless there is removal of this assets test there will be total discrimination against people who, throughout their working lives, have earned their living on the land and who, through this assets test, will be denied eligibility and access to a reasonable pension. The whole concept of an assets test on pensions has been considered before. The report of the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, one of the deepest and most far-reaching inquiries of recent years, specifically rejected it. It is of no use for honourable members opposite to come into this chamber and advocate the words of Professor Gruen. The Henderson inquiry was just as comprehensive and it rejected such a proposal. It was on that advice that we acted when in government. The Government has mounted its case for this test on two arguments: Firstly, that under the incomes test pensioners were double dipping and receiving pensions that they did not deserve; and, secondly, that there was a growing army of aged people in the community and they threatened to overwhelm the social security budget unless some savings were made. The Government has promised to increase the pension to try to placate those who properly are concerned at the discriminatory nature of this new pensions test. There has been no examination of the reasons for this problem. The aged have been accused and that, as far as this Government is concerned, is that. On the second issue we have been subjected to a great deal of so-called analysis of the phenomenon which those who are promoting it are fond of calling the greying of Australia. Once again the arguments have been short on facts and long on unprovable assertion and untestable projection. Figures published in the Australian on 30 May show how fragile these arguments are. In summary, the figures show that age pensions represent only one-third of our total welfare bill and the cost to the nation of age pensions has been rising at far less than the cost of other welfare services. But the Government has charged in blindfolded and tried to treat the patient with the first band-aid that it could drag out of its ideological medicine chest. Like the Medicare scheme that this Minister has introduced, I am afraid it will cause more future illness than it will cure. Without doubt those being hit hardest are the farmers. There is no doubt that they have major capital assets which, in general, return a relatively low income . They live on their farms with their children to whom they plan to hand on their properties. Under the proposed assets test most Australians, when they retire, will be able to remain in their homes and receive a full or part age pension. That will be almost impossible for farmers if they seek to receive a pension. If they do they will have these death duties by another form. In case honourable members think that farmers will be the only ones affected, just before I started to speak I was fascinated by a copy of the Adelaide News of 4 June which states: 'Death duties not ruled out by PM'. So he will discriminate not only against the farmers as far as pensions are concerned but also against anybody else who has shown initiative and thrift through his working life, whether he be a small businessman or a professional man. People who contribute to the wellbeing of this nation will be in the group excluded by this Government , whether it is in this form in the pensions area or in another form in the death duties that are yet to come. The Government has announced an exemption for the farm home and curtilage. We just heard the Minister refer to that. Nobody has defined 'curtilage' and how can one identify where the curtilage ends and the farm begins. Even with the value of the house excluded, the great majority of farmers would still have assets of more than $175,000, the figure at which a married couple would cease to have any pension entitlement. How about the farmer who properly decides to pass on his farm to his children? If he decides to buy a house in town the farm would immediately become part of his assets. He would be excluded from the opportunity to receive a pension. Honourable members opposite may say: 'He has all that money, why should he worry about it?'. I do not know whether many Government supporters saw something of rural Australia during the last few years of the drought, but those who did would know the difficulties involved in trying to sell a property during such a period and trying to carry on an ordinary life. What happened in 1976 has to be recognised. There was a peculiar problem for people who, as they got into advanced years, did not have the flexibility to realise their capital assets in the way that younger people might have. Consequently, the means test on incomes was intentionally introduced to ensure that people who wished to retain their assets but who were not in a position to live on the income that they then enjoyed would be able to receive a pension benefit. I have heard nothing from this Government that in any way satisfies me that the income means test that we introduced was not far more equitable than the threats, uncertainty and unpredictability that this Government has introduced in this new form of means test to be applied. What we need to realise is that those who want to retire within five years of the operating date of the assets test will not be able for some time to become eligible for a pension. The test will not just put an embargo on people who currently hold assets. This Government will go back five years to see what people have done with their incomes. We will have that knock, knock on the door applying not only to current assets. There will also be investigations of all those dealings over the preceding five years. What about widows and those who need sickness pensions? Do they know five years beforehand what tragedy or illness will strike? Is a woman able to tell when her husband will die? How ridiculous! What will happen is that the assets will have to be sold; the farms will have to be split up. If such people want a pension they will face a death duty which certainly at that stage will destroy the benefit of the asset which many years of hard labour has earned for them. The tragedy of the Government's new means test on assets is that sadly it is discriminatory in its effect and it will not solve the problem of less government. We heard that the cost this year will be $30m. It hits the hardest working and most independent sector of Australian society the hardest. The means test deserves to be rejected. I assure this House that every member on this side of the House is quite convinced that Labor's assets test will not succeed and that Labor's assets test will be rejected as soon as we are returned to government. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(4.03) —Madam Deputy Speaker, in all the time since you have attained your office I do not believe I have had the opportunity to congratulate you publicly on becoming Deputy Speaker. I now do so and commend you for the way in which you have been carrying out your duty. The Hawke Labor Government believes that no Australian in his or her retirement years should have to scrape to provide a reasonable standard of living. We believe that no people in their later years, after years of working for family and nation, should be denied peace of mind by living in fear for their welfare. However, we fear that this is precisely what has been happening in the case of many ordinary pensioners who have been caused unnecessary worry by those who, for short-sighted political purposes, have encouraged groundless fears about the intention of the assets test. Means tests have been invoked by past governments as a means of ensuring that no one in genuine need should go without sustenance. In last year's Budget the Government moved to introduce an assets test, as well as an income test in the means test, similar to the scheme which was in force prior to 1976. We would consider such a move only in the interests of the majority of pensioners to whom we promised financial relief. We did this in the context of considering a national superannuation scheme as a longer term alternative. In so acting we were anxious to ensure that no one should be unnecessarily hurt. We therefore introduced the measure 12 months before it was to be administered. Our decision to do so was based on the reasonable assumption that governments should not rigidly impose such important legislation without giving the community the opportunity to respond and make its input beforehand. The widespread consultation which took place with major interest groups in the community before the draft legislation was introduced into Parliament could then carry on for 12 months, allowing us the opportunity to amend where necessary. It became clear from discussions with pensioner groups and with constituents that the proposed legislation contained a number of anomalies which would have caused distress to some groups of pensioners. The Australian Labor Party believes in education and consultation. As is obvious, we will listen to the concerns of the public and, if feasible, change our legislation to meet these concerns. The trauma which followed these reasonable plans on behalf of Australian pensioners was caused by a cynical and vicious opposition which deliberately stirred up that fear which already lurked at the back of pensioners' minds. The Opposition should have realised that if it was in contact with older people. Mr Donald Cameron —That is a lie and you know it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark. Mr Donald Cameron —Madam Deputy Speaker, do you mean: 'That is a lie and you know it'? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark without debate. Mr Donald Cameron —Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. Mrs DARLING —The Opposition should have known of the fear of people who had been let down so badly by past governments which put their interests last. For instance, under the Fraser Government the pension dropped from 25 per cent of average weekly earnings down to 22 per cent of average weekly earnings. When we came into Government last year pensioners were indeed struggling. The Hawke Labor Government has not let pensioners down, nor do we ever intend to do so. The new assets test has the acceptance of the majority of the community. The Government has retained the assets test but amended it comprehensively to meet those needs articulated by many pensioners over the past seven months. I thank members of the Australian electorate for their constructive response to Government representatives and assure them that their case has been well presented in Caucus by government members from every State. As a result a number of anomalies have been resolved. For instance, pensioner couples who bought a modest holiday home when prices were lower in tourist areas to avoid high rents for family holidays will not be affected if they have no other large assets as they will still be within the guidelines of the $100,000 asset level for a pensioner couple. The special plight of those pensioners who had to sell their family home to enter a nursing home also has been addressed. They are now able to hold an extra $50,000 in assets before there is any change to their pension. Consideration has also been given to indexation of assets for pensioners. The proposal covers indexation of assets in line with consumer price movements, as a hedge against movements for pensioners. Therefore, if the CPI moved at the rate of 10 per cent in any given year the maximum allowable amount would move from $ 100,000 to $110,000. I wish to make it quite clear that pensioners should not be overconcerned about the assessment of household contents and personal effects. I say this because I regret that the unholy urge of the Opposition to create tensions for political purposes is already bearing fruit, as witnessed by the influx of questions directed to the assets test hotline in Brisbane. Mr Donald Cameron —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Do we have to cop all this junk and all these accusations? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I ask the honourable member not to raise frivolous points of order. Mrs DARLING —That is a typical response of the Opposition. The Opposition stirs up fear by speaking of storm troopers knocking on doors. How dare the Opposition disturb Australian pensioners with such drivel? The new administrative staff employed by the Department of Social Security will in fact look through records. If there is a large discrepancy between the files already there and the self- assessment, then the pensioner will be invited to come into the Department to talk over the matter with people there. As the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has pointed out, the Government will not be snooping and pensioners themselves will be asked to declare the value of their property. Pensioners have a lot of sense. They do not lose their brains just because they get older. If the pensioner believes that the value of his or her household contents and personal effects is less than the estimated $10,000, this should be declared, as should the property of those who have household items and personal effects at a much higher value than the $10,000. There has also been an increase in the proposed original amount that pensioners could give away each year without having their pension affected. From 1 June 1984, a single pensioner can give away up to $2,000 a year and a pensioner couple can give away up to $4,000 a year before it is considered an asset for the purpose of the test. The Government has also considered the situation of pensioners with large assets but with little cash in hand; that is, some pensioners may have large amounts of assets which would mean that they are not eligible for a pension. However, if it is difficult to convert some of these assets into cash to cover the ordinary living expenses, or if they are assets which they would rather not sell, in these cases people can retain three-quarters of these assets and be paid an income equivalent to the pension as a loan which would be recovered from their estate after death. I stress that this is not an obligation; it just allows pensioners to enjoy their accumulated assets during their lifetime and still be able to have money for ordinary living expenses. In this context I request politically macabre and mischievous Opposition members not to offend siblings by suggesting that they would rather their parents sold their assets in their old age so that they could leave more behind them than give them the choice of taking advantage of this option and enjoying it if they so wish. In conclusion, I wish to address a few words to the Opposition on behalf of Australian pensioners. The Australian electorate has put us here to do a job of work. That job includes supporting our constituency by representing its viewpoint in the Parliament and to the government of the day, to ensure that its needs and, where possible, desires, are met in the legislation before the House. The job includes protecting and supporting constituents and assuaging legitimate fears while acting in their interests; not trampling over their feelings and adversely affecting their health by stirring up fears which are invalid. That is not what we are paid for. I therefore call on Opposition members who care-I know that there are Opposition members who care and know I am speaking the truth-to persuade their leaders to co-operate with the Government's attempt to raise the standards of pensioners, struggling to keep above the poverty line in their old age, and to stop its heartless promotion of confusion and fear amongst the aged in Australia. The melodramatic knocking on doors by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) is in line with the racist comments in this House a little earlier relating to a report today by Austcare organisers that, when asking for donations, they had received bullets in an envelope to 'get rid of a couple of them'. That is the result of thoughtless political untruths which are spread in this House for the purpose of gaining votes. It is really not worth it. When members of the Opposition attack the Government and talk in such a melodramatic fashion about stormtroopers and about knocking on the door, they are harming the pensioners of Australia. It is time they stopped doing so. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, I present the report of the Committee entitled 'Management of the Main Battle Tank by the Department of Defence: Who was Outgunned? Review of the Auditor-General's Efficiency Audit Report', 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-The review by the Standing Committee on Expenditure, of an efficiency audit report prepared by the Auditor-General deals with the management of the main battle tank by the Army Office of the Department of Defence. As honourable members will recall, a special division of the Auditor- General's Office was established to carry out efficiency audits following amendments to the Audit Act in 1979. It has been the practice of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and the Standing Committee on Expenditure to review the efficiency audit reports prepared by the Auditor-General. To date, three such reports have been reviewed by the Expenditure Committee and one by the PAC. Three main issues have emerged from the Expenditure Committee's examination of the efficiency audit report of the management of the main battle tank by the Department of Defence. The first of these is the quality of the Department of Defence management of the tank; the second is the quality of the efficiency audit reports; and the final, perhaps the most important, aspect of the Committee's examination is the future of efficiency reviews in the Australian Public Service. With respect to the quality of the Department of Defence management of the tank, it was clear that the Department had acted upon deficiencies raised in the report or had considered and rejected Audit's comments for reasons the Department was generally able to explain. Nevertheless, the Committee found it difficult to assess the efficiency of the management of the tank. The most important reason for this was the inadequacy of the efficiency audit report itself. The Auditor-General's report is a brief document of eight and a half pages but it represents a very significant allocation of the resources of the Auditor- General's Office over a four-year period at a cost of almost $185,000. The report, in the assessment of the Auditor-General, showed nothing significant and the Committee would agree with this view. Some defence of the report was offered when the Committee was holding public hearings. It was argued that efficiency audit reports should not set out to be 'gotchas' and prove something wrong with every organisation or program examined through efficiency audit. Again, the Committee would agree with this view. However, what the Committee feels the public and the Parliament have a right to expect from efficiency audits is not ' gotchas' but thorough analysis. Thorough analysis is where this efficiency audit report fails, and in my view fails dismally. The report fails to examine fully the management strategy used by the Department of Defence for the tank. It fails to question why the Department has 28 of the 103 tanks on blocks and how this was arrived at as the appropriate number to have stored. The report even fails to comment on engineering and performance standards, which was one of the issues it mentioned as a focus of the inquiry in its early paragraphs. The Auditor-General, during the Committee's hearings on this report, acknowledged his dissatisfaction with this particular efficiency audit and with efficiency audits in general. He advised the Committee that, as a result of the experience of his Office with such audits, he had approached the Public Service Board to seek a reorganisation which would effectively disband the Efficiency Audit Division of his Office. The Committee had some reservations about the outcome of the reorganisation proposed by the Auditor-General and this directed its attention to a third issue : The future of efficiency reviews in the Australian Public Service. Obviously, the Committee cannot and would not wish in any way to pre-judge the outcome of the proposed Audit Office restructuring. Nevertheless, the Committee noted that efficiency audits under the new arrangements will be carried out within the line divisions of the Audit Office by people with predominantly auditing experience. The Committee questioned whether efficiency issues will receive priority in this environment and whether staff will be sufficiently senior or experienced in matters beyond compliance auditing to carry out the full range of investigations envisaged by the Parliament when the efficiency audit amendments were made to the Audit Act. The Committee was concerned that, because efficiency auditing within the Office of the Auditor-General has been the largest and most concentrated aspect of efficiency review within the Australian Public Service, changes to its structure could lead to a significant alteration to the way in which efficiency review mechanisms operate across the Public Service. It was noted that a number of Public Service departments and authorities-most significantly the Public Service Board under section 17 of the Public Service Act-have responsibilities to monitor efficiency and that there was at least the possibility that fragmentation and gaps could develop in the efficiency review mechanisms available within the Service. With this in mind the Committee intends to examine, in a follow-up inquiry, the existing efficiency review mechanisms and appropriate mechanisms for co-ordination of these. In conclusion, on behalf of the Committee I thank the Auditor-General and Army officers involved in the inquiry, particularly Colonel Grey, for their co- operation and assistance. I particularly thank Mr Brendan Bailey, who organised the hearings and assembled the material for the Committee's review, as well as the Committee Secretary, Sue Harlow, and Secretariat members who assisted the Committee in finalising the report. Mr LUSHER(Hume) —by leave-I support the remarks that have been made by the Chairman of the Expenditure Committee on the tabling of the Committee's report. As the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) has indicated, the tabling of this report brings to a conclusion the very sad history of efficiency auditing in the Office of the Auditor-General. That is something which I think ought to be of concern to the Parliament and to those who are interested in matters of public administration in this country. As my colleague has pointed out, there was a role for the Public Service Board in maintaining, checking and reporting upon efficiency within Public Service departments, but in the middle and towards the end of the 1970s there was concern as to whether this was being carried out sufficiently well, whether there were gaps, and whether there may be some alternative way of looking into efficiency within the Public Service. The reports produced from inquiries under Section 17 of the Public Service Act, albeit on an occasional basis, by the Public Service Board were internal documents and obviously were not available for scrutiny. I think it is true to say that there was a general feeling of dissatisfaction that no one really knew the extent of the efficiency monitoring that was being carried out within the Service. So there was a perceived need for some form of publicly available efficiency auditing, and, following a lot of discussion towards the end of last decade, legislation was finally passed which approved the efficiency auditing function within the Auditor-General's Office. As most honourable members now realise, I think, a division was created within that Office and staffed with specialist people and relatively high powered people whose purpose and task was to concern themselves with efficiency within the Public Service. The Expenditure Committee and the Public Accounts Committee were given a role and a responsibility in reviewing the reports of the Efficiency Auditing Division within the Auditor-General's Office on behalf of the Parliament. The Committees have been carrying out that role. The Chairman of the Expenditure Committee drew attention to the fact that that Committee has looked at three of those reports of the Efficiency Auditing Division and that the Public Accounts Committee has looked at one. That means that four have been looked at on a pretty full and thorough basis by committees of this Parliament. I remember well the situation that developed, and it is one of the reasons why I refer to this matter as having a sad history. When the first report was tabled in this Parliament by the Speaker on behalf of the Auditor-General, the Expenditure Committee made clear that it would be having an inquiry into the report and would review the report. It called over the Auditor-General for discussions and to give evidence on the way in which the report had been prepared. The then Auditor-General made clear to the Committee that it was not his intention to come along and give any evidence. The view that he took was that this was his report; it had been tabled; it represented his view on that matter; and he had nothing further to add. It was not the Committee's view that that was the way it should have been. I was very pleased that at that time the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), now the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, was of a mind to raise the matter in the Parliament. I think it was appropriate that that be done. He drew attention in this Parliament to the fact that the Auditor-General was expressing this attitude and queried whether it was appropriate, and he expressed his own view, as opposed to a Committee view-although I think it was probably a view that was fairly widely shared among members of the Committee at that time-that this was not a proper attitude on the part of the Auditor-General and that these reports ought to be reviewed by the parliamentary committees and that such review obviously needed to involve the participation of the Auditor-General and his staff. Over the period since then, the experience has been far from satisfactory. As the Chairman of the Committee has pointed out in the tabling statement on this report, the battle tank efficiency audit was undertaken over a period of four and a half years-and I emphasise that-at a cost estimated by the Auditor-General 's Office of $185,000. As the Chairman of the Committee has pointed out to the House, after all that not only did the Efficiency Auditing Division not deal entirely with the subject matter, it did not deal satisfactorily with what it dealt with. The result of four and a half years' work and $185,000-worth of expenditure was eight and a half pages of report in the efficiency audit report from the Auditor-General's Office. The present Auditor-General has taken a view-one with which it is hard to disagree in the circumstances-that the way in which the efficiency auditing is being carried out leaves much to be desired. Accordingly, he has had discussions with the Public Service Board and he proposes to disband the Division that is now carrying out efficiency audits. I think that it will be of interest to all members of parliament to know this and to observe the way in which these matters develop from now on, because although the Division will be abolished it will certainly remain the case that under the Audit Act the Auditor-General will have the responsibility for carrying out efficiency auditing functions, although they will be undertaken in a different form and within the existing divisional structure in the Auditor-General's Office. It is important to raise these matters in the House because there must be lessons for all of us in relation to them, be we Ministers of the Crown, chairmen of committees, or humble back benchers. The fact is that there is a very important function which is to be carried out on behalf of taxpayers. Parliament is charged with the responsibility of doing that, and the parliamentary committees, particularly the Expenditure Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, have a very weighty responsibility in respect of these matters. This is one experience of where there has been an effort, which I acknowledge was a totally genuine effort, in the early days, to get a proper and effective efficiency audit process going within the bureaucracy for the betterment of all, yet it has turned out to be a dismal failure, at least in the form in which it was established. There are lessons to be learnt from this matter. I hope that there will be further inquiries and analysis as to why and how it all went wrong. I enthusiastically support the views expressed by the Chairman of the Expenditure Committee that the Committee will maintain a role in following up the way in which the Auditor-General's Office reorganises itself and continues to carry out this very important function. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.26) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Development of 7th Camp Hospital, Kapooka, New South Wales. Kapooka Army Camp is a major point of entry for recruits to the Regular Army. Because of the intensity of training, there is a need for adequate medical treatment and hospital facilities at the camp. The work referred to the Committee is for the construction of a new building to serve the medical needs of units and recruits stationed at the camp. The new building will replace old, inadequate facilities and will provide a full range of medical treatment and associated services. The Committee has reported favourably on the proposal and has recommended construction of the work. The estimated cost of the work is $2, 500,000 at October 1983 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(4.28) —The Opposition strongly supports the Government's decision to proceed with this project. It is a project which should have been attended to many years ago, I hasten to add. It was one which the former Government had approved prior to the change of government and I am delighted that the present Government and the present Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) have decided to proceed with the plans. The Public Works Committee, of which I am a member, visited the 7th Camp Hospital at Kapooka, which is at Wagga, within my constituency, some time ago during its investigation of this matter. The members of the Committee were unanimous that this work should proceed, so it has the blessing of the Committee, the Opposition and the member for Farrer. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent order of the day No. 1, general business, being called on forthwith. Motion for Disallowance Debate resumed from 1 June, on motion by Mr Carlton: That the Medical Services (Fees) Ordinance 1984 (No. 7 of 1984), made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(4.30) —This motion of disallowance by the Opposition is as futile and as extraordinary in its way-although I agree it is only in a minor matter-as the fearmongering campaign waged by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) against the assets test. This disallowance motion seeks, simply, to exacerbate a difficult and delicate situation for partisan gain; a delicate situation which has been at least temporarily resolved and which, if this motion were successful, would simply be exacerbated with no benefit whatsoever either to the medical community or the general community in the Australian Capital Territory. I will not waste much time today on what, as I have said, is a pretty futile motion. I wish simply to provide answers to the wild and at times rather perverse accusations made by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) in his speech on this motion on Friday. The honourable member claimed that he could not understand what the Government sought to do by implementing this ordinance. Let me say that the ordinance was introduced simply to protect patients from incurring financial costs as a result of the intransigence of some doctors over the Medicare contracts in the Australian Capital Territory; nor, of course, was the action in any sense unique to the Australian Capital Territory. Indeed, the governments of Tasmania and Western Australia already had such provisions in their legislation, so that well ahead of any quarrels over Medicare they were clear that these kinds of protections were needed. As the honourable member pointed out, the governments of Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia believed it was appropriate in the circumstances to protect patients by taking these actions. In the cases of those three States and of the Australian Capital Territory, none of the actions would have been necessary if we had received proper co-operation from significant segments of the medical profession. I make no apology whatsoever for this Government's concern over the lack of controls of private practice rights in public hospitals. Honourable members will know that it has been the subject of exhaustive debate both in this Parliament and elsewhere. As recently as March the Government introduced into the Parliament amending legislation as a result of extensive discussions with the Australian Medical Association and others on concerns expressed by those bodies. Those amendments effectively resulted in an agreement between the Government and the AMA that all parties would accept the current position, pending the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals- that is, the committee headed by Professor Penington. The only groups not to accept this truce are a few maverick surgeons in New South Wales and the Federal Opposition. After a long dispute the Government and the AMA reached an agreement which the Opposition now seeks to overturn, at least in the Australian Capital Territory, by the disallowing of this ordinance. The Opposition wants to put the Australian Capital Territory out of step with the rest of Australia. In fact, the joint working party of the AMA and government officials has met now on three occasions to draw up a submission to the Penington Inquiry. Although I do not pretend that in a difficult area such as this all of the issues have been resolved, considerable progress has been made. In other words, despite months of debate and negotiation, despite substantial concessions being made by the Government, despite successful passage of the legislation-that is, the amending legislation- and despite the existence of an agreement between the affected parties to accept the status quo, the Opposition now seeks to place further obstacles in the path of the Medicare program. So the Government has agreed, and the AMA at least agrees for the time being. I am sure that the public agrees that it does not want to be inconvenienced any further. The only one out of step is, as usual, the Opposition. The honourable member for Mackellar suggested that this Government provoked the first strike by doctors in Australian medical history. I suggest that the honourable member should check his facts. It was not this Government which said that the doctors should go on strike. The Government was at all times willing to negotiate with the AMA on ways of finding a solution to the dispute and always believed that other, more responsible mechanisms were available to the AMA apart from strike action. I think that most objective observers who have examined the quarrel between the Government and the doctors believe that the Government made every effort over a series of months to reach a compromise agreement with the Australian Medical Association. In any event, of course, the strike action was virtually limited to the Australian Capital Territory and some so- called rolling strikes in New South Wales. The Government was able to avoid widespread strike action because it was prepared to negotiate with the AMA. It was prepared to make important concessions which enabled an agreement to be reached between the two parties. I will point out the conditions of that agreement which I think are worth reading into Hansard. I refer to the agreement reached between the Government and the AMA on Monday, 2 April 1984. Given some of the recent developments in New South Wales and some of the statements by the honourable member for Mackellar, which seem to be supportive of some of the actions now taking place in New South Wales, I will read the agreement that was reached: Provided the AMA ceases all industrial action in relation to section 17 of the Health Insurance Act and related matters and accepts the current guideline on schedule fees in respect of prescribed services, the Government will: (1) Delete from the presently prescribed services, services other than those provided by radiologists, pathologists, radiotherapists and physicians in nuclear medicine. (2) Set up a working party with the AMA to prepare a joint submission to the Penington Inquiry to recommend: (a) formal consultative mechanisms between the Government and the AMA on the guidelines under Section 17; (b) appropriate arbitration appeal procedures in the event of non-agreement on the quantifiable elements of the guidelines. The Government has observed every part of that agreement that it made with the AMA. We have already reached agreement on the prescribed services. In our efforts to negotiate satisfactory consultative and appeals mechanisms, considerable progress has been made. There can be no doubt, again, when looking at the present problem, that the Government has honoured its side of the agreement. As I say, unfortunately, elements in New South Wales, elements whose actions seem to be supported by the honourable member for Mackellar-- Mr Carlton —Careful. You should be careful about that. Dr BLEWETT —Yes, I will allow some uncertainty in my statement, and say that it seems to be supported by the kinds of statements made on Friday in this House by the honourable member for Mackellar. Those sorts of actions are placing this agreement in jeopardy. All that the Opposition can hope to achieve by its support of these disreputable tactics in New South Wales is to confuse, harass and inconvenience the public and generally abort the months of effort of all concerned parties to reach agreement on key segments of these arrangements- arrangements which will place some Federal controls over the use of publicly funded hospitals which generate substantial private incomes for doctors. The honourable member's argument is based on the premise, in relation to this ordinance, that doctors already are charging the schedule fee and therefore the ordinance is not necessary. He then went on to say that they should charge differential fees according to their levels of ability. He cannot have it both ways. If they are charging the schedule fee there is no reason to object to the ordinance. We believe that when doctors treat their private patients in public hospitals the public has a right to have some say in what they charge. Doctors generate costs in public hospitals and utilise public facilities which, for services outside that hospital, they would have to provide from their resources. There must be adequate accounting and control of these costs and the use of these publicly provided facilities. The honourable member for Mackellar then went on to make what I can only regard as an absurd statement. He claimed: The people who choose to insure privately or to ask for a private doctor, who do not spend their money at the TAB or pub and who do not go on overseas holidays, who are thrifty and who wish, by their own free choice, to spend more of their disposable income on health, because they wish to have a private professional relationship with their doctor, are the sorts of people that this Government hates. Does he honestly suggest that the majority of the people who choose only Medicare are the drinkers and gamblers of our community? Does he suggest that people who take out private health insurance do not drink or gamble? As for his suggestion that people who pay for private health insurance do not go on overseas holidays, if I had to choose between private health insurance and an overseas holiday, I am sure I know what I would regard as being more essential to my continued good health. Finally, I am pleased to answer the question posed by the honourable member: What is the future of health care and excellence in medicine in this country? It is precisely because we want to ensure that the excellent health care facilities available in this country are available to all, without fear of costs, that we introduced Medicare. I move: That the question be now put. The House divided. (The Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 —— 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. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Morrison, W. L.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. (Teller)Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hawker, D. P. M.Andrew, J. N. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Blunt, C. W. Hodgman, W. M.Burr, M. A. Howard, J. W.Cadman, A. G. Hunt, R. J. D.Cameron, Donald Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Ian McGauran, P. J.Carlton, J. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D. Hayden, W. G. Macphee, I. M.Cunningham, B. T. Aldred, K. J.Mountford, J. G. Braithwaite, R. A.Chynoweth, R. L. O'Keefe, F. L.Bowen, Lionel Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Carlton's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Adermann, A. E. Hawker, D. P. M.Andrew, J. N. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Blunt, C. W. Howard, J. W.Burr, M. A. Hunt, R. J. D.Cadman, A. G. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Donald McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ian MacKellar, M. J. R.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Newman, K. E.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Groom, R. J. White, P. N. D.Hall, Steele Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Morrison, W. L.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. (Teller)Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Macphee, I. M. Hayden, W. G.Aldred, K. J. Cunningham, B. T.Braithwaite, R. A. Mountford, J. G.O'Keefe, F. L. Chynoweth, R. L.Katter, R. C. Bowen, Lionel Question so resolved in the negative. [COGNATE BILLS: AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES AMENDMENT BILL 1984 AIR NAVIGATION AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Beazley: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill 1984 and the Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1984, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I also draw honourable members' attention to the amendments to the Air Navigation Amendment Bill which have been circulated on behalf of the Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the three measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.58) —We have before the House three Bills, the Australian National Airlines Commission Retention Bill, the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill and the Air Navigation Amendment Bill. I shall deal first with the Air Navigation Amendment Bill which can be disposed of quickly. We support that Bill. The purpose of it is to place legal restraints on the use that can be made of information recorded on the information recording devices which are now in so many of our civil aircraft. The Bill essentially puts into law what was the agreed practice over many years between the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and the Department of Aviation and its predecessor. It seeks to balance the demands of privacy with public interest in that we must know why it is that crashes take place. It is a curiosity of the present recording procedures that only the last 30 minutes are recorded, so that if something critical takes place 35 minutes before the time that a crash takes place we will have no record of that incident . I think that one thing the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) and the Government should be doing is looking at the question of longer recording times, with all of the protections in existence that will apply. I will not say anything further on this Bill unless time permits at the end of my speech. I add that I have discussed it with members of the Federation of Air Pilots and I am grateful for the views they have expressed on it. The other two Bills are the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill, which seeks to make a number of amendments to the Australian National Airlines Act, many of which are drawn from a Bill introduced by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) when he was the Minister for Aviation in 1980, and the Australian National Airlines Commission Retention Bill, which seeks to repeal an Act introduced by the Fraser Government for the purposes of setting up Trans Australia Airlines as a company which could eventually be owned by the public. These two Bills propose different conflicting and fundamentally opposed objectives. The retention of TAA as a statutory corporation, with all the special treatments and guarantees of existence that that status confers on it, is at odds with an attempt to inject into TAA some of the efficiencies and disciplines of the private sector. The Bills starkly raise this question: What should be the purposes of government aviation policy? I think the answer is a short one: Safety and the promotion of the interests of the travelling public. I will put my own views in a few words. The purposes of government aviation policy are to ensure maximum safety to the air traveller, with minimum restriction on operators and as much flexibility and diversity as possible in the choice of services by the air traveller; through competition in services to secure maximum benefit to the travelling public, as it is only through the spur of competition that resources are best used, services are most effectively given, and charges to the travelling public minimised. There would be no difference in principle between the Minister and me on the issue of safety, although I think he is somewhat too inclined to follow the views of his Department. In particular, his stated refusal to adopt random or surprise searches, a refusal that a recent newspaper article indicates he may have departed from, shows too much reliance on what the Department tells him and too little reliance on his own common sense. One does not tell an operator who may be operating unsafely, who may be breaching provisions of the air safety regulations, that one intends to raid him. It is rather like the police giving advance warning to a two-up school and then going there to see whether people are playing two-up. The chances are that they will not be. Mr Beazley —I understand that usually happens. Mr SPENDER —I understand it does too. I would not give those kinds of warnings and I would substantially raise the penalties for any breaches of safety requirements. The main point raised by these two Bills is simply this: How are the interests of the consumer to be protected and promoted? The Minister argues that it is by putting TAA on a more commercial footing, if it is possible to do that with a statutory corporation, and that its retention is the way to go about it. This really is a contradiction in terms because one cannot bring the disciplines of the market-place to a statutory authority. Operations in the market-place for private sector companies bring the rewards of profit and growth to the efficient , and commercial extinction to those who fail the bedrock market test, which is to understand and serve the interests of the consumer. There is in this House general agreement on the benefits of competition, and indeed the Minister has made this plain. In a statement he issued on 6 November 1983 in relation to the deregulation of air freight, he stated: In the case of airline freight, increased competition arising from the removal of air freight from the two airlines agreement, plus gains from the general economic recovery, should produce modest growth. The Minister is therefore conceding that one of the two reasons why he expected growth in that area was competition, and here of course competition is found between private sector companies on the one hand and TAA on the other. However, one cannot have fair and open market competition between a statutory authority set up, owned and financed by the Government, and privately owned businesses. For those who would say that there is some intrinsic difference between the business of aviation and other business one must ask this question: What makes it so special? Why is it necessary that there be a statutory corporation for the purpose of running this large airline? Between the two approaches, between the existence of a statutory corporation and the preservation of its existence and interests and competition in the market-place are basic and ineradicable differences in philosophy, outlook, decision-making processes and life expectancy. Businessmen know the sanction of failure. Boards may be dismissed, senior management may be replaced, banks may refuse further credit and call in loans, shareholders will decide that enough is enough and decline to throw good money after bad and provide further funds to make up for lost capital. Of course , the ultimate sanction is failure of the company, its liquidation, or its absorption by a more efficient rival. The position of statutory authorities is utterly different. They have charmed and guaranteed lives. Board members such as the commissioners of TAA are protected by tenure. So long as board members attend meetings, remain honest and avoid bankruptcy-after all, that is not too onerous a set of rules to impose on them-they retain office for a term guaranteed by statute and the conditions of their appointment. They may have been appointed for no better reason than friendship with the Prime Minister or a senior Minister or for being a long- standing supporter of the government of the day. They may know nothing of the business they are appointed to run. They may be uninterested in its operations, negligent of its problems, indifferent to its future, and uninformed and contemptuous of the interests of the public it is designed to serve. Yet still they will draw their pay. Characteristically, the tenure of management of a statutory corporation is as predictable and well protected as that of members of the Public Service. Not for them is the chill sanction of dismissal for incompetence. Regardless of performance, of errors, of blunders, of losses, of repeated failures to serve the needs of the public, the statutory authority remains. No matter how bad its financial state, banks extend it credit. We all know that. We all know that a statutory corporation has a virtually unlimited survival risk with banks. Banks know that standing behind the corporation is the guarantee of the Australian Government, backed by an army of Australian taxpayers, that long- suffering and never consulted body of investors condemned through the taxation system to keep afloat statutory corporations even if they be negligent, incompetent and wilfully perverse in discharging their statutory duties. We in this House know of a few examples of those sorts of corporations. This immunity from financial failure both protects the authorities themselves and colours the thinking of management, which knows that the Government never walks away from bad decisions. Added to this, of course, is the involvement of Ministers. All major decisions come back to the Ministers. In the case of TAA, its next re-equipment decision is certain to come back to the Minister. He then has to decide whether he agrees or disagrees. To whom does he turn? He turns to his Department. What competence does the Department have to advise on which aircraft should be purchased, what the going rate should be, what kind of interest rates one looks for, what sort of a deal one would look to getting from the airframe and engine manufacturers, and how one can play off Airbus Industrie against Boeing? They have no great competence in those areas. Those are areas quintessentially for the private sector, for people whose business it is to make profits and to negotiate for that purpose. But, of course, the Minister gets locked into his Department's decision or to the decision he makes because, having once agreed, thereafter the statutory authority can come to him and say: 'Minister, we need another $100m'. The Minister says: 'Why do you need that money?' 'Well, Minister, we have lost a great deal of money because the purchase that you and I agreed upon so many years ago or just a short time ago was a bad investment. Of course, Minister, since you agreed with the decision you must now agree that it is only fair and proper and wise to bail us out'. A company status is, of course, not a complete answer, but it is certainly a better answer. A minute of a Qantas Airways Ltd Board meeting, dated July 1976, which came into my hands, expressing its views as to how its affairs should be managed, states: The Board should be responsible for the direction of the Company within the terms of its Memorandum and Articles of Association, and the provisions of the Companies Act paying due regard to its responsibilities to the Commonwealth as the Company's sole proprietor. The Chairman was authorised to convey that view. In short, what that Board was saying was very simple and sensible: 'We will run the business and you, as the shareholder, can exercise your rights if we run it badly'. That is how it should be because that is the only way of introducing any real sanctions into the running of statutory corporations. I want to touch on a number of matters in relation to the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill. I will be brief. First of all, it is still to be provided that salaries effectively are to be set by the General Manager's rate of salary. That means, as TAA has acknowledged, that it is highly difficult to get the kind of expert senior staff that one needs for the purposes of running a profitable and efficient airline. Why? Because the competitors pay more. It is perfectly wrong for this Government to have taken that decision and not to have acceded to the proposition that salary levels should be set by the market if it really wants TAA to operate successfully. Secondly, we have a provision in clause 16 of the Bill for additional capital to be sought effectively: Where, in the opinion of the Commission, the capital . . . should be increased to enable the functions of the Commission to be conducted on an efficient, competitive and profitable basis . . . I should like to know why that clause is in the Bill. It was certainly in the 1980 Bill, on which the present Bill is modelled. But since then, an additional $115m of subsidies-not capital; let us understand what we are talking about-has been injected into TAA. Does the Government propose that more should be provided ? Is that not enough? On what sort of basis is it to be the opinion of the Commission? No doubt it is for the government of the day to accept or reject, but it is difficult to imagine this Government rejecting it. Thirdly, we have dividends which apparently, so it is said, are to be determined on the basis of commercial considerations. We are now talking about a company which is capitalised to the sum of $130m. Are we talking about dividends on the long term bond rate? Are we talking about dividends at half the long term bond rate? Are we talking about dividends which are seen as equivalent to, for example, the dividend that one would expect from Ansett Airlines of Australia or to the dividend one would expect from industrial corporations? We do not know. The Act does not say what is intended. Certainly, we have had no guidance from the Minister on the subject. It is simply an example of coins tossed in the air because, as I say, the money that was provided could never be seen as an injection of capital. Capital is injected when one makes a commercial decision that it is wise to do so, and one expects a return on that capital and one works out in advance what the expected return on that capital should be. Certainly, this Government does not know what kind of return it expects on its capital. Lastly, we have a proposal to guarantee penalty rates. I say nothing more than this: Penalty rates of interest arise where interest is not repaid on time. I certainly hope that the Minister does not expect the company not to be able to meet its interest obligations on time. When I say 'the company', I am referring, of course, to TAA. I should now like to say something about the Australian National Airlines Commission Retention Bill 1984, and, in particular, the Minister's second reading speech. The justification of the repeal of the Australian National Airlines Repeal Act 1981, which was passed by the Fraser Government, seems to amount to this: Claimed effects of the sale of TAA and the horror of deregulation, since the Minister's second reading speech was spent on those two subjects. What do we have? We have, I am sorry to say, an old and discredited debating technique. The Minister has fabricated imaginary difficulties. He has postulated fearful outcomes that could follow from the sale of TAA or from deregulation. He has questioned the motives and the good faith of his opponents. He has misrepresented actions and intentions. After having done all that, it was quite easy to demolish arguments, which had never really been put, on the basis of facts which were incorrectly stated. Let me start by giving one example of that. In the Minister's second reading speech, he refers to the cavalier treatment that TAA received from the previous Government. He says that TAA is an organisation that has been under constant attack. Constant attack from whom? Constant attack from a Government that set in place the 1981 agreement, from a Government which supported the two-airline agreement throughout the Government's existence, as indeed did previous Liberal governments, constant attack from a Government which took over all of the superannuation liabilities of TAA. Let us recall how those liabilities came into existence. Up until 1972, the Commonwealth Auditor-General stated that TAA always had a surplus to meet its superannuation liabilities. But what happened? We had the Whitlam Government, with the resultant increase in superannuation benefits and the indexation of those benefits resulting in advice from the Auditor-General who said that it was the most expensive retirement benefits scheme in Australia. It most certainly was, because the Fraser Government-that Government which constantly attacked TAA !-took over $259m of liabilities in March 1982. That Government, which is said constantly to have attacked TAA, provided it with $25m in capital. I remind honourable members in passing that, with the additional injection of capital this Government has given it, TAA has received a greater injection of capital than has been achieved in any, save for, I think, two or three, floats on the Australian share market over the last five years. Of course, this Government, which was constantly attacking TAA, also backed its re-equipment program, which proved to be fairly disastrous because it became involved in the Airbus. Let us look at one or two of the other matters put by the Minister. I will deal firstly with one or two matters relevant to the question of the sale of TAA. The Minister, in his second reading speech, said that there were complex difficulties involved. He stated: Having made the decision to transform TAA into a public company, the previous Government set about trying to implement it. Undoubtedly it found that it was not as easy as it had thought. In fact, there are some complex difficulties associated with the proposed transformation and many significant costs involved. Some of the difficulties include: . . . He then listed them. At this stage I should say that I sought information from the Minister on this matter and characteristically he asked his Department to provide it to me. He has always been most courteous in providing to me information on policy matters other than highly sensitive matters. The first difficulty listed by the Minister was as follows: the transfer of matters from Commonwealth to State jurisdiction, for example, long service leave, workers compensation, transfer of titles of land, eligibility for State taxation; That is backed up by what the Department says. A cursory inquiry, even a moment' s thought, would have revealed to the Minister that many companies operate throughout the various States of this country, and they manage. As for example the question of long service leave-as if that is some sort of a bogy in the event that TAA became a public company-he should have inquired of Ansett. The answer that Ansett would have given him, which is the answer that Ansett gave me , is simply that it pays according to the rates of the various States. If Ansett can manage it, no doubt TAA also can. He then stated: TAA's overseas loans would require renegotiation which would likely result in further requirements for government guarantees and increased interest rates on those loans involving increased costs to TAA; What absolute nonsense! I should have thought that the only thing that those who were lending money from overseas looked at was the question of the Government guarantee. If the Government guarantee is there it does not matter whether TAA is a statutory corporation or whether it is a company. That is all one needs to say about that. The Minister continued: the requirement for specific legislation to allow TAA to operate certain of its interstate services; Is he really serious? Is this really something which is a complex impediment? It would take a one clause Bill. It is as simple as that. He then stated: the requirement to pay stamp duty on the transfer of property and assets from the Commission to the company involving likely expenditure of $3m to $5m; Has he sought advice on this subject? Has he sought advice from the Attorney- General's Department? Has he sought advice as to the reach of the corporations power? Has he sought advice as to the capability of the Commonwealth Parliament to secure the transfer without attracting stamp duty? He continued: the industrial implications over the potential changes in employment conditions and uncertainty over the future ownership of the airline. He referred in his second reading speech to the report of Price Waterhouse and Associates Pty Ltd on the practicalities of the sale of TAA. He would have also seen in that same report that Price Waterhouse expressed no concern about the industrial implications. I will say this on behalf of the Opposition: Of course the Government would negotiate with the unions and consult them. One does not enter into changes in status without consulting people, or one certainly should not. But there are no great problems. These are problems which are manufactured for the purpose of seeking to provide an argument and no more than that. We have the usual 'heavens will fall' argument. We see such words as 'chaos', ' uncertainty' and 'dislocation'-words which I would not be so uncharitable as to apply to the Minister's second reading speech and to the logic in that speech. Time and again we see this uncertainty argument. It is as though a statutory corporation had a vested right to remain a statutory corporation. It is as though everyone has a vested right to remain just as they are. We are not going to dump a neglected and depleted airline-to use the Minister's words-'on to the Australian market'. That would not be Opposition policy. Let me say one or two things about his deregulation argument. Here we have what I think is a really classic statement from the Minister. I must read it because it is vintage nonsense. In talking about deregulation he states: Just to make TAA particularly attractive to potential new owners . . . the thrust of the Opposition's policy . . . is to deregulate the aviation industry at what would be the most vulnerable point in TAAs new ownership. That point, when the two airlines agreement runs out, is 1990. I interpolate and ask the Minister whether he intends to give notice, because he should understand that notice has to be given. He then goes on to say: I have news for them. If ever the Opposition is in a position to sell TAA, the first visit of the new owners will be conducted at knee height, with the unfortunates begging for an extension of the agreement. With those handicaps they will be rubbed out by the competition. What handicaps? The handicaps of the Hawke Government? We are talking of a government that believes it will be around until the year 1990. The Minister is saying that in 1990, six years from now, the industry will be at its most vulnerable because it will be the most vulnerable point of ownership. What does that tell us? It tells us that the Minister thinks that the Hawke Government will make the most unholy mess of economic management; it tells us also that the Minister's view as to his own stewardship is not a very high one. I think better of the Minister and I think better of the chances of this country. I think that in 1990 we will have a very much larger economy and we all know that that will not be the most vulnerable time if the decision is taken because people will have had notice and will have been able to arrange their affairs. For the Minister to attack himself and his Government is decidedly ironic. We have a few phantoms conjured up. We have the American experience, which the Minister dismisses as irrelevant except when it appears to suit his arguments. For example, why does he not look to the Canadian experience? Why does he not look to the New Zealand experience? He will see that both those countries have taken very significant decisions to deregulate and to open up their aviation industries to competition. He ignores the benefits of privatisation. He does not come to grips with any argument at all as to the benefits of deregulation, because all we are talking about is competition and no more than that. We assume competition is good in supermarkets, good in garages, good everywhere. But apparently it is not good when it comes to the airlines; it is so bad that it should not even be entertained. We have, as well, not a word on concrete measures proposed to help the consumer until-honourable members should wait for it-the 1990s. In referring to the 1990s, the Minister stated: In other words, the balance will move away from what the airlines want to what the consumers want. There is great room within the existing agreement to improve the elements of competition. If the Minister wants some advice as to how it should be done, I am perfectly happy to provide it to him. I am willing to talk to him at any time for that purpose. We stand for a fair deal for the Australian traveller. We do not stand for the entrenchment of statutory corporations and we do not stand for broken promises. I will just record this last broken promise. Mr Morris, in 1980 , stated: We will halve the fares to Western Australia by using the empty Qantas seats across Australia. That is another promise which has never been implemented, and another promise which the Minister has never attempted to renegotiate. The purpose of the comment is this: He should understand that there is much that can be done by negotiation if he is really serious in what he seeks to achieve. But in fact he is accepting matters as they now stand and there is nothing for the consumer in these proposals. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(5.28) —In April 1981 a prominent Australian pig farmer had this to say about the sale of Trans Australia Airlines: I cannot see that it would be practicable for the Government to sell anything less than a majority shareholding in TAA if it was decided to take this course of action. If such a sale went ahead, the realities of commercial competition would make it inevitable that the more costly and less profitable routes now operated by TAA would be dropped. This would mean great hardship for a great many Australians outside the major cities. I am sure honourable members will recognise the words of the then leader of the National Country Party, the Hon. Doug Anthony. It is sad to note that no member of the National Party of Australia is now in the chamber for the debate on this very important piece of legislation because it does affect the travellers in the remote areas. It is very sad to see that members of the National Party have no interest in this piece of legislation. Mr Hodgman —Not right. The honourable member for Hume will be here in just two minutes. Mr REEVES —That is good. It is a piece of legislation that relates to transport. It is even sadder to note that the Opposition's spokesman on transport, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), is not in the chamber. In that statement Mr Anthony was spelling out the real political philosophy of the National Party and, as I will go on to indicate, the Liberal Party of Australia. Their general political approach is one of agrarian socialism. Simply put, one socialises the losses and pockets the profits. Indeed, that great agrarian socialist, Mr Bjelke -Petersen, was more open about his attitude towards the sale of TAA in 1981 when he said that he was against it because it would jeopardise loss making services provided by TAA in outback centres in Queensland. Normally one would assume that loss making services would jeopardise themselves if one applied the market philosophy that the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has just spent 20 minutes telling us about. But of course the agrarian socialist philosophy really applied. That meant that TAA had to operate those services because they were making losses and the Government had to subsidise them and the profit making services were then run by Ansett Airlines of Australia and other operators and, of course, they pocketed the profits. In the 1950s the Menzies Government used this agrarian socialist principle to foist the two-airline agreement on Australia's aviation system. The two airlines agreement has been a millstone around the neck of the aviation system ever since . It is important to remember that the two-airline agreement was originally dreamed up by the Menzies Government to protect Australian National Airways and later Ansett and their profits against what they saw as unfair competition from the government airline, TAA. In fact, the real intention of Menzies's then Civil Aviation Minister, Mr Thomas White, was, in his own words, to eradicate TAA because he regarded it as the first step towards socialism, and I mean democratic socialism, not the Liberal-National Party's agrarian socialist philosophy. That has really been the attitude of the Liberal and National parties towards TAA throughout the decades. They have always been suspicious of TAA but they are quite happy to see it run losses on routes. They have continued their support for the two-airline agreement mainly to protect Ansett's profits. The year 1981 was a vintage year in the approach of the Liberal and National parties to civil aviation. In 1981 the Fraser Government decided to flog off TAA . Three decades of suspicion and outright opposition from Menzies to Fraser culminated in legislation whose repeal we are now debating to get rid of TAA. Fortunately for TAA and the Australian travelling public the Fraser Government approached the sale in its usual inept style. It could not handle the opposition from the strong agrarian socialists who sat on the National Party benches. The Fraser Government dilly-dallied through 1981 and 1982 and it had not quite worked out how it was going to go about it when the Australian electorate blew the whistle on it in 1983. In December 1982 the then Opposition's spokesman on transport, the present Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), in referring to the miserly $25m capital injection that the Fraser Government begrudgingly gave TAA, said: . . . the capital injection would provide only limited relief from TAA's heavy interest burden, which . . . could reach $500,000 a day. . . . TAA's capital needs exceeded $100 million because of its Airbus A-300 fleet re-equipment program and . . . the airline continued to be handicapped by: An 8 per cent drop in domestic air travel; Heavy interest charges associated with its borrowing program, which was aggravated by the Government's policy of high interest rates; The Government's refusal to give the airline greater freedom and flexibility in management; and Doubt about the future ownership of the airline. . . . 'Labor in government will review TAA's capital requirements and free the airline from bureaucratic interference and red tape. Labor will ensure the airline remains in full public ownership.' In contrast to the destructive, demoralising, inhibiting approach of the Fraser Government towards TAA, the Hawke Labor Government, with its excellent Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley), has, in 15 short months, firstly, injected $90m in capital funds into TAA, thus giving it the capital it needed to survive. Secondly, by this legislation we are now debating, we will remove once and for all the demoralising doubt TAA previously held for its future. Thirdly, by this legislation, we will remove the red tape and give TAA more flexibility and freedom in its management. So in 15 short months we have achieved what we said we would set out to do in relation to TAA. As a result, we will see TAA recover from the persecution of the Fraser years and return to being a strong, efficient and effective government airline. This brings me back to the two-airline agreement and the year 1981. By 1981 the wheel had turned the full circle. Far from the two-airline agreement protecting Ansett's profits, which was its original intention, the report of the Holcroft Independent Public Inquiry into Domestic Air Fares observed that Ansett was making excessive profits because air fares were set on TAA's weaker commercial performance. Confronted with that the Fraser Government did two things: It moved to get rid of TAA-I have already mentioned that-and it passed legislation to extend the two-airline agreement until the end of this decade. People might ask: 'Why extend the two-airline agreement when one is going to sell off TAA? Why not let the two private enterprise airlines that would then result compete with each other? Why extend the two-airline agreement when, according to the Holcroft inquiry, Ansett was already making excessive profits from that agreement? Why do those things?' It is very difficult to establish why the former Government did it, particularly if one reads the debates on the legislation and sees what former Government members had to say. They were obviously confused themselves. The statement of the Minister at the time gave no clarity to the matter. However , one of the supporters of the Government at that time gave us some insight into the matter in a letter he sent to the editor of the Australian Financial Review on 14 January 1982, some time after the legislation was finalised. I am referring to Mr John Hyde, the leader of the dries, and one of those brave souls who crossed the floor and voted against the legislation dealing with the two- airline agreement. He said: When Mr Murdoch and Sir Peter Abeles assumed control of Ansett they told the Government, to their credit, that they were quite prepared to accept free enterprise discipline in lieu of a two-airline agreement so long as TAA was divorced from the Government, so that TAA was unlikely ever to be able to cripple them with unfair competition. The Government refused. Then, perhaps tongue in cheek, Abeles and Murdoch offered to sell to the Government. Again the Government refused. The Government was anxious that Ansett buy new equipment, even though at least some of Ansett's executives believed that it would be cheaper to continue to fly the older 727s. But by now, the new management was starting to get the hang of this 'two-airline' business. They, in effect, said to the Government: 'You guarantee us our profits and we'll buy the new aircraft.' This time the Government said 'Yes.' There we have it from the horse's mouth. The fact is that in 1981 the Fraser Government extended the two-airline agreement for eight years to guarantee Ansett's profits. I repeat: Those are the profits defined by the Holcroft inquiry as excessive profits. I do not say that with any malice towards Ansett. Good luck to Ansett if it managed to convince the people who were running the Liberal-National Party Government at the time that the Australian travelling public should pay for its continued excessive profits for a period of eight years. I want to make it quite clear that the then Labor Opposition voted against the two-airline agreement. We have remained opposed to it ever since. But we are stuck with it and we have to accept that we are stuck with it for a number of years. In his usual style the Opposition's spokesman on aviation, Mr Spender, spent some time attacking the Government on its decision to allow TAA to continue. It is amazing how people such as Mr Spender find it so easy to change their spots when they move from government to opposition. Mr Spender was one of those 50-odd people-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable gentleman will address the honourable member by his electorate. Mr REEVES —The honourable member for North Sydney is one of those 50-odd people in the Liberal and National parties who voted with the then Government in favour of its legislation on the two-airline agreement on 3 June 1981.He supported this policy which has been a millstone around the neck of the aviation industry and tourist industry for decades. It is worth noting that if the honourable member for North Sydney had had the courage to cross the floor, as six members of the then Government did, this Bill would have been significantly altered. One vote in the debate on the Bill was lost 54 to 55. If the honourable member had shown some courage then we might have seen the two-airline agreement disposed of once and for all. Yet hypocrites such as the honourable member, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and others who were silent then about opposing the two- airline agreement now get up in public and hold forth their new-found concern about the effect that the two airlines agreement is having on the airlines, the cost impact cost increases are having on the travelling public and the effect the agreement is having on the tourist industry. It is sheer hypocrisy for these born-again free enterprise gurus to come into this place and speak publicly and now criticise this Government for something they themselves foisted on us, namely, the two-airline agreement. I challenge them to have the courage to stand up and acknowledge that they made a mistake in 1981 by voting for that legislation and to come out and support the Government in its current review of the legislation. I conclude by indicating exactly what this Labor Government plans to do about the two-airline agreement. I note that we still have not got any honourable member from the National Party in the Chamber, despite the promise that we would have the Opposition spokesman on transport here. Our outstanding Minister for Aviation has directed that a review of the agreement be conducted. That review will commence later this year and it will put the Government in a position to identify what arrangements might apply after the agreement is terminated. Of course, the Liberal and National Party agrarian socialists have done such a good job of protecting the excess profits of Ansett Airlines over the next eight years that notice to terminate the agreement cannot be given until 1987 and then the agreement will not terminate until 1989. This review will develop options such as complete deregulation, partial deregulation or just a tinkering with the present system. Those are our plans. We have opposed the agreement all the way along. Thanks to the Liberal-National Party agrarian socialists we are stuck with it for another five years or more. But we will ensure that it is reviewed and that Australia's air travellers get the system that is best for them; a safe , cheap system of air travel. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(5.43) —The Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) in his second reading speech on the Australian National Airlines Commission Retention Bill attempted to justify his Government's decision to repeal the previous Government 's legislation which provided for the structuring of Trans Australia Airlines as a public company. What the Minister conveniently omitted to mention is that Qantas Airways Ltd is similarly structured and that despite machinery difficulties the proposal for TAA was not without precedent for government owned trading establishments in Australia. I add that there was no immediate intention by the Fraser Government to sell TAA, although that was to be an undeniable option as well as an eminently sensible one. The Minister also had a little whinge about TAA being bound by existing legislation to operate at what he claimed was a significant but unspecified, by him, disadvantage to its competitors. To the extent that TAA does or may operate at a disadvantage to its major competitor on the domestic trunk routes, that overall disadvantage is more than somewhat offset by advantages it enjoys as one of a duopoly, as the favoured airline of the Public Service, as the beneficiary of a heavily subsidised superannuation scheme and the beneficiary of government ownership and the like. Some of TAA's operations at the margin have little or nothing to do with its airline operation, for example, its 50 per cent ownership of the Hertz company. Such things may very well be a dead weight commercially. The blame for that circumstance cannot be said to be due to existing legislation . Also the Minister's lament that the previous Government's cavalier treatment, to use his words, of TAA is somehow responsible for some difficulties is pretty thin. Certainly the Whitlam Government did nothing during the years 1972 to 1975 to remedy the unspecified problems the Minister claims with the benefit of hindsight, but without the benefit of convincing logical argument. It seems the Minister believes that the attendant difficulties in setting up TAA with a public company structure were found to be insurmountable by the previous Government. If he does believe that then once again he is patently wrong. He cited the problems of transferring some obligations of a newly created TAA in public company clothing to State jurisdiction. We understand his concern about any proposition which would see him in conflict with his Party's doctrinaire commitment to government centralised in Canberra. On the other hand, he might like to reconsider, in the light of Premier Burke's appeal, a transfer of some Commonwealth revenue raising powers back to the States. He seems to consider that making TAA subject to existing State charges and taxes is somehow fraught with insurmountable difficulty; that no matter the Western Australian Premier's wishes; that no matter the opposition airline's exposure to obligations under State laws. The difficulties the Minister specified would, I submit, mostly put Ansett Transport Industries Ltd and TAA on a more equal competitive basis rather than the opposite as he implies. To the extent the difficulties listed in the Minister's speech involved once-off outlays of taxpayers' funds, that might well be a price any responsible government should accept after detailed examination and consideration. The Minister's allegation that it was, or is, not possible to overcome difficulties identified by him is absolute rubbish and is further evidence of his Government's dedication to the task of avoiding difficult decisions. One can accept the Minister's concern and sympathise with the effect of any uncertainty felt by TAA management and staff. However, it is only some small compensation to hear that one solitary Minister has some awareness of the effect of uncertainty on a small, however important, segment of the population, given the massive uncertainty being generated by his Government's economic, health, education and welfare antics. I call them antics because I will not flatter them by describing them as policies. What about the widespread uncertainty generated by the manic obsession of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) with another unnecessary and early election? The Minister's rhetorical concern about staff uncertainty at TAA rings hollow in the light of all that. The Hawke socialist Government has predictably decided it will retain TAA as a statutory authority, as another quango, in support of which the Minister for Aviation trots out phrases which are meaningless for want of definition. He talks about full accountability to the Parliament. He mentioned significant costs to be incurred in making the transformation to a corporate structure and he asserts that TAA is best retained as an arm of government-just as the Australian Council of Trade Unions is being retained as an arm of government. I digress and say that full accountability to the Parliament also seems to be a pipe dream as long as the ludicrous delay of nearly a year in presenting final accounts to this House is allowed to continue. Nor is accountability to be enhanced by the absence of information about trading details in other than domestic airline operations. The total picture has never been adequately portrayed to this Parliament. There must be serious doubt about whether this Government, or any government is, or has been, fully informed about TAA's total operations, whether in the car rental or holiday resort areas, or any other endeavour peripheral to domestic airline operation. TAA has never been fully accountable to the Parliament, and why we should continue to foster that piece of mythology is beyond anyone's comprehension. Presumably, any costs in making the transformation to a public company structure would have been ascertainable in the first instance, before a final decision was made, and recoverable in any ultimate sale price. So the costs to taxpayers may be reasonably expected to be either recoverable or an investment to avoid future increased costs. The reasoning which offers the certainty of TAA being retained as an arm of a socialist government is more easily understood, if not accepted, for all the ease of that understanding. The prospect of TAA becoming an effective arm of this Government becomes hard to swallow if we look at some of the other throw- away lines in the Minister's second reading speech. I refer, for instance, to the claim that retention of TAA as a statutory authority will avoid nearly all the so-called difficulties described by the Minister as applicable if TAA were structured as a public company. On the other hand, it is somehow expected that socialisation of TAA will overcome the host of other problems the Minister dismisses with the aplomb of one who aspires to another Ministry. Does anyone seriously believe that equal competition between TAA and the other duopolistic operator is likely to be either genuine or in the best interests of consumers? Does anyone believe that the cost of transforming TAA into an operation independent of this Minister and his bureaucracy will be greater than if it is retained, as the Minister proposes? Can any serious minded person be conned into thinking that TAA's overseas loans could not, if necessary, be renegotiated on terms as favourable as those enjoyed by its major opposition airline? The answer to those questions, of course, is no. So where does the Minister go from there? Will he rely on the spurious argument that specific legislation by State governments to enable TAA to service attractive intrastate routes is too hard for his centralist government? He might try, but even at his hysterical worst he will not be credible. If uncertainty is adversely affecting morale amongst TAA personnel it is the Minister's responsibility to put that matter right. Staff morale problems are hardly a reason for doing what is right and sensible for the airline industry and the domestic operators. Certainly, the downturn in economic activity over recent years has been detrimental to TAA's trading results. Ansett Transport Industries Ltd endured the same conditions and traded profitably, as I understand it, both at the margin and in its domestic trunk route airline business. Certainly, TAA made a bad choice in the purchase of its wide-bodied aircraft, but how long must the consumers and the taxpayers, most of whom rarely get the opportunity to enjoy protected airline fares, pick up the tab for the bad decision of a government- owned domestic airline operator? Mr Cadman —Particularly Western Australians. Mr ROCHER —Western Australians suffer more than most, as my friend reminds me. We have been assured that, with the injection of more capital last year, TAA confidently predicts a profit this financial year. One can only hope that this Parliament, to which the Minister claims TAA will be fully accountable, does not have to wait an inordinately long time after the end of the financial year to find out whether the predicted but as yet unquantified profits are actually made . Hopefully, also, those accounts will be comparable with and prepared on the same basis as TAA's major competitor. By that it is meant that TAA's accounts should at least reflect the standards in relation to accrual accounting, treatment of interest and depreciation demanded of Ansett Transport Industries under corporate law. It seems pretty meaningless to hint, as the Minister does, that the Government will not insist on payment of a TAA dividend into Consolidated Revenue if any after-tax profits are insufficient to enable the equivalent of a dividend. That is pretty straightforward and probably need not have been said. After all, the recent injection of $100m of taxpayers' funds by way of capital demands an adequate return on the equivalent of a total now of $130m in capital as the prime measure of satisfactory trading results. If an adequate return on the equivalent of shareholders' funds is earned, TAA should be bound to pay the equivalent of a dividend, just as its partner in the duopoly is required by commercial pressures and considerations to declare and pay a dividend to its shareholders. If it is not so required, the government owned airline will enjoy one more competitive advantage over its private sector opponent. We all know that if TAA's accrued superannuation debt were shown in its accounts it would convey a very sorry picture indeed. All the Government's rhetoric and spurious reasons aside, the truth is that this socialist government has decided against private ownership of TAA for purely dogmatic, doctrinaire reasons. If the Minister, on behalf of his Government, had simply said that the Government would opt at all times for public ownership, that might have been the end of the matter. As it is, the Minister is obliged to obfuscate and conceal his own indiscreet-in terms of Labor Party politics-remarks when he was a member of Her Majesty's Opposition. The Minister ducks for cover by claiming that it is too hard to do anything about the two-airline agreement entered into by the previous Government. He and I found ourselves on the same side of the chamber when the vote was taken on the enabling legislation, perhaps to his personal discomfort. Mr Cadman —You haven't shifted ground; it is the Minister who has. Mr ROCHER —Indeed, I accept that as a compliment. Past discomfort aside, the Minister now has to rationalise his willingness to accept one major measure of the previous Government with his willingness to change another related major measure adopted by the same previous Government. In the best traditions of political double-talk, he said in his second reading speech: When we were in opposition we did not believe that the 1981 airlines legislation should bind us to the two-airline policy for a further eight-year period. On coming into office we could do no other than proceed on the basis that such a major arrangement should run its course. Well, that is pretty cute, I suppose, but it is hardly convincing. Interested parties should read the Hansard record of previous speeches made by the honourable member for Swan (Mr Beazley) and the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) about the effects of duopolistic policies on the consumers of airline services to and from Western Australia. Such a reading of the Hansard record for March to June 1981 will explain a number of things, not the least of which is the reason why the present Minister for Aviation even deigned to make the otherwise irrelevant remark I have quoted. Above all, if the Minister seriously wanted to remove the uncertainty which he says is adversely affecting the morale of TAA employees, he would leave the present legislation in place and act on it. Those employees would then be certain of the intentions of any government of any political colour and could adjust their thinking and expectations accordingly. Ms FATIN(Canning)(5.59) —I never cease to be amazed and astonished at how so many conservatives can put the view that public ownership that can be shown to make profit should be put aside and that areas in which a profit is made should be sold off to private ownership. I note with interest that the Opposition has stated that it is considering selling off the Commonwealth Bank, Telecom Australia, and the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, and of course now it is talking about selling off Trans Australia Airlines. As I said, I never cease to be astonished at how people can assume that governments should not be allowed to be involved in profit-making areas so that money can be put back into government enterprise. I wish to speak, very briefly, about the Australian National Airlines Commission Retention Bill. The Bill's purpose is to repeal the previous Government's legislation providing for the establishment of a public company and to remove any doubt that TAA will remain a statutory authority of the Commonwealth. The previous Government was intending to turn TAA into a company and then sell it off to private enterprise. After passing the necessary legislation in 1981, it began to realise how extensive were the problems connected with such a move. The Act was never proclaimed, but TAA was left in a state of limbo. I think that those of us who spend so much time flying around this country recognise the morale problem that existed before we and the present Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) addressed ourselves to that problem. As the Minister pointed out in his second reading speech, the effect upon the management and staff of TAA of the uncertainty about the future has been marked, and both performance and morale have been declining. The massive injection of funds given by the Labor Government last June has already had a significant effect on TAA's financial performance. To turn a $16. 9m loss into an operating profit is a feat for which TAA and the Minister deserve due credit. This Government is committed to retaining TAA as a statutory authority wholly owned by the Commonwealth. To pursue any other kind of policy would be to wreak havoc within TAA and involve the taxpayers in enormous expense. The Government is not saying, however, that the existing arrangements relating to TAA and the regulation of the airline industry leave no room for improvement. On the contrary, the Minister has already announced that he is planning a major review of domestic regulatory arrangements so that Australia can prepare for 1990, when the current two-airline policy ceases to be in effect. It may well be that the review will bring to light new problems that need to be resolved or new solutions to well-documented problems. The most important thing about the review is that it will allow the Government to make informed decisions about how the airline industry in Australia should be developed. The Government recognises that there is nothing sacred about the arrangements that have traditionally applied to Austalian airlines, but, at the same time, there will be no question of introducing change just for the sake of it. The Opposition is periodically seized with the urge to rush headlong into unplanned deregulation, irrespective of how many economic and social casualties stand to be accumulated along the way. As the Minister pointed out in his second reading speech, the fact is that we cannot summarise the Australian situation simply by dividing up the American statistics or by multiplying the Australian figures. Any changes which the Government might consider after the review will be based on a more thorough understanding of the requirements of the Australian industry and the needs of the Australian travelling public than has ever been possible up to now. Like the Minister, I represent a Western Australian electorate, and much of my time is spent travelling back and forth across the country. In Western Australia we are very much aware of the potential chaos inherent in any ill-considered or hasty move away from a regulated airline industry. We already have to plan our moves about 12 hours before people in the rest of Australia, and we know that a strong, viable and economically healthy national airline is essential if our interests are to be protected. Of course, I share this concern not only with my Western Australian colleagues in this House, but also with every airline passenger who does not happen to live somewhere along the heavily trafficked trunk routes. In any plan to move away from existing arrangements, the Government is determined to place the needs of the Australian travelling public at the centre of its deliberations-particularly in the case of centres such as Perth, which have so much to lose if the regulations are changed thoughtlessly. The Opposition has recently announced that a Liberal-National Party Federal Government would consider selling TAA to the private sector. I should like to quote from what the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) says about public ownership and regulation. He says: The common thread of all coalition policies will be to deregulate and to get politicians off people's backs. This means lower direct tax and less bureaucracy . That was reported in the Courier-Mail of 13 April 1984. I compare that with words once spoken by R.H. Tawney, the British economic historian, who said: In view of the varieties of administrative organisation represented in the public railways, canals and waterways, lands and forests, electricity works, banks, and insurance undertakings, existing in different continental countries, the miscellaneous businesses of some of the . . . Dominions, and the multitude of municipal undertakings everywhere, the idea, embalmed with other antiquities in the mausoleum of the Press, that public ownership necesssarily involves bureaucracy, except in the sense that all large-scale organisation is bureaucratic, is not even plausible. It is a . . . superstition which descends from the sixties of last century, when the telegraphs were transferred to the Post Office. It is on a par with the engaging conviction of that age that Frenchmen were frivolous, foreigners unwashed and presidents of republics in hourly danger of assassination. As the Minister said in his second reading speech: A strong and vital TAA will be a major asset to all Australians. I congratulate the Minister on addressing himself to that problem and that need. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(6.07) —The Australian National Airlines Commission Retention Bill and the Bills which are being discussed cognately are of fundamental importance to the way in which Australia's economy is structured. It is pleasing to me to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate. The Government has made it clear that it is the Government's policy that Trans Australia Airlines will remain wholly owned by the Commonwealth. The Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) says: We see no reason to subject TAA to the turmoil and dislocation of transforming the Commission into a company when it can operate just as efficiently and with full accountability to the Government and the Parliament in its present form. Nor can we justify to the taxpayer the very significant cost that would be incurred in such a transformation. This Government will retain TAA in full public ownership as a statutory authority. In this it can remain an arm of government policy to ensure that the best interests of consumers are served. So much for the Minister's view. I want to try to put an alternative position. Perhaps the Minister will take some account of it as he is making determinations as to whether he will pursue this futile course. Throughout this century, and over a long period, there has been a tendency for governments in most countries to become more and more involved in the economic affairs of their societies. The proliferation of public authority business undertakings is an example of that. In response to this phenomenon, an increasing body of thought in recent times has questioned the economic and social rationale of such a degree of government involvement in the operations of the market-place. It is interesting that we are now in a period during which that involvement is being queried and is just not being accepted, and in which the socialist and socialising domination of the debate which went on for so many years is now beginning to be broken down. If I can contribute to that part of the debate, I shall be more than happy to do so. Governments have generally been slow to react to the changing opinions which are now developing because it is much more comfortable simply to maintain the status quo and the advantages that might flow to government from that. However, in the case of TAA, the former Government-to its credit, in my view-at least took the step of attempting to put TAA on a more commercial footing and to put it into a situation so that, if the Government were so to decide, it could dispose of some or all of the shareholding in TAA to the staff, the public or to whomever else it might consider appropriate. In the legislation that is now before the House the Government is seeking to alter that quite fundamentally and to ensure, to use the Minister's words, that it remains not only a statutory authority with full public ownership, but also an arm of government policy to ensure that the best interests of consumers are served. It is very interesting to note that the Minister believes that he is a far better arbiter of what the consumers might want than are, perhaps, the consumers themselves. There is another example in this legislation where a Minister sets himself up as some sort of a czar. He says that this particular instrument-in this case TAA -is an instrument of government policy, 'an arm of government policy', to quote his words, and that he will use that arm of government policy to do what he thinks is best on behalf of consumers. It is very interesting that the Minister should take that view. I would have thought that this Minister might have taken a more liberal-in the loose sense of the word-view than the all pervasive, interventionist view which he expressed in his second reading speech. As I said, the former Government sought to reorganise TAA along more commercial lines. While this might represent a significant improvement over previous attitudes which frequently allowed inefficient, uneconomic and poorly accountable authorities to operate, often at great expense to the taxpayer, it still begs the fundamental question of whether governments should be involved in many areas of economic activity. Several arguments have been put forward to justify the establishment of public enterprise. However, none of those would appear to be particularly relevant in respect of a government owned airline such as TAA. Some of the more important arguments are: Firstly, to improve efficiency in resource allocation; secondly, to promote a redistribution of income; and, thirdly, to provide government revenue. I will refer to some of those arguments. With regard to the economic efficiency argument, there are several valid arguments for government intervention in the market place. At the outset, however, it should be noted that they do not necessarily represent a rationale for public ownership of business enterprise. Government intervention is warranted in instances where there are economies of scale in an industry-the natural monopoly argument-where there are externalities that are important, or where the commodities to be produced are public goods. In the case of significant economies of scale in an industry, it is argued that the welfare of society can be improved by allowing the entire market to be serviced by one large enterprise-in other words, a natural monopoly. This potential welfare gain could be lost, however, if the monopolist acted in a rational manner and restricted supply in order to make monopoly profits. There is a possible role for the Government to regulate such an enterprise to prevent monopoly pricing, although many governments have responded by producing the particular commodities-for instance, electricity and water supply; and there are other examples. It is difficult to see that this argument can be applied to TAA. There would not appear to be any evidence of natural monopoly at the airline industry level, although economies of scale may lead to some degree of natural monopoly on certain routes. Even in those latter instances, however, the ease of entry into the industry, or into any particular route, would act as a powerful deterrent to any attempt to make super-normal profits. The externality argument is also a valid argument for intervention. Externalities are costs or benefits which accompany the production of a particular good or service, but for which the producer is not charged or compensated. A good example is pollution. A polluting industry reduces the general welfare. There may be a social ground, therefore, for curtailing the operations of such an industry. However, if the polluter is not forced to accept the cost of his pollution, the ordinary workings of the price mechanism will continue to allocate resources into his industry. Therefore, perhaps it is appropriate for government to intervene. Again, this hardly applies to TAA. A strong case for government involvement in the provision of goods and services concerns the production of public goods. These are goods which are available without restriction to the entire market and for which it is therefore difficult to set prices. A lighthouse, for example, provides a service for all mariners. There is no way of excluding mariners who have not paid for the service. Defence is another example of a public good. But airline services obviously cannot be regarded in such terms. The second argument concerned the redistribution of income. The income distribution argument is often applied to transport undertakings. Publicly owned transport enterprises are often run at a loss in order to give some perceived benefit to particular groups in the society. However, firstly, it is probably better to achieve any derived income redistribution in a direct manner through a system of government transfer payments than through pricing policies, cross subsidisation and so forth. Secondly, even if it is desirable to keep transport costs low to certain groups in society for social redress, this can also be achieved by subsidising private firms. It does not require the establishment of public enterprise. The third argument concerned the source of revenue. It might be argued that the Government may engage in business activities as a revenue raising activity to take the pressure off taxation and charges in the Budget. Unfortunately, a large number of government enterprises, for one reason or another, tend to be more of a burden on the Budget than a source of revenue. I think that probably more often than not, in recent times, TAA has come into that category. Obviously, problems arise from government ownership. The problems that arise from the government ownership of TAA-or any commercial enterprise, for that matter-are both ideological and economic in nature. At the ideological level, the investment of public funds in a business enterprise represents yet another decision imposed by a government upon society. It surprises me that the Minister would seek to go down that track. If an investment opportunity presents itself, individuals should have the freedom to choose whether they wish to partake in that opportunity. Having once invested, the investor should also be able to decide what should be done with any dividend received. If he disagrees with the policies of the directors, he is entitled to vote at the annual general meeting. But where are the freedoms in the case of a public enterprise? Our shareholdings are coerced through taxation, and our dividends-if there ever are any-disappear into Consolidated Revenue. I well remember a gentleman who wrote to the Australian Financial Review not long ago and who said, in response to a statement that had been made by somebody, that TAA was owned by all Australians, that his shares were for sale. He was quite prepared as an Australian to bail out of his holding in TAA. I did not see the Minister or anybody else being prepared to make a market in that-- Mr Beazley —No, I outvoted him. Mr LUSHER —Absolutely; he was outvoted by the Minister and the Minister is not even on the Board. It points to one of the problems of government ownership, in that individuals are coerced and, whether or not they like it, they find themselves owning things which they do not particularly agree with. It is more difficult to assess the economic problems that arise through government ownership of a business enterprise. Much will depend upon the functions and rights endowed upon the authority by legislation-in this case that is obviously very important-the extent to which its commercial autonomy is restricted by government practice, and of course, the degree of competition in the industry. It is quite obvious, for example, that a lot of the theory concerning the inefficiency of government owned monopoly utilities will have limited relevance if they are competitive public enterprises. However, perhaps the major difference between public and private enterprise lies in the fact that it is unlikely that the Government would ever allow one of its statutory authorities to go broke. The Minister might like to comment on that point at some later stage in the debate. As such, the authority is relieved of many of the pressures involved in surviving in the market place. It must also be very difficult for governments to avoid any conflict of interest when they make the rules of the game while at the same time being one of the players. That is particularly important. We have already seen in the last couple of years major capital injections by both the former government and the present Government. I think it points to the fact that governments will not allow a statutory authority to go broke, and the distortions that that creates in the market place can often be quite dramatic. A very interesting book is floating around which I recommend to honourable members interested in matters of public ownership and administration. It is called The Privatization of the Public Sector and was written by an American commentator called Emanuel Savas. He has looked very closely at government involvement in the provision of services. He has concluded in his book that services should be classified according to two criteria-whether the service can be readily withdrawn by the supplier, what he calls exclusion, or whether it cannot, what he calls joint consumption. For instance, a visit to the doctor or some other individual service has the characteristic of exclusion. It can be readily withdrawn. But air or a lighthouse, to which I referred earlier, has the characteristic of joint consumption. It cannot be readily withdrawn. There can be degrees of exclusion from totally private, such as something one buys personally, to totally public, such as water. Similarly, there can be degrees in the way in which things are consumed. For instance, I can buy a car and that is individual consumption or we can all watch the same television program, which is joint consumption. Having established that framework, Savas classifies any service according to the degree to which it possesses the properties of exclusion and joint consumption. He expresses four ideals or extremes. The first is private services, which are characterised by exclusion and individual consumption. Food is an example. The second is toll services, which are characterised by exclusion and joint consumption. The telephone and in this case the airlines are examples. The third is common pool services, which are characterised by non-exclusion and individual consumption. I suppose air is the best example of that. Finally, collective services are characterised by non- exclusion and joint consumption. National defence is a good example. Savas argues that private and toll services under this sort of categorisation should be supplied by the market and common pool and collective services should be supplied by government. He says that the community will demand that some private and toll services be subsidised and provided by government as though they are collective services. We have to deal with those as individual cases. The problem is that more and more private and toll services have been redefined and treated as collective or common pool services. The big growth in government has taken place at this end of the market. TAA is a very good example of exactly that sort of thing. There is a lot of talk about privatisation. It is worth discussing it a little. 'Privatisation' is a word generally used to mean the formation of a company and the subsequent sale of at least 50 per cent of the shares to private shareholders. The principal underlying the idea of privatisation is to improve industry performance by increasing the role of market forces. What sort of criteria should there be if one looks at the question of privatisation? The criterion of aggregate net benefit to consumers is probably the most simple and appropriate starting point. Unless this benefit to consumers promises to be considerable, probably the political costs of change in incurring the wrath of vested interests would scarcely be worth incurring. Privatisation in certain industries could probably be ruled out as being either not politically possible or not sufficiently beneficial to consumers. There are lots of questions about price and how we ought to dispose of some of the assets if that is the way we wish to proceed. The right price is simply the price someone is prepared to pay for the body. I do not mind at all if the cost to the public of disposing of something is to get the balance sheet into a far more saleable condition by the injection of further funds if it means a longer term benefit to consumers in terms of increased competition and better pricing of the products in question. Why would we want to consider privatisation? I think it is important to realise that privatisation will generate benefits for consumers because privately owned companies have a far greater incentive to produce goods and services in the quantity and variety which consumers prefer. Privatisation is intended to change the motivations of management towards profit making. A privatised company will be far less willing to provide uneconomic services, eliminating inefficient production and restrictive labour practices which would follow if the organisation concerned were not privatised. It is very important to remember that ownership is important. It matters because consumers in general will be far better served by a company which is commercially orientated and which has been privatised rather than one which is in the public sector and which, as the Minister indicated in his second reading speech, will become an arm of government policy. Nationalisation and public ownership, particularly in the case of TAA, can delay inevitable adjustments to market forces that need to take place if the market-place is to remain efficient and services to consumers are to be delivered in the appropriate manner. Competition is obviously the most important mechanism for maximising consumer benefits and for limiting what in certain circumstances can be monopoly power or collusive arrangements that may exist in a duopoly, as some people would suggest exists in this sector. Consumers will also gain indirectly from privatisation because in most cases they are taxpayers. Private owners of companies will be more willing and able than the government to identify and rectify inefficiencies and exploit new opportunities. Privatisation will reduce the liability to losses and free up resources for better use elsewhere. It is important to look at these things and consider that the underlying intent of privatisation is simply to improve industry performance by increasing the role of market forces. It should be designed to maximise net consumer benefits measured primarily by lower prices and an improved quality of services. For those reasons, I strongly oppose the legislation before the House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(8.00) —I am told that, consistent with the greatest of the democratic traditions of this House, it would be appreciated if my speech were severely curtailed, and I am certainly happy to accede to that request. I must comment, though, on the comments made by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) who adverted to an American author, the thrust of his submission being the effects of privatisation on various statutory bodies. In his comments he posed the rhetorical question: What would a government do if a statutory authority kept losing money? The clear implication was that a government would be forced to pump more government resources into an ailing statutory body. I simply refer the honourable member for Hume to recent events in the United States of America, where the move to privatisation is probably the strongest, and point out to him that recently the American Government spent something like $7.5 billion bailing out one private bank. A lot more money will be spent bailing out other banks; so it is not only in relation to statutory bodies that these problems arise. Opposition members, both now and when in government, showed all the heartfelt care and concern for Trans Australia Airlines that the infamous Sweeney Todd showed for his customers. The Opposition has made no secret of its desire to sell off TAA. Indeed, in the Opposition's economic policy, released in mid-April , it was said that the coalition in government would sell off government enterprises and assets where appropriate. It went on to say that 'the Opposition would review the role, structure, level of government owner- ship and control of all other government enterprises . . .' including, of course, TAA. In my submission the attitude indicated by the previous Government to TAA was consistent with the long term objective of severely retarding the profitability and performance of TAA such as to justify the eventual selling off of TAA to its corporate friends. To support that general submission I refer to the view of the then Government that the capital base of TAA did not justify a significant expansion. Hence, the then Government's allocation of some $25m which in those circumstances was totally inadequate to sufficiently capitalise TAA. The obvious result of that was that TAA became very highly geared and suffered very greatly from an extraordinarily high interest rate burden. As has been adverted to by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) and other speakers, the Government has taken steps to remedy that problem by injecting a significant amount of money-I cannot give the precise figure, but it is in the vicinty of $130m now-to ensure that TAA has the opportunity to act competitively within that market. The second area that, in my view, supports the submission that the former Government had no interest in the long term viability of TAA was its reluctance to ensure that TAA was not compromised by a very high, in fact crippling, superannuation burden. Whilst it indicated that there was a problem there, it really was very slow to do anything about it. Because my time is extremely short , a further point worth adverting to very briefly is the bureaucratic problems faced by TAA. Quite simply, it was shackled with requirements to report and otherwise act upon various government initiatives that really disadvantaged it in carrying out its policies. The end result of this lack of action on the part of the previous Government in those three areas was that TAA was significantly disadvantaged in the market place. The long term effect of that would have been to jeopardise the operations of TAA so severely that the then Government could have gone to the people with a greater justification for selling it off. Not only in the submissions on these cognate Bills but also in other speeches in this House in the recent past we have heard Opposition members being quite open about their plans for TAA, although they have backpedalled now and are talking about hiving off only 20 per cent of TAA to private shareholders. Of course, that position is not going to be embraced by the Australian people who perceive TAA as they do the Commonwealth Bank-as one of the great Australian institutions . The Opposition would be running some considerable risk if it pursued the objectives that some of its spokesmen have indicated. By way of example I recall the Sydney Morning Herald editorial of 13 April which described in totality the Opposition's economic policies. It described the suggestion of selling off TAA as 'a losing policy': It is, almost of necessity, a policy prescription set in place, waiting for a period of economic difficulty to give it political relevance . . . The document is a triumph for the so-called dries of the Coalition whose vision of the long- term does not, of course, include Mr Peacock. So much for the attitude of the now Opposition to TAA. As I indicated at the outset, it was an attitude very similar to that which Sweeney Todd had to his customers. I shall not go on. I know we are very constrained for time and I notice the Minister turning around in his seat, obviously enthralled by my comments. I would have liked to comment on some of the safety aspects in the legislation because my electorate abuts both Essendon and Tullamarine airports in Melbourne, as I know your electorate does, Mr Speaker. The safety aspects adverted to in the legislation now before the House are obviously very important, and I use this opportunity to flag that in the near future I will have something to say to the House on general safety issues as they affect the aviation industry and as they impact on electorates such as mine which are very much at the coalface when issues of safety are discussed. I commend the Minister on the Bills before the House. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(8.08) —in reply-I would like to respond to some of the points raised in debate and to do speakers from both our side and the Opposition the courtesy of answering some of their arguments. The Opposition spokesman on aviation was unkind enough during his remarks to suggest that I was totally under the thumb of my Department. To paraphrase him, in this life one is tough but one has feeling. In recent years probably no other Minister has been in a position-I must admit that party policy as well as my own initiative placed me in that position-to give more policy direction to the Department of Aviation. The honourable member also adverted to his support for the cockpit voice recorder legislation, for which we on this side of the House are indeed grateful . In emphasising the point that I alluded to earlier, he referred also to a problem I might have with some of the safety aspects of the Department's activities. I think he may be a little mistaken. He pointed out that, as is our regular policy, we give advance notice to operators of when it is our intention to conduct an inspection. I should point out that that is in normal circumstances. We find that useful; it ensures that they are home when we come to see them-it is in the nature of the aviation industry that people are not often at home-and that there are books there to inspect when we appear to inspect them. However, if we are in a situation, as I have indicated before, where we have reports of systematic violations and difficulties created by particular operators we do arrange a few surprises. That was evident recently in a certain enforcement activity that we engaged in in north Queensland, where some aircraft were grounded and some operators are undergoing prosecution. Having mentioned the question of penalties, I am trying to recollect the exact amounts. Last year we increased the penalties for violations of regulations something like fivefold over what they had been before. The Government is addressing the very relevant point that was made in that regard. The basic thrust of the Opposition's argument, as expressed by the shadow Minister for Aviation, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), went to the comparative advantages of a board and statutory authority. The honourable member did not make it clear in his remarks precisely whether he regarded that as being a board in the framework of total government ownership or a board in the framework of private ownership versus statutory authority. The arguments he presented, at least in a theoretical sense, in a pure market sense, were of a nature that conventionally would be presented as the differences between a board in a situation of private ownership and a statutory authority, or indeed a board in the situation of total government ownership. In those circumstances, in terms of the Government's intentions and the thrust of government policy, while the debate has been interesting from my point of view, as an assistance to what I ought to be doing it is virtually irrelevant. The position of the Australian Labor Party is quite clear. It was quite clear when it was in opposition and it is quite clear in government. Our intention is to retain the airlines in total government ownership. In those circumstances the relative advantages of proceeding to a board and a corporate structure, as opposed to a statutory authority structure, are quite minor. The honourable member for North Sydney in the course of his remarks alluded to a note from the Board of Qantas Airways Ltd in 1976. That is the situation in which the Board found itself then, and found itself for the next six years, until this Government implemented a financial directive essentially along the lines that the Board was requesting back in 1976. The point of that is to indicate that a government is just as able to impose restrictions of a nature that the honourable member considers undesirable on a board in a situation of total government ownership as it is on a statutory authority. Mr Spender —A board is encompassed. Mr BEAZLEY —Yes, I can see that, but a government can still subject a board to a level of direction, with one area being the exception and that is the area of dividend that is demanded. One can subject a board to a direction which effectively leaves it just as fettered in that area-if that is an argument against that fettering-as a statutory authority. In fact, what is being done in the second of the Bills being considered-the amendments to the Trans Australia Airlines legislation-is to place TAA in largely the same situation in relation to the Government, albeit under a different legislative framework, that Qantas now finds itself in in the framework of the directive, apart from that particular instance that I cited in relation to the dividend. In terms of retaining full government ownership, the various disadvantages imposed on the organisation by implementing a public company under full public ownership, as opposed to a statutory authority, is not worth the candle. It is not worth the disruption. It is not worth at least the potential added cost. Those loans are required to be renegotiated. It must be said that, psychologically, in the conditions in which one would then be operating there would at least be at the back of the minds of the potential lenders the feeling that the Government might proceed at some time down to a sale of the company, as that was at least the thrust of the initial intention to create the board, and that could conceivably at some point put TAA at a disadvantage. Having decided not to proceed down the course of sale of all or part of TAA, there was no sense in the Government proceeding to implement the company structure that was proposed in the previous legislation. A considerable amount of time was devoted, and rightly so, as I did it myself, to the question of deregulation and the impact of this legislation on deregulation. I should point out several things about the Government's position on deregulation. It was implied that it intended to do nothing about the two airlines agreement until 1990. In fact I have gone to considerable pains to point out that the Government intends an orderly process of review, starting later this year, in time to meet the first hurdle imposed by the previous Government's legislation. This will open up the possibility of a renegotiation of the two airlines agreement by late 1986 or early 1987-if one looks at the timetable one sees it is a reasonable period for review-and then proceeding to that point. So the Government's intention is not to leave the matter alone. It is our intention at that point to address the questions of consumer interest to which I referred. I have been expressing caution on the question of deregulation , which does become a possibility under the two airlines agreement after 1990, if one does not arrive at a satisfactory agreement by 1987, or at some time through that process. The public discussion I have had on deregulation since I have been in office has been to point people in the direction of the possible difficulties that will arise if we determine a deregulation, or a liberalisation of regulation, based on other than a thorough understanding of the Australian aviation system. There are many questions to be answered on deregulation before we arrive at a judgment, as I suspect the Opposition is beginning to realise. It is a course which it did not set itself when it was in government, when it promised a review , but a course which could have very unfortunate and unnecessary consequences for the Australian community. We have to remember the origins of the two airlines agreement. The origins of the agreement rest essentially in the natural tendency of the aviation industry in Australia under the economics, albeit existing at that time-there are certain features of the economics of the industry then which remain applicable-which dictated a natural tendency in the Australian aviation industry to move to monopoly, be it private or public. In this case the natural tendency was to move to public monopoly. There are certain features of the Australian aviation industry, even though the system is now bigger and the economy is now more complex, which will produce the same tendency. It is a tendency of which we all ought to be extremely careful. We must also recollect that the two airlines agreement fundamentally is not just upheld by the nature of the legislation. The two airlines agreement relates to the monopoly on expertise that the two airlines enjoy. One of the reasons why I think that deregulation has been possible in the United States of America and produced a result, contrary to some of the suggestions that have been made in analysing American deregulation, is that the deregulation occurred in a period of economic downturn when, irrespective of what may have been going on in labour relations in the major airlines, though that was important too, it reinforced a trend that already existed to lay off highly skilled operatives in the various airlines operating in the United States. This meant that there was no training requirement necessary for new airlines. There existed a very large phalanx of highly skilled operators who were prepared to move into the airlines system. If we approach deregulation, where the two airlines enjoy a monopoly on the main bases, a monopoly effectively on access to the terminal, a monopoly of the large aircraft in the country in operation at that point of time, their ability to conduct predatory pricing on each other or a potential competitor is legion, except against one airline and it is not East-West Airlines Ltd. The one airline where that does not apply is Qantas. We could well find ourselves in a situation in which the only effective competitor of the two airlines is the other government airline-Qantas-coming into the situation. We could end up with something of a mess. We must remember that people gave us the New Zealand situation as an example to consider. The New Zealand situation of deregulation was effectively preceded by the creation of Air New Zealand Ltd as a monopoly for both domestic and foreign operations. Everybody can pick at Air New Zealand as they choose but they largely fail to succeed. I draw some comfort from the recent exercise conducted by the Canadians. Their requirement was to create an understanding of what was necessary in the Canadian airline system, based on a thorough understanding of the Canadian conditions. As the Canadian Minister of Transport said: However, these benefits of airline deregulation in the US do not mean that Canada should necessarily take the same road. The political, socio-economic, demographic and geographic differences between Canada and the US, coupled with the evidence that US deregulation has also had some disadvantages, dictate a unique, 'made in Canada' approach to regulatory change. I do not disagree with that paragraph at all. They are things I have been saying for some considerable time. We require an orderly approach to change in the regulatory environment. It is an approach which is permitted, not so much as compelled, in the way in which the two airlines agreement has been designed. It is something that we in government are obliged to live with, and will live with. We will proceed in an orderly fashion. But it will be a period of uncertainty. In that period of uncertainty two things, in my view, will protect the capacity of the Government to make absolutely certain that the changes that take place are in the interests of all consumers and not just necessarily in the interests of the consumers on the thick routes on the south eastern seaboard. The first is the Government's capacity to control capacity which remains, irrespective of what legal interpretation of rights in the area of deregulation may be concerned , and will continue to be a matter for judgment by governments in a deregulated or a less regulated environment, that is, the capacity to determine when a particular aircraft ought or ought not to be imported. The second thing that will create the degree of uncertainty in what could well be a period of some confusion would be the Government's ownership of TAA and its capacity to use TAA in that regard. If that does not exist and if the Government , if it is a Liberal government as opposed to a liberalised regime, proceeds and gives priority to the sale of TAA, the primary problem that will very rapidly confront it, particularly after TAA re-equips, which it must do at some time in the next five years, will be to work out, via the regulatory regime, how the new owners of TAA, if they do decide to proceed down the course of selling the airline, will be able to survive in the circumstances which will then be thrust upon them. I do not think that any of those things will come to pass because I do not, as clearly does not the honourable member for North Sydney in what he had to say, expect us to be out of office by 1990. Mr Spender —No. I said that you did not expect to be out of office as I expect you to be out of office well before 1990. Mr BEAZLEY —I concede that I am deliberately misinterpreting. But in that period we will have a strong, stable, properly equipped TAA. That will be a TAA which is in the position to protect the consumer interest in whatever regulatory environment emerges after 1990. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 41 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Hayden, W. G. Macphee, I. M.Cunningham, B. T. Aldred, K. J.Mountford, J. G. Braithwaite, R. A.Chynoweth, R. L. O'Keefe, F. L.Bowen, Lionel Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Beazley: 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 Beazley) read a third time. Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Beazley: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(8.33) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 3, page 3, omit from proposed sub-section (10) ''in the interest of air safety'', insert ''in an investigation or inquiry into an accident involving an aircraft conducted pursuant to regulations under the Air Navigation Act 1920' '. (2) Clause 3, page 3, omit proposed sub-section (11), insert the following sub- sections: ''(10A) Nothing in this section affects the admissibility in any criminal or civil proceedings of evidence of words spoken by a person on the flight deck of an aircraft other than evidence constituted by a recording made by the use of a cockpit voice recorder or by a transcript or summary of such a recording. ''(11) A reference in this section to a cockpit voice recording is a reference to a recording, made by the use of a cockpit voice recorder, of any words spoken during a flight of an aircraft by a person on the flight deck of the aircraft, and includes a reference to any transcript or summary of such a recording.''. (3) Clause 3, page 4, definition of ''crew member'', after ''employed'', insert ''under a contract of service, or engaged under a contract for services,''. I do not really think I need to go into these amendments in detail. They are a product of further discussions, particularly with the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and the international pilots who have a direct interest in the Bill. I understood from what the members of the Opposition had to say on the matter that they had no objection to them. I will let the matter rest there. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(8.34) —The Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) is quite right, the Opposition does support the amendments to the Bill. Since we are in committee, I would like to put one question to the Minister, one which I raised earlier; that is, whether or not consideration has been given to increasing the length of the recording of the in-flight recording mechanisms so that they are not restricted to the last half hour before a crash. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(8.35) —In response to the comments from the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), he raises an interesting point. It is our hope that when this legislation is passed it will be the basis of a number of constructive discussions with the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and the international pilots on the use, for safety purposes, of the cockpit voice recorder legislation. I will confess that until he raised the matter today I had not considered taking the point that he has raised into my own thinking and our own discussions. On the face of it, it seems to me an interesting and worthwhile suggestion and we will take it away and have a look at it. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley)-by leave-read a third time. [COGNATE BILLS: INSURANCE (AGENTS AND BROKERS) BILL 1984 LIFE INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 30 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation) —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill 1984 and the Life Insurance Amendment Bill 1984 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the three measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(8.38) —We have before us the Insurance Contracts Bill, the Insurance (Agents and Brokers Bill) and the Life Insurance Amendment Bill. I intend to confine myself to the Insurance Contracts Bill. Other speakers, and in particular the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), will be speaking on the other Bills. The provisions before the House propose some drastic and far reaching alterations to insurance law, to the nature of the contract of insurance and to what flows from contracts of insurance. I suppose, in theory, that most of us know what a contract of insurance is. I think everybody in this House has entered into a contract of insurance at some time. It is one of the forms of contract which is almost inescapable since no matter what we do, and no matter where we live, we are going to need to insure our household goods, television sets, cars, homes and a whole host of other things-it may be a boat, it may be insuring against loss of profits, standing charges in a business, fire, theft, damage by water or specific and exceptional risks. If an actress is sufficiently attractive-as some honourable members around here obviously are, looking at the other side and looking indeed at my own side-she may insure her legs against disfigurement by any of the risks of the world. One may insure against personal negligence, not just negligence in the way in which one drives a car, but negligence that covers all sorts of other circumstances, such as mistake or stupidity. One might drop something out of a window which lands on somebody four floors below who then suffers serious brain damage and turns around and sues for $400,000 or $500,000. The point I make is: Not only is the need to insure almost universal but also the range of risks insured against is almost as diverse as human nature. What then is an insurance contract? I would like to say a little about that because, with deference to the views of other members, I have spent a fair amount of time in law seeking to understand insurance contracts and seeking to understand precisely what they meant in terms of liability. We all know that an insurance contract is a contract of indemnity. It is a contract entered into in extreme good faith. Under common law principles-that is, the principles that presently regulate insurance contracts-if there is an absence of good faith on the part of the insured in entering into the contract that absence of good faith can lead to a number of consequences, including the avoidance of the contract. In particular, if a fraudulent misrepresentation is made by an insured in entering into a contract, such as the fraudulent non-disclosure of the fact that he had previously made claims under other insurance contracts, the insurer is entitled to avoid the contract when that matter comes to his attention. That may , of course, mean that the insured loses his right to claim in respect of a loss which has taken place because the insurer says: 'No, you are not entitled to claim against the contract for the very good reason that you induced me to enter into that contract by reason of a fraudulent misrepresentation'. Looking at insurance contracts one would think that, on the face of it, they should be fairly straightforward. The conditions that attach to insurance contracts have become complex over the years and it is difficult to avoid this complexity. If we look at the standard form of insurance contract which deals with houses-when I say 'standard form' I mean the kind that we would ordinarily expect an insurance company to issue; they vary, of course, between one company and the next-we will see all sorts of exceptions relating to particular perils including, these days, nuclear irradiation. That is not the sort of thing that one would expect to have to worry about too much but insurance companies are inclined sometimes to worry about the consequences of the unexpected, just as those who are insuring through Lloyds the ships which are presently travelling the Persian Gulf or who entered into insurance for those ships must be extremely worried as to the extent of their liability. All new insurance contracts have been rewritten with the increase in liability in mind. One of the big problems about insurance contracts is understanding them, and understanding them by the ordinary person who enters into insurance. They can be extraordinarily difficult. I would hate to think how many hours I have spent in going through some insurance contracts simply for the purpose of trying to arrive at a view as to what the contract means and as to what rights my client has under the contract, be the client an insured or an insurer. One of the worst vices of some insurance contracts is what is known as the endorsements which are added to a contract. When one has an insurance contract which is issued in a common form which was settled, I have sometimes thought, round about the beginning of the nineteenth century and thereafter various endorsements have been added to the contract, sprinkled as it were throughout the contract, one has to try to work out how these endorsements marry in with the original contract. A very good case can, therefore, be put for changes in the insurance contract law. I think there is much to be said for simplifying the forms of insurance contracts, if that is possible. I think it is possible because one does want to try to get over the problems that ordinary people, not just lawyers, have to face. Lawyers spend enough of their time trying to work out very genuinely what is the effect of a particular contract. I start from the proposition that some reform is necessary in this area. It will be known that the Opposition opposed the Insurance Contracts Bill in the Senate and it will oppose the Bill in the House. I do not want it to be thought that I am saying that all the Bill is bad. I do not want it to be thought that I am saying that I do not have a high regard for the work of the Law Reform Commission. I do. Let us look at some of the problems the legislation poses. First of all, let us look at the cover of this Bill. We know that it does not cover reinsurance, insurance written by health benefit organisations registered under Part VI of the National Health Act 1953, workers compensation and compulsory third party insurance. Honourable members should recall that workers compensation and compulsory third party insurance would be one of the major areas of insurance in this country and certainly one of the areas which give rise to a large volume of litigation not just in relation to claims under policies but also in relation to the interpretation of policies. It is not to apply to insurance under which the Maritime Insurance Act 1909 applies; it is not to apply to insurance written by friendly societies established under State and Territory law; it is not to apply to insurance written by the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation; and it is not to apply to a contract of insurance or proposed contract entered into by a State or the Northern Territory as a sole insurer. This means that effectively a very large area of insurance is being left out. So we will have two rules that will apply in the future. We have to ask ourselves: Why is it that we will have two rules that will apply in the future? Is that what we need? Is that something which will be of benefit? What about the exemption relating to State insurance? True it is that it is not competent for this Parliament to bring in State insurance. We all know that one consequence will be that those bodies which are exempt from this legislation will be able to compete according to a different set of rules against the insurers who are brought within this legislation. The next point I should like to make relates to the disclosure provisions. It is provided by clause 21 (2) (c) of the Insurance Contracts Bill that, whilst an insured has a duty to disclose to the insurer, the duty to disclose does not require the disclosure of a matter that the insurer knows-one might say that that is fair enough-or in the ordinary course of his business as an insurer ought to know. That is a quite different proposition because if an insurer is going to be deemed to know something that he did not know when he accepted the risk, something which was not disclosed to him when he accepted the risk and something which the insured knew, the consequence is that he may be caught by a risk that he would not have accepted. Who is to tell us what should be known in the ordinary course of the business of the insurer? That will certainly be a feast for the lawyers. But the consequences for insurers could be very harsh. I see no reason at all for including in a Bill a provision which has the simple effect of making a person liable for something that that person did not know or that enables that person to say: 'Wait a minute, I did not know that. You should have told me'. That is one matter. Of course, as I say it is an invitation to litigation as is the insurer's duty to inform the insured. That is provided for by clause 22 which states: (1) The insurer shall, before a contract for insurance is entered into, clearly inform the insured in writing of the general nature and effect of the duty of disclosure. It may be said that that is sensible, even though it may be costly. The clause continues: (2) If the regulations prescribe a form of writing to be used . . . the writing to be used may be in accordance with the form so prescribed. There is no problem about that. However, the clause continues: (3) An insurer who has not complied with sub-section (1)- That is who has not given notice in writing- may not exercise a right in respect of a failure to comply with the duty of disclosure unless that failure was fraudulent. What is the result of that? It means that where there has been an innocent failure to disclose a material fact which would have entitled the insurer to say that liability was properly going to be denied, he is not going to be able to adopt that position where he has not given the notice. It may be said that that is perfectly fair. However, what are the further consequences? The fact of the matter is that there will be many cases when the notice was given but on which it is said: 'No, I did not get the notice'. This is so because a lot of money will rest on it. Human nature being what it is, people tend to lie when it comes to getting money. While I am not talking about the whole of mankind, certainly enough people lie to make it an interesting sport. They certainly tend to lie when it comes to making claims against insurance companies. Let us remember something else about insurance companies and the attitudes of Australians to insurance companies. The insurance company is fair game. How many times have we all heard of people making claims against the insurance company and giving it the best possible run that they can? Is it not said: 'I did not get it last time, so I should get it this time. And in any event they have a lot of money'. That, of course, is one reason why the insurance companies are so tough, or can be so tough, in insisting on full disclosure. Ripping off insurance companies is as Australian as afternoon tea used to be once upon a time. That is part of our national life. If honourable members do not know that and have not seen it I can tell them, spending 20 years or so in courts-- Mr Gayler —Acting for insurance companies. Mr SPENDER —I tell my honourable friend that I acted for both sides. I act for everyone who comes in the door. I have acted for insurance companies and for the insured. Indeed, I have had some marvellous cases involving insureds in some extremely interesting events. For example, I represented an insured in a case of arson where there were 40 gerrycans of petrol in his restaurant. The insurance company took a somewhat dim value when it all went up in flames-with the gerrycans there. It is an Australian sport. Let us remember that. Let us next go to the avoidance provisions of clause 28 (2) and (3). By clause 28 (2) it is provided that where there is a failure by the insured to disclose, if the misrepresentation was made fraudulently the insurer may avoid the contract. One may say that that is perfectly fine. After all, should that not be the case because it has been the case for a long time. If that is so one has to ask why the rule should be changed. One could say 'That is a good rule'. The clause goes on to provide that if the insurer is not entitled to avoid the contract or, being entitled to avoid the contract has not done so, his liability -that is the insurer's liability-is reduced by the amount that would place him in a position in which he would have been if the failure had not occurred. Later we see that the court may disregard avoidance in certain circumstances where there has been a fraudulent misrepresentation. It is specifically stated in the following terms: In any proceedings by the insured in respect of a contract of insurance that has been avoided on the grounds of fraudulent behaviour to comply with the duty of disclosure or fraudulent misrepresentation, the court may, if it would be harsh and unfair not to do so. . . disregard the avoidance-- There are further provisions. Why should the court be entitled to disregard fraudulent misrepresentation? An example is given in the second reading speech which stated that there may be fraudulent misrepresentation which has nothing to do with the matter. Fraud goes to the heart of contracts. We have to ask ourselves whether we, as insurers, would refuse to deal with a person who was willing fraudulently to misrepresent to us his past history or who was willing fraudulently to misrepresent to us elements which were related to the insurance proposal? Would we not say: 'Wait a second. If this person is going to, by fraud , make me believe that things are different from what they actually are, then he may, by fraud, seek to fabricate a claim against my company'. Is that not the likelihood of it all? Of course it is. People who commit fraud with an insurance company, who do it consciously-as fraud is always done-are doing it to get a benefit. The benefit is cover. If they have lied once there are good odds they will be willing to lie again. They are not just bending the truth. They are misrepresenting it; they are lying for the purpose of getting into a contract. Therefore, I ask whether, once having gotten into the contract, they will be overly scrupulous about the events relating to the damage that took place? May not such people say: 'What is my right to claim under the contract? It is not my right to claim for event X, which has happened, but for event Y. In that event I had better tell the insurance companies that event Y happened, and not event X.' That is a provision that will lead to a vast amount of abuse. Simply, it is an invitation to be dishonest. Insurers get, so to speak, a free kick against the insurance company. I now move on to provisions concerning standard contracts. As I said, I think there is a lot to be said for making contracts clearer. I can see a good case for standard contracts in some form. I would like to know what the standard form of a contract is. I do not. I am being asked to support a Bill which contains provisions for standard contracts which are going to apply throughout the industry. However, I do not know what those contracts will be. If the Government is going to put up this sort of proposal it should work out beforehand the standard contract. At the very least, it should put forward with this Bill draft regulations and say: 'These are the contracts which will be covered and this is the form of a standard contract.' That is the fundamental defect in this Bill. We next have a provision concerning unusual terms which states: An insurer may not rely on a provision included in a contract of insurance- other than a prescribed contract; we will put that to one side- of a kind that is not usually included in contracts of insurance that provide similar insurance cover-- Leaving aside the fact that this will once more provide a feast for the lawyers- I would be the last person to wish to see my colleagues starve to death-is it not a rather peculiar provision? What does the Government really mean by an unusual condition? Is that something all the insurers will have to sit down and work out? Are those in fire insurance going to have to say: 'This is usual and this is not unusual'? This of itself is not the sort of defect that would make one vote against this Bill, but I think it needs much closer attention than has been given it. Next there is a provision concerning exclusion of arbitration. It states: Where a provision included in a contract of insurance has the effect of- (a) requiring, authorizing or otherwise providing for differences or disputes in connection with the contract to be referred to arbitration; or (b) limiting the rights otherwise conferred by the contract on the insured by reference to an agreement to submit a difference or dispute to arbitration, the provision is void. It is difficult to see the rationale for that provision because it covers all forms of insurance. Many professional people take the view that to get a quick result in an insurance claim it is far better to go to arbitration than to go through the courts. Insurance companies have thought so; clients have thought so . This applies particularly in commercial insurance, but not simply then. I recall a case in which a claim was made against an insurance company and I was acting for the insurance company. I advised the company to admit liability because I thought the defence I was instructed to raise was unmeritorious. But the company was entitled to raise that defence. The case went before an arbitrator. It took the afternoon for the matter to be decided and the insured was awarded $10,000 or $15,000. That procedure was extremely sensible. The insured did not have to go to the courts. Had he had to do so the case would have taken a much greater period to be heard, it would have cost him a lot more in the end and he would have received far less. Why should commercial arbitrations be excluded? Indeed, why should arbitration generally be excluded? It does not matter that this is a view put forward in the Law Reform Commission's report. I have a high regard for that Commission and the people who work for it, but they are not the people who decide what we should do ; they are the people whose advice we seek, which advice we can accept or reject . In principle, surely there should be a right for people who are perfectly capable to work out what they want, to enter into an agreement and to say: 'We want to have an arbitration provision in the agreement and we want that provision to be binding'. Next there is a question of the cost of what is proposed. No attempt has been made by the Government to assess the costs of these proposals. I am not talking about the cost to the revenue, I am talking about the cost to the industry. If, as will probably be the case, the costs to the industry are considerably increased by these proposals, those costs will be passed on to the insured, the consumer. Now, if I am wrong I would like to be told, but there is nobody in this House and nobody in this Government who can tell me that I am wrong. No inquiry has been conducted by this Government to find out the benefits and the disadvantages of adopting the Law Reform Commission's proposals. It is no answer to say that the Law Reform Commission has looked at the matter. It is the Government's duty to produce a cost-benefit analysis in an area as important as this where the changes to be introduced are as far reaching as these. To sum up, we have no common model as between the companies which will be covered by this Bill and those which are outside it. There has been no attempt to get State co-operation so that we would have before this House a Bill which was common throughout the Commonwealth. This is something which should have been seriously pursued so that the representative of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) could say to us: 'We have spent a great deal of time trying to get State co-operation. We have put up to the States a variety of models which they have not accepted. I understand the time-consuming process that that involves, but we should try to avoid having two sets of rules. There has been no attempt to provide a cost-benefit analysis and we do not know what common form of insurance contract we will be buying. That matter is not before this House and we do not know when it will be. Of course, when it does come before the House it comes in the form of regulations which do not provide the same facility for debate and which in any event, depending as they do upon legislation which is already an Act, will be a fairly academic matter for consideration. Whilst, as I have said, I think we need some changes and reforms and whilst there are a number of things in this Bill which I would personally accept, the Bill has defects which it should not have. The Opposition therefore does not support the Bill and will oppose it. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(9.07) —I appreciate the lecture on contracts we have just received from the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). However, I shall confine my comments to the effect of this legislation and the need for it from the point of view of the consumer or the insured or, as the honourable member for North Sydney termed it, the ordinary person. I wish to take issue with one of the accusations raised by the honourable member for North Sydney about the ordinary person. He said that ripping off insurance companies is as Australian as afternoon tea used to be. I think the honourable member for North Sydney has spent too much time dealing with cases on behalf of the insurers. It has been my experience, being involved with the Consumer Affairs Council and as the member for Canberra, that the insured are the people who have been ripped off by the current circumstances. These are the people who have found themselves uninsured in certain circumstances because of the complexity of their contract. These are the people who have found, although they have paid premiums to brokers , they ended up uninsured. These are the people who are not covered when large insurance companies such as Bishopsgate Insurance Australia Ltd have gone broke. These are the sorts of people about whom I am concerned and who need the Insurance Contracts Bill and the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill. These Bills have had the benefit of public examination since they were introduced last year. The honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) says he is sick of hearing his own voice on this matter. It is unfortunate that he is not taking my place in giving the honourable member for North Sydney a detailed reply to many of the points he raised. My office has received extensive correspondence from interested consumers and members of the insurance industry. I think the amended Bills we now have before us are fine examples of the consultative process that has been the hallmark of this Government. I think it is appalling that the Opposition refuses to support this legislation. These Bills have been the source of consultation with all of the industry. They have lain on the table for a long period. The Government has listened to many of the points of view put forward by the Opposition and, in fact, the legislation has been altered considerably because there has been consultation, particularly with the industry. These Bills have been designed to strengthen the financial stability of the insurance industry and to protect the consumer. Both those aspects have been the concern of the Government. There has been general support amongst the industry for the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill. The Bill creates a legal distinction between an agent and a broker. An agent has an agreement with the insurance company and carries unlimited liability of that company. The agent is not required to be registered. The broker, on the other hand, will need to be registered under the Act and must carry professional liability insurance. The Bill also lays down rules regarding brokers' trust funds. In a recent statement the Life Underwriters Association of Australia stated: If agents are required, for all moneys received, to issue receipts on behalf and in the name of the insuring company, and . . . registered brokers are covered by the (Bill's) provisions . . . the problem of misappropriation of premium money will be abated and . . . the holder of such a receipt will know against which insuring company he may proceed if the need arises. Let me put the problem of misappropriation of premium moneys in context for honourable members, particularly for the honourable member for North Sydney. In the Australian Capital Territory a club, in good faith, placed premium moneys for insurance, third party and workers compensation, in the hands of its broker. The premiums were never paid and the club was forced to fund a further $15,000 approximately from its own funds. Such a disaster for a small company became well known amongst the membership and had the effect of giving sections of the insurance industry a bad name amongst a large number of people. Many members stated that they would never use a broker again and would advise their friends to do likewise. The Bill will have the long term effect of engineering consumer confidence in the industry and this can only be positive, both for consumers and the industry. The Australian Law Reform Commission report on insurance contracts found contracts to be the subject of a bewildering variety of laws which had given rise to anomalies and very many uncertainties. In addition, the laws had not kept pace with social and economic developments and there was a high level of dissatisfaction amongst policy-holders. The basics of this Bill are to make certain that the insured are fully informed of the terms and limitations of the policy so that an informed choice can be made. This is done by providing a uniform set of rules which will govern the relationship between the insurer and the insured. The insurer will be required to inform the insured if less than minimum cover is provided by the standard cover offered. The Bill also recognises that the insured is often less well-informed than the insurer. I turn now to the powers of the court to ameliorate the effects of fraudulent misrepresentation by the insured, which has been raised by the honourable member for North Sydney. These powers are covered by clauses 32 and 56. Following expressions of concern by sections of the industry and the Opposition, these clauses have been amended so that fraudulent conduct by the insured is firmly discouraged. The importance of clauses 32 and 56 will not be lost on consumers who have been the unwitting losers in insurance contracts because of failures to disclose fully some matter they thought to be irrelevant to the contract-such as prior conviction for speeding in a car-or a claim on an insured object the monetary worth of which is disputed by the company. This legislation does not-I repeat, does not-encourage fraud, but in these very grey areas, where the consumer is often innocent, the legislation provides that the court may make an order. The court may have regard to the need to deter fraudulent conduct in relation to the insurer but may also have regard to any other relevant matter. Let me repeat: There is no obligation on the court to ignore fraud. These clauses recognise, as do many responsible insurers, that the current situation is theoretically and often in practice unjust and that consumers need to have access to appeals against injustice. There is no justice in retaining the right of insurers to avoid a claim where fraud cannot be proved. Insurers should not be permitted to be judges in their own causes. These Bills are the product of much discussion between government and interested parties. They go a long way towards ensuring that the industry and consumers will have a more professional and congenial relationship and they provide a basis for consumers to appeal to the courts in areas where they, as the insured, contend that they have been treated unfairly and harshly by the insurer. It is with great disappointment that I see that the Opposition wants to stay in the Dark Ages and not give the consumers the protection they deserve. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(9.15) —I enter this debate to make a few comments about the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill. I leave my capable colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) to speak for the Opposition on matters related to the Insurance Contracts Bill. At the outset I say that I am very sorry that the insurance broking industry has apparently agreed with the Government to be regulated in the manner provided by this Bill. I do not believe that this Bill is necessary. The reasons which, as Treasurer, I stated on 10 June 1981 as to why the bulk of the Australian Law Reform Commission's recommendations in this area should not be accepted are as valid today as they were in June 1981. I noted then that before regulation of the type recommended by the Law Reform Commission could be embraced by any government, a clear need had to be demonstrated before Commonwealth regulatory legislation was considered . I did not then believe, nor do I now believe, that such a need had been established by the Law Reform Commission or by those making submissions to the then Government. It is interesting to note that those who argue in favour of greater regulation and greater intervention always, of course, advance the cause of consumer protection against fraud and maladministration as the major argument for increasing the reach of the bureaucracy in different elements of business. Therefore, in that context it is worth observing that losses from broker insolvency over the period surveyed by the Law Reform Commission prior to 1981 had represented only a minute proportion of business turnover. The more than $7. 25m known to the Commission to have been lost through broker insolvencies in the 10 years preceding its report represented less than 0.1 per cent. Mr Jacobi —You cannot compare them. Mr HOWARD —My friend, the honourable member for Hawker, says one cannot talk about 0.1 per cent. It is not a bad statistic, and I know that the honourable member takes a very close and intelligent interest in these matters and he does not like the rub of that particular statistic. Mr Jacobi —That is the Treasury line. You will have to improve on that. We answered that before. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Mr HOWARD —I do not need protection from the honourable member for Hawker, Madam Deputy Speaker. He does take a very intelligent interest in these matters. I always enjoy his interjections in these debates because they add a little colour to the otherwise fairly droll subject of insurance brokers. I therefore welcome his intervention very much. Broker insolvencies represent a very small proportion. I do not believe that the case for greater regulation was established while I was Treasurer. I never believed in the regulation of the insurance broking industry; I do not now. I suppose that the industry, perhaps recognising the inevitability that with a change of government to a government that is more prone to pushing the regulatory trigger than was the former Government, decided that some kind of regulation was inevitable. To use the time -honoured phrase, it decided it had better see that it was put in the best manner possible, and the lamb has lain down with the lion and it has worked out a way in which the regulations will be made more palatable. It is not for me, in my position of relative lack of influence in these matters now, to double-guess the industry, except to observe that sections of the private sector generally extol the concept of self-regulation and say how undesirable it is for governments to impose regulations on industry in general. I am disappointed that when it comes to their own industry they think that often there is a case for it. I think there are far too many examples within the business community of believing in less government intervention in general, but welcoming it in the particular. That is a mistake that has occurred in this industry. But I note that the industry has more or less accepted the regulation, and I do not say that unkindly of the industry. I know that quite a number of very intelligent recommendations have been made to the Government. Let me acknowledge that the Government has, within the bias towards regulation that it has demonstrated in this area, been willing to accept some of the recommendations put forward. I also recognise that from the outset there has been a segment of the industry to be affected by this legislation which has always believed in regulation and has not really changed its view since the present Government came to power; rather, it has more enthusiastically embraced the attitude that has been taken by the Government. There are only two other matters that I would like to mention. As I read through the second reading speech of the Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford), page 4 of the original typescript contains an expression to the following effect: 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-- says the Minister Assisting the Treasurer- 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. All I can say is that I wish the Government well. I will be a very interested and surprised person if the State government insurance offices of all the different States, whatever the political complexions of the State governments involved, come to the party. We do not have a particularly happy record in this country-whatever may be the political complexion of the State government in power-of State governments being willing to apply the same disciplines of competition to their insurance arms as they so regularly and vociferously demand of private enterprise insurers. I will be very surprised if the aspiration that the Minister expressed on page 4 of the original typescript of his second reading speech is realised. The Opposition will not call for a division on this measure. I express the reservations that I have mentioned. I recognise that, in expressing those reservations, there is a variety of views even within my own Party regarding the level of regulation required of this industry. I think the majority of members of my Party very much share the views that I have expressed. I am disappointed that once again we have an example of the activities of government being increased, not in the face of a clearly demonstrated need, but in the absence of evidence presented by the Government in aid of that increased government activity. I am very disappointed that this legislation has apparently been introduced with the general acceptance of the industry. I think it represents yet another retreat of private enterprise in the face of ever-increasing government regulation. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(9.24) —I will concentrate my comments this evening on the Insurance Contracts Bill. Three Bills, of course, are under consideration in this cognate debate. They are the Bill that I have referred to, the Insurance ( Agents and Brokers) Bill and the Life Insurance Amendment Bill. I trust that I can add to the debate something which is a little more positive than the contributions made this evening by members on the other side of the House. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), who is a member of the legal profession, spoke this evening. He said that he had some reservations about this type of legislation because of its drastic and far-reaching provisions. Being involved in the legal profession, one would have thought that he would think that that would not necessarily be a retrograde step. We heard from the honourable member for North Sydney a series of negative approaches to this legislation. Not one positive comment was made by the honourable member for North Sydney. He concluded his remarks by saying that the Bill will be opposed. As I say, I trust that I will be a little more positive this evening than he has dared to be in the circumstances. This legislation should be drastic and far- reaching because we have laboured for over 200 years in this country with the law of insurance. Mr Spender —Two hundred? Mr GAYLER —Over 200 years, generally speaking. The honourable member, if he so desires, should go back to his history books. Of course, lawyers have always expressed some opposition to this type of legislation. People like the honourable member for North Sydney have done quite well from acting for insurers . I would like to have a little punt as to how many insurers he has acted for as opposed to the insured. I would have no doubt at all that he would have filled his pocket many times on the back of the insurer and not the insured. This legislation will, at least to some extent, protect the lot of the insured. I am pleased to speak of the Insurance Contracts Bill as being a reform and a modernisation-be it far-reaching or otherwise -on a national basis of the law relating to contracts of insurance. The Bill is the result of the implementation of many of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission's report on insurance contracts. The Law Reform Commission's report on the reform of the law relating to insurance contracts was long overdue. It seems somewhat strange that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), told us this evening that the industry is quite happy, generally speaking, about the amendments, or at least about the introduction of the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill. It would seem in those circumstances, if the industry and the insured are generally happy about the introduction of that Bill, that the only one at odds is the Opposition. As I say, we have had no positive contribution from either the honourable member for Bennelong or the honourable member for North Sydney, who obviously has a very close association with insurance companies. The Law Reform Commission reported that the reform of the law relating to insurance contracts was long overdue-something with which all consumers would readily agree. This fact is well known to those who operate within the industry and others who have dealings with the industry. It was a well known fact that there was an urgent need for the repatriation of insurance law from English case books into an Australian statute available to all Australian citizens. Much of the basic law of insurance was developed over 200 years ago-as I have already made apparent to the honourable member for North Sydney-in social and commercial conditions that were very different from those existing today. It was in that context that a case for reform was stated succinctly by the Law Reform Commission in its report on insurance contracts. The report stated: Insurance contracts are subject to a bewildering variety of laws. First, there are principles and rules developed by the judges. Superimposed on these rules are statutes of the Imperial, State and Commonwealth Parliaments. The imperial Acts are expressed in archaic and obscure language. Many of the problems they were designed to remedy were different from those of today. State intervention has generally been piecemeal and sporadic. In some cases it has been limited to particular types of transactions and has been enacted on a uniform basis. In other cases individual States have passed legislation, applying generally, to deal with particular insurance problems. In many of these cases the legislation dealing with insurance contracts has been restricted to the field of life insurance. It too has given rise to anomalies and uncertainties which need to be corrected. It was with this in mind that, subsequent to its deliberations, the Law Reform Commission recommended the making of a national law regulating insurance contracts that would be superimposed on and effect the reform of existing laws. This Government has acted expeditiously, which is in stark contrast to the procrastination of the Opposition while it was in government. After all, it was in 1976 that reference was first made to the Commission. Honourable members should note that that was some eight years ago and nothing has been done since. I suppose eight years is not so long when we consider that we have the archaic system of insurance law of over two centuries still hanging around our necks like an albatross. It is good for insurance companies and their counsel. This Government, which has acted so expeditiously, has accepted this recommendation for the following reasons: Firstly, insurance other than State insurance within the boundaries of the State concerned is specified Commonwealth power. The insurance industry is now organised on a national basis. Secondly, and I hope positively, the Government accepts the Law Reform Commission's finding that insurance contracts are subject to a bewildering variety of laws which have given rise to anomalies and uncertainties. Thirdly, the existing laws have not kept pace with social and economic developments-one would wonder why this is so after 200-odd years-within the community. Fourthly, the level of complaints from dissatisfied policy holders, whom I suppose the Opposition would prefer to ignore, shows that there is need for change. Speaking of complaints, it is apparent that a widespread dissatisfaction exists among the insured who have made claims under their contracts only to have them rejected. One indication of this dissatisfaction is provided by decided cases, something of which the honourable member for North Sydney, who was the first Opposition speaker, would be well aware. I refer to matters that are eventually litigated. Of course, the honourable member would have had very little, if any, contact with consumers generally. One has only to look at the thousands of complaints that are made each year to consumer organisations. But decided cases form only a small proportion of the total number of cases in which claims are rejected. These cases are rare by comparison with the numerous problems which are resolved without recourse to litigation. Many real problems may never become formal complaints. The insured who makes a claim may be convinced by the insurer that such a claim has no basis in law. One would think that that never happened if one were to listen to the arguments put forward by the members of the Opposition. Alternatively, while lacking that conviction, an insured may be prevented from voicing his complaint by his ignorance of the various means of doing so or by his belief in the futility of pursuing the matter. That takes me to a comment made by the honourable member for North Sydney. I thought it was a rather bland, ill-informed and quite staggering statement. I took a note of it. He said that everybody knows about contracts of insurance. It is a sad fact, borne out by statistics, that the consumer is not in that category. It is a different situation with regard to brokers and insurance companies. I have no doubt, as I expressed at the outset, that the honourable member for North Sydney would have a very close liaison with and knowledge of the industry from an insurance company's viewpoint or a broker's viewpoint. I am talking about the consumer, of whom the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong-we all know that he has difficulty in looking after and controlling figures-said that it was something of insignificance that over the last 10 years almost $1m a year was lost to that consumer, to the policy holder. He expressed it as a percentage. How about the poor consumer who has lost that money from his pocket? I refer to the small companies and individuals whose futures and lives were ruined through bankruptcy by brokers and insurance companies. But, according to the former Treasurer, $1m a year is not too much to lose. One wonders just where his allegiances lie. He most probably had a retainer in his time from insurance companies as well. Mr Spender —What nonsense! Mr GAYLER —The basic purpose of the Bill, and I would like to take it slowly for the benefit of the honourable member for North Sydney, is to improve the flow of information from the insurer to the insured so that the insured can make an informed choice as to the contract of insurance he enters into and is fully aware of the terms and limitations of the policy, and, further, to provide a uniform and fair set of rules to govern the relationship between the insurer and the insured-I emphasise: 'to make a fairer set of rules to govern the relationship between the insurer and the insured'-which under our present law weighs heavily in favour of the insurer. Fairness between the parties to an insurance contract demands the ready availability of information concerning the nature and incidence of that contract . The insured must know what he is purchasing if he is to be able to judge its value to him. Unfortunately, however, insurance is a subject in respect of which there is widespread ignorance. For this, insurers are partly to blame. They often make little or no attempt to obtain or understand such information as is available. But the prime responsibility has always been and should always remain that of the insurer. In the past general insurers in particular have often made little or no effort to provide the relevant information in a readily accessible form. The extent of the prejudice suffered by an insured varies from case to case. The problem is likely to be greater in respect of domestic insurance than in relation to commercial insurance. No doubt the honourable member for North Sydney has had more experience in the commercial field, but the problem is greater in relation to domestic insurance, since more sophistication in relation to insurance can usually be attributed to those in business-those in commerce- than to those who are not. I particularly welcome the provisions of Part V of the Bill, relating to standard cover contracts. Existing law does not regulate the terms of insurance contracts and so does not provide for minimum cover. Clause 34 of the Bill provides that regulations may prescribe the standard cover to be given by certain classes of contract. The Law Reform Commission recommended that these classes should include motor vehicles, house owners, householders, sickness and accident, consumer credit and travel insurance-all areas more related to domestic rather than commercial insurance. Should the insurer seek to provide less than the minimum cover provided by the standard cover-for example, by excluding liability in the case of an earthquake or, as was put previously this evening, a nuclear fallout-he will be required under the provisions of clause 35 of the Bill to prove at the outset that he gave notice to the insured or that the insured knew or could reasonably be expected to have known that he would be entitled to a lesser cover. There are many sectors of the Bill to which I could address myself specifically . In conclusion, I say that there is a clear indication that in more recent times individuals, small businesses, have been ruined either by bankruptcy or by the fraudulent conduct of brokers and/or insurance companies. I wish to add this rider: They are in the minority, there is no doubt about that, but even if it is less than one per cent, why should that restrict the Government from bringing in legislation which will protect more particularly the individual, the small businessman? It is a sorry, sad state of affairs that two Opposition front benchers came into this place tonight and spoke in the most negative terms one could ever expect to hear. One of those speakers-the former Treasurer, who, as I said, has always had problems with figures-came in here and said: 'It is trite. It is only minimal. Only 0.1 per cent, $1m, of consumers' money gets lost every year'. I commend the three Bills to the House. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(9.40) —I would like to address my remarks to the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill. Whilst I have some sympathy with the remarks of the previous speaker the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler), I think his harsh judgment of the Opposition is not really born of a wish to understand or deal with the difficulties of the insurance industry in a way which will benefit the whole community. It is of some concern to me that the Government has chosen to regulate brokers in quite the way it has. I wish to raise a number of points of concern to me, the first being that brokers are described in this legislation as intermediaries connected with the insurer. The Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) stated in his second reading speech that one of the main provisions of this legislation would establish the responsibility of insurers for the conduct of their intermediaries. Brokers consider themselves to be individuals within the insurance industry and tend to think of themselves as operating for clients. They look on themselves as connected not so much with insurance companies but with those who seek to be insured. The problem with this Bill is that it tends to move the intermediary, the broker, from being connected with the person seeking insurance to being connected with those providing the insurance. This change in concept, I believe, will have some fairly dramatic ramifications as the legislation comes into effect and people begin to realise that in many ways brokers will now be seen to be nothing but extensions or agents of the insurance companies. I do not believe this will have a beneficial effect for the community. I am concerned also that State government insurance offices and the Northern Territory insurance office are not included in this legislation. The Minister drew attention to this fact in his speech and said that, whilst the provisions of the Bill do not apply to State insurance or Northern Territory insurance, the Government firmly believed that private and public sector insurers should as far as possible compete on the same terms and conditions. He went on to say that to that end the Government would continue its efforts. I wish him luck with those efforts because it is my impression that no State government will co-operate with the Federal Government in this regard. No State government in Australia will in fact seek to operate as insurance companies in the private sector have to. I think that is most regrettable. The State government insurance offices around Australia take unfair commercial advantage by not fulfilling the tax and charges provisions that many commercial organisations have to fulfil. This is one area that really worries me. They will not have to operate in regard to brokers in the same way that private insurance companies will have to. They are excluded from the Trade Practices Act. Mr John Brown —What about all the insurance they take that others will not- workers compensation, third party? You are cracking jokes. Mr CADMAN —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism knows full well the way in which the GIO in New South Wales has been used as a financial tool of the Wran Government to extend tentacles into areas where it was never contemplated it should move to raise funds for the Government of New South Wales-in fact, to become a revenue collection agency. Because of its exclusions from the provisions of the Trade Practices Act it has been able to get exclusive trading in many areas where it should not have it. That is my second point. I reiterate the first: The concept of the function of and the services provided by brokers in the commercial world has been changed in this legislation so that brokers will no longer be connected to clients but will be connected to insurance companies. The second point is that the government insurance offices are excluded by this legislation from fulfilling the provisions of the legislation. The third point I wish to make is that I do not think the Government has given sufficient attention to tight control over entering into a contract rather than to the contract itself. Under this legislation there is no obligation for a broker or an insurance company to notify a client when a deal has been completed . There is provision for binders-pseudo-contractual arrangements-'as soon as possible'. I think there must be an obligation on brokers and insurance companies to notify a client immediately a cover has been effected, that the premium will be at a certain rate and that terms of payment of that premium are set and understood by the client. The person who seems to be left out in this process is the client. For all the claims made by members of the Government and the Minister, there are some notable exceptions to this legislation that should have been included in it. There has been plenty of time to give it close and proper examination, but that has not been done. The Government has tried to skate a line between the representations received from the insurance companies and those received from the National Insurance Brokers Association of Australia. I can understand why the Government would do that, but it has not taken its courage in both hands, seeing that it was determined to legislate. My view in this area is different from that of the Government and somewhat different from that of my colleagues, because I believe that, whenever a government seeks to legislate in a difficult area, the proper approach is to seek as much self-regulation as possible and then to move in with the minimum amount of legislation to shore up those areas which cannot be dealt with by self-regulation. The Government has not put enough pressure on the industry to solve its own problems. Instead, it has offered a crutch. This crutch will be extremely difficult to manage because there are serious inconsistencies in the legislation. I do not believe that people seeking to be insured will gain the benefit that the Government claims they will gain; yet within the industry there will be great disruption. Another area of concern to me is the failure to identify the operation of so- called multi-agents, individuals who offer the prospect of insurance on behalf of a number of companies and who can operate much as a broker would. This occurs in country areas, but then again in country areas there will be a stock and station agent who will carry an agency for one or two insurance companies and in no way could that individual be considered a broker. He is in fact offering a service to his clients. The Government has not sought to go into that area and to seek clear definitions. The role fulfilled by multi-agents who operate on behalf of more than three or four companies, I suggest, is very similar to the role fulfilled by a broker. Failure to define a multi-agent will lead, I believe , to the proliferation of multi-agents throughout the country. We will find some of the fly-by-night brokers becoming multi-agents, thereby escaping the provisions of this legislation. This is a serious area. I can see it occurring in cities where large amounts of business are done for large premiums. It will be possible for an agent to work exclusively for two or three firms and to bid around the market in the same way that a broker does, thereby escaping the provisions and responsibilities the Government is seeking to impose by this legislation. Other matters have been brought to my attention both by insurers and brokers, and I understand their concern. I understand the concern of the National Insurance Brokers Association with regard to the disclosure of brokerage fees. I find that not objectionable because I think it proper for a client to know what service has been provided and how much that service costs. He ought to be able to compare the service fees of brokers in the same way that one can compare the service fees of doctors, solicitors or engineers. I think that is a proper professional process and I have no objection to that disclosure process. I come back to my main objections. The first one is that the Government has moved in a spirit of consensus and has achieved a mishmash, a very difficult set of circumstances, both for insurers and brokers. Despite its claims, it has tended to neglect its proper responsibilities to clients. I think that this legislation will go through a period of turmoil until the circumstances shake down, and I predict that within 12 months it will have to be amended to make it workable. I deplore the Government's inability to deal effectively with State insurance organisations and its inability to encourage State insurance offices, which are extensive and powerful and have exclusive rights in certain areas, to conform to the measures that are proposed in this legislation. I am concerned that there has not been a proper process of notification established whereby the client is notified both by the company with whom he is insured and by the broker so that there is certainty of the day of commencement. Finally, I wish that we could move to a process where some indemnity fund is established by brokers to protect clients. That could be done so easily but it has also been bypassed. It is regrettable that a government which is so strong on statement has not been able to deliver its commitments to the industry, to the clients and to the people of Australia. Unfortunately, like so many of the Government's other statements in which it claims consensus, we find a mishmash of improperly and hastily put together provisions which generally satisfy everybody but which are unsatisfactory for the whole community. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(9.53) —In September 1976 the Australian Law Reform Commission was given a reference by the then Attorney-General requiring the Commission to report upon the adequacy of the law covering contracts of insurance. The Commission conducted extensive consultations and held numerous discussions on the subject. In 1980 the Commission delivered its first report on insurance agents and brokers. This report dealt with the rules applicable to insurance intermediaries in both life and general insurance. In August 1981 the then shadow Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, introduced a private members Bill in the Senate, the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill 1981. This Bill was, in essence, an implementation of the report of the Australian Law Reform Commission entitled 'Insurance Agents and Brokers'. The need for such legislation was set out in the beginning of the report. The Commission stated: The private insurance indusry is today organised on a national basis. It is undesirable that, in important aspects of the law governing relationships with the insuring public, this national industry should be subject to vague and uncertain rules developed long before the growth of modern insurance. It is equally undesirable that it should be subject to differing legislative requirements from one jurisdiction to another. The needs of the industry and of its customers can be met only by development of a national law of insurance contracts in Australia. This law should promote: Uniformity, to the extent that the federal constitution permits Clarity, by removing doubts in existing case law and statutes Relevance, in recognising the realities of the respective positions of the insured, the insurer and the intermediaries (agents and brokers) who facilitate and effect contracts of insurance. The private member's Bill introduced by Senator Evans was passed by the Senate but rejected by the House of Representatives. In 1983 there were a number of broker insolvencies which clearly called for the urgent need for controls in the insurance industry. Last December the Treasurer (Mr Keating) introduced the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill 1983, which is also based on the Commission' s report. A review of the provisions of the 1983 Bill was recently completed. A number of submissions on the Bill were received from the States, the Northern Territory, the insurance industry, consumer organisations, and a host of other interested parties. As a consequence of these consultations, a number of amendments have been made to the 1983 Bill. These amendments have been incorporated in the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill 1984. Generally, the amendments are designed to improve and clarify regulatory procedures contained in the earlier Bill and to implement a number of practical and technical considerations contained in numerous submissions on the 1983 Bill. Australia does not have any legislation for the control of insurance brokers. The State legislation that does exist is primarily for the licensing of brokers only. The purpose of the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill 1984 is to establish a statutory framework for the regulation of the insurance broking industry and the activities of insurance brokers and agents. As was stated by the Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) in his second reading speech: . . . 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 . Let me now mention some of the main provisions of this Bill in a little more detail. Clause 8 of the Bill provides that this legislation shall not apply to State insurers or Northern Territory insurance or to joint insurance involving State insurance or Northern Territory insurance and some other insurer. However, it is important to realise that State offices are in competition with the private sector insurers and their exclusion could offer the brokers an opportunity to avoid responsibilities by the placing of a small proportion of each insurance cover through the various State Government offices. Clause 10 of the Bill provides that an insurance intermediary, other than an insurance broker, is required to have a written agency agreement before arranging or holding himself out as entitled to arrange a contract of insurance for an insurer. The relevant commissioner or the intending insured or insured may request copies of such agreements from the intermediary of insurer. Such a request must be complied with within seven days after the day on which the request is received by the intermediary or insurer. It should be noted that the validity of a contract of insurance is not affected by a contravention of this requirement as provided in clause 10 of the Bill. Clause 11 of the Bill provides, inter alia, that the insurer is responsible for the conduct of its agents or employees which is relied on reasonably and in good faith by an insured or intending insured, notwithstanding that the agent or employee did not come within the scope of his or her authority or employment. The insurance industry has expressed concern as to this provision. It has held the view that an agent could commit the insurer by arranging a contract for workers compensation cover where the insurer was not licensed under a State law to underwrite such contracts. The view has also been expressed that an agency appointment not subject to a company-agency agreement could also result in the agent committing the insurer for a contract which fell outside the insurers re- insurance protection program, thus exposing the insurer to financial risks, even to the extent of insolvency in the event of a serious loss occurring. The Bill, therefore, places responsibility squarely on the insurer where the agent or the employee engages in conduct on which the insured relied in good faith and on which it was reasonable for a person in the circumstances to rely. Accordingly, the insurer will be liable to the insured for any loss or damage caused by the agent's misrepresentation or conduct. Sub-clause 4 of clause 11 provides that any agreement seeking to limit this responsibility will be void, and the Bill further provides that it will be an offence for an insurer to make, or offer to make, any such agreement. Insurance brokers have been defined in the United Kingdom, Department of Trade, Insurance intermediaries, Command Paper No. 715 of 1975 on page 8 as person who: Acting with complete freedom as to their choice of undertaking, bring together, with a view to the insurance and re-insurance or risks, persons seeking insurance or re-insurance and insurance or re-insurance undertakings, carry out work preparatory to the conclusion of contracts of insurance or re-insurance and , where appropriate, assist in the administration and performance of such contracts, in particular in the event of a claim. Whereas a broker possesses the ability to act with complete freedom as to the choice of the insurer with which insurance cover may be arranged for a client, an agent is clearly committed to the promotion of the policies or interests of one or a limited number of insurance companies. Under this Bill, no individual or corporation will be able to carry on business as an insurance broker unless he or it is registered under the Insurance (Agent and Brokers) Act. Clause 19 of the Bill provides that a person shall not after the expiration of six months after the commencement of Part III of the Bill, carry on business as an insurance broker in relation to life insurance business or general insurance business unless the person is registered in respect of that type or both types of insurance business and unless the person is indemnified in respect of the prescribed liabilities arising out of or in the course of business as an insurance broker. In the case of brokers in the life insurance industry, registration will be the responsibility of the Life Insurance Commissioner. In the case of a broker in the general insurance industry, registration will be the responsibility of the Insurance Commissioner. The need for registration of insurance brokers has been highlighted by the long history of broker insolvencies. However, before the scheme of registration can be used to control satisfactory conduct by brokers, I believe insurers must endeavour to employ persons who possess high educational standards and professional qualifications in the industry. The industry should also adopt better training methods and continue on the job training. Clause 21 of the Bill provides that registration of a person as an insurance broker has effect for a period of one year. In the area of general insurance, broker insolvencies seem to have been caused by two main factors-first, the mixing of insurers' and insureds' funds, that is, premiums with claim proceeds and return premiums; and second, the retention of premiums, often for lengthy periods and their investment for the broker's own benefit. Clause 26 provides that a registered insurance broker will be obliged to open 'an insurance broking account'. Into this account he will pay all moneys received from insureds in connection with a contract of insurance or moneys received from an insurer for an insured. Clause 26 also limits the purposes for which moneys may be withdrawn from that account. It further provides for the broker to make up any loss and to retain any profit resulting when such investments are realised. Clause 26 further contains the important provision that moneys in the broking account and the securities in which those funds are invested may not be attached except by the persons on whose behalf they were received but had not been paid. Such funds will not be available to general creditors. Clause 27 further provides that a broker who has received premium moneys and knows that amount of the premium is required to pay the premium to the insurer within a maximum of 90 days or, if that is not practicable, as soon as is reasonably practicable thereafter from the inception of cover or from the first day of the period to which an instalment of premium relates. The inception date is really the only commercially practical date from which to calculate credit and will remove delays that are commonly experienced. Industry experience indicates that no new or renewal business is ever agreed without the premium being struck first. It may not be commonly known that there are often quite considerable delays and abuse in regard to ascertaining asset values to be insured and other aspects necessary to complete satisfactorily a proposal to determine a finite premium. Credit granted in practice, therefore, is well in excess of 90 days. Clause 27 further provides that a broker who has received premium moneys and does not know the amount of the premium to pay to the insurer shall pay 75 per cent of the estimated premium in respect of a new contract, or 75 per cent of the previous year's premium in respect of renewal of a contract within the 90- day period. Clause 27 additionally provides that a broker must also notify the insurer within 10 days of the acceptance of the risk that the risk and the amount of insurance have been accepted. The Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill will play a major role in strengthening the insurance industry and ensuring that satisfactory standards are maintained. The National Insurance Brokers Association of Australia has generally supported this Bill. The association has made a number of constructive submissions. As at 20 December 1983, the National Insurance Brokers Association of Australia had 445 members handling more than $2 billion of premium income per annum, which represented 49 per cent of all fire and general insurance written in Australia, excluding compulsory third party insurance. The Bill will strengthen the financial stability of the insurance industry and endeavour to protect the insuring public against the negligence or misconduct of an agent or broker. The basic purpose of the Insurance Contracts Bill 1984 is to improve the flow of information from the insurer to the insured so that the insured can make an informed choice as to the contract of insurance he enters into and is fully aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and to provide a uniform and full set of rules to govern the relationship between the insurer and the insured. Hopefully, this Bill will relieve confusion about the types of cover offered in relation to motor vehicle, house owners, householders, sickness and accident, consumer credit and travel insurers. This Bill will reform and modernise on a national basis the laws relating to contracts of insurance and will implement the major recommendations of the Law Reform Commission's report on insurance practice. I pay tribute to the honourable member of Hawker (Mr Jacobi) for his tireless pursuit of the reform of insurance law. In many respects, these Bills represent the culmination of tenacious representation by the honourable member for Hawker. These Bills represent further written evidence of the historic goals of the Hawke Government, an authentic Australian Government, in providing enlightened legislation not only for consumer protection but, most importantly, in the pursuit of national recovery, national reconstruction and national reconciliation. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(10.05) —The Insurance Contracts Bill 1984, the Insurance ( Agents and Brokers) Bill 1984 and the Life Insurance Amendment Bill 1984 are based on the recommendation of the Australian Law Reform Commission and, I presume, are quite satisfying to lawyers, albeit academic lawyers. But I do not believe that the legislation is really satisfying to consumers or that in the medium to long term the industry itself will find it satisfying. I think what we have is a situation whereby the Minister concerned has seen an opportunity to put law onto the statute book. The industry, because of its increasing philosophical commitment to a clubbish attitude and a reduction in the amount of competition within the industry has opted for consensus and agreed to go along with the Government's proposals as the line of least resistance. Unfortunately, in recent years the industry has degenerated into a club of a small number of relatively large firms, the majority of which are overseas controlled. I find it very interesting that the Australian Labor Party has been able to achieve a consensus with what amounts to an industry dominated by overseas multinationals. But notwithstanding that, I agree that the industry had some problems and that there was a need for an improvement to protect both the public and the industry itself. I think the classic area which needed improvement was that of trust funds. I am sure that every member of this House is aware of situations whereby, for example, a consumer had gone along to his local broker and effected insurance, assuming that a cover note would be taken out and that, in due course, a policy would be written, but the broker, for reasons best known to himself or his bookie had done other things with the premium and, when the risk arose and there was a need for a claim to be made, the insured found that, in fact, no policy was in existence. I think there is a need for something to be done about such situations. However, I agree with previous speakers here tonight that it would have been desirable for the industry to take a self-regulatory approach to the matter and perhaps establish an indemnity fund to be funded by brokers and agents to cover that area. A number of aspects of this legislation concern me. I am particularly concerned that there has been no attempt to cover the State Government Insurance Offices. In New South Wales we have seen the growth of the GIO to an extent where it is rapidly buying market shares which, I assume, in years to come will be used as a method of financing the excesses of the Wran Labor Government because it seems to have run out of the capacity to raise revenue through voluntary taxation. I am also concerned that this approach, which encourages the growth of State Government Insurance Offices has allowed governments in the States to monopolise certain classes of insurance. We have seen a recent example of that in New South Wales where there has been a virtual prohibition on third party motor insurance by any other office except the GIO. Mr Jacobi —That is a sinking market; nobody wants to be involved in that. Mr BLUNT —I think the National Roads and Motorists Association would have preferred to continue its role with third party motor insurance. It also concerns me that just prior to the New South Wales election it was appropriate for the GIO to take out large advertisements advertising that it had managed to reduce rates. I am a little cynical about the motives of a commercially based firm taking out such politically opportune advertisements. I am also concerned that this legislation really does not address the issues that are of concern to most consumers. I think it is fair to say that consumers want the insurance which covers the risks to which they are exposed to be at a fair price. Recently, I saw an example whereby a consumer took out a mortgage with a building society. The building society, having an arrangement with an insurance company, said to the borrower: 'We think it would be appropriate if you effected insurance cover with this particular insurance company'. The borrower, wanting to co-operate with the person supplying the finance for his house said: 'Fine. I will take out the insurance as recommended'. Unfortunately, some months after the insurance policy was effected, the worst happened; the house burnt down. The borrower had taken the word of the lending institution as gospel and had taken out insurance as recommended. That insurance provided adequate cover for the lender. The mortgage was, in fact, paid out, but, instead of having a replacement policy as he had anticipated, the borrower simply had a market value policy which covered the mortgage but which did not provide sufficient finance to rebuild the house. This legislation does not address that question. I guess it is fair to say: 'Let the buyer beware'-caveat emptor. However, I still think that the real concerns of the insuring public are those I have mentioned and not the concerns addressed by the Law Reform Commission. Mr JACOBI(Hawker)(10.10) —I will be very brief. I support the Insurance Contracts Bill, the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill and the Life Insurance Amendment Bill. On 9 September 1976 the then Attorney-General, the Hon. Bob Ellicott, endorsed a very long overdue reference to the Australian Law Reform Commission on insurance contract law. He stated: This is an area of the law that developed at a time when there was a complete freedom of contract. There has tended to be a degree of inequality between the insurer and the insured. I do not subscribe to the view that there are grave abuses evident in this area. At the same time, however, it is an area that needs consideration. After consultation with the Treasurer, within whose responsibility this area falls in the Commonwealth sphere, I have decided to refer the matter to the Law Reform Commission. Once the reference had been picked up by the Law Reform Commission, it was quickly realised that its first task was to inquire into and report upon intermediaries. The report on the intermediaries, No. 16, was tabled in this House on 16 September 1980. Investigation and report took some four years. The legislation attached to that report was presented in the Senate by the then shadow Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, on 19 August the following year. Subsequently, the ALRC report, No. 20, on insurance contract law was tabled on 14 December 1982. Briefly, I want to place on record my personal thanks and gratitude, firstly, to the then Attorney-General, the Hon. Bob Ellicott, who endorsed the reference; secondly, to Mr Justice Michael Kirby and the staff of the Law Reform Commission for their untiring and persistent efforts in this extremely complex area; but particularly I want to sincerely thank Professor David St Ledger Kelly, who is, undoubtedly, one of the finest jurists in this country. The high quality of both reports owes a great deal to his leadership. On his shoulders fell the main burden of responsibility to inquire into, to sift and analyse, a mass of detailed information, to spend hours in discussion with all sections of the industry and, for the first time, to formulate a constructive body of law which will be a benchmark not only in this country. In a number of critical areas it will be a world first. This is despite the persistent opposition evoked by the Treasury and the Government at that time. Everybody acknowledges the vital importance of the insurance industry in this country. It offers private individuals and business coverage against losses and liability that would otherwise be ruinous; it creates extensive investment opportunities; and it supports large numbers of employees and intermediaries. Until now the Federal Government has not utilised its power to enact a general law on insurance contracts for the whole of this country. It has passed laws on marine insurance, life insurance, and financial regulation of general insurers, but these Federal laws have largely left unregulated the private contract of insurance entered into in this country. It is undesirable that the Australian insurance industry, now nationally organised and, to some extent, nationally regulated, should be subject to a myriad of differing legislative and common law requirements from one Australian jurisdiction to another. The combination of imperial, federal, State and common law decisions, in differing permutations, makes a businessman's nightmare. Persistently neither the Treasury nor the pre- existing opposition ever did anything to try to rationalise that businessman's nightmare. The development of national policies of insurance, of computer systems to transact business nationally, cast an obligation on the law to get its house in order and to offer a single national code. The Insurance Contracts Bill provides an opportunity to produce a single nationwide law laying down minimum standards of fair insuring practices. Inaccessible judicial texts will be replaced by a single, simply expressed national law. The Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill follows a terrible series of Australian brokerage failures. Between 1970-79 at least 44 broking firms became insolvent. Further insolvencies since then have probably doubled the losses of premiums paid to brokers to about well over $20m. In the absence of legislation, expensive litigation would be necessary to clarify the precise legal position. The legislation seeks to avoid unnecessarily bureaucratic systems of regulation that are disproportionately expensive to operate. On the other hand, there is a clear need to discourage broker impropriety, to reassure the public, to protect the good name of the brokers and to ensure that innocent members of the insuring public are not disadvantaged. All of these considerations have tangible, as well as intangible, consequences, many of them flowing to the advantage of the insurance industry as a whole. Finally, I place on record my gratitude and thanks again to both the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and in particular the Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), who has had the responsibility for this legislation and the task of chairing meetings over recent months on a number of issues that were contentious. It is thanks to his understanding, tact and knowledge in this area, reinforced by his long experience and years of experience as a chartered accountant, that we have reached such wide consensus on both pieces of legislation. I have every confidence that the legislation will be supported by the States and, as such, will ultimately extend to the industry, to policy holders and the community at large the security and protection which is long overdue and which they undoubtedly deserve. I commend the three Bills to the House. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(10.17) —I want to take part in this debate and to talk briefly on one particular issue that comes out of the Insurance Contracts Bill. In commencing my remarks on this topic, I would like to acknowledge, as other speakers have done, the long-standing interest in this general subject by the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi). The topic I wish to address is one that I have spoken on previously in this House. The Government, in introducing this legislation, has expressed its concern for consumers. In a way, with the legislation based upon such concern, it is surprising that the issue to which I am about to refer was not dealt with in this legislation. That being the case, I hope that the Government will, in the interests of the group of Australians to whom I will refer in a moment, give early consideration to the matter that I again raise and, hopefully, take some steps in amending legislation to redress the difficulty. An earlier speaker in this debate drew to the attention of the House that the legislation was designed to improve the flow of information from the insurer to the insured, was designed to ensure that the insured was aware of the terms and conditions of the contract that he entered into. Many people are affected by insurance contracts who are not the insured; they are not a contracting party, but they are affected by the terms and conditions of the contract and the deficiencies of the terms and conditions of that contract. When the Law Reform Commission began its study into this question and issued a discussion paper on the topic, I was hopeful that the important matter which is of concern to me would be addressed in its final report. In the discussion paper, on page 15, the authors wrote as follows: A similar suggestion has been made with respect to house owner's insurance. They went on to say, and this is the important aspect: But it is in respect of personal injury insurance arising from the use of aircraft and certain types of watercraft that the arguments in favour of compulsion are strongest. It has long been accepted that insurance against liability for personal injuries arising for the use of motor vehicles should be compulsory and that a means of recourse should also be provided for cases where the liability is incurred by an uninsured driver or one who cannot be identified or found. They continued: In these cases, the question whether the insured himself is in breach of the policy or even in breach of the law is simply irrelevant to the liability of the insurer to the third party. If I, in my motor car, go through a stop sign or a red light and injure a third party it makes no difference to the obligation of my insurer as to whether I am in breach of road traffic regulations. But what of third party insurance is respect of aircraft? The same is not true. It is obligatory on the owners and operators of light aircraft to take out third party personal injury insurance protection. Charter and commerical flights are governed by other legislation which in itself is defective-I am interpolating here on another topic-in that, whilst there is compulsory cover and no liability cover, the extent of the compensation that is payable in those circumstances is so out of relationship with the sort of protection that is available to a person injured in a motor car that that part of the legislation needs reviewing as well. But I will not develop that theme as time is short. I want to bring to the attention of the House yet again my very deep concern about third parties involved in light aircraft accidents-third parties who believe very often that a third party policy has been taken out but who are totally unaware that in the fine print of most of such policies is a requirement that the policy will not provide protection for the insured and those who are injured as a consequence of flying in the insured's aircraft if that aircraft is flown negligently or in breach of aircraft flying regulations. I was somewhat disappointed when I read the final report of the Law Reform Commission to see that it dealt with this topic in paragraph 14 in the following terms: The areas suggested included motor vehicle third party property liability insurance, houseowner's/householder's insurance and third party personal injury liability insurance in respect of the use of aircraft and certain watercraft. The Commission recognises the importance of these issues. But they are not ones which it has felt entitled to examine in detail in the present report. If that is the reason the Government has not addressed the issue in this legislation, I hope that the Government will ask the Law Reform Commission to report on this issue. In its discussion paper the Commission drew attention to the importance of this topic. For some reason it felt that third party insurance protection was not a matter for its general report on insurance contracts. I find that somewhat surprising. Mr Jacobi —It excluded those right from the word go. Mr WILSON —Motor vehicle insurance was excluded. Mr Jacobi —Not aircraft. Mr WILSON —But not aircraft. I think it is a pity. Knowing of the deep concern of the Law Reform Commission to use any opportunity to bring to the attention of this Parliament its concerns about defects in the law, I am surprised that the Commission was not more forceful on this subject, but I recognise the size of its report. Therefore, I believe there is a very urgent need for this matter to be examined. We, as a matter of public policy, found it desirable that there should be compulsory third party insurance for motor vehicle travel. The use of light aircraft is now becoming so regular, so frequent, and they are used by so many people that serious consideration should be given to making third party personal injury insurance compulsory on the part of all operators of light aircraft. I know it will cost some money but it is a question of the cost to those unfortunate people who find that, as a result of an aircraft accident, they or their relatives are injured and they sue the pilot only to find that the pilot or the operator of the aircraft is a man of straw because usually those people are such enthusiasts with aircraft that they spend all their money on flying lessons or purchasing their aircraft. That is small comfort to a person injured in a light aircraft accident. My view would be that such insurance should be made compulsory. If it is not compulsory, I believe that there should be a standard requirement of voluntary or compulsory insurance contracts in respect of third party injury protection of the passengers or others injured in light aircraft accidents that requires those contracts to meet a certain standard. That standard should prevent the insurer claiming that there is no liability in circumstances where there has been a breach of air navigation regulations or some flying negligence on the part of the pilot. I think the requirement for such a policy, whether voluntary or compulsory, should be similar to the requirements laid down for the terms and conditions of a third party insurance contract in respect of motor vehicles. It is on that very specialised topic that I wanted to bring to the attention of the House my deep concern. I hope that the Government will be as conscious and as concerned for consumers as it claims to be. I hope it will recognise that consumers include third parties who often are misled as to the protection they believe the person who is taking them on the aircraft has in respect of the use of his aircraft. I hope that the Government will look at this matter with a view to trying to remedy this defect in the law. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.27) —In closing the second reading debate on the Insurance Contracts Bill and cognate Bills I thank those honourable members who have taken part in it. I know that honourable members will allow me to pay tribute in particular to the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), who has been the instigator of this legislation. I became a member of this Parliament on the same day as the honourable member for Hawker nearly 15 years ago. He has been working towards this sort of reform for a long time. He is an Australian authority on adequate legislation to protect consumers of insurance. He has a right to take pleasure in what is happening in this Parliament tonight. Like the honourable member for Hawker, I pay tribute to the Law Reform Commission and in particular to David St Ledger Kelly, who was Professor of Law at the University of Adelaide but who is now the departmental head at a department of law in the Victorian Government. I also thank Mr Frank Keenan and other officers of the Department of the Treasury who have worked enormously hard ; Miss Stephanie Forgie and her colleagues in the Attorney-General's Department; Mr John Mallick, President of the Insurance Council of Australia, who has been very helpful indeed; and Mr Ron Guest, the immediate past President of the Life Insurance Federation of Australia. Mr Murray Sainsbury, recently appointed Director of the National Insurance Brokers of Australia and a former colleague of ours as a Liberal Party of Australia member, also has been most helpful in our deliberations in arriving at this legislation. I do not pretend that the people from ICA, NIBA and LIFA are happy with every clause in this legislation. In some cases we had to have the wisdom of Solomon to decide between competing claims. But I have had some very supportive correspondence from organisations about the legislation generally. I am very grateful to those who have been in touch with us. I have received a report on all the contributions to this debate. I cannot make a response to them all. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) opened the debate. I would like to answer one or two of the points that he made in relation to the Insurance Contracts Bill. I do not pretend that these comments are in the order in which he made them but, nevertheless, he will appreciate that I am hoping to address myself to some of the points that he made . As I understand it, he does not see the reasons for excluding arbitration in clause 43 as both insurers and clients think arbitration is faster and could be a lot cheaper. Our response to that is that clause 43 renders void the provision in a contract requiring disputes to go to arbitration but it does not prevent parties taking matters to arbitration if they wish. Clause 43 clearly states that the dispute can be referred to arbitration after the dispute has arisen. At that stage parties are in a position to judge whether arbitration or court proceedings are more appropriate. I understand that the honourable member for North Sydney put it to us that the Bill did not cover all areas of insurance and leaves out large areas of insurance such as, first, those areas listed in clause 9-for example, workers compensation and third party insurance-and, secondly, State insurances. My response is that it would not be appropriate to cover all types of insurance. Some are subject to different considerations; workers compensation is one example of that. Secondly, some are covered by different legislation. For example, health benefits legislation is covered by the National Health Act 1973. I instance also insurance offered by friendly societies. My third response is that some insurance is not of a type contemplated by this Bill-for example, reinsurance which is negotiated between insurers and not between the insurer and the insured. In relation to the State insurances, we are very hopeful that shortly we will have written confirmation that State insurances will be covered in a way that we would want. The honourable member for North Sydney, of all honourable members in this House, knows the constitutional power of the Commonwealth is limited in these matters and that the Commonwealth cannot legislate in respect of insurance except to the extent that the insurance extends beyond the limit of the State concerned. However, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has written to every State Attorney-General and to the Northern Territory Attorney-General regarding the application of legislation to their insurance offices. Consultations have taken place at both ministerial and officer level. I will not go into a lot more detail but I give the House the assurance that we are continuing with those negotiations and we are very hopeful indeed that the States will comply with our wishes. The honourable member mentioned that in his opinion the Bill could encourage fraud. We were of the view that that should be addressed and, in our view, the Bill provides a balance between the rights of the insurer and the insured. For instance, it provides the insurer with a remedy should the insured make a misrepresentation or fail to comply with his duty to make disclosure. The insurer's remedies are less rigorous than those presently available under the common law in relation to misrepresentation but still cannot be said to encourage fraud. An insurer will be entitled to void a contract for fraudulent misrepresentation and an insured will then be entitled to ask the court to disregard voidance in certain circumstances and so ensure that the punishment fits the crime. The last point I make is that the court will have similar powers to ameliorate the consequences where an insured has made a fraudulent claim which the insurer has refused to pay. The last point I take up relating to the contribution of the honourable member for North Sydney is where he stated that standard cover regulations should be formulated and tabled at the same time as the Bill was presented. Standard cover provisions of the Bill do not come into force before the regulations on standard cover have been adequately formulated. There will be consultation with the industry, both private insurers and State government insurers, and industry and consumer representative groups will also be included in those consultations. I agree with the honourable member that it would have been ideal if it could have been done at the same time. However, I am afraid that due to the limitations of the parliamentary timetable and the amount of other work we have on our plate it has not been possible to do that. I assure the honourable member that we will be working hard to do this very shortly so that everybody is informed of the nature of those regulations. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) also responded on the part of the Opposition, mainly in relation to the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill. I acknowledge his contribution. One point made by him and other honourable members was that inequity could result if State insurance bodies are not covered also. I am happy to say in this respect also that the State Attorneys-General have signified verbally that they will be prepared to follow the spirit of the Insurance Contracts Bill and also they have said that they will comply in relation to the clauses of the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill as well. In other words, we have received favourable verbal assurances from most, if not all , State governments and certainly the Northern Territory Government. In fact, written confirmation has already been received from New South Wales in very specific form. Written assurances in relation to the original Bill, which lay on the table of the Senate for some time, were received from the Western Australian Government and the Northern Territory Government. We expect to receive other written assurances in time. In summary, we expect the States and the Northern Territory to follow as well. Another point made related to consultation. I have already paid tribute to a great number of people who took part in this consultation. It was my pleasure and privilege prior to Easter to chair meetings of the Insurance Council and the Life Assurance Council, both being bodies set up to advise the Treasurer or, in this case, the Minister deputed by the Treasurer to take his place, namely, me as Minister Assisting the Treasurer. After Easter we met to consider both the Insurance Contracts Bill and the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill. Also after Easter I chaired a meeting of all presidents and secretaries of the organisations remotely connected with this industry. Indeed, a great amount of valuable give and take took place at those meetings. I extend publicly my thanks to all who took part for their very positive and constructive contributions. Lastly, I say that, as was indicated when the forerunner of this Bill was introduced in the Senate last year-I am referring to the Agents and Brokers Bill -it is the Government's intention that this legislation be implemented in accordance with the principle that there be full cost recovery by the Commonwealth from industry in respect of the legislation. Again, I thank the honourable members who took part in this debate. I commend the second reading of the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.39) —I move the amendment to clause 76 that has been distributed: Clause 76, page 32, lines 3 to 8, omit the clause, insert the following clause: Contribution between insurers ''76. (1) When 2 or more insurers are liable under separate contracts of general insurance to the same insured in respect of the same loss, the insured is, subject to sub-section (2), entitled immediately to recover from any one or more of those insurers such amount as will, or such amounts as will in the aggregate, indemnify him fully in respect of the loss. ''(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) entitles an insured- (a) to recover from an insurer an amount that exceeds the sum insured under the contract between the insured and that insurer; or (b) to recover an amount that exceeds, or amounts that in the aggregate exceed, the amount of the loss. ''(3) Nothing in this section prejudices the rights of an insurer or insurers from whom the insured recovers an amount or amounts in accordance with this section to contribution from any other insurer liable in respect of the same loss.''. Clause 76 of the Insurance Contracts Bill as originally drafted applied a formula to the amount of contribution payable by one or more insurers to other insurers where they are liable under separate contracts of insurance in respect of the same loss. This was recommended by the Law Reform Commission. I give an example of a car insured for $4,000 with the National Roads and Motorists Association and $2,000 with the State (Government) Insurance Office of New South Wales: The formula would have determined the relative contributions for a car accident loss. The industry thought it should determine the contributions rather than leave it to that formula, and the Opposition in the Senate successfully moved an amendment to that effect providing that the insured is entitled to recover the full amount of loss, up to the limit in contract, from any insurer; that is, the insured is not required to wait for the insurers to decide upon the contribution, to decide upon the fair shares between the companies. This allows insurers to work out the contributions for themselves rather than leave it to the formula. The Government has accepted the thrust of the Opposition's amendment but there is a need for the amendment I have just moved because the amendment moved by Senator Archer in the Senate could have led to ambiguity. We believe that our amendment clarifies the ambiguity whereby the clause could be interpreted to permit an insured to recover the full amount of a loss from any one of the insurers even if the sum insured under the contract with the insurer is less than the loss. I commend this amendment to the Committee in order to clear up that ambiguity. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.41) —The Opposition agrees to the amendment. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(10.41) —I wish to ask the Minister a question as to whether or not standard contracts will be developed for third party insurance personal injury damage in the case of the insurance of light aircraft. The Minister will have heard my comments in the second reading debate. If standard contracts are not to be developed to cover third party injury so that people are protected even if there is a breach of aircraft flying regulations or some other breach of the law, what other measures does the Government have in mind to improve the law in the interest of consumers, the third parties, the users of light aircraft? Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.42) —I apologise to the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). I meant to make a comment on his contribution at the second reading stage and overlooked doing so. I understand from previous briefings I have received that there are difficulties in fulfilling his objectives. However, I have certainly taken on board the points he has made about overcoming some of the difficulties that can occur without the reform he wants being effected. I will get further advice on the matter and will write to him on that subject. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.45) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 2, page 1, lines 10 and 11, omit ''a day to be fixed by Proclamation '', insert ''such day as is, or such days as respectively are, fixed by Proclamation''. (2) Clause 9, page 3, after the definition of ''general insurance business'', insert the following definitions: '' 'insolvent company under administration' means a company- (a) in respect of which a compromise or arrangement is being administered under Part VIII of the Companies Act 1981 or of the corresponding provisions of the law of a State or Territory; (b) the property or part of the property of which is in the possession or under the control of a receiver, or of a receiver and manager; (c) that is under official management pursuant to Part XI of the Companies Act 1981 or of the corresponding provisions of the law of a State or Territory; or (d) that is in the course of being wound up or in respect of which a provisional liquidator had been appointed; 'insolvent under administration' means a person- (a) who, under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 or the law of an external Territory, is a bankrupt in respect of a bankruptcy from which he had not been discharged; (b) who has executed a deed of assignment under Part X of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 or the corresponding provisions of the law of an external Territory where the terms of the deed have not been fully complied with; (c) who has executed a deed of arrangement under Part X of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 or the corresponding provisions of the law of an external Territory where the terms of the deed have not been fully complied with; or (d) whose creditors have accepted a composition under Part X of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 or the corresponding provisions of the law of an external Territory where a final payment has not been made under the composition;''. (3) Clause 18, page 9, at the end of the clause, insert the following sub- clause: ''(2) If the registration of a person as an insurance broker is suspended or cancelled or expires, sections 26, 27 and 28 continue to apply in relation to him or his estate in respect of matters that occurred before the suspension, cancellation or expiry as if his registration had not been suspended or cancelled or had not expired, as the case may be.''. (4) Clause 27, page 15, omit sub-clause (5), insert the following sub-clause: ''(5) Where- (a) the risk, or a part of the risk, to which a contract of insurance or a proposed contract of insurance relates is accepted by or on behalf of an insurer ; (b) the contract of insurance or proposed contract of insurance has been, or is being, arranged or effected by a registered insurance broker, either directly or through another registered insurance broker; and (c) the first-mentioned broker has not been informed of, and has not otherwise ascertained, the amount of a premium or of an instalment of a premium to be paid in connection with the contract or proposed contract, that broker shall, unless he is informed of, or otherwise ascertains, the amount of the premium or instalment to be paid before notifying the insurer in accordance with this sub-section, notify the insurer in writing, within 10 days after the day on which the risk, or that part of the risk, was so accepted, that the risk, or that part of the risk, has been so accepted but that he does not know the amount of the premium or instalment to be paid.''. (5) Clause 28, page 17, lines 21 to 23, omit paragraphs (1) (a) and (b), insert the following paragraphs and words: (a) who has become an insolvent under administration; or (b) that is an insolvent company under administration, or to and in relation to the estate of a deceased insurance broker that is being administered under Part XI of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 or under the law of an external Territory providing for the administration of insolvent estates of deceased persons.''. (6) Clause 28, page 17, line 26, omit ''that are being wound up''. (7) Clause 28, page 17, lines 29 to 31, omit '', for the purposes of distribution or, where a receiver has been appointed in respect of the broker, for the purposes of the receivership,''. (8) Clause 28, page 18, lines 11 to 13, omit ''a trustee in bankruptcy of the broker or, if the broker is a company, by a liquidator or receiver of the broker '', insert ''a person, other than the broker, who has lawful custody or control of the moneys''. (9) Clause 36, page 23, lines 13 to 18, omit paragraphs (a) and (b), insert the following paragraphs: ''(a) in the event of the broker becoming an insolvent under administration or an insolvent company under administration; or (b) in the event of the estate of the broker being administered under Part XI of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 or under the law of an external Territory providing for the administration of insolvent estates of deceased persons,''. The amendments to clauses 9, 18, 27, 28 and 36 are of a technical nature. They arise from representations the Government has received from the Australian Society of Accountants and the Institute of Chartered Accountants Review Committee relating to insolvencies. There is also an amendment to clause 2 which allows flexibility in the proclamation to ensure that the Bill takes effect to a timetable so that provisions can take effect even though other provisions are not yet ready for implementation. It is an example of the Government's desire to introduce this legislation with minimum disruption to the insurance industry. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Hurford: 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. Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.49) —The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) is what is characteristically described as a housekeeping measure. It provides for a multitude of amendments to a multitude of Acts. They range through the Apple and Pear Stabilization Act, the Boy Scouts' Association Act, the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act, the Tertiary Education Commission Act, the Coral Sea Islands Act, and so on. Whilst I have the carriage of the Bill on the part of the Opposition, I must admit to no lively desire to speak on the matters included in it. I have, however, the support of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). I am sure that he will make up for any deficiencies in presentation on my part. Having gone through the Bill's 49 pages-although not perhaps to my own satisfaction-I would, without commending the Bill to the House , leave the Bill to others to examine. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(10.50) —I will be almost as brief as the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). I will leave the lengthy comments on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) to the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). The Bill covers some 50 Acts of Parliament and involves hundreds of amendments to those Acts, many of which are mainly procedural. However, some quite significant effects will result from some these changes. One of the effects of the Bill will be to change the Aboriginal Land Rights ( Northern Territory) Act. It is to that section of the Schedule to which I want to address my remarks. The main effect of the amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is to allow for the appointment of more than one Aboriginal Land Commissioner. The Act refers throughout to the appointment of an Aboriginal Land Commissioner-singular-and it does not appear to allow for the appointment of more than one Aboriginal Land Commissioner. In the Northern Territory at present the sole Commissioner has before him scores of cases awaiting hearings. To my knowledge, in the past 12 months or so no decisions have been handed down by the Commissioner, so there is an enormous work load on him. At the same time, there is a very substantial backlog of cases either partly heard or to be heard. Most of the land claims hearings before the Commissioner take many months. If an estimate were made at this stage as to how many years of hearings are still to be conducted by the single Land Commissioner in the Northern Territory, I am sure it would amount to many years. It is important that provision be made for the appointment of additional land commissioners, firstly, to reduce the work load on the Land Commissioner who is there; secondly, to clear up the backlog to which I have just referred, and thirdly-and very importantly for the Northern Territory itself-to reduce any uncertainty that may exist amongst Aboriginal people who are claimants before the Commission or among people who are not Aboriginal, such as mining explorers or other groups who may have some interest in land that is presently under claim . The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has indicated that he intends to appoint at least one further Land Commissioner to try to address these problems of backlogs and work loads and so on. I am very pleased to see these amendments in the legislation because they will allow him to do exactly that. One side effect of the legislation is worth mentioning. Because land commissioners, in the Northern Territory at least, are judges of the Northern Territory Supreme Court, the appointment of new land commissioners will mean an enlargement of the Northern Territory Supreme Court, and as that Court becomes larger the possibility is opened up for the establishment of a Northern Territory Court of Appeal. At present the Federal court in effect sits as the Northern Territory's court of appeal, and the establishment of a Territory court of appeal is not far off. When this occurs it will be an important step in the further development of the Northern Territory. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.55) —With respect to my learned leader in the legal sense, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), and to my learned friend the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves), I do not intend to speak at great length. I acknowledge the presence of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), also my learned friend, who introduced the Bill. The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill gives honourable members an opportunity to make some broad-ranging comments, as the honourable member for North Sydney said, on a wide range of activities. As the honourable member for the Northern Territory pointed out, some 50 pieces of legislation are being amended in this consolidated form. I certainly do not intend to speak on all of them. However, I wish to make one or two comments. The first matter to which I refer is the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and the amendment thereto which allows 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, it is said, will 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 the present arrangements. It also seemed to me the comment would be made well that in relation to other amendments currently going through the Parliament it is more likely than not that the work load of Aboriginal land commissioners will increase. My only point in raising the matter is to underline from the distant State of Tasmania where land claims are starting to arise what I believe to be the very great sensitivity of these matters. We know only too well from the Sex Discrimination Act debate and other more recent debates dealing with immigration that it is fundamental that the right of Parliament and the right of an Opposition to raise matters be untrammelled and unrestricted in any way. We also know that comments made, which are quite rational in this House, and which take place on a day when the proceedings are not broadcast, sometimes appear in a totally different form in the print media and consequently people react on the basis of what they are told was said rather than what was in fact said. The next matter to which I want to refer is the Australian Tourist Commission amendments. I support the Government with some feeling having served for two and half years as Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The amendment provided in the Bill has the effect of increasing the size of the Australian Tourist Commission from 10 members to 12. That is a move which I support and which I believe will be supported by the Opposition. It is also appropriate to note the increased funding which has been made available by the present Government to the Australian Tourist Commission. For that the Government is to be congratulated. While the Australian Tourist Commission's main obligations under the Act relate to the promotion of Australia outside Australia, that is to say, to encourage people from outside to come to this country, I think the Commission also has a role within Australia. If Australians were encouraged-as indeed, the present Minister is endeavouring to encourage them-to see Australia first, that in itself would have a very significant generating impact, both on the national economy and on the tourist industry. The Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 was a long time coming to fruition, but this is a piece of legislation of which I am proud and of which the previous Government is proud in that it incorporated into law a Law Reform Commission report by the Australian Law Reform Commission headed by Mr Justice Kirby. It was, again, legislation which in its early stages was grossly misunderstood and which provoked quite a substantial reaction in some sections of the police forces of Australia, both State and Federal. The amendments proposed to take the legislation a fair bit further than was originally intended in that the Commissioner of Police-that is, of course, the Commonwealth Commissioner of Police-is now to be vested with the discretion to disclose information about an investigation or inquiry to persons or the public. I am an open government person and I recognise that from time to time those in the bureaucracy and in the police force reach a situation where disclosure of information is in the public interest. But I must say that this is a discretion which I believe, in the form in which it is presented in this Bill, must be handled with great care. These questions must be asked: Disclose to whom? To what persons will the details of the investigations be made known? When is the public to be told? I do not want to reflect on any particular State or parts of Australia but I think it must be said that in some parts of Australia disclosure of any information in the course of an investigation would have the effect of tipping off the guilty and enable them to take action which would hinder further inquiries and may well prevent the bringing to justice of those who are guilty. It is well known to those who practice in the courts that quite frequently a defendant is refused bail on the ground that if he or she were at liberty it could hinder police inquiries. I must say from my own experience at the Bar that I think that discretion to disclose information would be a discretion to be used only in very special cases. In some ways I find myself almost in a similar position to the Minister when he answered a question in the House earlier this afternoon on this very matter. The only other matters to which I wish to refer are the amendments to the Judiciary Act. I must say, in fairness to my learned friend the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender)-I should say my leader-that I have not discussed this with him. I am expressing a view about which I feel very strongly and which I hope will not be misunderstood or will not create offence in quarters in which the Hansard is read afterwards. The proposed amendment to section 44 (2) of the Judiciary Act will enable the High Court to remit to the Federal Court matters arising under section 75 (iii.) of the Constitution. I do not make any comment about the earlier amendments which are set out on page 11 of the original typescript of the Minister's second reading speech. But because a previous speech I made was misunderstood by some members of the judiciary, including a very senior member of the Federal Court of Australia, I say that at this time, with greater clarity so that I am not misunderstood, that as a matter of principle, whilst recognising the very heavy workload which falls upon justices of the High Court of Australia, when I am told of proposals which effectively remove matters from the jurisdiction of the High Court and transfer them to the Federal Court of Australia, I ask: Why is that the case? Because of the lateness of the hour I will not take up much time. But I have done a lot of work on this matter and I would like to put those points on the record. The High Court of Australia-or, to give it its correct title, the Supreme Court of Australia, to be known as the High Court-is the only court in this land whose origins and existence are rooted in the Constitution. All of the State supreme courts derive their origin from the Charter of Justice. The High Court of Australia derives its origin, its very being, from the Constitution. The Federal Court of Australia is a superior court which has been created by Act of this Parliament. It must be said that, just as the Federal Court of Australia was created in 1978, the Federal Court of Australia could be abolished tomorrow. I am not for one moment suggesting that it will be abolished. What I am saying is that it is a creature of statute. As such, at the whim of the Parliament, the Federal Court can be abolished. I am told there was a case some years ago when a justice of a State Supreme Court was offered a seat on the Bench of the Federal Court of Australia. He asked whether he could retain his commission from the State Supreme Court and was told he could not. Apparently he then responded that , if he surrendered that commission and the Federal Court of Australia were abolished, its numbers reduced or whatever, he would no longer be a judge. I looked at section 75 (iii.) of the Constitution. I want to tell the Parliament, and through the Parliament the people, what the amendment does. Sub- section (iii.) states: In which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party: That means that, from now on, cases involving the Commonwealth or a person suing the Commonwealth may not be dealt with in the High Court of Australia but may be dealt with in the Federal Court. Mr Groom —Why is this tucked away in this piece of legislation? Mr HODGMAN —That is a very interesting point. We are aware of the need. The High Court judges have said both publicly and privately that they wish their work load to be reduced. I might say that it is rather incredible-this is the only political comment that I will make-that at a time when the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) has been moving to take some of the work load off the High Court and give it to the Federal Court, the same Attorney-General, in a classic example of schizophrenia, was wishing to increase the work load on the High Court by giving it power, pursuant to a referendum under the Constitution, to give advisory opinions. I find it more than Irish, and I am one-sixteenth Irish, that the same Attorney-General who, on the one hand has been saying that we have to take the work load off the High Court, on the other hand advocated a totally new jurisdiction of advisory opinions. Having had the great honour to serve as an associate to one of the greatest justices of the High Court of Australia ever, the Rt Hon. Sir Victor Windeyer, in 1962-63 when single justices of the High Court of Australia frequently determined matters under section 75 (iii.) of the Con- stitution-that is, actions where the Common- wealth was either being sued or was suing-I know that the single justice work was regarded by some as an intolerable burden on the backs of the judges in addition to their appellate work. Yet, at the same time, I know that many of the justices welcomed the single justice work where they actually tried cases as keeping them in touch with the public and with the profession. The plain fact is that, in single justice work determining cases in which the Commonwealth was sued by a citizen of this country or where the Commonwealth brought action, the judges came face to face with first-instance reality and with the ordinary workings of justice. I ask the question: Why should not a citizen of this country have the unqualified right which the Constitution gives him or her to sue the Commonwealth of Australia in the highest court in the land? It might be a case involving one person but having a possible application for tens of thousands of others. I want to make it very clear that I do not reflect on the Federal Court of Australia, which is endowed with some of the finest legal talent in the country. But I ask the Minister, who is by nature a conservative sort of person and one of the few in the Hawke socialist Government, whether this change is really necessary. I will not delay the House further. Mr Keogh —Hear, hear! Mr HODGMAN —It is a matter of some importance because in this Parliament, with only a handful of us present, we are moving to downgrade the right of Australian citizens to sue the Commonwealth, to sue the Executive, in the highest court of the land. I think that is something which is worthy of some debate. Obviously the Bill will not go to a division, but I for my part am not persuaded that the amendment contained therein is a good one. Mr Duffy —It is only on the application of the parties. The High Court has the power to remit it. Mr HODGMAN —Yes, the High Court has the power. That is what I am complaining about. The Minister has said to me that this can be done only on the application of the parties. Mr Duffy —Or on the High Court's motion. Mr HODGMAN —That is it. I know the part about its being on the application of the parties. If such parties agree to go to the Federal Court, that is their business, and I do not object to that. It can also be done on the motion of the High Court itself. That is what I am talking about. With the greatest of respect , if the amendment is passed-I will vote against it-I ask the High Court, whose members may now read Hansard and I think are entitled to take judicial notice of Hansard, not to remit itself completely out of its jurisdiction in this area. I ask the High Court to use this power sparingly, not to push from its doors the people who come to it seeking relief, as they are entitled to under the Constitution. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(11.13) —In the spirit that has pervaded the House for the last two hours, I have no wish to speak for an extended period at this late hour , nor do I wish to debate the multitude of provisions in the Statute Law ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1984 that have been referred to by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). I want to focus the attention of the House on the Spirits Act Amendment Bill and to page 38 of the Schedule. It is my wish, if honourable members will pardon me, to bring the House to the point at which it might reasonably be full-bottle on the Spirits Amendment Bill. I also wish to give notice of my intention to move in the Committee stage an amendment that has been circulated in my name. The amendment is not only bipartisan, but also tripartisan in its approach, for it is an amendment that resulted from consultation between not only the Opposition and the Government but also the wine and brandy producing industry. This amendment has come into being because the Opposition alerted the industry to the potential of this legislation. Last Thursday the industry met with Customs officers and the Government was then gracious enough to postpone the passage of the legislation at the Opposition's insistence so that the industry's wishes could be accommodated tonight. I want to acknowledge the preparedness and the willingness of the Government to accommodate the wishes of the Opposition and the industry in this regard. The amendment I will move is a result of a meeting of the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association and Department of Industry and Commerce which has responsibility for Customs. It characterises very much the emphasis of that meeting last Thursday. It is indeed appropriate that the Government should have agreed to accommodate the wishes of this industry, because the amendment, as honourable members will see in the Committee stage, places emphasis on the quality of Australian brandy. It is the result of work by the National Health and Medical Research Council and its insistence on certain minimum standards that the legislation currently before us and the amendment I will move are being debated this evening. The amendment is important because of the emphasis it places on quality. Quality is an important weapon for the future viability of this essential Australian industry. Trouble for the wine and brandy industry resulted from the ill-advised action of the Whitlam Government in successfully reducing the differential between Australian and imported brandy. Indeed, it was the increase in excise on brandy that effectively reduced this differential so that the difference between excise duty and customs became less. This, plus a massive European Economic Community subsidy made competition for Australian producers more difficult, and so the essential function Australian producers must now fulfil is that of producing a quality product. I ask the House to look briefly at the changes that have occurred in the consumption of Australian and imported brandy over the last decade. If we express the figures of consumption as a percentage of the total of the whisky and brandy market in Australia, we discover that in 1974 Australian brandy had 29 per cent of that market and imported brandy 7 per cent. By 1983 the Australian share had fallen to 19 per cent and the imported share had risen to 26 per cent. One will appreciate that as a result of this trend the economic problems facing the brandy industry are acute enough. To load the industry with quality problems as well cannot be tolerated. I emphasise that what happens to the brandy industry affects the entire grape growing industry-not just the wine industry, but also the closely related dried fruit industry. The industry is in a perilous situation. I am compelled to say that as a result of the ill-advised 2J spirit impost levied on the wine industry by the Government expected in the last Budget to produce $13m, of which as at March 1984 only $432,383 had been realised, or less than $500,000 of the projected $ 13m, we begin to realise what sort of impost has resulted and how insensibly this Government has acted towards the wine industry generally and the brandy industry in particular. A great deal of good would be done to both industries by removing the absurd, ill-conceived and destructive 2J spirit impost. At least the Government has been gracious enough to consider this amendment. I remind the House that the amendment which I propose to circulate will cause no revenue loss to the Government. I bring my remarks to a conclusion by reminding the House that the industry with which we are dealing in this debate is labour intensive. There can be no comparison between the labour intensive sector of the wine and brandy industry and any of the other liquor industries. There are 7,300 growers and labourers employed in the wine and brandy industry in Australia. Add to this an additional 5,600 employees of wine makers and distillers and one begins to see what an enormous impact on income tax alone this industry has-not to mention the all too frequently forgotten impact it has on the tourist industry because of the romance and mystery that invariably surrounds the wine and brandy industries. Contrary to popular opinion, the wine and brandy producing industry is a substantial taxpayer in Australia. I refer to page 2 of the document issued by the wine and brandy producers which lists those taxes paid on wine and brandy. The brandy excise estimated for 1983-84 was $36.5m; grape spirit excise was $6. 2m. The pair between them add up to as much as the present incomes and assets test is expected to realise to the Government. State liquor taxes on wine and brandy amount to $62.1m, and sales tax on brandy is estimated in 1983-84 to be $ 15.9m. The industry which the seat of Wakefield so embraces needs the amendment of which I have given notice of my intention to move. The amendment is a quality control provision and is designed to protect the consumer. I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to its passage and the passage of my amendment through this place. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.20) —in reply-I thank those honourable members who took part in this debate. They were all brief and I will attempt to be brief also. I think the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) adverted to only one aspect of what the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) indicated were about 50 amendments; that is the proposed amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Basically there seemed to be no concern about that matter on either side of the House. I reiterate that the Government is concerned about the rate of progress in hearing and reporting on land claims before the present Aboriginal Land Commissioner pursuant to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. The appointment of a second Aboriginal land commissioner is expected to reduce the backlog of claims and the associated delays in the submission of reports by the Commissioner to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. As indicated by the honourable member for the Northern Territory, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has indicated his intention to appoint at least one more commissioner. The honourable member for Denison dealt with various matters in relation to the Australian Tourist Commission. He congratulated the present Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr Brown) on the role he has taken in attempting to promote tourism. He made the point that, of course, tourism in Australia is extremely important, and I do not think anyone on this side of the House would take issue with the honourable member for Denison in relation to that. Clearly tourism within Australia is a matter of enormous significance. Another matter referred to by the honourable member for Denison was the complaints procedure under the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981. This amendment extends the application of the relevant section to all members of the Australian Federal Police. At present it applies only to the members of the investigation unit of the Australian Federal Police and consequently is ineffective. The information sought to be kept confidential is frequently available to AFP personnel other than members of the investigation division and new section 87 (1) (e) extends the application of the section to AFP Public Service support staff, the officers of the AFP who are described, as I think was indicated by the honourable member for Denison, in section 16 of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. Some of these people have access to confidential information about complaints and inquiries in the normal course of their employment and the purpose of the amendment is to bring about a more realistic situation than exists at the moment in the Act, which in this respect is ineffectual. The honourable member for Denison indicated the need for that confidentiality to be very carefully protected, and the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and I certainly agree with those remarks. I do not think the extension of the provision to people who now have the information in any way extends the problem of confidentiality. Of course, I acknowledge the points made in relation to that matter and the honourable member for Denison and all honourable members can be satisfied that the points made by him will be taken into account. The honourable member for Denison was concerned that an amendment to the Judiciary Act states: Where a matter in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party is at any time pending in the High Court, the High Court may, upon the application of a party or of the High Court's own motion, remit the matter, or any part of the matter, to the Federal Court of Australia. I do not fully understand the concern expressed by the honourable member for Denison. The proposed new section gives the High Court the discretion to remit matters to the Federal Court. The alternative, of course, is that it remit a matter on the application of a party. That proposed new section is very limited, of course, because it enables the High Court to remit to the Federal Court matters within its original jurisdiction arising under section 75 (iii.) of the Constitution. That, of course, is restricted to matters in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party. I think it is worthwhile mentioning this point because it is a matter on which some concern is expressed. Of course, the High Court is already empowered under section 44 of the Judiciary Act to remit to a Federal Court or to a State or Territory court a matter or part of a matter that is pending in the High Court. This power of remitter extends, however, only to those matters where the Court to which it is proposed to remit the matter already has jurisdiction with respect to the subject matter and the parties involved. The recent amendments to the Judiciary Act 1984 empowered the High Court to remit to the Federal Court of Australia or to a State or Territory court a matter commenced in the High Court by virtue of its exclusive jurisdiction under paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 38, that is, matters arising directly out of any treaty and suits by the Commonwealth and the States. Those amendments were for the purpose of relieving the High Court of some of its work load in its original jurisdiction. The proposed amendments merely complement these earlier amendments. They are matters which come to the High Court under section 75 (iii.) of the Constitution and are not covered by the amendments included in the Judiciary Amendment Act ( No. 2) 1984 which I referred to earlier. The other point on that is that those matters are remitted under the Judiciary Amendment Act (No. 2) 1984. An example of such a case is where, for example, an individual seeks a declaration against the Commissioner of Taxation in respect of a decision under the sales tax Acts. The other matter, which was raised by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), related to amendments not to the Judiciary Act but to the Spirits Act. I have heard the honourable member for Wakefield before in this House express concern on behalf of the wine industry. Tonight he referred, more specifically, to one area of it. In relation to the amendment which has been proposed by the honourable member for Wakefield, I think it is necessary to spell out on behalf of the Government some of the background associated with this Bill. The proposed amendments to the Spirits Act which are contained in the Spirits Amendment Bill followed extensive consultation with the National Health and Medical Research Council into wine and spirit standards. That is in fact what the amendment is about. It is about a question of standards. This consultation process extended for over three years. It is not as if it were a matter that arose overnight. It goes back for some considerable time. It is the view of the Government that under this Government and under the previous Government all interested parties were given ample opportunity to present their views on the revised standards. The Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association made representations on 31 May seeking a change to the proposed definition of brandy contained in the amendments to the Spirits Act. The definition in the Bill was first proposed by the National Health and Medical Research Council in 1980 and has remained unchanged since. The Council formally adopted the standards in 1983. Each State and the Commonwealth are now incorporating them into their legislation. I think that if the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association is intent on changing the definition, there must be another review of the standards for spirits by the National Health and Medical Research Council. If the Council amended the definition the State or Commonwealth governments could consider and then accept the new definitions by amendment to legislation. This is the proper course to adopt in relation to the matters raised by the honourable member for Wakefield. That is the proper course of action for legislative change in this area and was followed during the review of wine and spirit standards which gave rise to the present legislation. Similarly, any other proposed amendments to the Bill which have relevance to the National Health and Medical Research Council standards, such as the use of dried grapes in the manufacture of fortifying spirit or the use of sugar in wine , should also be proposed through the above process, that is, representation to the Council. I have outlined the procedure in some detail, in view of the concern expressed by the honourable member for Wakefield, that the matters raised by him are not treated lightly. However, if they are to be pursued by the organisation which made representations to him, the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association, then the proper course for legislative change is the one I have set out in speaking to this Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 6-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. The Schedule. Amendments (by Mr Duffy)-by leave-agreed to: (1) Page 29, Schedule, proposed sub-section 24 (1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, insert ''or a Judge'' after ''Court''. (2) Page 33, Schedule, proposed sub-section 38 (5) of the Management and Investment Companies Act 1983, omit the sub-section, insert the following sub- section: '' '(5) The aggregate of the amount of paid-up prescribed share capital of the licensee and of all the amounts paid as premiums on shares in the licensee (and not paid-off by the licensee by way of a reduction of share capital) shall not at any time exceed the approved capital of the licensee.'.''. (3) Page 33, Schedule, amendments of Management and Investment Companies Act 1983, omit ''Sub-section 40-'', insert ''Section 40-''. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(11.34) —I move: Schedule, page 38, proposed definition of ''Brandy'' to be inserted in sub- section 3 (1) of the Spirits Act 1906, omit ''a spirit distilled from wine'', substitute ''a spirit distilled wholly from wine the fermented juice of fresh grapes,''. I accept the comments that have been made by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). However, this amendment has been proposed by the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association as a quality control measure and is in itself a form of consumer protection. I would be much assured if the Minister were prepared to offer some reassurance to the Committee that he would support, before the National Health and Medical Research Council, the proposals put forward by the Wine and Brandy Producers Association of Australia. He has had representations from that Association, and I know it would be heartened to learn of the Minister's preparedness to refer this amendment to the Council. I do not speak solely for the electors of Wakefield. Although it is unnecessary, the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks) was so enthusiastic about this amendment that he wished to second it. Amendment negatived. Amendments (by Mr Duffy)-by leave-agreed to: (4) Page 40, Schedule, after the definition of ''primary decision'' proposed to be inserted in sub-section 17 (1) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, insert the following definition: '' 'procedural decision' means a decision in relation to the period available for the making of a request under sub-section 23 (1) or (1A) and, in relation to a primary decision, means a decision in relation to the period available for the making of a request under sub-section 23 (1) or (1A) in relation to that primary decision;''. (5) Page 41, Schedule, proposed sub-section 17 (3) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit ''primary'' (wherever occurring). (6) Page 42, Schedule, proposed paragraph 22 (1) (a) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, insert ''(not being a procedural decision)'' after ''authorized person ''. (7) Page 42, Schedule, proposed paragraph 22 (1) (b) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, insert ''but not including a procedural decision'' after ''student assistance'' (last occurring). (8) Page 42, Schedule, proposed sub-section 22 (1) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit ''allows'', insert ''approves''. (9) Page 43, Schedule, after proposed sub-section 22 (1A) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, insert the following sub-section: '' '(1B) If a person (in this sub-section referred to as the ''relevant person' ') is dissatisfied with a procedural decision of an authorized person in relation to a primary decision, the relevant person may, by notice in writing given to the authorized person not later than 30 days after the day on which the procedural decision first comes to the relevant person's notice, request the authorized person to refer the procedural decision and the primary decision to a Tribunal for review.'.''. (10) Page 43, Schedule, amendment of sub-section 23 (2) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit the item, insert the following item: ''Sub-section 23 (2)- Omit the sub-section, substitute the following sub- section: '(2) There shall be set out in a request under this section the grounds on which it is made including, in the case of a request under sub-section (1B), the grounds on which the review of the primary decision is requested.'.''. (11) Page 43, Schedule, amendment of sub-section 23 (3) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit the item. (12) Page 43, Schedule, amendment of paragraph 23 (3) (a) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit sub-item (b). (13) Page 43, Schedule, amendment of paragraph 23 (3) (b) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit sub-item (b). (14) Page 43, Schedule, amendment of paragraph 23 (3) (c) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit sub-item (b). (15) Pages 43 and 44, Schedule, proposed section 24 of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit the section, insert the following section: Request, &c., to be forwarded to Chairperson '' '24. (1) An authorized person who receives a request under sub-section 23 (1) or (1A) for the review by a Tribunal of a primary decision shall, as soon as practicable but in any case within 14 days after receipt of the request, forward the request to the Chairperson of a Tribunal, together with all the records and other papers relevant to the primary decision. '(2) An authorized person who receives a request under sub-section 23 (1B) for the review by a Tribunal of a procedural decision and a primary decision shall, as soon as practicable but in any case within 14 days after receipt of the first -mentioned request, forward that request to the Chairperson of a Tribunal, together with all the records and other papers relevant to those decisions.'.''. (16) Page 44, Schedule, proposed sub-section 25 (1) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit ''of a primary decision''. (17) Page 44, Schedule proposed paragraph 25 (1) (a) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ''(a) arrange for the Tribunal to review- (i) in the case of a request made under sub-section 23 (1) or (1A)-the primary decision to which the request related; or (ii) in the case of a request made under sub-section 23 (1B)-the procedural decision to which the request related and, if sub-section 25C (3) so requires, the relevant primary decision; and''. (18) Page 44, Schedule, proposed paragraph 25 (1) (b) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit ''of the primary decision'' (first occurring). (19) Page 44, Schedule, proposed sub-paragraph 25 (1) (b) (i) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit ''of the primary decision''. (20) Page 44, Schedule, amendment of sub-section 25A (1) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit sub-item (a), insert the following sub-item: ''(a) Omit 'of an authorized person,', substitute 'under this Act'.''. (21) Page 44, Schedule, amendment of paragraph 25A (2) (a) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit sub-item (b), insert the following sub-item: ''(b) Omit 'of an authorized person', substitute 'under this Act'.''. (22) Page 45, Schedule, amendment of paragraph 25A (2) (c) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit sub-item (b). (23) Page 45, Schedule, amendment of sub-section 25A (2) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit sub-item (a). (24) Page 45, Schedule, amendment of sub-section 25B (1) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit sub-item (a), insert the following sub-item: ''(a) Omit 'of an authorized person', substitute 'under the Act'.''. (25) Page 45, Schedule, amendment of sub-section 25B (2) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit sub-item (b), insert the following sub-item; ''(b) Omit 'of an authorized person', substitute 'under this Act'.''. (26) Page 45, Schedule, after the amendment of paragraph 25B (2) (b) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, insert the following item: ''After section 25B- Insert the following section: Review of procedural decision '25C. (1) Subject to sub-section 25 (5), a Tribunal that reviews a procedural decision shall, after due consideration of the matter, either affirm the decision of refuse to affirm the decision. '2' Where a Tribunal affirms a procedural decision in relation to a primary decision, the Tribunal- (a) shall set out its decision in a statement in writing that also sets out the findings on material questions of fact, refers to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based and gives reasons for its decision; (b) shall give a copy of the statement to each party to the proceedings; and (c) shall not review the primary decision. '(3) Where as Tribunal refuses to affirm a procedural decision in relation to a primary decision, the tribunal shall review the primary decision.'.''. (27) Page 46, Schedule, amendment of sub-section 27 (1) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit the item. (28) Page 46, Schedule, amendment of sub-section 27 (5) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit sub-item (b) and (c), insert the following sub-items: ''(b) Omit 'of an authorized person', substitute 'under this Act'. (c) Omit 'decision of the authorized person', substitute 'first-mentioned decisions'.''. (29) Page 47, Schedule, definition of ''reviewable decision'' in proposed section 30AA of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit the definition, insert the following definition: '' 'reviewable decision' means- (a) a primary decision that has ben affirmed by a Student Assistance Review Tribunal as the result of a review under sub-section 26 (1); (b) a primary decision as varied by a Student Assistance Review Tribunal as the result of a review under sub-section 26 (1); or (c) a decision that has been made by a Student Assistance Review Tribunal in substitution for a primary decision as the result of a review under sub-section 26 (1), but does not include a decision relating to the approval of a period for the making of a request under sub-section 22 (1);''. (30) Page 47, Schedule, proposed sub-section 30AC (1) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, omit the sub-section, insert the following sub-section; '' '(1) The Tribunal Act applies in relation to reviewable decisions as if paragraph 25 (3) (a) of that Act were omitted.'.''. Schedule, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Mr Duffy)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.36) —I thank the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) for his comments in response to my remarks relating to the amendment of the Judiciary Act. It only remains for me to say that there is no difference at all between the exposition of the law as I saw it and the exposition of the law as the Minister has seen it, but the opportunity is there and I therefore take advantage of it to appeal to the High Court of Australia not to exercise this discretion under section 75 sub-section (iii) of the Constitution to such an extent that it remits away its original jurisdiction in actions to which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party. In other words, I believe that the constitutional right of all Australians to sue the Commonwealth in the highest court in the land, the High Court of Australia, is a precious right and I hope the Court of its own motion would not excessively remit away that jurisdiction to another court-albeit a distinguished court, the Federal Court of Australia. I hope the High Court will use the power very sparingly indeed, retaining the right of Australians to sue the Commonwealth in the High Court of Australia. That is their constitutional birthright and should not be taken away from them lightly. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Motion (by Mr Duffy)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent notices Nos. 491, 492 and 493 General Business being called on at this sitting. [COGNATE REGULATIONS: CUSTOMS (CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS) REGULATIONS (AMENDMENT) CUSTOMS (PROHIBITED IMPORTS) REGULATIONS (AMENDMENT)] Motion for Disallowance Mr Groom-On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I want to object to the way this whole sleazy business has been handled. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member must get to his point of order. Mr Groom-These matters do not appear on the blue sheet. I know the blue is not an official document but it is a guide and the courtesy is for the Government to include notices of this kind on the blue. I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. The procedures have been followed. Mr Newman-I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect-I understand the point you have made-I ask you to be patient for a moment. You know that whilst your ruling might be correct as far as the blue sheet is concerned, all honourable members regulate their own work during the day according to the blue sheet that is issued. Literally, in both Houses of the Parliament there have been petitions representing thousands upon thousands of signatures-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have allowed the honourable member some indulgence to make a point. It is not a point of order. He is raising a precedent. Mr Newman-Mr Speaker, I think the Leader of the House is really running roughshod over not just us but the public opinion out there of thousands of people. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the Minister for Communications. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Mr Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure. It may suit the convenience of the House to have the subject matter of notice of motion No. 492, relating to the disallowance of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations ( Amendment) and notice of motion No. 493, relating to the disallowance of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations (Amendment) to be referred to during the debate on notice of motion No. 491, relating to the disallowance of the Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983, which the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) will move shortly. At the appropriate time, separate motions in relation to notices of motion Nos 492 and 493 will be moved. Mr SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the three notices? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed . Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.43) —I move: That the Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 (No. 59 of 1983), made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Notices of motion Nos 491, 492 and 493 have been brought on for debate at this hour for these reasons: Firstly, because it is not a broadcast night-- Mr Young —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Arrangements were made for these notices of motion to come on for debate a bit later in the week. Today the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) moved a notice of motion criticising the Government for not bringing them on early enough. They have been brought on because the honourable member for Moreton moved his notice of motion. Mr SPENDER —Secondly, they have been brought on at this time so as to get the minimum possible publicity for the debate and so as to prevent these three notices of motion being fully debated in the House. I learnt that these notices of motion were to come on for debate second hand, through the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), who had heard that they were going to be called on. That has been the sum of the formal way in which this Government has dealt with these notices of motion. We are concerned here with a major social issue. The major social issue that these notices of motion concern is the institutionalisation of hard core pornography in our society. Those are the words of Senator Harradine and they sum up the issue very clearly indeed. Back in the 1960s we took a very hard view of these things. But pornography has now become more accepted in our community. The question we have to ask ourselves is how far do we go down the road. What kind of society do we want to have? The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) put forward in the Senate what he was pleased to call, in effect, a model code. It is proposed to amend that model code. Why? Because of the criticisms of it and the debate that has already taken place in the Senate. What does the Attorney propose? What are we really faced with? We are faced with the proposition that existing regulations dealing with the importation and dissemination of pornographic material are to be substituted for by codes dealing with that material at the point of sale. Why should we not have both? Why should we not have rules restricting the importation as well as restrictions at the point of sale? No reason has been advanced that I know of. What does Senator Evans say is the Government's philosophy? It is summed up in these words in a memorandum that he circulated to his Senate colleagues: the basic right of adults to make their own decisions on what they read, hear and see. That is what this Government is concerned with. I suppose people might say that that is a basic right and ask how we can possibly object to it. But are there not some basic rights that other members of the community have? Are there not basic rights about the misuse of the sort of material that was referred to by one of the speakers in the other place when referring to what Mrs Strickland, who used to be the Chief Censor, had said? She had said that one of the scenes in a particular film or video showed really gross physical violence which could not possibly have been simulated. We know that is not the only kind of gross physical violence that these kinds of videos and films present. It is the videos that are of particular concern because over 30 per cent of Australian households have a video machine in them and any child of eight years or over knows how to work the machine. We all know that. What other kind of material is available? There is depiction of bestiality, necrophilia and coprophilia. You name it and it is there. Senator Evans and the Government have come to a very belated recognition that perhaps they were not entirely right in their model code. Since looking at the background paper that he circulated he has said that consideration is being given to the inclusion of prohibition of publications inciting drug misuse. Saying that consideration is being given to it indicates that it is something that had just never been considered, that the incitement of people to the misuse of drugs is something which seemed to be perfectly okay until somebody pointed out to Senator Evans and to the Government that maybe it was not perfectly okay. What is another proposal incorporated in draft amendments which have been circulated by Senator Evans to this model code which had been so carefully considered by the Government? Apparently bestiality will not be allowed, or at least will not be allowed according to the Government's new rules. Honourable members should listen to this. The Government really gives us an insight into the deep social concern the Government has for these matters, and the wisdom of those who control its fortunes. One of the things that will be prohibited in effect is the depiction in pictorial form of bestiality-wait for the qualification-'in a manner likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult person'. It means that the Government believes that there are two forms of bestiality: There is the form of bestiality which does not cause concern to a reasonable adult person-I would be very glad if someone would enlighten me as to what that is-then there is the form of bestiality which does cause concern to a reasonable adult person. It has left out coprophilia, necrophilia and a wide range of what most people in the public field would consider to be perverted practices. No doubt it is considered that it does not matter what people do in private. That is one thing. We can say that it does not matter what adults look at in private. But what are the consequences of an effective open go? Markets generate their own forces. We all know that the market for pornography in this country has increased God knows how many times since the advent of video machines. We all know that pornographic material can be found at any gas station or at any corner store and that every little village has a shop that specialises in it. It is fine, no doubt, that we should all be able to see that but if we really think about rights, how far do we take the argument that we have a right to see anything at all? Do we have a right to see what is called in the trade snuffs? What is a snuff? A snuff is a film taken of somebody who is actually killed in the course of the film. The film is made, so reports tell us, for the edification of people who find that kind of material stimulating, gratifying and pleasant. Do we really say that that kind of material should be seen by anybody? Do we really say that human rights go so far that there is some sort of inalienable right to see material of that kind, or do we not say that there must be limits on what can be shown even in private? That question has got to be addressed by any decent society because if we do not address it the consequences are that the market develops its own force. Who is going to be hurt? Leave aside the unwilling participants in a snuff movie, if we can. Think of what it might be like. Leave aside the person described by Mrs Strickland, who obviously did not know that she or he was going to actually be subjected to real violence. For what purpose? For fun, for enjoyment, for profit, for pleasure. Leave that aside. Consider, if you will, and if you think that that material is proper to be shown in private, the effect of that kind of material on children. Consider the effect of children getting into their hands videodiscs with show bestial scenes. How in God's name do we possibly immunise the family household in such a way that there are ones that the kids can see which are put away and there are other ones that they cannot see which are on display? They will know they are there. They will not know what is in them. They will ask themselves: 'What is it'? What do children do? They are very curious to find out. Consider the effect of the kinds of stuff which we can buy at the corner store in Canberra on the minds of a 13-year-old or 14-year-old child. Consider the effect on the 13-year-old or 14 -year-old child seeing bestiality scenes, coprophilia and necrophilia, scenes where violence of a quite outrageous kind, simulated or real, is shown and with it sexual perversions or what many people would call them. What are we going to do about that? Do we simply sit back and say: 'This is perfectly fine, that is the sort of thing we should be allowing'. Let me read to honourable members what has been said in a letter which I received today from the Catholic bishops. I read it because I can think of no better criticism of what the Government has failed to put before the Australian people because this so-called model code is an outrageous affront to many community groups in our country, to many people who think that certain standards are to be observed. God alone knows those standards are not to be found here. What does the Australian Episcopal Conference say and what does Monsignor Manning say writing on behalf of all Catholic bishops in Australia? He says: We believe that the ready availability in perhaps a majority of Australian homes of video equipment poses a particular danger to the moral wellbeing of children- Who denies that? He continues: . . . it is virtually impossible for parents to exercise any censorship over what children may see on home video equipment. A youngster who is at the home of friends may be shown video films of the most objectionable kind to which his or her parents may have the strongest objections. Who denies the accuracy of that proposition? He states: No legislation has any real prospect of being effective unless it seeks to apply controls at the point of production or importation as well as at the point of distribution. Who would deny that? The Canberra Times editorialised today about a lady who sent out her 14-year-old daughter and her daughter was able to buy X-rated video cassettes from several Canberra shops. In a rather pompous and pious way the Canberra Times went on to say: 'Well, it was well meaning but it was misguided. We have to try a little better and, as it were, sort things out under the present legislation'. What absolute rubbish. The Catholic bishops take the matter further and say: We believe that the relevant Delegated legislation should be recommended for disallowance by this Committee- that is, the Senate committee- and should be disallowed by the Senate; that the pre-existing law which would be revived by this disallowance should be enforced; Why should it not be enforced? and that urgent consideration should be given to devising an effective scheme for controlling the importation and circulation of objectionable publications generally-but particularly of objectionable video tapes and discs. I would have thought that this Government would have acknowledged that the Catholic bishops speak for a significant element of our community and that there would be people on the other side of this House who would have the courage to agree with that proposition and would have the courage to say that in the interests of the community this whole question needs to be re-examined. What do we hear from honourable members opposite? We hear not a wimper. People on the other side of the House parade in demonstrations and so on and wear their principles upon their sleeves, but when it comes to crossing the floor, attacking their Government and putting into practice in this House the principles they so windily espouse they go immediately to water. Is there not a case in the interests of the Australian people? Is there not a case in the interests of the children of this country? Even if one takes the view that it does not matter a damn what one sees, that we should promote video snuffs and hard core pornography, that there should be virtually no restrictions on what one can see privately in one's house, what possible consequences does that have for our children? How damaging to a young and sensitive child would be the exposure to just one of these marvellous productions, productions which are made by people to make money and who have one interest only, that is, making money and to hell with the consequences to the community and the children of Australia? They know that a government is in power which, when it comes to social issues, is bereft of any sense of judgment, is devoid of any sense of value and is unwilling to spend the time really examining what the issue is and how it should be dealt with. We could examine the detail of the regulations at tedious length. We do not have the time, because the Government will not give us time. We have to accept in effect what we can get out of this Government when it comes to a discussion of such a matter. Is it not essential in the interests of this country and of the community, and in particular the children, that we should really come to grips with the subject of pornography, its effect upon people, the dangers it may represent to our society and the dangers it may represent to our children? I would, therefore, think that what we should do is disallow the regulations, enforce immediately and harshly the existing delegated legislation, put in place immediately stop gap measures which will close the gates on some of the flood of hard core pornography which is coming into this country, and seek the views of the community-by way of that mechanism so beloved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) whenever he gets into difficulties-through an inquiry, whereby the community is genuinely consulted, where the views of the Catholic bishops, other church groups and mothers groups are taken into consideration, and during which expert evidence is received as to the effect of hard core pornography on the minds of children. My general view is that every adult is entitled to go to hell in his own hand- cart. He chooses the hand-cart and rides it to hell. Once he gets there it is his problem, not mine. But when it comes to children it is outrageous that this delegated legislation should be dealt with in the way in which it is. It is illustrative of a government which has a dangerous, negligent, slipshod and contemptuous view of the standards and the interests of our community and our children. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Is the motion seconded? Tuesday, 5 June 1984 Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(12.02 a.m.) —I second the motion. This afternoon I gave notice of a motion on this subject and at the end of that motion I called upon the Government to allow members of the Australian Labor Party to exercise a conscience vote on this subject. It will be interesting to note whether all Labor members will come into this chamber at the end of this discussion, let alone exercise a conscience vote. As honourable members on this side of the House mentioned earlier, this matter is not listed on the business sheet. We are sitting here in the middle of a Monday night with the Parliamentary's proceedings not being broadcast, with a solitary policeman sitting in the gallery, an attendant in the chamber and with probably one representative of the media in the Press gallery and the Government is quietly sneaking this debate through the House so that it will pass unnoticed. I am told that Labor senators were asked in Caucus not to speak on this matter in its final stages in the Senate. I just ask people to note that that is being repeated in this chamber tonight. I wonder whether members of the Australian Labor Party are so inwardly ashamed of what is being done with regard to these ordinances and regulations that they have abandoned all forms of protest and feel that it is better to keep quiet. These ordinances prescribe censorship to the extent that child pornography is excluded in illustrated form, publications which promote, incite and encourage terrorism are excluded and publications which gratuitiously depict in pictorial form extreme cruelty, especially when combined with any sexual element, are excluded and banned. The Government has now moved to ban publications which are designed to encourage people to use hard drugs. We have established that the Government believes censorship is desirable in a form. This debate has become one about where the line is drawn. Opposition members have taken advantage of the opportunity, at this late hour of the night, to express their deep concern. Every member of this House will be aware of how, week after week, I have waged a determined battle to force the Government to abandon its earlier decision which allowed publications encouraging people to use heroin and the like. Thankfully the Government has now retreated on that stupidity. Publications and videos encouraging the use of drugs have been placed on the totally banned list. Nevertheless, if there had not been a concerted effort in the Senate and in this place, the Hawke Government would have chalked up that as one of its achievements. Thankfully, the entry of such publications has been stopped. Lunatic authors from across the globe, and those with financial interests in drug promotion, were on the verge of gaining a new market for the promotion of human degradation. It will be said by some Australian Labor Party apologists: 'Okay, we have changed that, so why the fuss now?' I am personally unaware of just what is sold in Sydney, but I believe Neville Wran would have drawn the line well before the line was drawn for the Australian Capital Territory by the Federal Labor Government. The Hawke Government is providing for depraved and sick minds. Every member of the ALP in this place, in supporting these new rules, is personally giving the stamp of approval to this foul and objectionable material. Let us look at what is in store for the Australian Capital Territory market. I remind members of the House that the Government wants the States to regard these new rules as the standard to be implemented right across Australia. It is saying : 'We are setting the model. Follow this.' I do not believe that half the members of the Government understood some of the words that the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) used in his speech, and understandably so. In category 2 people will be able to view videos and read books which graphically depict such things as urolagnia, coprophilia, necrophilia and bestiality. Mr Goodluck —What are they all? Mr DONALD CAMERON —What are they? That is what everybody in my electorate asks me: 'What are they, Mr Cameron?' I have used the words 'depraved, foul, sick and objectionable', and I repeat them. I notice the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), with a big broad smile on his face. Urolagnia actually-I know you are in the chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not going to be offensive- creates pleasures for people who derive pleasure from watching people urinating on one another. That is the first definition. The honourable member for Grayndler looks aghast and he is leaving the House. Coprophilia-here the gates are going to be opened-- Mr Leo McLeay —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. My colleague might be enjoying all this himself, but I am taking no interest in it whatsoever . Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member gets excited even at the first word. I referred to coprophilia. The gates will be opened for those who derive fulfilment from a morbid interest in excrement. No doubt this will become an added feature as movie makers vie for the title that goes with creating the most depraved and sickest video of the year. Then there is bestiality, or sex with an animal, to put it into words that can be understood. Honourable members cannot tell me that this material will not fall into the hands of children. I ask Government members with children or grandchildren: Are they so liberal in mind that they do not care if their children grow up believing that this is yet another way that adults satisfy sexual needs? The Government definition of ' extreme fetishism' also includes necrophilia. Remember that these things will now be given the stamp of approval as a form of entertainment in this country. Necrophilia is having sexual intercourse with a dead person. How sick can things become? Members of the Australian Labor Party have every reason to feel ashamed of themselves for not having voiced one expression of disapproval throughout the passage of this Ordinance, which has been known about for at least two months in this place. Let us look at the inconsistency of Australian Labor Party thinking. Rightfully and reluctantly the Government has banned extreme violence on the grounds that some people will be motivated and may even indulge in some of the violent practices that they see. Yet the Government has given the stamp of approval to other things. I do not intend to predict tonight that some mentally ill person may one day commit a murder, to enact that which is seen on some video screen in a movie to be allowed into the country by this Government. Some honourable members may well say that that is a possibility. All this underlines indelibly the differences between the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party. It is little wonder that Labor has been in opposition for 39 of the last 50 years. It is no wonder that it is not difficult for people to say: 'We want the Liberal- National Party coalition'. I note that the explanation of the classification system refers to 'relished child pornography'-I hope that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) explains how this affects paperbacks without illustrations. They are to be allowed to include incest and school teacher-student sex relations. The Government had agreed to ban illustrated publications and videos promoting child pornography but has not made it clear whether that includes books without illustrations. I would appreciate the Minister's clarification as to whether the ban also includes paperbacks. Members of the House of Representatives today received a copy of a submission from the Australian Episcopal Conference which comprises 42 Roman Catholic bishops of Australia. The seven-page submission expresses concern about the statutory rules, the ordinance and regulations we are now discussing. These were discussed by the bishops during their recent eight-day meeting. Let Government members opposite note that such a submission is a rare event. That in itself serves to underline the deep concern that the bishops feel about the proposed changes. The rules of this chamber do not allow me to incorporate that submission in Hansard. However, it was included in the Senate Hansard of Tuesday night, 29 May as a result of the bishops forwarding the submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances which discussed this legislation. Mr Fife —Table it. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the Catholic bishops' submission. Leave granted. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I thank the House. It is a fact that much of that which is now classified-- Mr Holding —Tell us about the stripper and the cake. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I will. Eight years ago a woman without a top could make headlines in this country, but now we are talking about people having sexual activities with dead people. That shows how the Government is sending this country down the drain. I ask the honourable member to keep his lips sealed. It is a fact that much of that which is classified in the unrestricted grouping and category 1 is already freely available and while regarded as offensive by some is regarded as inoffensive by probably just as many others. However, category 2 includes material that the vast majority will judge as being offensive and unnecessary. It is this category that includes urolagnia, coprophilia, necrophilia and bestiality. The Government explains all this away by saying that this is a great step forward to classify material and then maintain some controls at the point of sale. In so doing it is abandoning Customs surveillance . On this side of the House the strong view is that we have no argument with classification; it is just that some of that material which the Government intends to allow to be sold, whether it be in opaque wrapping or some other wrapping, is just plain objectionable. Finally, I first raised this matter in the House on 5 April. Honourable members on this side of the House will recall that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) described as stupid my question about publications which incited or encouraged people to use hard drugs. The words he used, which are recorded in Hansard, were : 'We are not concerned'. Thankfully other members of the Australian Labor Party have reacted since that day. I am concerned that the media, with only a handful of exceptions, have hardly reported let alone condemned these matters even though the measures originally related to publications which encouraged the use of hard drugs. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(12.16 a.m.) —This matter is one of extraordinary seriousness and sensitivity. The first thing I would like to say about it is that I think it is a cardinal tragedy that this matter is not being dealt with on a non-party basis. I think this is one of those issues that ought to transcend party lines. I believe that there are within the ranks of the Australian Labor Party many members who are just as concerned about the implications of these measures or, if they knew what was involved in what the Government was going to support tonight, they would be just as concerned. What the Government is seeking to do by opposing the disallowance of the three measures is to embark upon a massive liberalisation of restrictions that have obtained in this area over the years. What the Government and what I fear many members of the Government do not realise is that they will be ushering in a new and different period so far as the life and the standards of this country are concerned. It is very easy for those who would oppose these measures to raise the very legitimate argument of civil liberties. So argument runs that adults should be entitled to read, see and hear whatever they choose. Frankly, I would tend to adopt the view advanced by my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney ( Mr Spender) who put a very elegant and tasteful argument on this matter when he said that frankly, as far as he was concerned, adults could choose their own particular road to hell. That may be a view that the majority of adult people in Australia, whatever their political persuasion, may hold to and it is a fairly respectable view. But all of us must recognise that the advent of video recorders and the wide proliferation of the use and viewing of video tapes in Australia have totally transformed the scene so far as children in our community are concerned. We are probably amongst the largest users of video material in the world. To give an example of the extent to which the Australian community has seen the proliferation of the use of video material, it has been calculated that one in every three or four homes in the city of Broken Hill has a video recorder. This development ushers in a new set of circumstances. It opens the possibility that however unwittingly and however much it may be against the wishes of parents, children may be exposed to material of the type that has been described and categorised by my colleagues earlier in this debate. No matter how much a libertarian one may be, no matter how devoutly one may believe in civil liberties, no matter how strongly one may be attracted to the concept that adults should be entitled to see, hear and read whatever they choose, what on earth are we doing to advance the cause of family standards and the quality of Australian life if we make it easier for children in our community to be exposed to this kind of material? Mr Barry Jones —What are the parents doing? Mr HOWARD —Well may the Minister ask: 'What are the parents doing?' I shall take up that argument. That argument really indicates the double standards, and I say this with great respect to a Minister whom I like, of those on the other side who support the liberalisation of the law in this area. I may well advance that argument about smoking, about the consumption of alcohol and about all of these other things which the Australian Labor Party would gaily ban at the drop of a hat. We have the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth), a medical practitioner, and we have medical practitioners on my side of the House-this is a non-party issue too-who will say that what we have to do is ban the advertising of this and that. It is all right, apparently, to ban the advertising of tobacco and alcohol, but when it comes to banning the dissemination of this sort of material for some extraordinary reason the Government puts forward a civil liberties argument that does not exist in relation to tobacco and alcohol. I may well say of the parents of children who are allowed to smoke 'What are those parents doing?', but does that stop the health departments of every State in Australia, both Liberal and Labor, quite properly in my view, trying to prevent children from smoking and drinking? Of course it does not because they see themselves as having a legitimate community responsibility. Surely to heavens all of us, whatever our views on civil liberties, whatever our views about the mores and the morals of our society, and regardless of whether we have a Judaeo-Christian ethic approach to the issue, will accept that nothing is done to enhance the quality of Australian family life and the future generations of our nation by exposing children to the sort of material that all of us know is now freely available. It is all very well for the Minister and for the Customs Service-I have heard the argument before-to say that it is all too difficult, so what we have to do is take most of the restraint off; we have to make it easier and we have to recognise that ultimately it is the responsibility of parents. Of course it is difficult and it has been made immensely more difficult by the technological developments in this area and the proliferation of videos in our community. That represents a very special and very particular challenge to our society. Surely we can devise a method, on a non-party basis, out of concern, I hope shared across this chamber, about the potential effect of this kind of material. Let nobody deny that potential effect. One of the interesting things about this debate on pornography is that it is forging a very interesting coalition. Some of the more rabid feminist groups in the Australian community are joining forces with some of the more conservative groups in our community in opposing the exposure of children to this material. The debate is forging a very interesting alliance. It might be possible on this kind of issue to get a certain amount of that beloved goal of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-consensus. We may be able, through a proper community inquiry, to devise a method of at least insulating children in our community from some of the material that is available. My concern, and the reason why I will vote in favour of this disallowance, is that once this matter passes out of this chamber the feeling will develop: 'Oh, that has been dealt with. It was all too hard. We cannot do anything about it. You cannot regulate this sort of thing and we have to give up the game'. That may be good enough for such people as Senator Gareth Evans. I am sorry to disagree with my good friend the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) but, frankly, I do not think the New South Wales Premier would have drawn the line at anything. I know his views. He has the classic civil libertarian view on something like this. His attitude would be that we ought to let the whole thing run. Frankly, I do not think this is a good enough approach, I think we have a responsibility in this area. I know there are honourable members on the other side who have the concerns I am expressing and which were expressed so well by the honourable member for North Sydney. I think that those honourable members ought to search their consciences on this issue. It is not too late for the Government to allow a non-party vote on this issue. It is not too late for the Government to reconsider its position. It is not too late for the Attorney-General to lose his obsession with passing laws and ticking off all the reforms that he wanted to introduce. It is not too late for that to occur and there is plenty of time for the Government to accede to the requests of the Opposition. We have a responsibility in this area. We have a guardianship collectively as the Parliament of this country for the welfare of our children. I do not believe that I am expressing a wowserish view in saying that. I do not think I am expressing an unduly restrictive view. There is a point that is sometimes reached where all of us, whatever our views on civil liberties might be, must recognise the contents of some of this material. I am not just talking about pornography. One of the effects of the proposed regulations will be to remove restrictions on laws which now prevent literature which recommends the overthrow by force or violence of the established government of the Commonwealth, the abolition or organised government and the assassination of public officials. How are we advancing the cause of this country by removing restrictions on that kind of material? What are we achieving? What great advance in the cause of democracy, free speech and civil liberties are we achieving in removing restrictions on that kind of material? It is not just a question of pornography. Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that this is a non-party issue. I believe it is something which many members of the Australian Labor Party deep down in their hearts are concerned about. It is not too late for the Government to recognise that, to pull it out and establish a proper community-based inquiry. Mr ADERMANN(Fisher)(12.27 a.m.) —I would not be honest to myself and to all that I believe in if I did not speak on this issue. I want to speak quietly, soberly, sincerely and not antagonistically. If that brings upon me ridicule and abuse I accept it, because I feel very deeply about these issues. I believe that my Party supports my remarks and my stance. I am distressed that matters which have prompted so many letters and so many petitions of protest should be so cavalierly treated in this way. Those letters and petitions are evidence of widely held and deep concern in the community of this nation. In the early hours of the morning when the Press has gone to bed, these notices are smuggled into the House. Why? Is the Government ashamed? If not, it should be. Surely the Government is mindful of the concern not only of church groups-every church group is united on this matter-but also of citizens and parents about the effect of these regulations and this code. Surely, too, feelings and fears of such justifiable concern are worthy of more attention and regard than this. Honourable members on this side of the House have dealt with the substance of the matter and I do not propose to go over it again. I hope that the Government has registered the concerns that have been voiced from this side. These matters do concern me-they concern me as a parent, as a Christian and as a representative in this Parliament of more than 105,000 electors. Many of the petitions which have been given in this House have come from my electorate. Completely unsolicited and without any Press statements or announcements, they have come to me to be presented to this Parliament. These matters go to the very deep issues of morality, social consciousness and judgments of morality and decency. These views are held by people, not selfishly and not in a partisan sense at all, but because they are concerned about the future of this nation and its children. Its children are the most valuable resources that the nation has and can ever have. I could remind members, and I do even though it might bring ridicule on myself, that the greatest book in the world says: 'righteousness exalteth a nation'. Whatever one's theological beliefs or disbeliefs, that is very wise counsel, and we ignore such counsel at our peril. I can add little more to that. But if we suffer the deterioration of values and principles which elevate our nation, we will find that it will lead to eventual disregard for all human dignity, for all human rights. In our regard for the human rights of our fellows, decency of behaviour and decency of outlook are certainly important. My plea to the Government is this: These are matters of conscience, matters of deep social import. These are questions which impinge on our Christian beliefs, on our morality and deeply held principles. Surely no question merits more the Government's agreement to allow a free vote on these questions than this one. Even the Family Law Bill, on which a free vote was allowed, was not such a moral and social issue as this is. If a free vote decides this issue, we must accept that result, because that is the way in which democracy works. Surely this nation, its parents and its children are worthy of having questions such as this carefully, soberly and compassionately considered, and voted on not by a party whip direction but according to the conscience of those men and women elected to this place as representatives of the citizens of the nation and the guardians and architects of its future. That is my appeal. I put it forward simply and plainly, but I put it forward with all of the sincerity of which I am capable. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(12.31 a.m.) —As has been mentioned, this is a matter of very great concern to the community. Like other members, I have received many letters from church groups and concerned individuals around my electorate, and dozens of petitions containing thousands of signatures expressing very real concern about these measures. It is disgraceful that the Government should treat a matter of such concern in this cavalier fashion. To bring a matter such as this before this House at this time-we are now debating it at 12.30 a.m.-without the proper notice being given on the blue sheet, honourable members thus not having the opportunity to consider over a period of hours the issues concerned so that they can bring their points of view before the Parliament, reflects very badly on the Parliament and on the Government. I happen to believe that there are forces for good and forces for evil at work in the world. I believe that the video tapes containing these filthy portrayals, that are played in homes around Australia at present, are evidence of forces for evil. Therefore, we should be very concerned about this matter. I certainly support the motion. I hope that the Parliament disallows the regulations. I raise the question whether matters of this kind should be dealt with by subordinate legislation or whether they should be dealt with by substantive legislation. Matters of this kind which are of so much concern to the community should be dealt with in this Parliament in a proper way, by which honourable members can have time to consider the detail of the proposals formally, having second reading speeches, where the matter is contained in legislation put through the Parliament in the normal way. They should not be dealt with by the Executive, as is the case in this instance. I hope that the Government will take into account the concerns expressed by so many people. The contents of the regulations were explained in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances which was handed down on 29 May 1984. Paragraph 3 on page 14 of the dissenting report contained in the Senate report explaining what the regulations are all about states: These Regulations legalise for the first time the unrestricted importation into Australia of all types of hard core pornography, including child pornography, and all publications (includes videos) no matter how violent, cruel, blasphemous , indecent, obscene, or likely to encourage depravity or incite a crime (except terrorism), provided that 'in the opinion of the Attorney-General', they do not contain a picture of a child depicted in such manner as would cause offence to a reasonable adult person or a picture 'gratuitously' depicting violence or cruelty. We must be concerned about the impact of these sorts of materials on young people. We must be concerned about our young people because, as has been mentioned, they are the future of this country. We need some sort of public inquiry to determine the real effect on the well-being of our children flowing from the sort of pornography that is flooding the country at present. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), raised this point earlier. The Government looks to public inquiries on all sorts of matters to get itself out of tight corners. But let us have a full blown public inquiry on this question of pornography, the impact of pornography and how it is affecting our young people. We really have to know much more than we know at present. As I said before, there is real concern in the community on this issue, as we see the porno shops springing up around the country. In the suburbs and in the small towns they are springing up everywhere. As has been mentioned, there are market forces at work. It is not so much, perhaps, that people want these things ; it is the pressure that comes from the commercial forces. People are making a buck out of it so they establish these places. A point was well made by the Catholic bishops in their submission to the Senate inquiry. Paragraph 8 of that submission states: We believe that the ready availability in perhaps a majority of Australian Homes of video equipment poses a particular danger to the moral wellbeing of children- a danger that demands the making and enforcement of effective laws to control the importation, production, possession and distribution of objectionable video tapes and discs. That was the view expressed by the Catholic bishops. But in the Parliament Opposition members are keen to speak on this issue. I know that there are half a dozen, perhaps a dozen, members on this side of the House who are ready to speak . But what has happened on the Government side? Where are the expressions of concern from members on the Government side? Where is the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), who says he is concerned about these kinds of moral issues? He is not even in the House to hear this debate. Where are their consciences? They do not have the guts to express their points of view on this measure. I hoped that they will show some concern for our community and for our young people, express their view and tell us what they think about this issue. We are expressing the concern of our constituents and the concern of the people who have petitioned this Parliament. We plead with the Minister for Communications ( Mr Duffy), who is at the table, and the Government to take notice of the feelings of genuine, decent people in the community. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(12.38 a.m.) —Honourable members opposite ought to be reminded of the fact that similar disallowance motions- Mr Dobie —Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. Mr DUFFY —Mr Deputy Speaker, those opposite have put forward their- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The Minister will resume his seat for a moment. Mr Dobie —Mr Deputy Speaker, since I called your attention to the state of the House, 10 Government members have walked into the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is presently a quorum in attendance. But the Chair accepts that when the honourable member for Cook drew attention to the state of the House a quorum did not exist. I call the Minister. Mr DUFFY —There are some matters that I want to draw to the attention of those honourable members opposite who have already spoken in this debate. Dr Harry Edwards —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is the Minister closing the debate? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister did not move the motion. He is not closing the debate. He is entitled to speak to the question. Mr DUFFY —As honourable members opposite are aware, similar disallowance motions regarding the legislation were moved in the Senate and the matter was fully discussed in the Senate. The way that the Opposition has carried on tonight one would think that this matter had suddenly appeared from nowhere and that no information had been provided to those who had previously debated the matter. When the matter came before the Senate, for example, there was a background paper-I think it was referred to by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender)-provided by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in the other place, there was the Mahony report and there were the attachments to that report at that stage for consideration by the Senate. Opposition members stagger me. They have got to the stage where they have deluded themselves into believing that they are the custodians- Government members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! Honourable members on my left were heard in silence. I ask that they extend the same courtesy to the Minister. Mr DUFFY —Honourable members on the other side of the House were heard in silence while they lectured us for the last hour. As I was saying, one of the matters which have concerned me for many years is that those sitting opposite seem to take upon themselves some sort of cloak of morality. They are perpetually lecturing us about our lack of morality and concern about matters such as this. They have really got to the stage of ultimate self-delusion. They have started believing it. Mr Simmons —What did they do when in government? Mr DUFFY —There was an interjection: What did they do when in government? The reality is that before the 1983 ordinance, which we are discussing tonight, there was no point of sale control on the sorts of matters that have been referred to in the Australian Capital Territory. There was no practical limitation on what was sold in the Australian Capital Territory. Mr Donald Cameron —That is not true. (Quorum formed) Mr DUFFY —I will deal with the interjection by the honourable member for Moreton in a moment. The reality is that, before the 1983 ordinance, there was no point of sale control in the Australian Capital Territory. There was no classification system and there was no practical limitation on what was sold in the Australian Capital Territory. As a result of that there was a considerable flood of video material being sold without any practical restrictions and there was certainly no inhibition on the sale of literature. The only constraint, and I think this was probably the matter that the honourable member for Fadden was referring to, was under the 1958 ordinance which had broad obscenity prohibitions, emotionally satisfying, as was indicated by the Attorney-General to those sitting opposite us, but not workable because they contained no clear guidelines for their application. For example, there was no way that the police could enforce the kinds of distinctions that the present ordinance enables them to enforce, namely the sale of R related type material to adults but not to minors. Under the broad brush approach of the old obscenity laws this was either caught by the obscenity provision or it was not. We could not have that detailed sensitive, selective, flexible sliding point of sale control which is of the essence of a sensible administration and censorship regulation system. This must respect the principle of allowing adults the right to read and see what they want subject to their not being offended by material with which they are involuntarily confronted and subject to the protections for children. It is just those sorts of detailed controls that we need to be able to implement those principles, and that is what the Australian Capital Territory ordinance seeks to do. It seems that some of the honourable members opposite have refused to acknowledge the position in the Australian Capital Territory before this ordinance. In fact, they have not taken the trouble to have a look at the ordinance. If we have a look at what happened after the matter was debated in the Senate, a further draft amending censorship legislation was foreshadowed by the Attorney-General during the earlier debate in the Senate. Mr Spender —The Government had not thought its case out. It was caught out. The Minister knows that. Mr DUFFY —That again is one of those sickeningly sanctimonious interjections that we get from people like the honourable member. Mr Spender —It is accurate and you know it is accurate. You do not have the courage to speak your own views on this subject. Mr DUFFY —Honourable members opposite went on about our not caring about morality and what people see and hear. Mr Spender —You have the courage of a whimp. Mr DUFFY —The fact of the matter is that the honourable member opposite goes on with such stuff because he is a sanctimonious pimp and a creep. Mr Spender —You are just a whimp. Mr DUFFY —The draft amending censorship legislation-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The House will come to order. I suggest to the House that the previous speakers have been heard with courtesy. The Minister is having difficulty in being heard. I ask honourable members to extend to him the same courtesy. Mr DUFFY —As I was indicating, further draft amending censorship legislation on the disallowance motion of this legislation was foreshadowed in the Senate by the Attorney-General. The legislation that the Attorney-General foreshadowed was approved by the Executive Council on 1 June 1984 and the commencement was gazetted today. The effect of these amendments is that in the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Amendment Ordinance 1984 the voluntary classification of video tapes and video discs has been made compulsory. The Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations (Amendment) provides for import prohibition on publications relating in addition to the three matters cited under the import regulations; one, bestiality, two, misuse of drugs, and three, refines the prohibition on publications relating to unconscionable violence and includes sexual violence against non-consenting persons. Further, the membership of the Film Censorship Board has been increased from seven members to 10 members to meet the increased work load resulting from the compulsory video tapes classification. It is interesting to note that members of the Opposition came in here tonight without one suggestion on how this matter should be handled. Mr Spender —You hold a genuine community inquiry. Mr DUFFY —The Attorney has been attacked by speaker after speaker. Opposition members are now being told what the Attorney foreshadowed he would do and what he did, but they are not prepared to listen. I refer particularly to that inane creep sitting there interjecting, and nobody can understand what he is talking about, with a plum in his mouth, chattering away there and it is about time he had-- Mr Fife —I rise to a point of order. I ask that the Minister withdraw those objectionable remarks about my colleague. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Order! Mr DUFFY —As I was indicating earlier, Opposition members will not listen to what has been done. I was up to the stage where I was dealing with the increase in the membership of the Film Censorship Board from seven to 10 to meet the increased workload which will obviously result from compulsory video tape classification. The interesting point is that not one Opposition speaker in an hour of this debate, uninterrupted by any honourable member on the Government benches, raised one sensible suggestion as to how this problem should be met. They just poured scorn and ridicule on the Attorney-General and on the Government. They went on with the sanctimonious, psalm singing stuff that they employ on all these issues. Not one Opposition member came up with any proposal that was worth listening to as to how this matter should be handled. In summing up the censorship legislative package under debate will have the following results: The Government will have acted on the recommendations of the Mahony report and brought into conformity the law and pratice relating to the importation of publications. I refer the Opposition to the Mahony report. Anybody would think that this matter came from nowhere. The fact is that the matter was closely examined and the implementation of that report is a significant factor in this area of law. There will be import prohibition on extreme material, as I indicated earlier. Model legislation will be in place for a national classification system for printed matter. There will be effective consumer guidance and provision for easier law enforcement. I move: That the question be now put. Question put. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes 62 Noes 42 -- Majority 20 -- AYES Baldwin, P. J. Jones, Barry Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J. Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J. Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C. Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E. Blewett, N. Lindsay, E. J. Brown, John McHugh, J. Brown, Robert McLeay, Leo Brumby, J. M. Maher, M. J. Charles, D. E. Mayer, H. Charlesworth R. I. Milton, P. Cohen, B. Morris, Allan Cross, M. D. Morris, Peter Darling, E. E. Morrison, W. L. Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T. Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F. Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E. Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J. Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D. Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller) Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W. Gayler, J. Snow, J. H. Gear, G. Staples, P. R. Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. 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. NOES Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W. Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D. Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A. Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S. Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R. Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T. Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C. Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C. Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E. Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R. Drummond, P. H. Robinson, Ian Edwards, Harry Rocher, A. C. Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M. Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F. Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC. Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. PAIRS Hayden, W. G. Macphee, I. M. Cunningham, B. T. Aldred, K. J. Mountford, J. G. Braithwaite, R. A. Chynoweth, R. L. O'Keefe, F. L. Bowen, Lionel Katter, R. C. In division- Mr Goodluck —On a point of order, Madam Chair, there are nine other speakers over here wanting to speak on this matter. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —There is no point of order. I suggest to the honourable member for Franklin that, if he continues to raise fallacious points of order, the Chair will deal with him. Mr Goodluck —On a point of order, Madam Chair, is it within your power to toss me out during a division? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, but I could warn you. Mr Spender —Madam Deputy Speaker. I raise a point or order. Could I ask which motion we are now voting on? There are three motions before us. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — We are voting on motion 491. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion (Mr Spender's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ian MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. 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. Macphee, I. M. Hayden, W. G.Aldred, K. J. Cunningham, B. T.Braithwaite, R. A. Mountford, J. G.O'Keefe, F. L. Chynoweth, R. L.Katter, R. C. Bowen, Lionel Question so resolved in the negative. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(1.04 a.m.) —I move: That the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1983, No. 332, made under the Customs Act 1901, be disallowed. I take this opportunity to answer one or two of the questions that-- Motion (by Mr Duffy) put: That the honourable member for North Sydney be not further heard. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. 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. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hayden, W. G. Macphee, I. M.Cunningham, B. T. Aldred, K. J.Mountford, J. G. Braithwaite, R. A.Chynoweth, R. L. O'Keefe, F. L.Bowen, Lionel Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Is the motion seconded? Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(11.17 a.m.) —Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the comments of the Minister at the table, I believe that there are many things that need to be- Motion (by Mr Duffy) put: That the honourable member for Moreton be not further heard. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. 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. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hayden, W. G. Macphee, I. M.Cunningham, B. T. Aldred, K. J.Mountford, J. G. Braithwaite, R. A.Chynoweth, R. L. O'Keefe, F. L.Bowen, Lionel Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(1.23 a.m.) —Madam Deputy Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Duffy) put: That the question be now put. Motion (by Mr Duffy) proposed: that the question be now put. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. 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. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hayden, W. G. Macphee, I. M.Cunningham, B. T. Aldred, K. J.Mountford, J. G. Braithwaite, R. A.Chynoweth, R. L. O'Keefe, F. L.Bowen, Lionel Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Spender's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ian MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. 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. Macphee, I. M. Hayden, W. G.Aldred, K. J. Cunningham, B. T.Braithwaite, R. A. Mountford, J. G.O'Keefe, F. L. Chynoweth, R. L.Katter, R. C. Bowen, Lionel Question so resolved in the negative. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(1.35 a.m.) —Madam Deputy Speaker, the question which is before the House is a matter of great importance and one which deserves to be considered. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman must move his motion as he starts to speak. Mr SPENDER —Madam Deputy Speaker, I was about to do that but I think it is necessary to make one or two introductory remarks so that-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable gentleman must start by moving his motion. Mr SPENDER —Madam Deputy Speaker, I move: That the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1983, No. 331, under the Customs Act 1901, be disallowed. Motion (by Mr Duffy) put: That the honourable member for North Sydney be not further heard. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. 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. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hayden, W. G. Macphee, I. M.Cunningham, B. T. Aldred, K. J.Mountford, J. G. Braithwaite, R. A.Chynoweth, R. L. O'Keefe, F. L.Bowen, Lionel Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Is the motion seconded? Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(1.43 a.m.) —It certainly is, and I want to take this opportunity to tell this Parliament-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! You must start by saying: 'I second the motion'. Mr DONALD CAMERON —But if I say that, someone will move that I be not further heard. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I recognise the awkward position you are in, but you must start with those words. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I second the motion. Motion (by Mr Duffy) put: That the honourable member for Moreton be not further heard. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. N. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hayden, W. G. Macphee, I. M.Cunningham, B. T. Aldred, K. J.Mountford, J. G. Braithwaite, R. A.Chynoweth, R. L. O'Keefe, F. L.Bowen, Lionel Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(1.47 a.m.) —Under this Government pornography and socialism go hand in hand. Motion (by Mr Duffy) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hayden, W. G. Macphee, I. M.Cunningham, B. T. Aldred, K. J.Mountford, J. G. Braithwaite, R. A.Chynoweth, R. L. O'Keefe, F. L.Bowen, Lionel Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative Original question put: That the motion (Mr Spender's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Macphee, I. M. Hayden, W. G.Aldred, K. J. Cunningham, B. T.Braithwaite, R. A. Mountford, J. G.O'Keefe, F. L. Chynoweth, R. L.Katter, R. C. Bowen, Lionel Question so resolved in the negative. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(1.59 a.m.) —Madam Deputy Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 2 a.m. (Tuesday) The following notices were given: Mr Groom to move- That this House commends the honourable Member for Denison for the dedication and fearlessness displayed in carrying out the duties as the representative of the people of Denison and as Shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Mr Braithwaite to move- That this House- (1) expresses its concern at the poor organisation of the Government and the Government's Leader of the House in causing such extraordinarily long sitting hours during the week 29 May to 1 June 1984, to pass its backlog of legislation. (2) notes that that week was the third longest sitting week of the House since the crisis days of the Second World War, 39 years ago; (3) is concerned that the rush of legislation is leading to ill-considered laws being rushed into practice without the opportunity of full debate by the Members of the House, and (4) expresses the hope that the Government will organise itself more effectively in the future, to enable proper consideration of legislation in the interests of the people of Australia. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 4 June 1984: Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the date on which sections of the following Act shall come into operation-Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act (No. 2) 1983-Sections 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 16, sub-section 22 (3) and sections 39, 40, 41 and 43-1 June 1984. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 197) Mr McVeigh asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: Will he explain how the Government's proposed withholding tax will affect Australian farmers having regard to the fact that primary industry is a considerable user of contract labour. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The prescribed payments system, introduced by the Government in September 1983, operates in relation to payments made in only a limited number of industries, not including the primary production industry. Australian farmers would be involved, however, in the operation of the system where they undertake larger building and construction projects, i.e., projects the cost of which exceeds, or may reasonably be expected to exceed, $10,000. If a farmer undertakes such a building project which is of a private or domestic nature, such as the extension of the farm residence, he or she is required to report any payments made in connection with the project. This requirement is, in fact, the obligation imposed on all private citizens in their role as householders. Where a large building project is not of a private or domestic nature, such as the building of fences or structural improvements used for farming pursuits, the farmer, like any other person carrying on a business, is required to make deductions of tax from payments made in connection with the project. It is also remotely possible that a farmer could be required to deduct tax from payments made to a road transport operator. This situation would arise, however, only if the farmer contracted with a road transport operator for the exclusive use of the operator' s vehicle on a regular daily basis. (Question No. 1053) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 March 1984: (1) Is it a fact that hospital linen left unlaundered for a set period of time must be destroyed: if so, what is that time. (2) Does that policy mean that considerable quantities of laundry from Canberra 's hospitals were lost as a result of Canberra pickets and industrial action at the Mitchell laundry: if so, (a) what quantity of linen was lost, (b) what is the replacement cost, and (c) what is the cost of each item destroyed. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No, there is no set period. The need to destroy unlaundered hospital linen depends on a number of factors, such as storage conditions, how soiled and whether the linen is wet or dry. (2) (a), (b) and (c) The destruction of 168 bags of linen was a part of the settlement of the industrial trouble at the Capital Territory Health Commission' s laundry at Mitchell. A return to work was conditional on the bags being destroyed because the laundry workers were not prepared to handle them. Consequently the contents of the bags were not checked prior to their destruction and it is not possible to provide details of the actual quantity of linen lost. However, it is estimated that the replacement cost will be about $8, 000, based on the contents of a typical bag of laundry linen. (Question No. 1340) Mr Peacock asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) How many times since 1 April 1983 were domestic aircraft chartered by all government instrumentalities, including the Navy, Army and Air Force. (2) On how many occasions were aircraft from the fleets of (a) Ansett Airlines of Australia (b) Trans Australia Airlines used on these charter operations. (3) What was the total cost of all charter aircraft, and what were the amounts paid to (a) Ansett and (b) TAA. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The responsibility for aircraft charter does not fall within my portfolio responsibilities, but rather with each instrumentality concerned. As my Department does not hae the necessary resources available to seek this information from all instrumentalities, the answer set out in the table below is in respect of my portfolio only. (i) (ii) (iii) Number of occasions Total cost of all Number of times fleets of chartered aircraft domestic aircraft (a) Ansett and amounts paid Organisation within the Speical Chartered since and (b) to (a) Ansett Minister of State's portfolio April 1983 TAA used and (b) TAA 1. Australian Federal Police AFP has chartered domestic aircraft six times Nil Total: $100,925.33 Ansett and TAA: Nil 2. Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies RCASIA has chartered domestic aircraft once Nil Total: $773,75 Ansett and TAA: Nil 3. National Road Freight Industry Inquiry NRFI inquiry has chartered domestic aircraft once Nil Total: $1,321.00 Ansett and TAA: Nil 4. Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratories The inquiry chartered domestic aircraft once Nil Total: $239.00 Ansett and TAA: Nil (Question NO. 1355) Mr Baldwin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: Has consideration been given to the levying of petroleum products excise at a differential rate between premium and standard grade petrol as an energy conservation measure, in view of the fact that production of a given volume of premium grade petrol requires 10 per cent more energy than the the equivalent volume of standard petrol. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: I have been advised that no consideration has been given to applying differential excise rates on premium and standard grades of automotive gasoline as an energy conservation measure. Premium grade automotive gasoline already attracts a higher price before excise, largely reflecting its relative energy content. Any conservation gains induced by increasing this differential through the excise mechanism would be small as only a small proportion of the motor vehicle fleet is designed to use standard grade automotive gasoline.