Wednesday, 22 August 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling,Mr Gear,Mr Hand,Mr Lloyd,Mr Saunderson,Mr Scott and Mr White . 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 Films Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws: that Censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; that further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr,Dr Charlesworth,Mr Dobie and Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that: The Attorney-General enforce laws 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 importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy be prevented; Imported video tapes/discs for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board; Censors more appropriately reflect responsible attitudes; Further measures be taken in association with 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 Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That legislation known as The Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations ( Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 331 and made under the Customs Act 1901 is before the Australian Parliament and that such legislation will allow hard core pornography to become an unwanted part of the scene of this country. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that regulations amending the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Ordinance superseding the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance be disallowed and certain other action taken in relation to censorship matter. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flag Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr and Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (1) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have became united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lusher and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that 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) 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 petitioners 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 Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 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 electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag reflects Australia's membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, her position in the southern hemisphere, and her federation of original colonies, and Recognizes that the flag is a symbol of pride for most Australians, such that several organisations, including the ALP, incorporate the flag in their motifs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will resist moves to change the Australian flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our wish to have the traditional place of Her Majesty The Queen as Head of State retained in our national and constitutional and democratic affairs and institutions and also strongly advocate the retention of our present Australian National Flag, standing for historic and loyal links with the United Kingdom, the nation which founded our Australian way of life. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. 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 per cent 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 Hand. 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. by Mr Hand. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We, the undersigned, are horrified at the prospect that the Personal Care Workers Study in Northcote, Victoria may cease for lack of funding. Such an action would cause severe disruption to the lives of disabled people using the scheme, would prematurely sack the workers involved and waste the research being undertaken. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives will ensure that funding for the Personal Care Workers Study is continued without interruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hand. 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: 1. They call on the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm its obligation to fully fund tertiary education and to implement all 1983 election promises to academic staff and students. 2. They call on the Government of the Commonwealth to accept and implement the recommendations of the Advanced Education Council in regard to the funding of the advanced education sector over the 1985-87 Triennium. 3. They call on the Government of the Commonwealth to affirm that increases in Commonwealth Grants to tertiary education should be financed from general revenue and not from the deferral of increases in the level of academic salaries or of tertiary student allowances. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hand. 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 grave concern be expressed and decisive action be taken to prevent the lifting of the barriers to the importation, and publication of hard core pornography (including urolagnia, coprophilia, necrophilia and bestiality) and publications which incite the use of hard drugs. We the undersigned believe that this will cause enormous damage to the moral strength of our people, particularly the young and strongly and urgently request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification and Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Katter. 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: because videocassettes are a particularly powerful media form now easily accessible to the general public for private home viewing, and believing that the likelihood of minors obtaining or otherwise viewing obscene and pornographic videocassettes is very high even with careful parental oversight, we the undersigned protest at the removal of previously existing censorship bans, and in particular request the Government to abandon its 1983 election decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith, which now allows into the community such pictorial material as ''relished descriptions of violence'' and ''publications which mildly advocate use of soft drugs such as marijuana'' (Category 1), and ''sado-masochism'', ''extreme fetishism'' (e.g. necrophilia), ''anal intercourse with consent'' (Category 2), and other such depraved and repugnant activities; and non-pictorial material referred to as ''hardcore'' paperbacks containing ''relished child pornography, e.g. incest, and school teacher/student'', and ''extreme sexual torture'' (both Category 2), in the conviction that the ready availability and increasing public consumption of same will be a blight on our society, stimulating individual dissoluteness and leading to unlawful behaviour with innocent persons And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. 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 we object in the strongest possible way to the importation of all forms of pornography, and liberalising the use of hard drugs. These are, we feel, detrimental to all family units and are the cause of the destruction of our Society which we value extensively. We implore that the Attorney-General and all other members of the present Government, treat this with utmost urgency and abandon the 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 McVeigh. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully show: We are concerned that- (a) the Report of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission fails to recognize the important role and contribution of Workers' Health Centres in providing occupational health and safety services and information and (b) fails to include those organisations in its proposed national strategy. Your petitioners therefore pray that in considering the recommendations of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission the Commonwealth Government commit itself to a strategy which includes the continuation of, and support for, existing Workers' health Centres in recognition of their critical role in occupational health and safety. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kerin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, your petitioners, humbly showeth: That permitting kangaroos to be commercially exploited when permissible cropping rates are unknown and the means of enforcing controls or protective laws are completely ineffective in this land, is allowing this unique animal to follow the path to rarity or extinction along which all wild animals have gone when subjected to exploitation in similar circumstances. We Australians, have the right to see kangaroos in reasonable numbers on the landscape: We find the commercial slaughter of the kangaroo to be abhorrent and unjustified. Commercialisation of wildlife should be stopped, particularly as exemplified by the kangaroo industry. We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will. 1. Ban the export of products made from kangaroos. 2. Take action to see that State governments prohibit the commercial killing of kangaroos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain members of the Parish of St Francis Xavier, West Mackay , Queensland, electors of the Division of Dawson, shows that legislation is to be introduced allowing the import and sale of X-rated video films. Your petitioners therefore pray that such legislation be withdrawn. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the citizens of the City of Woodville and supported by the citizens of South Australia, being deeply concerned over the threat of closure of the Woodville Plant of General Motors-Holdens, respectfully show- 1. That the management of General Motors-Holdens has failed over a period of more than two (2) years to give any assurances that the Woodville Plant would continue in operation. 2. That a recent statement attributed to the GMH Managing Director, quote: 'The overall objective of our South Australian rationalisation plan has been to eliminate all productive activities on the Woodville site' end of quote. This statement has not been refuted. 3. That the elimination of the Woodville Plant will cause enormous social dislocation, hardship and misery to the citizens of Woodville and South Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Australia will condemn this callous disregard for the citizens of Woodville and South Australia, and do all in its power to force General Motors-Holdens to retain its operations at the Woodville Plant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. Petitions received. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for bringing down the worst Federal Budget, from the point of view of Tasmania, in living memory, and (2) calls upon the Prime Minister to increase the Commonwealth public works program for Tasmania by, at least, an additional $23m so that it matches the Commonwealth public works program of $35m in the last year of the Fraser Government. The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) . Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the 23% increase in the tax grab as the biggest tax slug in history; (2) believes the 1984 Budget provides an illusion of benefits to the community, and (3) draws the Government's attention to the miserable tax relief of less than 1 per cent for low income earners. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House expresses its deep concern about the further undermining of the institution of marriage by this Government through extending the dependent spouse rebate to de facto spouses. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls on the Prime Minister to advise all Australians and in particular, importers of undeclared drugs, quarantine goods, and unaccompanied baggage, that it is sufficient defence on apprehension to claim 'I didn't know the gun was loaded'. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) will second: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for its politicisation of Australia's refugee program, and (2) calls upon the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to make a detailed statement in the House on his proposal that Australia should receive substantial numbers of political refugees from El Salvador and Chile. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates the Government on its decision to remove the bank account debit tax on school P&C accounts. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the Government is now to conduct an inquiry to officially record the harmful effects of the recent changes to the censorship laws, and (2) calls on the Government to repeal the new censorship ordinances which have been the cause for this inquiry, pending the inquiry's findings which will confirm the recent legislation as having endangered this nation's youth. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the electors of Australia are predominantly concerned with issues such as inflation, unemployment, economic growth and standards of living, and (2) regrets that the Opposition is concerned with the trivia of politics such as the 'Paddington Bear' affair. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the 1984-85 Budget- (a) allocation of $2.9 million to fund initiatives in road safety promotion, and (b) decisions to impose 20% sales tax on ultra low alcohol beer and to reduce excise on 3% alcohol beer, and (2) condemns the Government for placing revenue considerations above the public safety. Mr Wells proceeding to give notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I will have to look at the terms used in the notice of motion to see whether they are within the Standing Orders. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) Notes- (a) that beer excise increased under indexation by 6c per litre during 1983-84, and (b) that the 1984-85 Budget predictions show an increase in excise collections of $53m to $1,212m for 1984-85 on a declining beer consumption; Mr Chynoweth-Have you got a pecuniary interest in this? Mr TUCKEY —Consumers pay the tax, not publicans. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows that argument should not be included in a notice. Mr TUCKEY —It goes on: (2) condemns the Government for this continued taxation by stealth, and-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! When I am addressing the honourable member for O'Connor he will remain silent and listen. I was indicating to the honourable member the same point that I made yesterday: Notices of motion should not contain argument. However, the honourable member should proceed with his notice; we can deal with that point later. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I continue: (2) condemns the Government for this continued taxation by stealth, and (3) calls on the Treasurer to explain why, for the first time in Australia's history, rises in beer excise have not been included in the Budget Speech. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes with deep concern statements by the former Premier of Tasmania, Mr Doug Lowe, on 21 August 1984, that he believes organised crime from the United States would enter Australia if the Northern Territory Government goes ahead with plans to compulsorily acquire the casinos in Darwin and Alice Springs. Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr West: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.12) —In leading for the Opposition in this debate on the Aliens Act Repeal Bill 1984, I preface my remarks by making a general observation in relation to certain events which have occurred in the ' immigration debate' since this Parliament last met. From the outset may I say on behalf of the Opposition that we are appalled by the tactics which have been adopted by the Hawke socialist Government in denigrating, misrepresenting and smearing any who dared to stand in this Parliament or outside this Parliament to ask a question or utter one word of criticism with respect to the misguided immigration policies of the Hawke socialist Government. Whether it is a question now of a debate on immigration or whether it has now become a question of a debate on parliamentary democracy, I would like to associate myself with the editorial which appeared in the Australian of 1 August this year under the headline 'Inverse McCarthyism'. In that editorial that point is made, and made very forcibly. Paragraph 4 states: Our policies on land rights and immigration are proper subjects for discussion. They will have major consequences for Australia's future. It is possible to be strongly opposed to racism and yet have strong reservations regarding both of these fundamentally important programs on which we have quite recently embarked. I rest my case on the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in this House eight weeks ago when he said that as far as he was concerned there were no racists on either side of the House. I am not a racist; the Liberal Party of Australia is not racist; the National Party of Australia is not racist. But we do love Australia and we will not be cowed into silence on a debate of fundamental importance for the future of this nation by the disgraceful McCarthyist tactics of the Hawke socialist Government, which defames and misnames anybody who dares to criticise it on the question of immigration as being racist. This Bill comes before the Parliament at an extremely appropriate time. The legislation will repeal the Aliens Act which has been part of the law of this country since the time when Ben Chifley was Prime Minister of Australia. As is pointed out in the second reading speech of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), the legislation passed in 1947 was intended to provide information concerning the non-British population, including its distribution by industries and localities, and to provide a basis for imposing limitations considered desirable and necessary on the entry or stay of non-British subjects of any specific nationality. As the Minister points out in the second reading speech, the Act was left in place essentially to satisfy national security interests. There, in the Minister's own words, is the reason for this legislation. The legislation which stands on the statute books at the moment is essentially there to satisfy national security interests. The Government proposes to repeal this legislation. If it had not been for recent developments the Opposition might have contented itself with saying that, whilst it disapproved of certain aspects of the legislation, it would not oppose the repeal. However, I have to say that in the light of recent events the Opposition will now oppose this Bill if for no other reason than that, in the interests of the national security of Australia, it is quite inappropriate for the legislation to be repealed at this time. Honourable members may have read already the report of the Auditor-General on efficiency audits, and in particular the report tabled yesterday on the control of prohibited immigration by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. This is the subject of a major article in today's Australian, and I want to quote from that article and indicate why in the circumstances the Opposition will now oppose the legislation which has been brought before the House. Under the heading 'Prohibited immigrants increasing 15,000 a year', the following article by Jane Button appears: Australia is harbouring about 50,000 prohibited immigrants and the number is increasing each year by up to 15,000. A report to the Federal Government by the Auditor-General, Mr Keith Brigden, also shows that prohibited immigrants are hard to locate, and that the number apprehended is less than one-third-- I repeat, less than one-third-- of the annual increase in the number of prohibited immigrants. The report issued yesterday gives the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs a rap across the knuckles, saying it has been slow to develop systems to ensure that its control of prohibited immigrants is effective and efficient. The Auditor-General also believes the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs does not have an essential tool for identifying prohibited immigrants. It does not have an essential tool for identifying prohibited immigrants. The article continues: He reports that there are a number of shortcomings in passenger clearances at airports. At Sydney Airport, departmental officers lack control over the collection of passenger cards and are unable to ensure that all cards are collected from passengers for checking. And although the department has been progressively installing forgery-detection equipment at major airports since 1981 for the detection of forged travel documents, it was not able to confirm that its approach to forgery detection was efficient. The report indicates that few prohibited immigrants are prosecuted. It says that departmental statistics showed that 2640 prohibited immigrants departed from Australia in the financial year 1982-83 but that only about 43 people were prosecuted. The report sees a reliable list of prohibited immigrants as essential . . . It is in the context of that comment that this Government is proposing to this Parliament, on behalf of the nation, to repeal the Aliens Act of 1947, which does require registration. As I said, the Auditor-General's comment is indeed a very biting comment because he says that it is essential that there be a reliable list. In relation to the report, the article continues: . . . the list could be compiled from existing records of arrivals and departures. It says such a list would enable the department to identify characteristics of potential prohibited immigrants so that judgments could be made on issuing visas at overseas posts 'based on specific risk factors'. The report says an accurate list would also enable the department to carry out checks with other government agencies and employers. Before visas are granted, intending visitors are checked by officers at Australia's overseas posts by (among other things) reference to warning lists of individuals whose applications should be checked more closely. On a recent overseas visit I was briefed on this system and told that in most of the overseas posts, behind the counter but out of view of the public, are large boards upon which photographs are displayed of persons who are on these lists. Hopefully, if the immigration officer is able to recognise a person who comes to the counter, an easy check can be made by looking at the photographs on these boards which the officer can look at but the general public cannot see. I noticed this particularly just a few weeks ago in the newly located immigration office in Australia House in London. The article continues: In his efficiency audit, Mr Brigden reports that the department has no '' clearly articulated'' guidelines or criteria for additions or deletions from the warning list. He was advised by the department that it was not possible to extract characteristics of those on the warning list. He recommended that guidelines and criteria be developed for updating the warning list. The department has said that criteria covering entry, review or removal of names have been drafted and the guidelines have been in the pipeline for the past 18 months. The Hawke socialist Government has been in office for the past 17 months. On the basis of national security, and in light of that stinging report from the Auditor-General, what sort of a lunatic act is it by this Government and this Minister to come into the Parliament and say: 'We intend to repeal the Aliens Act of 1947'? The Minister, in his second reading speech, made the fundamental point that the Act has been left in place since Ben Chifley was Prime Minister of Australia, essentially to satisfy national security interests. What sort of a schizophrenic government is it which on the one hand, according to the Auditor- General, has failed to do anything effective about prohibited immigrants-how they get into Australia, what happens to them when they are in Australia and how to get them out of Australia-and, at the same time, quite deliberately takes away the one piece of legislation on the Commonwealth statutes which does something potentially about prohibited immigrants, and which does something effectively, as the Minister concedes, about national security? Is this Government concerned about national security or not? Surely the Minister must have had some insight into the outcome of the Auditor-General's report. The Auditor-General's report is detailed. I make the comment that, if one reads the section dealing with the audit of the control of prohibited immigration by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, one would have to say quite bluntly that the Auditor-General has not pulled his punches. I would have thought that on the basis of this document alone the Government would have deferred consideration of this Bill and, in the interests of national security, would have thought again. But, oh no, what do we find? Not only does it not defer the Bill but also it has put it to the top of the business today. The Leader of the House (Mr Young) has moved that other Government Business be postponed in order that this matter can be dealt with first-no doubt in the hope that it can be rushed through Parliament before members of this House and members of the Senate have the opportunity to read and appreciate fully the implications of the Auditor-General's report. But that tactic will not work. As I said a few moments ago, when the Bill was originally brought in the Opposition may well have taken the view that, while it disapproved of certain aspects of the Bill, it would not oppose it. I now say that, in the interests of the national security of Australia and in light of the Auditor-General's report, the Opposition would be derelict if it did not oppose, and oppose strongly, the legislation which is before the Parliament. It is interesting, is it not, that the Minister, in his second reading speech, effectively says: 'Look, we can take this out of the statutes and get rid of it because we will have the opportunity to obtain this information by virtue of the new computerised equipment, microfilms and the like which the Department is either acquiring or will acquire'? I will read from the Minister's comments and then compare them with the Auditor-General's comments. The Minister said: An alternative means of obtaining information is now available through the Government's visa and entry permit systems. Almost all foreign nationals are required to supply information before obtaining authority to travel to Australia and upon arrival are required to complete passenger cards before being granted entry. The gathering of this information is being computerised by my Department so as to enable it more effectively to monitor and identify those who are entering and departing Australia. My Department has been tasked with the responsibility of preparing guidelines for access to this computerised information, in consultation with other interested departments and authorities. The Government will closely and carefully consider these guidelines to ensure that personal information provided to my Department by those seeking to enter and remain in Australia is properly protected from unnecessary disclosure. I say in passing that the Department's record in properly protecting personal information from unnecessary disclosure was starkly revealed in an incident of only two weeks ago when details relating to an immigration matter which one would have thought would have been private between the individual involved and the Department were splashed across the front pages of just about every paper in Australia. I accept the fact that the Minister was out of the country at the time but I have to say that if the rule in relation to immigration will be such that we can expect to see cases published in the Press, on the front page of the Australian and on national television, where will it end? Will social security records be next? Will Medicare records be next? Will income tax records be next? Surely it is a damning indictment of the administration in the immigration area that that sort of information can get out into the public arena, involving as it allegedly did a very distinguished Australian, a very great Australian. The Minister says: 'We will make quite sure that those people who give such information will be properly protected from unnecessary disclosure'. He goes on to say: The financial impact of this proposed legislation is minimal, given that there are no staff engaged full time on maintenance of the aliens register. What a damning admission! This Act of the Commonwealth Parliament which, as I said, came in under the Labor Prime Minister, Ben Chifley, in 1947, is an Act which requires people to register on an aliens register and requires the Department to keep such a register. Yet the responsible Minister says to this Parliament: 'There are no staff in my Department engaged full time on the maintenance of the aliens register'. Was the Minister anticipating the vote of the Parliament? Does the Minister take the view that, if it does not suit him to comply with the law, he will ignore it? Does the Minister presume that by administrative action he can be in charge of a department which has failed to keep the law on a question involving national security? The Minister's colleague, the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), was in trouble over national security last year. I ask the people of Australia what they think of the action of this Minister who blandly tells the Parliament that, even though there is a law on the statute book and it has been there since 1947, he has no staff in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs engaged full time on maintenance of the aliens register. The Minister goes on to say: The additional cost of building the requirement to replace the aliens register into systems that the Department is developing-- He says the Department has not yet developed such systems but it is developing them-- to meet needs associated with control over entry is $380,000 for microfilm and associated data entry equipment. This amount will be spent in 1983-84. Has it been spent? He continues: There will be ongoing costs of $50,000 per annum for the operation of this equipment. Effectively, the Minister is saying to the Parliament: 'This law is to do with national security. I and the Hawke socialist Government intend to repeal it. We will repeal it, firstly, because we do not have any full time staff engaged on this work in any event and, secondly, we are developing systems which will meet the needs'. If he had any doubts about the correctness of his position before yesterday I suggest that he should have thought very carefully overnight about the comments of the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General made the very pointed comment that despite the fact that it has been in the pipeline for the past 18 months a proper list is still not available. This would be almost a Gilbert and Sullivan situation were it not so serious and did it not involve the national security of Australia. The Auditor-General's remarks are probably the strongest seen in relation to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, certainly in the eight years that I have been in this place. Others who have been here longer have already expressed the view that they have never seen such a stinging report. Is it not par for the course that the hopelessly misguided immigration policies of the Hawke socialist Government are now matched by a monumental incompetence in an area specifically dealing with national security? I put it to the Minister that in the light of the Auditor-General's report he should now stand in this House and concede that it would be premature to go ahead with this legislation. Why is the Minister in a rush to get it through the Parliament? We have some clue. He has said that the legislation is totally discriminatory. When introducing the Bill, he said: It gives me great pleasure to introduce this Bill into the House, for it will remove another piece of totally discriminatory legislation. The Aliens Act, which applies only to non-British subjects, succeeded the war-time National Security (Aliens Control) Regulations. The Act, when passed in 1947, was intended principally to provide information concerning the non-British population, including its distribution by industries and localities, and to provide a basis for imposing limitations, if considered desirable and necessary, on the entry or stay of non-British subjects of any specific nationality. With the greatest respect for that view, I submit that it is totally and absolutely misguided. I have just been in the United States of America. It has no qualms about maintaining an aliens register. I have just been in the United Kingdom. It too maintains an aliens register. I have been in both Italy and Greece and had discussions with immigration authorities at our Australian embassies and with the government departments concerned. The Greek authorities maintain a register of aliens, as do the Italian authorities. I have also been in Thailand where a record of aliens is kept. What is discriminatory about that? The Minister will answer that British and Commonwealth residents in Australia do not have to be on a register. But the Minister knows full well the reason for that. The reason is historic. It is because the idea of an aliens register originated during World War II as part of the National Security (Aliens Control) Regulations. Let it not be forgotten that two years after the end of World War II a Labor Prime Minister, Ben Chifley, and a Labor government made this the law of Australia. It had been brought in as a national security regulation when Mr Curtin was Prime Minister. He took that action in the interest of the national security of Australia. It changed from a regulation to an Act in 1947 when Ben Chifley was Prime Minister of Australia. In 1984 when Robert James Lee Hawke is Prime Minister of Australia he and his Minister say that they will repeal this legislation which they know is fundamentally there for the national security interests of Australia and for the protection of all Australians, old and new. Is this not part of a continuing pattern we have seen under this Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs? Deportation from Australia is now almost a legal impossibility. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), one of Her Majesty's counsel, last year described those amendments to the Migration Act which dealt with deportation. He said that the Bill should have been called the Mafia protection Bill. Notwithstanding the Minister's undertaking to amend the Bill he put through the Parliament last year, we now have the ludicrous situation that under this Minister and this Government we cannot deport a person who has been resident in Australia for 10 years and has not taken out citizenship even if that person harbours a Soviet spy. That person could be prosecuted under the Commonwealth Crimes Act for harbouring a Soviet spy. That person could be sent to prison for seven years but, under this Government, that person cannot be deported from Australia. What an outrageous and ludicrous situation. If Mr Valeriy Ivanov had got the tip-off that he was about to be arrested-- Mr Maher —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: The Bill is a very small piece of legislation and it does not deal with deportation or Mr Ivanov. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I do not rule in favour of the point of order. The honourable member has stuck pretty well to the Bill. He has deviated a little now. I suggest that he go back to the Bill. Mr HODGMAN —I understand the discomfort of the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) and his obvious embarrassment. I was pointing out that this is typical of the way this Government has handled the immigration and ethnic affairs area. It is analagous. These matters are linked, even in the mind of the honourable member for Lowe. There is a link between what we have here and a situation in which one cannot deport people who harbour Soviet spies. The Minister has conceded the fact and he said that he would come back to Parliament this year with an amending Bill. But we have not seen that. There is a clear link between that sort of sloppy thinking, a lack of concern for national security and the proposal in this legislation, which is to take off the statute book of the Commonwealth of Australia a law which the Minister himself admits has been left there since 1947 essentially to satisfy the interests of national security. I ask the Minister in his reply to tell me what he thinks has happened in the past 17 months since the Hawke socialist Government came to power to enable him to say to this Parliament that it is now safe in the interests of national security to scrap this legislation. I ask the Minister specifically and any Government members who are listed to speak-and I notice that there are three or four of them-what they think of this legislation in the light of the Auditor- General's damning report on the situation in Australia in relation to the control of prohibited immigration. Can anyone in this Parliament explain this to me, when the Auditor-General has demonstrated that we have in excess of 50,000 prohibited migrants in this country? Obviously they have not all arrived since the Hawke socialist Government came to power, but according to the Auditor- General the figure is increasing at the rate of 15,000 a year. The Government's reponse to that crisis is to say: 'We will make it even easier for them; we will take away the Aliens Act and the legal necessity for a register to be kept'. What will happen to all the investigations about preparing a list that have been going on in the Minister's Department for the past 18 months? Is that now to be abandoned? Is the Auditor-General's advice, his stern warning on this issue, to be ignored by a government which has demonstrated over and over again that it has scant regard for the national security of Australia? It is typical of this Government, this Prime Minister and this Minister that if we dare to ask a question on immigration or express a view which in the slightest degree deviates from what Big Brother has said we run the risk of being branded as racist. It is the same tactic which was employed in relation to the Sex Discrimination Bill. If we dared to ask a question about a single clause or express some doubt or misgiving we were immediately branded as sexist. Tragically, we now see that the area has been extended into the field of Aboriginal land rights. If we dare to ask a question or utter one word of criticism we are branded as racist. I say in conclusion that I believe the debate in Australia today is no longer a debate about immigration. It is no longer a debate about Aboriginal land rights. It is a debate about parliamentary democracy in Australia in 1984. It is a debate about a big brother government which adopts McCarthyist tactics against anyone who dares to utter a word of criticism. If I and the Opposition, if members of the Australian public, allow ourselves to be bullied and intimidated into silence we will not be letting down just ourselves and what we believe in, we will be letting down Australian democracy. If the debate on immigration today is stifled, it will be Aboriginal land rights tomorrow; it will be something else down the track. I ask the Minister to act responsibly for the first time since he has held his office and to withdraw this Bill here and now in the interests of the national security of Australia and of all Australians, old and new. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.42) —It is with great pleasure that I speak to the Aliens Act Repeal Bill, a Bill for an Act to repeal the Aliens Act 1947. It is a Bill that removes another piece of legislation which is discriminatory and anachronistic. The Act applies only to non-citizens of non-British status. This Bill is one of a series introduced by the Minister which is aimed at removing discrimination in our society. I think the House will have noted by now that I seldom speak on matters of immigration and settlement, even though I am a migrant myself. For a long time I have resisted the temptation to enter such a debate as I represent a predominantly native-born Australian electorate, an electorate with more than 2, 000 industrial undertakings, and an electorate that is settled by ordinary wage and salary earners. Whether they are native-born Australians, British migrants or other newcomers has very little relevance to me. To the best of my ability I have tried to represent all the people of Hotham. I have fought for more jobs, better housing, better education and higher living standards for the ordinary families in my electorate. More often than not honourable members will have heard me speaking on matters relating to industry, opposing foreign imports in order to save jobs for the Australian workers. However, the duplicity of the Opposition, which has lost any semblance of decency and fair play and has become a party devoid of policies, clutching at every straw to maintain its head above water, has made me leap literally into this debate. The Opposition has accused this Government of discrimination against British and European migration. What revolts me is the hypocrisy of the Opposition, because exactly the opposite is true. The legislation before the House proves exactly the opposite, as does other legislation introduced by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West). Its main aim is to remove any discrimination between non-citizens. The shadow Minister, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), made the point that the security of Australia will be threatened if this Act is repealed, as though migrants from non-British backgrounds are a threat to the security of this country. Let me tell him that the migrants coming here become hard working residents and taxpayers, paying, in part, his handsome salary. Further, he missed the point when he said that the Act keeps out illegal immigrants. The Act has been in force since 1947, yet he admitted himself that there are 50,000 illegal immigrants here. Of course, he forgets that illegal immigrants do not register. Only those who come in legally register under this Act and that will not be necessary in future as the whole process will be computerised. The shadow Minister in his clown-like fashion has been jumping up and down during the recent debate on immigration-he brought this in at the beginning of his speech-accusing the Australian Labor Party of being anti-British. Let me reply to that in a few words. I was born and grew up in Yugoslavia. I remember as a teenager the Nazi occupation of my former country. I also remember the time when it was Great Britain that stood alone against the Nazis that ruled Europe. London was bombed day and night by Hitler's air force; yet no complaint left the tight lips of the British people who suffered the wrath of Hitler. Britain stood alone in the world. The British had a backbone that distinguished them from those who surrendered to Hitler. By their stand the British earned the admiration of the whole world. They certainly earned my admiration and that of my Party. The people who withstood the full weight of the Nazi onslaught alone and unshaken deserve to be admired. If we have ever heard anti-British sentiments voiced in this House they came from the shadow Minister and his colleagues when in government. They called the British 'whingeing Poms'. The Opposition time and again attacked shop stewards of British origin who, in keeping with their fine traditions, fought for better wages and conditions in many Australian industries. Honourable gentlemen opposite seem to support only the British aristocracy. They suck up to the Queen and the royal family while they call the honest British workers who came here to build this country 'whingeing Poms'. We on this side of the House welcome the British migrants who brought with them, among other things, the fine tradition of British trade unionism. Now let me, as a European-born migrant, say a few words about our British heritage and about British institutions in Australia. We members of the Labor Party have a much greater respect for British institutions than do the conservatives opposite. After all, our Party is a product of our British heritage. The great Australian trade union movement that the Labor Party grew out of is in the best British traditions. This Parliament and its traditions, which the Opposition was ready to disregard and abandon in November 1975, is jealously defended by the members of my Party. After 35 years of large-scale non -British immigration, the British institutions in Australia are as strong as ever. Our democratic system and traditions are highly esteemed by our ethnic communities. They are respected much more by them than by the honourable gentlemen opposite, as the events of 11 November 1975 have shown. So let us not be misled by clowns like the honourable member for Denison. It is not our British heritage or British immigration that honourable members opposite are worried about but their own political future. The Opposition, not having any worthwhile policies to put before the Australian people, is trying to whip up racist sentiments and divisions in the hope of gaining cheap votes. The debate in the media and in this House during the last session has shown to those honourable members opposite who retain a sense of decency that their abandonment of a bipartisan policy on immigration has been a mistake. I accept that it was a mistake, an error of judgment in a moment of desperation when members of the Opposition believed that they had nothing going for them. At the risk to our national unity, they tried to achieve some quick political gains. Now that the attempt has clearly misfired, I call on all honourable members opposite to stop and think. I call on them to return to reason and not to make, by their actions, the settlement prospects and the life of our new settlers, wherever they come from, harder than otherwise would be the case. The Aliens Act that this Bill will repeal is a relic from our past. It was discriminatory between non-citizens . A large proportion of the Australian citizens were born overseas and there is also a large number of non-citizens who are permanent residents in Australia. I welcome the Minister's decision to remove discrimination against non-citizens. However, I must say here that there are too many people in our midst who are eligible but for some reason neglect to apply for citizenship. The former Government did little to encourage them to take out Australian citizenship, but since we became the Government every encouragement has been given to all residents who are eligible to become Australian citizens. I am mentioning this because in the future, as a result of the Aliens Act Repeal Bill 1984 that we are discussing now, there will be no distinction between 'alien' and 'British subject'. The only distinction will be between Australian citizen and non-citizen. Australia is one of the few countries in the world where all settlers, wherever they come from, are given equal rights and are treated equally. We have a large empty continent to populate. We will certainly need more than our natural birth rate to populate this continent so that we can develop it for the benefit of all Australians. I have to pay tribute here to Arthur Calwell who, as Labor's Minister for Immigration after the war, introduced a large scale immigration program. I am a product of it-I hope a good one. I hate to think what would have happened if, after the war, the Melbourne Herald had run a survey headed 'Do we want southern Europeans here?' and I hate to think what would have happened if Arthur Calwell had accepted the then biased public opinion. He would have deprived Australia of the benefit of having me and hundreds of thousands of other migrants who, together with native born Australians, did so much in the 1950s and 1960s to build this country. I am glad that I have had the opportunity to contribute and to work towards a better future for all our children. I am proud that I have had the opportunity to take part in building the Australian nation. Such participation was made possible only by giving me, as a migrant, equal rights as a citizen. Equality and freedom were the two factors that made our post-war immigration uniquely successful. The bipartisan acceptance of the immigration program is vital for its success. I again call on the Opposition not to try to divide the community on this highly sensitive issue. I hope that common sense and humanitarian considerations will prevail and that we will be able in future, as in the past, to debate the issues concerning immigration in a bipartisan and unbiased way. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.53) —Madam Deputy Speaker, on 3 July Professor Warren Hogan, Professor of Economics at the University of Sydney, gave an address entitled 'Issues in Immigration and Migrant Settlement Problems'. He began his address by saying: Little attention and less analysis has been devoted to strategy and purposes of immigration for an Australian economy experiencing marked shifts in its structure during the past decade. In examining the activities of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs ( Mr West) one would not need to be a very careful analyst to know that there has been no consideration of strategy, economic benefit or grand scale policy design in his actions. The Aliens Act Repeal Bill is an example of the way the Minister bumbles from issue to issue, seeking to implement a confused concept of what he wants as far as immigration and immigration policies are concerned. The repeal of the Aliens Act is another example of how the Minister has sought to change things without rhyme or reason. The Minister says he is doing this to remove discrimination. I put it to the Minister that every action he takes in this field is discriminatory. He sets the level of migrants that Australia will take. He is not prepared to accept an open door policy and therefore he is discriminatory, first of all, on the number of people we will accept into Australia. He goes further and discriminates in regard to the processes of the administration of his portfolio by deciding what categories the number that we decide we will have will be put into-whether there will be so many family reunions, so many workers and so many people who come as entrepreneurs or whether there will be a certain number of refugees. It is a discriminatory policy. The Minister cannot escape the fact that discrimination is part of the decision-making process in immigration. The decision to remove the Aliens Act from the Australian statute book means that in fact we have no bottom line as to who we will or will not accept. The House must remember that the repeal of this Act follows significant changes to the Migration Act and the Citizenship Act. They have come first and now we have the repeal of the Aliens Act. The Minister has not locked these factors together in any comprehensible way. I suppose the best thing we can say now is that a person who was formerly an alien may somehow or other fall into the category of a non-citizen. So we have a new talk element in the approach to people who are not Australian citizens, who are in fact foreigners on our shores. They are not aliens; they are non-citizens. Finding some rhyme or reason in the security aspects of the whole decision- making process adopted by the Minister boggles the mind. He has changed the Migration Act so that any sorts of individuals can come to Australia, may stay here and may not necessarily be deported after a certain time. It does not matter whether the persons concerned are drug runners or whatever; the Minister will not take into account whether or not they merit deportation, nor will he consider them to be aliens. He will call them non-citizens and take no action. He is demeaning the whole process of applying the standard that Australians want to apply to those people living within their shores. Being weak-kneed and having no standards is not being non-discriminatory; it is being weak and subject to pressures from all parts of the world, from individuals who make claims. Many of those making a claim happen to be people who have a similar political view to that of the Minister. The Minister and the left wing of the Australian Labor Party feel that this soft approach is one that will gain them credit. This soft approach to the standard that is acceptable to the Australian community will not bring them credit; it will bring criticism and discontent, and will lead to grave concern in the community. We are not discriminating against anybody by having an Aliens Act; we are not discriminating against anybody by saying that we have a standard in this country for what we want of our citizens and those living in this nation. The changes to the Citizenship Act further implement the Minister's attitude towards his own nation. He is not prepared to set a standard that is high, that encourages people to adopt strong, affirmative and supportive action towards their nation. The American people are admired by most because they have such a strong attitude to their nation; a love and a commitment to the future of their nation. Whether we agree with the policies of American governments is irrelevant ; we are talking about whether we have a love for and a commitment to our nation . The Minister has sought to remove that commitment by saying that if he asks for a commitment of people to certain standards for this nation he is being discriminatory. Frankly, that argument will not stand up. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you have had great experience in the migration field and you would understand what the people who have come to this country from all parts of the world are saying about this Minister's administration. They are saying that they do not know where they stand as individuals; they are saying that they do not know what standards will be adopted by the Australian Government for the allowing of entry into Australia. They say that they are uncertain about the policies concerning the whole migration intake. The tragedy of it is that the Minister further drives a nail into the coffin of his maladministration of this portfolio by introducing the repeal of the Aliens Act. I ask those who are objective observers to assess the cumulative effect of the Minister's actions. First, he has demeaned the Australian Citizenship Act. Secondly, he has dealt with the Migration Act and has removed provisions that all Australians would want to see retained. Now he seeks to repeal a bottom line of control of people who are not citizens, who do not intend to become citizens, and in fact could pose a threat to our national security. The tragedy of the Minister's administration is that in the soft words that he utters about discrimination he endeavours to make those who oppose his view feel guilt. The Minister adopts a complete attitude of discrimination in the administration of his portfolio. I refer to a recent document which the Minister circulated to all senators and members on 9 July in which he set out the process of selection for migration. At attachment B to that document he even described the precise numbers of people who would be placed in certain categories of work. Can anyone imagine anything more discriminatory than that? We will decide on the number of people down to the round figure of 50. I suppose honourable members realise that the Minister's intention under the occupational share system is to have, for example, 50 panel beaters. Why not 51 or 49? He will not vary the number. In this process he is being discriminatory. He has selected the category of panel beaters as one which will be acceptable for entry on an occupational share basis. The same can be said across the whole field of activity in migration. I believe the Minister is being discriminatory, but he disclaims discrimination and wishes to brand others as possessing discriminatory views. By repealing the Aliens Act, the Minister is discriminating against law abiding citizens who have come to Australia and who respect the standards that this nation has set. He has sought to change and soften the standards that Australians have accepted. Where has there been the outcry against the Aliens Act? Where have people said that they do not want this legislation? The Minister based changes to the Australian Citizenship Act on a report prepared by his Department whereby one individual said one thing about the oath to the Queen. That was the reason for changing the legislation. That was the reason which was advanced here day after day for changing the legislation. Not one person who has participated in a seminar conducted by his Department has said that the Aliens Act should be repealed. Yet he is going ahead with his plans to repeal it. No wonder the Opposition is concerned. No wonder Australian citizens are concerned. They do not know where the Minister is taking them. They do not know what his ultimate objectives are. When matters of grave concern and matters on which there is a lack of information are raised by members on this side of the House those members are attacked. The Minister will have to do much better than he has done in the last 17 months. The people out there do not believe him. He is not understood. He is doing nothing to alleviate their concern. The fact that he cannot produce figures on migration or set out what his intentions are, the fact that no records are kept and the fact that his Department does not even know who should be here and who should not be here are matters to be deplored. The Minister has taken no action to do anything about these issues. He has just gone ahead with his plans to repeal the Aliens Act. For goodness sake! Something was lobbed on his desk today which he has known about since he became a Minister. He undertook to rectify it. That concerned the whole process of the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of the provisions of the Migration Act by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Nothing could be wider or more searching than that examination. We have had report after report in this place about the link between individuals who are members of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union of Australia and people who are involved in the drug trade. We have had reports concerning the problems involved with false passports and the difficulties experienced through points of departure and arrival. We have had the reports of the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Yet the Minister has gone ahead with his plans to repeal the Aliens Act. Despite all the criticism and the condemnation of distinguished judges and investigators, the Minister is prepared, willy-nilly, to remove restrictions that they would support unless they were replaced by something that was effective. What is the state of effectiveness of the system which the Minister administers ? It is about as effective as his administration of his Department. That is a tragedy. There is no leadership from the top in his Department. It is a great shame that this magnificent Department which the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs leads is not better led. There is discontent among members of the staff. There is a lack of morale. They cannot understand the Minister's bumblings or his intentions. No wonder the Auditor-General brings forward reports so condemnatory of the processes that are used to check those who should or should not be in Australia. I refer the House to pages 44 and 45 of the report of the Auditor-General on efficiency audits. I refer to the audit findings about the criteria used under the migration alert list which is the system used by departmental officers to assess whether a person will subvert the system of entry into Australia. The Auditor-General concluded: The Department has not developed a profile of overstayed visitors which could be used to identify intending visitors who should be subjected to additional checks. That situation applies no more strongly than in relation to the Middle East where Australia does not have an effective system of profile, of trying to identify intending visitors. Time and again the Minister is removing sections of protection. I would have thought that for no other reason than the reports which have been prepared on drug offences in Australia and the changes which the Minister has already made to the Migration Act and the Australian Citizenship Act he would have had second thoughts about repealing the Aliens Act. Commissioner after commissioner has identified the weakness of passports and the processes by which people move from country to country carrying drugs. A very vital link in that chain is the operation of the Minister's Department. The Auditor-General endorsed the concern that the community has. At page 46 of the report, in relation to Sydney Airport, which is the very key to the drug scene in Australia-it is the very point where people have done things that have been identified with high crime in Australia-the Auditor-General said: At Sydney Airport, departmental officers lacked control over the collection of passenger cards and were, therefore, unable to ensure that all cards collected from passengers by customs officers were despatched for ADP processing in Canberra. What is the good of all these changes that the Minister is making if we cannot at least adopt some control over the system? At page 47 the Auditor-General said : A computer-generated Movements Data Base of overstayed visitors has been compiled since October 1973, but has not provided an accurate and up-to-date record of overstayers for various reasons including: errors made by travellers in completing the arrival/ departure passenger cards . . . errors and delays in input to the ADP system . . . lost passenger cards. There is recommendation after recommendation. The Minister has been aware of these factors and has made commitments in this House that he will rectify them. How long does he need? What does he intend to do? Where are his statements? Where are his reports? Where is the Minister's justification for his administration of this great portfolio? There are none. When the Opposition forces him to the brink on statistics or figures he comes in here with his guns blazing wildly and shoots himself in the foot. He is not capable of administering the portfolio. That is regrettable. He will not listen to those around him. He depends on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to concoct responses needed in the House. I do not believe that the proper processes in this debate have been observed. The Minister has expressed a personal preference in the immigration field. He does not have a government policy; he has a personal policy which he administers privately and adopts, saying to the community: 'This is the Government's policy and we will'-he means the Minister and not the Government-' allow refugees from certain countries. We will extend the humanitarian program. We will not refer, however, to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees . We will have our own private politically based policy'. That policy is a private policy of the Minister. By the repeal of the Aliens Act he seeks to destroy the gains and protections that the Australian community needs. The real regret and the real problem is that there is no bottom line. Nobody knows what is the bottom line on migration because as soon as the problem becomes too hard the Minister changes the bottom line. He adjusts his standards to suit his commitment or capacity. There is no will or drive to adopt a steady policy that people understand and then to implement it. He adjusts that policy to suit his capacity to deliver policy. The Minister has set standards that he calls policies which are really personal preferences. Then he adjusts legislation to suit those personal inclinations. The problem is that with regard to the Migration Act, the Australian Citizenship Act and now the repeal of the Aliens Act, we have seen that the Minister does not really understand the Australian community or those people who have come from so many countries to build the wealth, the depth of experience and the culture of this nation. Instead of taking advantage of these things, we are saying: 'No, we are discriminating if we think they are good. What we need to do is to open doors, break down standards and have a mish-mash of non-policy instead of a real policy'. It is a tragedy. I tell the House that the Greek, Italian, Maltese, Lebanese, British, American and Asian communities resent it. They resent the way in which immigration is being administered in this country because they fear that the worst immigration policies that they have seen in other countries are being adopted here-not the best policies; the worst policies . There is a dropping of standards and a failure of commitment to the real benefit of Australia, to the real advancement of Australia and a patriotic understanding of what Australians want. Apparently, if we adopt what Australians want, we are being discriminatory. The Minister has a discriminatory policy and he is administering it badly. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(11.13) —At the outset I commend a reading of the Aliens Act Repeal Bill 1984 to the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). He ranged far and wide, but he did not address the substance of the repeal legislation. The Aliens Act is a discriminatory piece of legislation based on long-outmoded concepts. It is in that context that the Government seeks its repeal. The Act was intended principally to provide information concerning the non-British population, including its distribution by industry and locality, and to provide a basis for imposing limitations on entry or stay if considered desirable or necessary. The Aliens Act succeeded the National Security (Aliens Control) Regulations. Following amendments, the Aliens Act now requires only that non-British subjects register, notify the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs if they marry and obtain consent to change their surname. The honourable member for Mitchell in his contribution indicated that the Government seemed to have repealed this legislation without rhyme or reason. He asked where there was an outcry against the existing legislation. It seems to me to be an absurdity to base any proposed changes on awaiting some outcry. The changes have been made, quite simply, because they are part of an integrated and co-ordinated move by the Government to repeal, where possible, outmoded legislation and in particular to ensure that across a range of policy areas the legislation that is in force is not discriminatory in any way. The repeal of the existing legislation is simply part of that co-ordinated response by the Government. In terms of immigration policy-obviously there has recently been a lot of debate about immigration policy-the Government's main approach has not been confined only to the repeal of this legislation; our whole approach has been to ensure that there is a reasonable balance. It is paradoxical that the Opposition has sought to make political capital out of the immigration issue at a time when the actual number of Asians migrating to Australia has continued to fall. That is due in particular to the lower target that the Government has set for refugees. For the Opposition even to suggest that the Government's immigration policy is anti-European, as has been suggested here-and, of course, by implication pro-Asian-seems to me to be particularly absurd. In fact, Asian immigration numbers are falling. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has conceded in the past that he is not opposed to the number of Asians coming to Australia. Indeed, he stated on the Nationwide television program on 8 May that 'the right number of Asians was now coming in'. He stated that what he was concerned about was the 'mix or balance', as he put it, of the present migrant intake. He has called for an increase in the number of European migrants. The type of increase he seems to have in mind can only put further pressure on the job market at a time when unemployment, unfortunately, already afflicts far too many Australians. Another factor that has contributed to a rise in the proportion-but, of course, not the number-of Asian migrants has been the reduced interest in migration to Australia from residents of Great Britain and other European countries. That reduced interest is based substantially on a perception by residents of both Britain and other parts of Europe about their likely job prospects in Australia. That is a quite understandable response, given the wide publicity earlier this year and late last year about the great job losses in some parts of the steel industry and the consequent redundancy of British migrants. The Government is not only taking steps in terms of ensuring the existence of non-discriminatory legislation; the whole theme of our approach in this area has been to break the nexus between ethnicity and disadvantage. That is a quite clear nexus and one that has been a theme of post-war Australian society. We have gone a long way towards ensuring that that does not continue. For example, the Government's adult migrant education program has been significantly upgraded by an increase of about 14 per cent. The objective is to increase the number of permanent teachers in that area. The Government has given priority to needy schools under various Commonwealth education programs. To the extent that needy schools are often those schools located in areas in which there is a high proportion of ethnic Australians, that policy, of course, has a direct impact on people who have come to Australia from other countries. The participation and equity program is another area into which the Government has put a lot of effort in ensuring that all secondary school children are given something approaching equal opportunity. Of course, the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Review of Post-Arrival Programs and Services to Migrants gives by definition particular emphasis to the special needs of migrants. The Sex Discrimination Act is another case in which we have tried to ensure that the Government is not presiding over legislation that is in any way discriminatory. In particular, parts of that legislation provide redress for migrant women who suffer from discrimination in employment, housing or access to services, or sexual harassment in the work place. Prior to coming to this place I had some experience in dealing with migrant workers, particularly women workers, who suffered considerably in the work place. It is a common theme in some areas of employment in Melbourne that migrant women are particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment. To the extent that we have tried to address that problem by legislation, it is based simply on our overall view that there needs to be particular emphasis on the problem, even though our approach is essentially one based on the premise of no discrimination. The Government has also provided substantial funding for child care facilities in association with English language classes. In the longer term the objective is to ensure that we do not have discrimination in our community. I could go through a range of initiatives that the Government has taken in this area but I shall not do so. We do not have much time and I will confine myself particularly to the repeal of the legislation before the House. I want to make one comment about the contribution by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). He adverted, albeit very briefly, to what someone else had described as the 'Mafia protection Bill'. I counsel all honourable members to be very careful indeed when they use that sort of terminology. In about May of this year there was a lot of heartbreak in the Italian community in my electorate arising out of massive television and other media coverage given to the so-called Murrumbidgee River murders. The deceased persons were both residents of my electorate, and the electorate of Maribyrnong has a very high level of Italian Australians. There is always a difficulty in these sorts of crimes in striking some balance between the legitimate needs of the police force in ensuring that adequate news coverage is given to the murders and the likely impact on particular migrant communities, when one embraces these sorts of terms. My own investigations have led me to the view that the police in this instance tried to downplay the use of the term 'Mafia'. In the view of a number of police, that sort of publicity was inimical to the solving of the crime. The reason why the term 'Mafia' was so readily used was that both victims had their ears cut off. That was a traditional form of retribution used by the Mafia in Italy and elsewhere when individuals broke the so-called Mafia code of silence-omerta. What worries me a little about the ready embracing of terms such as 'Mafia' is that the impact is not a one-day wonder. A number of constituents in my electorate complained to me, not formally but informally at various functions I attended, of the very real trauma occasioned to both themselves and their families by the wide use of that term at the time. In the schools my children attend there was for some time a lot of taunting of young children, particularly those of Calabrian descent, and the taunting was always based on the linkage between Calabrian or other Italian descent and the term 'Mafia'. I think the problem can be addressed by journalists using some balance in relation to their requirement to ensure that they sell newspapers. There are a number of institutionalised processes that I suppose can be embraced by people who have been offended by that type of reporting. The defamation laws, if individuals are named, provide an obvious recourse, although where groups are very large obviously a defamation action is not a reasonable option. In Victoria there is a police media committee, but that committee has no punitive powers. I suggest that that committee should discuss this issue and perhaps try to ensure that we do not have a repetition of the situation we had in May 1984. Of course, the Press Council has some limited powers in this area, but there is very limited redress. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I suggest to the honourable member that he has had some latitude and he should get back to the Bill. I realise that he is answering something the shadow Minister mentioned in his speech, but he has been a little long on it. Mr GRIFFITHS —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your timing in that instance was impeccable because I had just finished my remarks on that subject. Returning to the repeal legislation, I will conclude by noting one comment made by the honourable member for Mitchell. He indicated that in his view the legislation was being repealed when there was no rhyme or reason for doing so. In his contribution to the debate he elevated the existing legislation to very great importance in the conduct of this nation's affairs. Unfortunately for the honourable member for Mitchell-I am sure he could have ascertained this had he engaged in some basic research-the legislation is to all intents and purposes redundant. The reality is that for many years under previous Liberal governments the Department did not fully maintain the so-called aliens register, and in terms of the requirements to do so it was in clear breach of the legislation to which the Opposition now purports to be so closely committed. The fact is that very few people comply with the notification requirements. So we have a situation where government moneys are being expended in partial compliance with what the legislation requires. If there is any merit in that legislation, which I absolutely dispute, it should have been acted upon. The reality is that it was not, and to that extent it was redundant well before the debate commenced here today. I finish by emphasising that, by any definition, the Aliens Act is discriminatory legislation and by any definition, in the context of the remarks I have made about compliance with the legislation, it is absolutely outmoded. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(11.27) — Madam Deputy Speaker, prior to coming into the House I was disturbed about a number of features of the Aliens Act Repeal Bill. Having listened to the debate, I am more concerned about the attitude revealed by Government members than I am about the content of the legislation. It seems that whenever the Government has trouble logically explaining a piece of legislation and logically answering the legitimate concerns of the Opposition, put on behalf of the wider community, it resorts to the usual catch phrases. In this case, as the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) has so eloquently put it, the catch phrase is that the legislation is discriminatory and outmoded. For the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) the catch phrase for his legislation is 'special affinity with the land'. They always resort to the garbage language of the times to cover the illogicality of the legislation. This legislation is simply about national security, and of course the protection of the interests of national security involves discrimination. The Government is delving into the realms of the ridiculous to think it can maintain national security and not discriminate. On the same basis, criminal law, the Family Law Act or any legislation passed by this Parliament must be discriminatory. It must put the interests of the country or, in some cases, the interests of the majority against those of the minority. That is a simple fact of a democracy but it is a fact which does not appear to have registered with this Government which seeks to be all things to all people. There have been two classic examples in its term of office which demonstrate its style of government. The first was the occupation outside the front of Parliament House, in breach of Australian Capital Territory regulations, in breach of every concept we have about occupation. The second example occurred last night, when there was again a breach by occupation inside Parliament House. My point is not that those two causes should not have legitimate expression but that there is a place and a time for it. Indeed, many of us on this side of the House have made representations to the Government on behalf of both those interest groups. The point is that the minority cannot be allowed to exceed what is the established order, the established law. Yet this Government has tolerated blatant breaches of those regulations in both those matters. The comments by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) and by the honourable member for Maribyrnong have again outlined to the House the guiding philosophy of this Government, and it worries me. Returning to the provisions of the Bill, honourable members know very well that it is to repeal the Aliens Act of 1947. That Act was introduced in 1947 by the Rt Hon. Arthur Calwell, Minister for Immigration. In presenting the measure to the House of Representatives, the Minister, Arthur Calwell, put forward two major reasons for the legislation. They seem to be two major reasons which the present Minister for Immigration has forgotten or ignored. On his record, I think it would be the latter. The first was: The registration of aliens would provide information about the aliens resident in Australia; That is valuable information. Secondly: The measure would provide data for an analysis of Australia's alien population so that the Government may implement its immigration policy on sound and scientific lines. The Minister then went on to list the specific measures and matters for which information was required. They were: (a) the growth of foreign population within the Commonwealth; (b) the particular industrial groups into which aliens fall; (c) the prevention of undesirable concentrations either in industries or localities; . . . . (e) the aiding of industrial expansion; (f) the absorption of aliens into the Australian community. I concede that a number of those information requirements are no longer necessary; there are other methods of compiling that data. But one or two of them serve a very useful purpose. An alien register can assist the Government in formulating its policy on the basis of statistical data. The main provisions of the Act of 1947 required that: (a) A Register of aliens be maintained in each State or Territory; (b) Aliens be required to register; (c) All registered aliens be required to notify any change of address or occupation, or marriage; It was found, not unexpectedly, that notification of change of address or occupation was not adhered to in the majority of cases, even though compliance was encouraged and procedures to facilitate notification had been introduced. In 1965 the then Minister for Immigration, the Hon. H. F. Opperman, introduced an amendment Act. That Act provided that notification of address, occupation and marital status be done only annually. It was believed at the time that this would result in a more accurate up to date register of aliens and that it would be less onerous for aliens to comply with the legislation. The next step in the history of this legislation was the Aliens Bill of 1973. The main purpose of that Bill was to eliminate the annual notification introduced by the 1965 Act. A principal reason for abolishing that requirement was again, not unexpectedly, that compliance in respect of the advising of change of address and marital status had dropped. Moreover, the large number of persons involved made prosecution for non-compliance quite unrealistic. But the bottom line was that at that time the Act still required aliens to register initially on entering the country. This measure seems to me an extremely practical commonsense point of view. It provides the statistics as well as providing the Government with information about who is entering the country, where from and their purpose for entering the country. This is of particular importance at the moment when the Auditor-General 's report, just released, has advised the Parliament that there are an estimated 50,000 illegal immigrants in Australia. Mr Lloyd —How many? Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member for Murray asks me to repeat that figure. It is 50,000. Moreover, it is increasing at the rate of 15,000 a year. The reason for this, as the Auditor-General makes very clear, is that the Government is failing to monitor properly entrants into Australia. Today the Government is proposing to abolish one mechanism-in my view probably the most important and most sensible mechanism-of monitoring those who enter Australia and their subsequent movements. Mr Millar —Ben Chifley thought so. Mr McGAURAN —Certainly. As the honourable member for Wide Bay points out, the then Prime Minister, Ben Chifley, and his Minister for Immigration, the Rt Hon. Arthur Calwell, in 1947-- Mr Katter —Very fine Ministers. Mr McGAURAN —They were very fine Ministers, as the honourable member for Kennedy points out. No doubt the logic of those times holds as good today as it did then . Of course, the Government has made out that this Act is discriminatory and that it is outmoded. In what way is it discriminatory in that it requires immigrants to this country, visitors to this country, to register with the government of the time so that that government has knowledge of their purpose and, in some cases, their whereabouts? It seems that the United States of America and many European countries, including the United Kingdom, which all maintain an alien register, are discriminatory. That is a holier than thou position which I utterly reject; it has been rejected by the shadow Minister for Immigration, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), on behalf of the Opposition. If the word 'alien' is offensive to the Government, I have no objection to its being changed and replaced by the word 'migrant'. If it wishes the alien register to be called a migrant register I have no objection to that. But I strongly object to the Government removing a very important measure which assists our national security. In summary, we have seen a classic piece of legislation introduced by the Left' s representative in the Cabinet to pacify his supporters. The national security of this country is gravely threatened by the Government's actions in surrendering its responsibility to know who is entering this country and under what circumstances. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(11.37) —Usually, following a speech by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), one is able to respond to some reasonable arguments, but on this occasion there was no substance in the comments made by the honourable member for Gippsland, and it is not worth commenting further on them. I want to take up the issue raised at some length by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). He kept referring to the national security of this country and suggesting in his usual flamboyant way that the Aliens Act Repeal Bill will threaten our national security. He based his argument on the increase in prohibited immigrants. But there are no figures which indicate a greater increase in prohibited immigrants during this Government's term of office than that which occurred under previous Liberal-National Party governments. In fact, it is somewhat ironical that the honourable member for Denison, who speaks loudly about the values of freedom and democracy, wishes to curb the freedom of those who cannot be regarded as enemies of the state. Many of these non-British people whom the honourable member for Denison wishes to shackle have contributed largely to the prosperity of this country. I would have thought that the honourable member for Denison would have been in the front line in the fight to extend freedom to those people. It gives me great pleasure to support the Aliens Act Repeal Bill which is before the House. I had the somewhat unique experience of entering this House as a British subject, and I was the only member of this House who was a British subject, but I have, I might add, since then assumed the status of an Australian citizen, and I am very proud to be one. If I had been a non-British subject I would not have been in a position to enter this House. This is what discrimination is about. This is why we have a Bill of this order which is in line with other Bills in the area of migration which are attempting to eliminate discrimination in all its forms. We are a Party that is opposed to discrimination in whatever quarter it comes. Let us be quite clear about this Bill. It attempts to replace a discriminatory- again we have the word 'discriminatory'-piece of legislation which failed to recognise the multicultural nature of this country. We are not all Anglo-Saxons in this country. Some of us, like me, are very proud of our heritage but I am also proud of my present status in this country and I am proud to represent an electorate which has a very large Anglo-Saxon element. I welcome the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Denison, to the House. I am sorry he was not here earlier when I made some comments about him. Mr Hodgman —I will read it in Hansard. Mr BLANCHARD —Right. The original legislation was intended largely to provide information concerning the non-British population, including its distribution by industry and locality, and to provide a basis for imposing limitations on entry or stay if considered necessary. The Aliens Act succeeded the National Security (Aliens Control) Regulations. As has been pointed out by the honourable member for Gippsland, there have been a number of amendments to the Aliens Act which have basically resulted in that Act requiring that non-British residents register, notify the Department if they marry, and obtain consent to change their surnames. I return to the issue of national security raised by the honourable member for Denison. From recent and not so recent disclosures in the British Press, can one really say that there are greater risks to our national security from the non- British than from other sections of our community? We have to recognise that the Aliens Act was not only discriminatory but also ineffective. Despite the years in office which the parties opposite have had, the Department has not fully maintained the register. In other words, there have been errors on the part of the bureaucracy in maintaining that register and few people have complied with the notification requirements. If the honourable members opposite were honest they would admit that they were guilty of contributing to the demise of the original legislation. It is simply untrue for the Opposition to claim that there will be no real checks on persons coming into and out of Australia. Whilst the Auditor-General rightly pointed out some faults in the system of controls through the issuance of visas, passenger cards and the entry permit system, it is also true that the Department is trying to improve the system of entry control. I agree, and I am sure that all members of this House will agree, that we want to reduce the number of prohibited migrants, and I trust that the Department will examine ways and means of achieving that goal. As the Auditor-General said, it is believed that there are something like 50,000 prohibited migrants in the country at this stage, but the point at issue is that we do not know the true numbers and it will be very difficult to establish the true figure. I note that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), in his second reading speech, said that his Department had been given the responsibility of preparing guidelines for access to the computerised information dealing with those entering or leaving Australia and that these guidelines have been drawn up in consultation with other interested departments and authorities. The Minister went on to state that the Government would closely and carefully consider those guidelines to ensure that personal information provided to his Department by those seeking either to enter or to remain in Australia was properly protected from unnecessary exposure. In closing, I wish to state that this Bill is another attempt by the Government to remove the discriminatory provisions that have occurred in the various migration Acts that we have had in this country. These attempts are expressions of the Government's concern to remove discrimination from whatever source and from whatever quarter. I consider the arguments of the Opposition that the Bill will threaten national security to be spurious. The Bill is worthy of the support of this House and I commend it to the House. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(11.47) —Before the House today we have the Aliens Act Repeal Bill which seeks to abolish the Aliens Act. In the last session of Parliament the House in its wisdom abolished the legal category 'aliens', so in Australia there is no such legal entity. It follows on quite naturally that the House should abolish any Bill which calls for the registration of aliens. I feel that much of the debate in this House today has proceeded on certain lines because members of the Opposition have failed to read the Aliens Act which we are in the process of repealing. With only two members of the Opposition present in the House, the so- called threat to national security must be a very small threat. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. That is improper conduct considering there are only three and a half members of the Government present. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. Mr MAHER —The Aliens Act called on non-British residents to register in a prescribed manner. It did not apply to the Irish, the Canadians, the Indians, the Pakistanis, Hong Kong citizens, people from Fiji or Tonga or any other member or former member of the British Commonwealth of Nations because they had British status and they were not required to register. The Aliens Act is totally redundant and the Government has quite rightly and properly moved to take away this legislation. I was somewhat appalled at the proposals of the honourable member for Denison ( Mr Hodgman) and by his hysterical outburst when he claimed that some of our migrants are a threat to national security. I challenge the honourable member for Denison to nominate which national group is a threat. Is it the Irish or the British? Is it the Italians or the Greeks? Mr Holding —The British Establishment had problems. Mr MAHER —The honourable member for Denison has made an outrageous attack on some of the people who have come to this country. As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has pointed out, in the United Kingdom, when Russian spies and traitors have been exposed, they have always been members of the Establishment. Who was Philby? Who was McLean? Who was Lord Haw-Haw and who were some of the others who betrayed their nation? They were members of the Establishment. They were not humble migrants who came to work, to make a living and to seek a better life for their families and themselves. I say to the honourable member for Denison that what he has put to the House today is nonsense and hysteria. Unfortunately, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) also spoke about drug runners coming into the country. That was also sheer nonsense because under the Aliens Act people had to register only if they were staying in this country permanently or were to be here for more than 12 months. The arguments advanced by the Opposition are nonsensical and hysterical. I know the House will support the Bill. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(11.50) —in reply-I am sorry to say that in the debate on the Aliens Act Repeal Bill the Opposition has once again, either unintentionally or intentionally, confused the issues. The Opposition has today taken up two issues. The first is the legislation itself which seeks to repeal the obsolete Aliens Act. The second, by which it has sought to confuse the issue, is the problem of illegal non-citizens in this country and the means of detecting them and of providing lists to the enforcement section of my Department. There is no connection between these two issues. I explain that statement by telling the House why the Aliens Act is now obsolete. It was intended by the previous Government to repeal the Aliens Act. I make that point clear from the outset. The Aliens Act requires non-British subjects to register and to notify the Department if they marry and to obtain its consent if they wish to change their surname. Before the Migration Act was amended by this Government, it contained the terms 'immigrants' and 'aliens' to describe Commonwealth and non-Common- wealth citizens respectively. Commonwealth citizens were called immigrants and non-Commonwealth citizens were called aliens . Since the amendments introduced and passed by this Government last year, those terms are no longer relevant. 'Alien' is no longer a legal term in the Migration Act. The correct terminologies are now 'citizens', 'non-citizens' and 'illegal non-citizens'. The term 'non-citizen' applies to permanent residents who are not yet citizens; the latter term refers to those who were previously called illegal immigrants. As has already been referred to during debate, the same amendments to the Migration Act provide that no person legally in Australia as a permanent resident or a citizen can be deported after 10 years' residence less time spent in prison. The point was that there was discrimination in the Migration Act in that Commonwealth citizens who were termed immigrants were not deportable after five years' residence, whereas those who were called aliens were always deportable. This Government removed the discrimination so that everyone was put on the same basis. The discriminatory terms 'immigrants' and 'aliens' were dropped and replaced by the terms 'citizens' and 'non-citizens'. The term 'alien ' thus became obsolete. Deportation of criminals is no longer discriminatory. This is really a digression. The fundamental point is that everyone agrees that the Aliens Act is obsolete and no longer relevant to the statutes of this country. Registration under the Aliens Act has been running down for years, not just under this Government, but also under the previous Government. It was not being administered. It was left in place merely as a universally acknowledged inefficient means of satisfying some aspects of national security interests and arrangements. That is the point. I stress that, despite all the carping criticism and opportunist nonsense I have just heard from Opposition speakers, when I took over this Department in March of last year one of the first documents I inherited from the previous Government was a Cabinet submission to abolish the Aliens Act. It had been prepared by my predecessors. I could see that they were right and that that should continue. There was an even greater need to abolish the Aliens Act because I intended to amend the Migration Act, as we subsequently did, to remove the term 'aliens' from the statute. Not only did I inherit this Bill from former Ministers; I also perceived a greater need to introduce it because the amendments this Government made to the Migration Act meant that the term 'aliens' was no longer a description under that Act. I turn now to the only real reason that the Aliens Act was not repealed years ago. It is because there were then no alternative means of holding information which the security authorities might legitimately be entitled to obtain, even though it was recognised by the former Government that the register was an inefficient means of providing information. Now there is an alternative system to the old manual system of processing departures and arrivals. It is called PACT or processing and control of travel. It holds information on a very extensive computer system. It is still under development. With respect to security, the question arises of whether PACT is better than the old system as provided in the Act that is being repealed. Of course, the advice of those involved with security in this country was sought. They have endorsed the PACT proposal as a basis for meeting national security interests. They have informed the Government and me that if the Aliens Act is repealed no present or perceived need is seen to replace those powers which are lost by repeal of the Act. To suggest that in some way the Government and I are somehow jeopardising national security arrangements by repealing this obsolete Act, as intended by the previous Government, is an example of arrant nonsense and opportunism of the worst kind. The Government is most concerned to protect unauthorised and unnecessary disclosures of information from the new PACT system. It is currently considering guidelines for access to that system to ensure that national security arrangements will be secure and that the rights of individuals will be protected . The Government will prepare guidelines to be introduced to see that this new system is secure and that the rights of individuals are protected. Before I conclude my remarks on this subject, I emphasise the important point that the legislation was inherited by this Government. I put it to the House that this simply means that what the spokesperson for the Opposition has said was mere opportunism. The former Government was in the process of abolishing the Act. The need for an aliens register was no longer perceived to exist. In fact, it was not being administered properly or extensively under the previous Government. I now turn to a brief description of the PACT system. The object of the PACT system is to provide a comprehensive system of control of entry and departure and to bring together information from a number of departments. Its development will be in stages. Stage 1 is already operational. It is based on existing information which is received from incoming passenger cards and is held on computer in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Stage 2 will establish a pre-movement data base. It will use a diplomatic communications network and will record details of visas issued overseas. Stage 3 is to make information in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs available to the Customs computer so that primary line officers at airports and ports will be able to assess it. PACT involves microfilming visas, migration applications lodged overseas with a computer index. There will be copies at overseas posts in Australia. This information will be available to protect national security interests and make the aliens register unnecessary and allow for its repeal in the package of legislation removing discrimination. Among the benefits of PACT will be the provision for faster primary line processing. The error rate will be reduced and the passenger card data processing work load will be significantly reduced. Statistics on visitor and migrant arrivals will be more accurate and timely and legitimate security will be tightened. I assure the House that this will be done under the very strict guidelines to be finalised by the Government. I turn to the second issue that was introduced, quite opportunistically, by members of the Opposition, who put so much stress on the problem of apprehending and if necessary deporting illegal non-citizens from this country. That is not connected with this issue of repealing the Aliens Act-not at all. The problem of illegals is not new. However, Australia is fortunate in this regard because it has no land borders with any other nation. In this regard we are unlike the United States of America, which I recently visited, and which has a horrendous problem of illegal immigrants. It has problems with people from Mexico who are seeking an improved economic existence and with political refugees from Central America. I was told by the United States Attorney-General in discussions with him the week before last that there are about 700,000 El Salvadorean illegals in the United States and about seven million illegal immigrants in total. I took the opportunity to see Senator Simpson and a leading Republican member of the House of Representatives, Hamilton Fish, who are sponsoring a Bill to control illegal immigration in the United States. There is a massive problem there. If there is a problem here, it is small compared with that suffered by the United States and other nations. Their problems are much worse. Mr Donald Cameron —How many illegal immigrants are there in Australia? Mr WEST —I now turn to the figures of illegal immigration. It is said that there are 50,000 in Australia and the rate of increase could range from 6,000 to 15, 000 a year. If these figures are correct, and they are estimates only, they are predominantly of people who have overstayed their visitors permits and not people who have come to our shores in a clandestine fashion. The figure of 50, 000 is an estimate and the figure was approximately the same when I arrived in my present portfolio. It has remained the same for three or four years. On the rate of apprehension of illegal immigrants, in 1983-84 2,018 illegal immigrants were located and 1,601 were taken into custody. In 1982-83 1,877 were located and 1,350 taken into custody. Of the 1983-84 figures, 10.7 per cent were Malaysians and they headed the list. Other figures were 8.7 per cent for United Kingdom citizens, 8.5 per cent for Fijians, 7.7 per cent for Indonesians, and 7. 6 per cent for Tongans. I shall now address the question that was introduced into the debate by the Opposition-the Auditor-General's report and the claim that there should be improved methods of compiling lists of illegal immigrants. Over the past 12 months my Department has developed and implemented a computerised system for recording the arrivals and departures of all international travellers. From this record we can identify who is either illegally or legally in Australia. A computerised list of illegals who arrived since 1980 is available, but we are not confident that the list is accurate, given that the information is fed manually into the system-- Mr Hodgman —Shameful. Mr WEST —We inherited this problem. You were in office for years and years and you did nothing about it. Mr Hodgman —You have had 18 months. Mr WEST —We are trying to improve the system and to computerise it. However we are not confident that the register accurately reflects extensions of stay or changes in status. The system, known as the movements database, is continually being upgraded and purified. This is a time-consuming and expensive exercise and requires the computerisation and computer link-up of all regional and area offices of the Department. The Auditor-General commented in his report that the Department has been slow to make use of developing technology. It has only been some 12 months since the Department first acquired its own secondhand computer. It was quickly realised that it needed a larger computer power base and this was acquired only recently. I cannot agree that the Department has been slow to make use of the new technology. The Auditor-General found that the number of illegal immigrants was increasing by about 15,000 per year. The Department believes from its information holdings that the figure increases not by 15,000 but by 6,000 to 10,000 a year. It should be noted that the number of illegal immigrants to leave Australia in the years 1982 to 1984, either by way of deportation or by voluntary departure, far exceeded the number in previous years. The Auditor-General's report implies that the Department is locating and apprehending only a relatively small proportion of the number of illegal immigrants. The Auditor-General has not referred to the large number of illegal immigrants who contact the Department and maintain that contact while their applications for extension or permanent residence are being processed. I believe that the Department's and the Government's actions relating to illegal immigrants are fairly effective-the Department would say highly effective-and surpass in many cases the results achieved in comparable countries . (Extension of time granted) It should be noted that the Aliens Act relates only to non-British subjects and the largest proportion of illegal immigrants are British subjects. I conclude my summing up by suggesting that I have answered the opportunist attacks that have been made on our action in repealing the Aliens Act. I have clearly illustrated that there is no connection between the decision to repeal the obsolete, outmoded and discriminatory Aliens Act-the legal term 'alien' is no longer in the Act and the repealing of the Act complements the changes already made to the Migration Act-and the compiling of lists, and the location, apprehension and possible deportation of illegal immigrants. I am not completely satisfied in my own mind that what we have seen so far in regard to illegal non- citizens is the ultimate in what can be expected. The House has my assurance that the report of the Auditor-General will be thoroughly analysed, that I will see the reports from the Department, and that I will press the Department to upgrade further its facilities with regard to the detection and apprehension of illegal immigrants. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. There has been a power failure in the building. The Opposition will oppose this Bill, but for practical reasons a division cannot be called. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.15) —I will be brief in my comments and say only that the Opposition is totally unimpressed with the arguments advanced by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) and by some of the speeches of Government members, particularly the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher). Mr Maher —You were not here. Mr HODGMAN —I was here. The honourable member ought to get a new pair of glasses . I was here when he spoke and I heard his outrageously hypocritical speech on this Bill. The Minister has totally overlooked the fact that this legislation originally came into effect as a regulation when John Curtin was Prime Minister of Australia. He was a distinguished Labor Prime Minister. It became an Act in 1947 when Ben Chifley was Prime Minister of Australia. He was a distinguished Labor Prime Minister. It was amended in 1952 when R. G. Menzies, a very great Australian, was Prime Minister. It was amended again in 1959 when Mr Menzies, later Sir Robert, was Prime Minister. It was amended again in 1965, again when Sir Robert Menzies was Prime Minister. It was amended again in 1966 when the late Harold Holt was Prime Minister, and last but not least it was amended in no fewer than 20 instances in 1973 when the Hon. E. G. Whitlam was Prime Minister of Australia. I make the point that Mr Whitlam and his Government did not dare to move to repeal the Aliens Act. If this law was good enough for John Curtin, Ben Chifley, Bob Menzies, Harold Holt and Gough Whitlam, I ask why on earth it is not good enough for Bob Hawke and Stewart West. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr West)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(12.19) —I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not opposing the provisions of the Bill, the House is of the opinion that the Government should extend the objects of the Bill to take account of all of its proposed amendments in the field of industrial legislation'. I have moved that amendment because the Opposition wishes to draw the attention of the Australian people to the deception of this Government in the field of industrial relations legislation. This Bill is itself an innocuous measure. It is a mere wimp and we do not oppose it. We do oppose the legislation which the Government is committed to enacting but which has not yet been produced. We want the Government to tell us and to tell the Australian people when it plans to introduce its radical legislation. This Government claims consensus; yet its hidden agenda on industrial relations is designed to remove any remaining restrictions on the unbridled use of union power while at the same time increasing the obligations, the demands, the pains and the penalties on employers. Let there be no misunderstanding: Regardless of the outcome of any inquiries which may be going on, the Government is irretrievably bound and committed through its own Australian Labor Party policy and through the accord to take certain action. To quote from parts of the policy, the Government is committed to 'exempt unions from the provisions of the Trade Practices Act', ' the repeal of all penal provisions directed at unions and union members', and ' the provision of a limited immunity for unions, their officials and members against common law actions in tort brought in respect of industrial action'. Each of those is a quotation from ALP policy. The Government has been in office now for 15 or 16 months and this is the fourth parliamentary session. Why has it not brought this legislation forward? Is it because it is hoping to keep the illusion of consensus, of sweetness and light, with the business community and at the same time hoping that it can then gain election on the basis that it is being all things to all people? How long will the Australian Council of Trade Unions in fact allow the Government to wait ? The Government proposes an early election but it has not kept its promises. It has not kept faith with the unions. It has not legislated in accordance with ALP policy or the prices and incomes accord, and one has to ask: Why not? Is it because the Government is hoping the unions will wait a little longer so that it can lull the employers into a false sense of security? It would be false. The agenda may be somewhat concealed but the agenda is there nonetheless and I intend to draw the attention of the House to it. Why has it not been acted upon? I suggest it is because the Government wants to convince the business community that it is the business community's friend, that it is a moderate government. It hopes that by so creating that impression it will be re-elected. What then of its promises to the union movement? Surely, if the Government is re-elected, the union movement will then want to have its promises fulfilled. The employers then will be utterly without protection if they are taken on by a militant rogue union, and there are several well known examples of those. So, the classic piece of legislation to which this Government is committed and which it should have before the House if it is being honest with the Australian people and the business community in particular concerns the repeal of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. ALP policy obliges the Government to do what I have said-that is, to exempt unions from provisions of the Trade Practices Act. That is its understanding with the trade union movement through the accord as well. So where is the simple legislation repealing those provisions? I suggest that the Government is delaying because it wants to continue to convey to the public the impression that it has the support of the business community. But the Government knows that it has not got the support of the business community on that matter. Indeed, all elements of the business community have unanimously, unambiguously and most vocally said that they want those provisions in the Trade Practices Act to remain and that it would be a tragedy to repeal them. Let me quote some of the submissions which the Government has received regarding the repeal of section 45D. Let me make it quite clear that not only have all the business organisations condemned the proposition and the promise of the Government to act in that manner but also none of them-not one industry or company-has even said that the Government is right in what it has promised to do . But this is the government of consultation and consensus. This is what it has been told by the business community of Australia and this is why it is now equivocating. The Business Council of Australia said: (The removal of 45D) will mean that a very large and powerful group will no longer be subject to the laws applying to the rest of the community. Sections (45D and E) were not designed to 'resolve the underlying issues', but to provide a means to restrain and discourage secondary boycotts . . . These sections have provided a most useful mechanism to meet bans and boycotts and have been of great assistance in many cases in helping to resolve quite a large number of such 'confrontation' situations. An important element of Trade Practices legislation is the principle that persons should be able to conduct their business activities in Australia unimpeded by the conduct by third parties acting in their own interests. To deny persons access to the injunctive and other relief provided by the secondary boycotts provisions because industrial action was involved, would be to deny those persons a fundamental right shared with all other members of the Australian community. Secondary boycott situations may only be dealt with by an industrial tribunal to the extent to which they affect the industrial relations between the target employer and its employees. Industrial tribunals will have little ability to solve the eventual disputation between the third party and the target and the third party and its employees. For this reason the secondary boycotts provisions must be retained to provide a legislative framework and a forum for dealing with this aspect of these disputes. To claim that a sanction-the only effective remaining sanction that exists for one side of the industrial fence-is not wanted by the Trade Unions and is consequently bad for industrial relations, is a very myopic and one-sided approach. The logical extension is to say anything unions dislike ought to be eliminated. To repeal these sections is to accept that one sectoral interest alone, and that, an already highly powerful sectoral interest, is entitled to a privileged or immune position in society, outside the normal reach of the law. That is from the Business Council of Australia at whose inaugural luncheon the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) spoke and promised, as he had at the Summit and elsewhere, that there would be close consultation and that the Government would do its best to meet the wishes of that important organisation. Two of the major members of the Council are members of the Economic Planning Advisory Council. In all other respects the Government says it is in close contact with that organisation and its members. Here we have the clearest statement that the Council does not want the Government to legislate in the way in which it is committed and it is now time for the Government to say whether and when it intends to carry out its obligations under its policy and commitment to the trade union movement. If it is not, it is now obliged to tell the trade union movement why it is not doing that. The Australian Retailers Association is another one which urged the Government not to produce legislation of that character. The Association said: The retail industry generally, including the distribution of goods to retailers is especially vulnerable to secondary boycott action, for reasons which are self evident. In addition, the community as a whole is at risk as to the supply of goods, often of a basic nature. By repealing Sections 45D and 45E the Government would allow one section of the community only to interfere with the orderly and competitive process and would to that extent deny any redress of any kind. The Australian Chamber of Shipping had similar comments. It stated: Legal redress of the kind provided by Section 45D is essential to the Shipping Industry and is in the best Australian public interest. In the absence of legal redress of the kind provided by Section 45D, shipping companies are at the mercy of the Maritime Trade Unions. There is no viable alternative legal redress. The cost of delay and the damage to Australia's international reputation as a trading nation, caused by industrial action of the kind rendered unlawful by Section 45D, are costs which inevitably substantially fall upon the whole Australian community. The Metal Trades Industry Association, one of the largest organisations of this type in Australia, had this to say: MTIA strongly opposes the proposal to remove the secondary boycott provisions from the Act . . . The secondary boycott is demonstrably an unfair trade practice which should be the subject of legislative proscription . . . There is a lack of concrete evidence produced by the Government to support the need for proposed change. The last quote comes from the largest of all the organisations-the Confederation of Australian Industry. The organisation had this to say: Whilst trade unions have a legitimate role in Australian society, they should not be considered to be above the law. The removal of (the 45D and E) provisions . . . would in our submission be seen as the application of a gross double standard, since government is proposing further and greater restrictions on industry on the one hand, but is on the other hand proposing to remove the only effective legal strictures applicable to secondary boycotts by trade unions. The repeal of Section 45D . . . would leave an employer faced with a secondary boycott with virtually no effective response, and would also amount in effect to a legitimisation of secondary boycotts as an industrial tactic. This would necessarily encourage the use of secondary boycotts, and thus would lead to an increase in the number of such boycotts faced by employers. If the Government needed any further advice it should heed the words of a respected Victorian industrial barrister, Mr Alan Stockdale, who wrote in the summer 1984 edition of the IPA Review. I will quote substantial but not sequential slabs of this article because what he said is extremely important for the functioning of and the confidence in our system of conciliation and arbitration. Mr Stockdale said: The Hawke Government is moving Australia to a pattern of industrial relations in which legal sanctions are imposed on employers but unions are above any legally enforceable restraint. ALP policy proposes immunity for unions from any sanctions under the Trade Practices Act and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act . . . . . One of the roles of law in a liberal, democratic society is to prevent private coercion and help resolve conflicts by the consistent application of just rules. Apart from the Trade Practices Act, Australia's industrial laws have failed lamentably in this role in the last 15 years. Federal Labor policies threaten to aggravate this trend and continue to achieve their own ends without regard to the public interest. Just application of law is probably a necessary requisite for the long-term survival of any industrial relations system. The unbalanced application of the law in the Australian Arbitration system has become a powerful factor in undermining public support for the system. There is no doubt that the law can be a powerful instrument for influencing industrial relations and that as an aspect of this legal sanctions have a role to play. One area where the law has been effective in regulating industrial relations is in the area of secondary boycotts. Unions have developed this tactic for situations where direct applications of ' industrial muscle' would be ineffective. A secondary boycott consists of picketing, bans and/or other industrial action against a third party which prevents the 'target' delivering his goods to his customers or obtaining goods from his suppliers. Section 45D of the Trade Practices Act has proven very effective in countering secondary boycotts. The section prohibits most secondary boycotts and the Act otherwise provides a comprehensive armoury of enforcement provisions. It provides for very substantial pecuniary penalties, makes offenders liable in damages for losses arising from any boycott and provides for speedy injunctions against boycotts. The principal remedy is by injunction and in this area the law has been very effective indeed. In virtually all cases the granting of an injunction has resulted in a speedy end to union action. In most cases, disputes have been resolved after an injunction was granted without resort to the longer proceedings to recover damages. It is particularly significant that Section 45D has been successfully used against extremely militant unions such as the BLF (The Scissor Lifts Case) and the Seamen's Union (The Utah Case). In many cases, the mere threat of Section 45D proceedings has been followed by a cessation of industrial action. The Section 45D experience has convincingly demonstrated the efficacy of industrial sanctions. It contradicts the common argument that sanctions are ineffective and harm industrial relations. . . . . The ALP's Federal platform commits it to increased regulation, greater enforcement powers and higher sanctions in relation to business conduct. Implicit in these policies is a recognition that- government has a responsibility for balancing economic interests through law, and that proper discharge of that responsibility requires effective legal sanctions. These principles are the reverse of the assumptions implicit in ALP industrial relations policy. Wittingly or unwittingly it is a policy which leads to the promotion of union interests at the expense of the public interest. It provides for- removal of 'pains and penalties' from industrial legislation, repeal of provisions for penalties upon industrial action, repeal of all penalties directed at unions and unionists, exemption of unions from the Trade Practices Act, and 'limited immunity' of unions and unionists from civil liability for damage caused by industrial action. By contrast with the Trade Practices Act, the enforcement provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act have been emasculated. As a result experience under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act stands in sharp contrast to the effective operation of Section 45D. The Government's policies contrast sharply with trends to restrain union power in other developed countries, with its policies towards other community groups and with the success of Section 45D in moderating union excesses. Unions have demanded emasculation of the Trade Practices Act, too, not because sanctions have failed but because Section 45D has worked as an effective restraint on union power. The current recession has tended to obscure the inability of '' consensus'' industrial relations to cope with unions which refuse to recognise any interest other than their own. Most unions have been prepared to forgo the exercise of their power in the wider public interest. The major exception has been the Food Preservers Union which refused to accept the new national wage system and embarked on a campaign of industrial action resulting in wage increases in excess of the national wage standard. The success of the FPU campaign bodes ill for a system ill-equipped to effectively pressure the determined recalcitrant. Improving economic circumstances seem certain to expose the inability of our industrial system to deal with the ''hard cases.'' The removal of all restraint on the exercise of union's power threatens not only sustained recovery but the freedom of individuals. Provision of a rational industrial relations framework demands that Government restore the authority of industrial tribunals by again endowing them with the power to initiate the application of prompt and effective sanctions against unjustified industrial action. . . . . Public confidence in the system has declined and hostile attitudes towards trade unions have increased. Australians have a strong sense of fairness and justice, and placing any set of institutions above the law can only in the end lead the people to regard them as unfairly privileged and to view them with hostility. In the long run, therefore, it is in the interests of a healthy and strong trade union movement in Australia that the law be seen to be equitable and fairly applied to all elements in industry. Criticism of the arbitration system is only likely to continue to mount without a restoration of balance to the Act. The Labor Party could do nothing more effective in ultimately destroying the arbitration system in this country than continuing its policy of placing unions beyond the law. Difficult as the application of penalties may sometimes be, effective sanctions are in the end a vital underpinning of public support for whatever system of industrial relations we may have. The public interest in a proper balance between unions and employers requires legislation for effective sanctions against breaches of awards and agreements, provision of power for courts to grant injunctions (including interim and interlocutory injunctions) restraining breaches of contracts, awards and agreements, and enactment of provisions giving courts power to award damages promptly where unlawful union actions cause loss or damage to others in the community. I quoted at length from that article by an experienced barrister in industrial law because, along with the very comprehensive and extensive submissions of industry organisations to the Government, there is set out very firmly a case against legislation to which the Government is committed. Business leaders are now asking why it is that we have legislation of the kind before us today when the Government continues to say it is committed to repealing those sections of the Trade Practices Act and when it would be simple to produce that legislation. Why is that legislation not before us? Will the Government state categorically that it will go back on that promise and, if not, let it have the courage to tell those people in the business community whom it is trying to win that indeed it will now take the action which is foreboded in those submissions and the article from which I have quoted. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that in May 1984 the Business Council of Australia, in its analysis of the Green Paper produced by the Government on changes to the Trade Practices Act, set out a number of case studies, including that of the Scissor lifts dispute to which I have referred. I will not read it because of the time involved but it is at page 54 of the Business Council of Australia's submission, which is publicly available. It is worth reading to illustrate the problems which industry will face if the Government goes ahead with legislation to carry out its promise to repeal sections 45D and 45E. I also make reference to page 60 of the same submission, which refers to the recent banning of Continental Airlines flights. It makes it very clear that the activities undertaken by the trade unions related to a dispute between Continental and its employees in the United States. Therefore, no industrial tribunal in Australia had jurisdiction over the matter. Thus, the confidence of investors from the United States, Japan and elsewhere would be greatly shaken if the one area of Australian law which could be effective, and indeed was effective, in getting a cessation of the industrial activity were repealed; that is, the sections of the Trade Practices Act to which I have referred. The use and the threatened use of those sections brought that dispute to an end. That would not otherwise have been possible. I refer not just to the Business Council but also to the Australian Retailers Association's submissions in respect of those sections of the Trade Practices Act. It is stated on page 9 of that organisation's submission: In an era where Government in Australia is endeavouring to encourage increased trade with other countries and to demonstrate the responsible attitude of the Australian trade union movement generally, it is submitted that it would enhance the confidence of U.S., Japanese and other companies if this legislation were to remain. The Opposition strongly supports those sentiments. It is not very long ago that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) went to the Pilbara and established an iron ore industry council, with the ambassadors of Japan and China present, to try to assure them that the Australian Government, the trade union movement and the employers had things under control. I can only say that the history of disputes in the Pilbara and in Australian coastal and international shipping as a result of action by the Seamen's Union of Australia and other unions is such that none of those investors would feel any confidence if the one area that might be used- that is, sections 45D and 45E-were taken away. By contrast, the Opposition has a policy which seeks to create a tribunal with the power to enforce contracts of service by civil sanctions-actions for breach of civil contract-and a power of injunction, those powers being available expeditiously for the imposition and collection of damages. Certainly, our policy is against the capricious use of such provisions and indeed by having two wings-the judicial wing and the non-judicial wing of the one tribunal with the same personnel-it would be quite easy to ensure that any capricious use of the sanctions was not carried through, because if there was prospect of the dispute being settled without the imposition of sanctions the matter would be moved into the conciliation and arbitration wing. The important point is to have expeditious powers available and powers which can be carried through in the event of there being rogue unions, such as the Food Preservers Union and the Builders Labourers Federation. The Business Council of Australia has prepared a very extensive list of disputes which have been mounted under section 45D. I seek leave to table a very extensive list of cases for the information of honourable members. Leave granted. Mr MACPHEE —I believe that the list will indicate what a serious commitment the Government has made and how seriously the business community views it. I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), in his response at the end of this debate, to indicate whether the Government is prepared to tell the trade unions that it will not go through with that commitment. If it does intend to go through with it, it should tell the business community so unequivocally and face its criticism and condemnation as an election issue. The lifting of the bans on 100 ships around Australia which occurred last month reinforced the Opposition's determination to fight the repeal of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. Yet again, section 45D had the result of getting industrial action lifted and getting the dispute back where it belonged-that is, around the negotiating table. Without the availability of section 45D there is no doubt that employers would have been forced to give in to the demands of the maritime unions. Shipping companies are particularly vulnerable, as we know, to secondary boycotts, because of the huge costs involved in keeping ships tied up in port. The Government is showing itself to be grossly irresponsible in proposing the repeal of section 45D at a time when Australia's strike record in the shipping industry is far and away the worst in the world. The threat of section 45D action is currently the only effective legislative sanction against that abuse of union power. Indeed, it is so effective that the mere threat of action invariably has had the effect of bringing irresponsible unionists to their senses. No fines or damages have ever been imposed. There is no substance to union claims that the legislation has been punitive in effect. There is worse in store for the employers as a result of other commitments which the Government appears to have made. Worse is to come in the sense that the Federal Government, as I understand it-I ask the Minister to make the record absolutely clear-is planning to move to legislate to remove the common law protection which employers have against union boycotts. The removal of sections 45D and 45E would be bad enough-that would make it crucial that common law remedies be available-but if the common law remedies were removed there would be no protection whatsoever for industry in the event of a rogue union being determined to impose its will by way of illegal secondary boycotts. I ask the Minister to make the position quite clear. Any suggestions that this section might be transferred to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act ought also to be seen as hollow. The Swanson Trade Practices Act Review Committee of many years ago made it quite clear that this would not be an effective way of dealing with collective boycott situations. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —There is a great desire to ask questions of the Treasurer. I assume that he will turn up to face them. In the meantime I will ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I refer to the claim made by the Prime Minister that Mr Black had access to all the information relevant to the Young affair. Is the Minister aware that the report of 20 July to Senator Button from the Bureau of Customs in Adelaide is not specifically listed in the report of the Black Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration as having been considered? Can he tell the House whether that Customs report was considered by Mr Black? If it was not considered , why did the Government not offer it to Mr Black as an expert assessment of the events? Mr JOHN BROWN —I cannot give an accurate answer to that question. Because that is the case, I will refer it to the Minister in the other place and make sure that the Leader of the Opposition is furnished with an answer today. Mrs KELLY —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. What is the reason for the 22.6 per cent increase in total income tax in the 1984-85 Budget? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Canberra for her question. Gross pay as you earn tax is estimated to increase in 1984-85 by 10.7 per cent. A substantial element of this increase is, of course, because of employment growth. During 1984-85 there will be employment growth of about 3.25 per cent. To put it in a way which even the Opposition may be able to understand, it is best illustrated by saying that if, for example, employment in 1984-85 were to fall by the 2.5 per cent by which it fell during the previous Government's last year in office, of course PAYE receipts would not increase by 10.7 per cent; they would increase by 4.6 per cent. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would like to see a lower level of PAYE receipts as a result of that sort of process, but I can assure him that the Australian people would not. The main reason why total income tax collections are increasing so rapidly is simply that the Australian economy is performing so well. This explains also the huge increase of about 45 per cent in provisional tax payments which reflects not only the large increase in farm income-for which we do not substantially claim credit-but also the very large increases in other incomes. Further factors in explaining the increase in income tax collections are, of course, the Medicare levy and the replacement of tax rebates by government expenditures. I am very interested that the Leader of the Opposition and others, in their misguided way, have spoken about this because I suggest the best way to judge the tax cuts is by way of reference to indexation. Honourable members will recall that that is something which was rejected by the previous Liberal- National Party Government. But let us test the tax cuts by referring to indexation. With full indexation, even at the average weekly earnings rate of 7. 25 per cent, which is much more generous to the critics than the lower consumer price index rate-- Mr Lusher —You sound more and more like a puppet-just like a puppet. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hume will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —If we had full indexation at that rate, a tax cut of $1.2 billion in a full year would be required; that is, full indexation of the 7.25 per cent of AWE would require only $1.2 billion in a full year. Mr Lusher —You have lost everybody, Bob. Give it away. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member for Hume wish to continue defying the Chair? He has been asked to cease interjecting. I suggest he take some notice of the request from the Chair. Mr HAWKE —Of course, what the Treasurer has announced in his Budget represents much more than full wage indexation; it represents substantially more than full wage indexation for low income earners. So much for government policy. Now let me turn to the Leader of the Opposition and his policy. The House will recall that yesterday-members on this side of the House will recall it with pleasure-I detailed the way in which the extraordinary array of promises on tax cuts and expenditures of the Leader of the Opposition would add $7.5 billion to the deficit. Mr Leo McLeay —How much? Mr HAWKE —Seven and a half billion dollars. He has traipsed around the country making that promise. I showed yesterday that those promises would add another $7 .5 billion to the deficit. As honourable members will understand if they have been listening to the air waves, the Leader of the Opposition has tried to get away from his reference to the $22 tax cut that would be required and the $6 billion cost of that cut. He has got away by saying that he would not give it back now. But if honourable members listened to AM today-and I can recommend it; it was a very good program-they will know that the Leader of the Opposition said : 'We would have moved earlier'. Not only would this have had the same effect now; of course, it would have shown up earlier in receipt reductions. What has the Leader of the Opposition told us today? He said that there should be increases in the family allowance; there should be increases in the spouse rebate; there should be assistance for small business; and the wine tax should be abolished. Yesterday I told the Leader of the Opposition that he could not do his sums. I will do them for him today. If we add his $7.5 billion to the existing $6.75 billion deficit and throw in another $700m for what he has promised today, we would finish up, according to the Peacock formula, with a $15 billion deficit. I will bring his agony to an end. I suggest that he ask the current Deputy Leader of the Opposition what a $15 billion deficit would do for interest rates, what it would do for investment, what it would do for employment and unemployment. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition says that he supports a $5 billion deficit. In other words, he has a $10 billion credibility gap and he has just out-tipped the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who had a $9.6 billion credibility gap. Between now and the election, whenever it is held, this Government and the people of Australia will ask him a simple question: Where is the money coming from? Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Treasurer to the phoney tax cuts-for that is what they are-of allegedly $7.60 or less in last night's Budget which, by the way, work out to be only $5.07 or less weekly over the 1984-85 financial year. Is it a fact that the so-called tax cuts give back about $1.1 billion to the pay as you earn taxpayer in 1984-85? Is it a fact that even allowing for these so-called tax cuts, the actual increase in income tax taken from PAYE taxpayers in 1984-85 will be $2.76 billion-over twice that given back? Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition is all confused, as usual. Let me just nail this lie he is trafficking in about the reality of the tax cuts. Mr SPEAKER —The Treasurer knows my attitude to the use of that language. Mr KEATING —I withdraw it, Mr Speaker. It is misrepresentation in which he was trafficking. The first thing he says is that this is not a real tax cut. In other words, he is suggesting that we are not giving back indexation, the movement of inflation through the tax scales. Let me make this point: The cost of indexation in a full year would be $1.2 billion. The cost of the tax cut in a full year is $2.1 billion. So that dismisses out of hand any notion that the tax cut is not real or the suggestion that in some way there is some increase in personal tax which is not reflected as a real tax cut. The fact of the matter is that this Government has introduced not only a tax cut beyond indexation but also an equitable tax cut. It is not a Howard-type tax cut, which would have indexed the various scales so that the largest tax cuts would have gone to the 46 and 60 per cent earners when they were indexed at the rates of 60c, 46c and 30c. What we have done by putting two other rate steps into the scales-one at the threshold, which is 25c at $12,500, and then 48c at $ 28,000-means that the low income earner, who under indexation at $15,000 would receive about $2.30 a week, will now get $7.60 a week. Instead of greasing the palms of the highest income earners, as the traditional coalition tax cuts would have done, we have brought back much more equity into the tax system. I reject out of hand the suggestion that in any way is it simply a fiddle on the scales. It is a major restructuring of the tax scales which has made them very much more progressive. We now have rates of 25c, 30c, 46c, 48c and 60c instead of the old inequitable three-step rate scale at 30c, 46c and 60c . Not only is it a bigger tax cut than under indexation; it is a more equitable tax cut. I remind the House that the style of the last Government, particularly under the former Treasurer, was to give the tax cuts in the Budget in 1977 and take them away in May 1978. Then in 1982 the tax cut of $2 billion was met by an increase of $1.4 billion in indirect taxes in the same Budget. So there was a net tax cut of $600m. This Government is budgeting for a net tax cut in a full year of $2.1 billion. Ms FATIN —Is the Minister for Health aware of statements made by the Leader of the Opposition today on AM and in other media that the Government plans to increase the Medicare levy? I ask: Is there any intention to increase the Medicare levy? Dr BLEWETT —It is quite clear that in the Opposition's desperate search for negative issues, its first election issue is to be an effort to create a panic about the one per cent Medicare levy. Let me make it quite clear in the most simple terms, so that even this Opposition can understand, that the Government has absolutely no intention of increasing the one per cent Medicare levy. That is an absolute commitment by this Government. We are committed to providing something that the Australian people have not had for the last eight years, and that is a stable health insurance system, not one which is changed and adjusted every year. If honourable members carefully examine the Budget figures they will see quite clearly that Medicare is on its financial target as the most cost efficient and cost responsible health scheme this country has had. So the Australian people need be in no doubt about our commitment on this issue. We would like to know, when we have the Leader of the Opposition stirring up this panic, what health policy the Opposition has. In 18 months it has produced no health policy at all. Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition: Does he intend to remove the levy and therefore return to the inequitable method of funding health insurance that existed before 1984, or does he intend to go back to 1976, when all the wealthy were allowed to escape to private insurance while the rest of the population had to pay twice the levy? It is really about time, after 18 months, that we got some details of what the Opposition stands for in this issue . I am never quite sure where the honourable member for Mackellar is on these issues. Sometimes he seems to be wanting to get rid of Medicare altogether, but then he is contradicted by his leader. His latest effort is to suggest a whole ratbag collection of opportunistic bits and pieces, without any care for cost efficiency and without any care for responsibility in this area. The Australian people, having listened to the negative noises made by the Leader of the Opposition this morning, the panic that he endeavours to create about Medicare, should ask the Opposition where it stands on health policy. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that revenue is projected to grow by 10.5 per cent in real terms in 1984-85-the largest real increase since World War II? Is it also a fact that much of this assumed rise in revenue is due to growth and other factors in the economy that are unlikely to be repeated to the same degree next financial year? Why, therefore, has the Government, through its huge spending increases, created such a potentially difficult budgetary position next year? Mr KEATING —The thing about the Liberals is that they have no shame. We have the honourable member for Bennelong railing on about the fiscal policies of the Commonwealth. I remind him of the note which the Secretary to the Treasury gave me in March 1983, when he said: 'The fiscal deterioration in Australia is unparalleled in our post-Depression history and unparalleled in the Western world'. I have not heard a more damning damnation than that of a government's policy. Yet the former Treasurer springs up here, without any shame, saying: 'What about the revenue position next year? What will happen with the state of budgetary policy?' I will tell him about that. The fact is that if one discounts from the outlays growth for this year, which is 6.1 per cent real growth, the fact that we have taken a private charge, Medicare, which was formerly paid by people over the counter to health insurance funds-- Mr Connolly —It is still paid by people. Mr KEATING —Be quiet for a while, dummy, and listen. That is now paid out as an outlay. If we deduct that from the outlays because it is matched by a receipt and is neutral on the deficit, the real growth in outlays is about 3.9 per cent. Mr Howard —You can't deduct it. Mr KEATING —Of course one can deduct it. It was formerly a private outlay which is now a public outlay. If we deduct it, it is 3.9 per cent, which is below the 4.6 per cent-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —Can I have some peace here? Do honourable members want to hear the answer or not? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat until the House comes to order. I do not intend to ask Ministers to continue their answers with this total overall barnyard noise. I call the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —The average real growth in outlays for the 10 years to 1983-84 was 4 .6 per cent. With the Medicare discount on these outlays it is 3.9 per cent. Even more is to be said about it. If we were to deduct the growth in public debt interest that was left from the Budget deficits of the former Treasurer we would take another 1.6 percentage points from the 3.9 per cent. The implication in the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's question is that the Government in a discretionary way increased outlays. I make the point that the growth of public debt interest-- Mr Howard —No, it is your revenue next year. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked his question. He has asked several supplementaries by interjection and I suggest that he remain quiet. Mr KEATING —The growth of public debt interest in the last 12 months has been 1. 6 percentage points, deducted from that 3.9 per cent, of which the largest part paid for the Budget deficits of the former Treasurer, which was not a discretionary outlay of this Government. Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —I know it hurts them, and well it might. In addition, in terms of discretionary outlay, the normal operation of monetary policy, that is, mopping up capital inflow which is nothing which the Government has at its discretion but which it has to do to run a proper monetary policy, also adds to outlays. I just make the point that, with the 1.6 percentage point deduction for growth in public debt interest because of the former Government's fiscal laxity, the real growth would be 2.3 per cent-about half the growth of the decade to 1984-85. I make another point about the Budget deficit. Last year this Government saved $1.2 billion in outlays and $600m in tax expenditures; that is, $1.8 billion. This year we saved about $600m in outlays and altogether about $2.4 billion. The former Government, under what was called the Lynch razor gang, messed around for nearly a year to save $500m, and finally it dwindled to $250m. In terms of fiscal policy, this Government has taken the hard decisions to bring down the structural deficits. The former Government would not take them. The Leader of the Opposition is saying that he will walk away from every measure this Government has taken to bring down the structural deficit. The result would be that Australia would have no hope under a coalition government because the fiscal deterioration, the huge Budget deficits which Mr Howard had, would be repeated. The reason why interest rates are going down in this country is the business and financial markets' belief-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —It gets to the point where one cannot hear oneself speak. Mr SPEAKER —Opposition members will cease interjecting. I acknowledge the point made by the Treasurer and suggest that when that occurs he cease answering the question. We will wait until the House comes to order. It is impossible to act against a group of members acting in concert in defiance of the Chair. Mr KEATING —The implication in the question is that a decline in interest rates will not be facilitated with the budgetary policies of this Government. I make this the punch line of the answer when I say that in respect of 180-day bills, that is, the instrument on which business does much of its financing, the rate for such bills when Mr Howard left his job to me was 16 per cent. The rate is now around 11 per cent-a decline of 5 per cent in interest rates. I believe that with this Budget deficit outcome, the prospects for next year and the belief in the Government's medium term economic strategy by business and the unions, we will see further declines in interest rates, further growth in consumption, further growth in economic activity, further growth in employment and therefore further growth in receipts. There is no way out of these particular holes without growth, and one cannot have growth in receipts without growth in the economy. Under our policies there will be growth in the economy and therefore growth in receipts. That is why next year we will face the Budget task with confidence, something that the former Treasurer was never able to do. Mr STAPLES —My question is addressed to our Prime Minister. I hope that for the peace of mind of the Opposition he can answer this question. What evidence is there that the remarkable improvement in the Australian economy that we have seen over the past 18 months can be continued through this financial year and beyond? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for his question without notice and it gives me great pleasure to answer it. Of course, if we are to understand properly the question and its answer we have to remember where we started from in March 1983, the condition of the economy then and how far we have progressed in this country in the last 17 months. I will go to the essential features which are necessarily part of the answer to the honourable member's question. Firstly, let us look at economic growth. Following growth in 1983-84 of over 4 per cent in the non-farm sector, after we gave the kick start to the Australian economy, growth in that same non-farm sector in 1984-85 will be even higher; it will be 5 per cent. That is economic growth. That continued strong growth of 4 per cent in 1983-84, in our first year, and 5 per cent in this current 1984-85 year is to be contrasted with zero growth in the last year of conservative government. Now let us look at jobs. I say to the honourable member for Diamond Valley that under our policies that continued growth to which I referred has produced an increase of 260,000 jobs since April of last year. With the additional 150,000 jobs that will occur during 1984-85, this will mean that by June of 1985 under this Government 400,000 new jobs will have been created. Quite clearly, in terms of stronger continuing growth we are well ahead of the target of half a million new jobs that in February and March of last year I promised the Australian people we would create in three years. I repeat: We are well ahead of the target. I have dealt with jobs. Unemployment has already fallen by l.5 percentage points under this Government, and will continue to fall , compared with a growth in unemployment in the last period of the previous Government of one-quarter of a million people. I have covered growth, employment and unemployment. Let us look at inflation. When we came to office we inherited an inflation rate of 11.5 per cent. Under these great economic managers, we had not only the worst unemployment in the history of this country since the Great Depression-there was record unemployment -but also inflation was running at 11.5 per cent. That is what we inherited. What did we produce? I am pleased to tell the honourable member and the people of this country what we produced in the area of inflation. We have brought the underlying rate of inflation down to 6.5 per cent. I am proud to say to the honourable member and through him to the people of Australia that between June of this year and June of 1985 the inflation rate will be only 5 per cent. In other words, from a situation in which under our opponents we had about double the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development rate of inflation, we are now beneath it. So, of course, we have restored the competitive position of this country. I have dealt with growth, employment, unemployment and inflation. What about interest rates? Not only was the previous Government not content with giving this country record unemployment and inflation at a rate of 11.5 per cent but also, just to round off the dismal picture, it was responsible for the production of record high interest rates. As we cured the messes the previous Government caused in economic growth, unemployment and inflation, so have we cured the mess it caused relating to interest rates. The long term bond yields are now one per cent to l.5 per cent lower than they were a year ago. Bank housing loans are now up to one per cent lower than they were when we came to office. This responsible Budget brought down by my colleague and friend the Treasurer will mean that the current fall in interest rates will continue. So that is the story in regard to interest rates. When we came to office consumer confidence was shot to pieces and business confidence was shot to pieces. We now have growing consumer confidence and growing business confidence, and investment is picking up. I ask honourable members on both sides of the House to look at the newspapers of today and see the reaction of the business community to this Government. We have given it confidence and it has said we have given it confidence. In answer to the question from the honourable member for Diamond Valley, I have shown where we have come from and what we have achieved. But we have not concerned ourselves simply with curing the economy and making sure that we get growth and that we get inflation and interest rates down. As the honourable member knows, and he is proud to be part of what is happening, we have also not neglected, as did our predecessors, those who depend upon social security payments. Mr Hodgman —Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —I wish to give two examples-we will hear whether that hyena is still laughing at the end of them-of what happened under seven years of conservative government and I will contrast them with what has happened under this Government in less than a mere two years. I take first of all the single unemployment benefit. Under the previous Government the single unemployment benefit fell by 19 per cent in real terms. Under seven years of conservative government the single unemployment benefit fell by 19 per cent. Under this Government, in the period from March 1983 to June 1985 the real increase will be 13 per cent. Finally, Mr Speaker-- Mr Sinclair —Hooray! Mr HAWKE —Of course the right honourable member is cheering. He does not want to hear any more, but he will be told more. In respect of a sole parent who has to rent a home and has two children, what was the fate of such a person under seven years of conservative government? The fact is that the income of that sole parent fell by 2 per cent in real terms. Under this Government, between March 1983 and December of this year there will be a real increase of 13 per cent. In other words, in answer to the honourable member's question, we have picked this country up from economic chaos, we have got it going on the recovery path and we are doing justice to those in need. Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I request the Prime Minister to table the document from which he was reading. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Prime Minister whether he was reading from a document relating to public affairs. Mr HAWKE —It is not a public document, and I would have thought it was obvious that I was not reading it. Mr HOWARD —I draw the Treasurer's attention to the falling rate of growth in real private consumption expenditure revealed for each quarter of the past financial year in the national income figures and to the forecast in Budget Paper No. 2 that consumption growth will be lower this financial year. Did the rate of economic growth revealed in the June quarter national income figures fall to only O.4 per cent on the expenditure-based series? Was the 2.1 per cent rise in the income-based series totally accounted for by a 2.3 per cent statistical discrepancy? In view of the fact that the record revenue predictions in the Budget depend on continuing economic growth, a fact which the honourable gentleman vigorously affirmed in his last answer, do the national income figures throw any doubt at all on the strategy on which the Budget is based? Mr KEATING —I acknowledged today in my address to the National Press Club that one of the disappointing points in economic behaviour over the last few months has been the performance of retail sales and the fact that consumption could have been better than it has been. Quite obviously a tax cut will help along that process of consumption, as indeed will falls in interest rates which we are now seeing at both the short and long ends of the market, particularly for consumer finance. I make the point that the former Treasurer said that if he had a choice between a tax cut and a lower deficit he would go for a lower deficit, and that would mean that the tax cut which will kick along consumption this year would not be there. He believes in the notion that we would get investments because of lower interest rate effects of the lower deficit, even if the consumption growth apparently was not there. I reject that thesis and indicate to him the Government's thesis of lifting consumption with a tax cut as well as underpinning the prices and incomes accord which is a central part of it. I will just make a point about the statistical discrepancy. That is a problem in terms of the measurements in the national accounts, but we know we have had growth in employment of about 3.7 per cent over the course of 1983-84, an increase of 260,000. Normally in a recovery we get strong productivity growth, and there is no reason to doubt, even though the statistical discrepancy clouds the matter, that the 8 per cent which we are estimating for non-farm growth through the year 1983-84, which carries some consumption components in it, will be about 4 per cent for productivity. While that is clouded by the statistical discrepancy, it is entirely reasonable on the Government's behalf to believe that productivity will rise, as it does inordinately in a recovery, and that the normal breakdown between the 3.7 per cent for employment and the 4 per cent for productivity would confirm the 8 per cent growth through the year that we see for 1983-84. Mr REEVES —What has the Minister for Aviation done in relation to the application by Royal Brunei Airlines to introduce a second weekly service to Darwin? Mr BEAZLEY —An application has been received from Royal Brunei Airlines for a second weekly service. Permission has been given for Royal Brunei to exercise the Qantas entitlement of one B737 service on the route as Qantas has declined to exercise these rights for commercial reasons at present. Qantas has advised us that it is in agreement with this approach. The decision by Royal Brunei to make that application and our decision to grant it will do a considerable amount for tourism in the Northern Territory. I am particularly glad that the honourable gentleman had the opportunity to ask the question as it is a matter that he has been pressing me on for some considerable time. He must be very pleased with the outcome. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Treasurer to his earlier comments on measuring the increase in outlays and his continued attempts to exclude the cost of Medicare from those outlays. Does the Treasurer agree that by the same logic as he applies to Medicare expenditure, social welfare expenditure should be eliminated from the calculation of outlay increases because it was once largely a private responsibility and is now funded through the Budget? What other outlays can also be ignored because they were once privately funded? Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition is in even deeper trouble than I thought . If he cannot understand the fact that until 15 months ago health insurance was a private charge across the counters of the health insurance funds of this country and is now an outlay on the Budget, an express decision of the Government to match that insurance with a Medicare levy on taxable income, and that in itself it is not simply a discretionary outlay on Government spending to be compared with the normal growth in discretionary outlays, I cannot help him. I make the point that the Government brought the outlays within the growth of the forward Estimates published by my colleague the Minister for Finance in March of this year. I indicate that, with half the Budget outlays indexed on the consumer price index, with the consumer price index responding to past inflation rates and with the real rate of inflation falling almost dramatically, it will take time for those indexed payments to catch up with the lower inflationary environment. Therefore, the real rate of increase over the current inflation rate is, of course, exaggerated. Notwithstanding the 2.2 percentage points and the 6.1 figure for Medicare, that brings the figure back to 3.9 per cent, which is below the average of 4.6 per cent for the decade to 1983-84. If we were to discount as a discretionary outlay the profligate spending of the former Government, the election throw-aways, the lack of fiscal discipline, and the deficit interest which we are picking up and are now having to bear on our outlays, the increase-- Mr Tuckey —Not again! Mr SPEAKER —Order! For 20 minutes I thought the honourable member for O'Connor had reformed. I give him another warning. Mr KEATING —He is like that, Mr Speaker. Have pity on him. He is more to be pitied than despised. The 3.9 per cent, with the 1.6 percentage points deduction for the growth in public debt interest as a result of the fiscal deterioration in Budgets under the former Treasurer, would leave our real discretionary outlays at about 2.3 per cent, low by any standards of the coalition. Mr SCOTT —Can the Special Minister of State inform the House of the origins of the Representation Act 1983 which allowed for an increase in the size of the Federal Parliament? Mr YOUNG —I was somewhat amazed last night and this morning when the Leader of the Opposition said that one of the most irresponsible things that had been done by this Government was to put forward the proposition by way of legislation to increase the size of the Parliament. I thought that was rather surprising and that perhaps we should put the record straight as to where the idea came from to increase the size of the Parliament. On 4 May last year I moved a motion in this House to set up a committee with terms of reference to look at the electoral reform package which the Government had in mind. It was a joint parliamentary committee on which every party was represented. The honourable member for Boothby, representing the coalition, moved an amendment to the terms of reference of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform to include looking at increasing the size of the Parliament. The Government rejected the amendment. We said that the Committee should not at that time look at an increase in the size of the Parliament. We felt it was in the interests of the Government and the Parliament that the electoral reform package we had set out in our terms of reference be looked at by the Committee. However, the coalition did not leave it there. When the Committee was set up and started its work a number of representations were made to it. The then Leader of the National Party, both in debate in this Parliament on the guidelines for the Committee and outside the Parliament, said that we could not have one vote one value unless we increased the size of the Parliament. That is what the former honourable member for Richmond said. The honourable member for Gwydir agreed and compared the numbers of electors in the Federal divisions of South Australia and Tasmania. He said it was most unfair and that the Government should direct its attention to this effect, especially in view of the building of the new Parliament House and the fact that there had been no increase in the size of the Parliament since the late 1940s. When the Joint Parliamentary Committee called for evidence to be given to it, the National Party, as part of its submission to the Committee, asked for an increase in the size of the Parliament. It persuaded the Committee that in order to bring about one vote one value, or as near to that as possible, taking into account the enormous increase in the population that had taken place since the late 1940s and the massive increase in work that had been placed on the individual shoulders of each member of the House of Representatives in particular, the size of the Parliament ought to be increased. The Committee brought back its recommendations to this Parliament and they were adopted. But the actual seeds for an increase in the size of the Parliament were sown by the Liberal and National Parties last year. Mr JOHN BROWN —I wish to supplement an answer given earlier to the Leader of the Opposition. I have checked the information he required with the Department of Industry and Commerce. The answer is that those documents were made available to Mr Black. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Mr Speaker, I know that it will come as a surprise, but I have been misrepresented by the Prime Minister. I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may explain how he has been misrepresented. Mr HOWARD —During Question Time either the Prime Minister or the Treasurer-they are both equally guilty-again referred in a very misleading and selective manner to some comments that I made on the AM radio program in March of this year about the economic trade-off between a taxation reduction and a reduction in the deficit. It is true, as one of those honourable gentlemen said at Question Time, that at one stage of that interview I said that faced with a choice between a taxation cut and a reduction in the deficit, in straight economic terms my preference was for a reduction in the deficit. Thus far, the quotation of the honourable gentleman was okay. What he quite deliberately did not do, and therefore misrepresented my position, was to acknowledge the fact that what the Government should do was provide room for the tax cut out of further reductions in expenditure. I quote from the answer that I gave then: If you are asking me from an economic point of view what is the better thing to do quite clearly the better thing to do is to give a greater priority to reducing the deficit. If the Government wishes- And this is the bit the honourable gentleman today and on earlier occasions has deliberately-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the honourable member to keep going straight to his explanation. Mr HOWARD —I am. It was a very big misrepresentation so a big correction is needed. I resume the quotation: If the Government wishes on top of that to give taxation cuts, then it should cut further into its own expenditure to find the room. That is something this Government manifestly failed to do last night. Mr Keating —On the same point of order, Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —No, it is not a point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition claimed to have been misrepresented-- Mr Keating —He claimed that I misrepresented him. I did not. Let me explain how and why. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It is not usual for an honourable member to explain how he did not misrepresent another honourable member. If you claim to have been misrepresented-- Mr Keating —I have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —The former Treasurer said that from his point of view, on an economic basis, he would prefer to have a lower deficit than have tax cuts. That is his position. He then goes on to extrapolate and say further that if this Government wants to give tax cuts it ought to cut-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr KEATING —He made it clear that he is not giving tax cuts. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer should say how he has been misrepresented. Mr KEATING —I have been misrepresented to the extent that the charge against me is that I wilfully misrepresented the former Treasurer. Let me explain again-- Mr SPEAKER —The Treasurer may not debate the issue. Mr KEATING —I do not take kindly to being charged with misrepresenting somebody without having a chance to explain. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The procedures of the House allow a member who has been misrepresented to correct that misrepresentation. It is done by the indulgence of the Chair. If we followed the course that the Treasurer is trying to take it would mean that an open debate would occur. If the Treasurer has been misrepresented I ask him please to correct the misrepresentation. Mr Howard —Would you like to debate this subject? I would love it. Mr KEATING —Yes, absolutely. I will debate it at any time. Let us have it now. Mr SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will remain quiet. Does the Treasurer claim to have been misrepresented? Mr KEATING —I do. I claim to have been misrepresented in as much as the former Treasurer alleges that I said that he favoured a reduction in the deficit rather than a tax cut. He has confirmed that that is his position. What he is saying now is that if this Government wants to cut taxes it should have cut outlays. That is our position. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr KEATING —His position is not to make tax cuts. Mr Howard —May I seek leave of the House to have my quote incorporated in Hansard-- Mr SPEAKER —It does not matter whether the honourable member gets leave, it cannot be incorporated in Hansard. He may table the document by leave. Leave granted. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Boothby. Mr STEELE HALL —The Special Minister of State (Mr Young), in answering a question on the increase in the size of Parliament, implied in his answer that I supported such a move. In this House, after the passage of the motion setting up the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, that Committee studied that proposition. The Minister, if he read the report which he ordered, would find that in a dissenting report I vehemently disagreed with the increase in the size of this Parliament. He would also find, if he studied the records of the vote in this House, that I sat here and voted against him on that issue. He would also find that my leader led that vote against that proposition. He has deliberately misled the House and misrepresented me. Mr Peacock —I wish you would not have a straight face when you do that, Mick. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I wish the Leader of the Opposition would not continue to defy the Chair in a discourteous manner. I remind honourable members that when a personal explanation is made it is made as a matter of indulgence by the Chair. I hope that honourable members will not endanger that practice that has been followed by seeking to debate. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-I move: That the House take note of the report by Mr M. E. J. Black, Q.C., dated 17 August 1984, of an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the making of a Customs declaration on 5 July 1984 which was presented to the House on 21 August 1984. This matter was putatively before the House yesterday as a matter of public importance which was purporting to concern the weak and irresponsible behaviour of the Government in regard to this matter. What the House and the country are now faced with is nothing less than the weak and irresponsible behaviour of the Opposition and most particularly of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). In this matter the Government acted in a tough, principled and responsible manner and I will describe in detail what was done. Before I do, I would remind the House at the outset of the findings of Mr Black. It seems that in this process the Opposition is determined to overlook those findings. Under the heading of 'Conclusions', in Part XIV on page 132, this was the finding on the Special Minister of State, Mr Young: There was no impropriety in the actions of the Hon. M. J. Young. Mr Young did not at any stage use or attempt to use his official position to his advantage or to divert any person from the proper and impartial performance of his duty. I express no conclusion as to whether any breach of a law of the Commonwealth may have occurred. My reasons for taking this course appear in Part XII of this report. He concluded with this sentence: It should not be inferred that I make any finding that a breach of the law of the Commonwealth may have occurred in the actions of the Hon. M. J. Young. Those are the findings of the independent inquiry in the person of Mr Michael Black, appointed by this Government. From the way the Opposition, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, have been carrying on one would have thought that the finding was of the sort brought down by Mr Justice Woodward in respect of Mr Nixon when he was a Minister in the previous Government. But more of that later. Let us look at precisely what happened in this matter and the course of action that I undertook on behalf of the Government. On 5 July the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, approached me and told me that a matter had arisen in regard to a customs declaration form concerning and involving the Special Minister of State. He told me that he had indicated to the Comptroller- General of Customs that the normal courses of action should be followed and that no special privileges should be given to the Special Minister of State. I applauded the Minister for Industry and Commerce for that direction and said it was the appropriate course of action and confirmed that he should convey that that was the position that I, as Prime Minister, took on behalf of the Government. This was the course of action that was followed. That was on 5 July. The specific direction or instruction by Senator Button, the Minister for Industry and Commerce-that this matter was to be treated in the ordinary way-was confirmed on 5 July. Mr Peacock —You covered it up. Mr HAWKE —I wish to deal with all of these matters, Mr Speaker. It is difficult if I am to have continual interjections from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —The Minister for Industry and Commerce instructed the Comptroller- General of Customs that the matter should be processed in the normal way, and it was. I asked from time to time whether it was being proceeded with in this way. Senator Button informed me that it was. I asked on a couple of occasions when the report was coming. He said he would let me know as soon as he had a final report on the matter from the Comptroller-General of Customs. On Friday, 20 July , Senator Button informed me that he had the final report from the Comptroller- General of Customs, Mr Tasman Hayes. Senator Button said that he had formed the conclusion, on the basis of that report, that as far as the Comptroller-General of Customs was concerned the matter was closed. Senator Button had formed the judgment, on the basis of that finding and that report, that the matter was closed and that there was no further cause of action. On that basis I asked Mr Young to come into my office. He came in and we informed him of that. Mr Peacock —The cover has been blown. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the Opposition. Mr HAWKE —The pathetic condition of the Leader of the Opposition has become a matter of national note, but I wish he would not keep proving it. I said that now we had the final report clearing the action of Mr Young, the matter had to be made public. Mr Young accepted that. This occurred in my office on Friday, 20 July. Mr Young proceeded that weekend to release a statement in regard to this. I ask all honourable members of this House to contrast the honourable action of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Special Minister of State and myself , the way we handled this and the way we voluntarily made public the circumstances, with what happened in 1981-82 in the MacKellar-Moore case. What happened then? What were the dates? On 5 October 1981 the action was taken by Mr MacKellar. I make it clear that in making this reference I am not wishing to rake up the circumstances of what happened. I therefore use the language that I have used. I referred to the thing happening on 5 October 1981. Under the previous Government did there emerge then a straightforward, voluntary, open, public statement on the part of that Government of what had happened? No, we had to wait from 5 October 1981 until 15 April 1982-six months-when the details were flushed out. The Government had attempted to cover up what had happened. Again I will not go into details. They are well known. A conspiracy of silence was attempted between Ministers and all those involved. Against that conspiracy of silence of those involved in that affair, this Government, as it always does, acted directly, honestly and openly. The statement was made by the Special Minister of State publicly on Sunday, 22 July. What happened then? On the evening of Tuesday, 24 July, the Minister for Industry and Commerce contacted me and said that he was worried because there appeared to be new evidence which involved a conflict. Let me be quite clear as to what the two matters were. There seems to be some suggestion that we are frightened of referring to the new matters. There is no worry about referring to them and there never has been. There were essentially two matters. Firstly, there was a suggestion that a form had been altered and, secondly, there appeared to be some potential conflict of evidence or recollection in regard to conversations involving the Special Minister of State. The Minister for Industry and Commerce was worried about that. This was reported to him by the Comptroller -General of Customs. It was something which had come to the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce subsequent to the report being delivered to him on Friday, 20 July. I, with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, was also concerned because here was something new. It was not saying that Mr Young was guilty of something but it involved new material and a possible conflict either of evidence or interpretation of conversations involving the Minister. In those circumstances, with the Minister being at the Lodge on the evening of Tuesday, 24 July, we immediately initiated a course of action. Two things were done. Firstly, arrangements were made for Mr Lanham, in charge of Customs in Adelaide, to come to Canberra. Another officer in the Department of Administrative Services came to Canberra and arrangements were also made for people to go to Adelaide to interview the relevant Customs officials in Adelaide . That was done immediately. From that late stage on Tuesday night, by the following morning, both here in Canberra and in Adelaide, interviews were being conducted. At the end of those interviews it appeared that there was some possible conflict. We were not prepared to leave the situation where it had been on 20 July and decision had to be taken in those circumstances because we simply were not able to determine the facts. It was literally impossible for us to determine the facts so we made the decision to appoint someone independent of the Government, in the person of Mr Michael Black, QC, of the Victorian Bar, to have access in an unfettered way to all relevant people and documents so that he could ascertain whether there had been any improper action on the part of the Special Minister of State. It was proper in those circumstances, and Mr Young agreed willingly, that he should stand aside from the discharge of his portfolio duties, and I asked the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) to undertake the discharge of those duties, which he did. I point out that Mr Michael Black, QC, was not a person known to me before. It would not be necessary to make that point except for the despicable behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition in this place, who said yesterday that I nobbled Mr Black. Mr Peacock —And nobbled him from the start. Mr HAWKE —He repeats the despicable statement. Mr Black proceeded with his inquiry and, as honourable members know, we received his report at the end of last week. That report, it is clear, completely exonerates Mr Young, as I have read out. I ask every honourable member who is interested in this matter to read in detail the way in which the figure of $487.50 was arrived at. There has been a snide suggestion that somehow that figure was cooked up and that magically it was a few dollars below the figure of $500 which, if it had been reached, would have meant that action would have had to be taken. The matter would not have been able to be dealt with summarily under section 209. There is a suggestion that there was a conspiracy, something unreal about that figure. I ask members of this House to read that section of the Black report. They will see that the finding of Mr Black is that it was absolutely impossible in the circumstances that there could have been any conspiracy at all on the part of Mr Young, his family or the relevant Customs officials to produce that result. Indeed he finds that, if anything, the figure was probably closer to $400 than $487.50. Let me go to that part of the report which deals with how Mr Black was able to conduct the inquiry and to the suggestion that he may have been nobbled in some way. This is what he says in section 1.8 of his report under the heading 'Co- operation with the Inquiry': Because I had no powers of compulsion in relation to the giving of oral evidence or the production of documents it is important that I report upon the co-operation I received during the Inquiry. In other words, he directs himself to the conditions under which he operated the inquiry. There is no suggestion that that was an inadequate way of doing it; that he could not come to firm conclusions under the basis of his terms of reference. He refers to them and says: 'it is important that I report upon the co-operation I received'. He said: I report that I received the full co-operation of everyone from whom I sought it. I have referred elsewhere to the co-operation I received from the permanent heads of Departments in the provision of documents. All other persons who were asked to produce documents did so, notwithstanding that some of those documents were of a personal nature. Some personal items of baggage that I asked to inspect were also produced. No person with whom I asked to confer declined to do so and no person declined to answer any question. All those with whom I conferred co-operated fully in the conduct of the Inquiry. Let me repeat it: 'All those with whom I conferred co-operated fully in the conduct of the Inquiry'. Mr Black continued: I am not aware of any attempt to frustrate the Inquiry and I have no reason to suppose that there was any such attempt. There is the clearest possible statement that any independent person set up to make an inquiry could make about the circumstances under which he made the inquiry and a complete and unequivocal expression of satisfaction about those conditions. Those are the facts as to what happened and those are the details of what Mr Black has said. Having said all those things, let me refer in conclusion to the attitudes of the Opposition and contrast again the way in which its members conduct themselves. Mr Speaker, it is not the Special Minister of State, it is not the Minister for Industry and Commerce and it is not this Government who are now on trial in this matter; it is the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition. People on the other side know and everyone in this country now knows that there is a total contrast between the directness, the honesty and the openness of the way in which this affair has been conducted and what happened in 1981-1982-the six months cover up of 1981-1982. Let me just remind the Opposition and the people of Australia that this action on this occasion by the Leader of the Opposition is not something strange and new. It is in fact part of the pattern which has emerged from these conservatives. What is that pattern? What happened when they appointed Mr Justice Woodward to head a royal commission? Royal Commissioner Woodward certainly found that the actions of Mr Nixon involved impropriety. He was very severe in his criticism. So what did these conservatives, these upholders of law and order, do in this Parliament? They traduced Mr Justice Woodward. They would not accept the finding of the umpire. They in effect said he was crook. What was the next stage in this saga? What happened when the affairs of Mr Sinclair, the Leader of the National Party of Australia, were investigated by Mr Justice Cross? Mr Justice Cross brought down the most damning indictment in the history of this country of any Federal politician. A more damning indictment had never been brought down. What was the action of the conservatives there? They again attacked the umpire; they attacked the integrity of Mr Justice Cross. So perhaps we should not be surprised about what happened in respect of this inquiry which has come down and exonerated the Minister in question. The difference is that the Minister this time is our Minister. He is found by the inquiry to be totally clear. So what did the Opposition do? It went straight into gear and kicked the umpire. The Opposition has said that Mr Black was nobbled. That is a despicable thing for the Leader of the Opposition to have said. I am pleased to say that I know that some honourable members behind him share with me the view that it was a despicable thing to do. Mr Speaker, I conclude by saying that the Government has handled this honourably. The Government, as with the Special Minister of State, has emerged with honour which is in marked contrast to the Leader of the Opposition who has an irremovable stain on his character as a result of his action in this matter. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.15) —I move: That all the words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'this House deplores- (1) the failure of the Prime Minister to observe required standards in not immediately dismissing the Special Minister of State; (2) the failure of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to conduct a competent inquiry into the Special Minister of State's breach of the law; (3) the failure of the Special Minister of State to resign his office after breaking the law; (4) the attempt by the Prime Minister to delay any investigation into this matter; and (5) the failure by the Prime Minister to set up an inquiry into the Special Minister of State's conduct which would have the necessary powers and brief to fully investigate the conduct of the Minister and that of the Prime Minister, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce in their attempts to cover up the matter'. We have just heard from a Prime Minister a tissue of lies, a farrago of fiction and a memorandum of mendacity. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw those terms. Mr PEACOCK —I will withdraw 'a tissue of lies' and leave it as 'a farrago of fiction and a memorandum of mendacity'. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows the plain ordinary meaning of the word 'mendacity'. He has been asked to withdraw it before. I ask him to do so. Mr PEACOCK —I withdraw that and stand by 'a farrago of fiction'. The world knows that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) sought to cover this matter up. The world knows that on 4 and 5 July he took the decision that no action would be taken against the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) for breaking the law and he did nothing about it. After 20 July, when the fear was instilled in the Government that the Australian public would learn the details of this matter, he pushed the Special Minister of State forward to make a public statement and ensured his office backgrounded the Press. Every member of the Press Gallery who went and asked his office what action would be taken against the Special Minister of State was briefed that no action would be taken whatsoever. Then allegedly new evidence came before the Prime Minister. We have not been given the details of that. Mr Black does not spell it out in his report. All we know is that then the fear was engendered in the Prime Minister's mind that he was going to be found out for the cover-up. And so he appointed Mr Black to conduct an inquiry. I say here and now again that the inquiry was nobbled. The Prime Minister in fact had more powers than Mr Black had. The Prime Minister had the power to bring any Minister before him. Mr Black did not. The Prime Minister had the power to compel any evidence. Mr Black did not. The Prime Minister had the power to call for any documents to be brought before him. Mr Black did not. The fact is that this Prime Minister knew about this matter weeks before the inquiry was established and by the tissue of lies that he has sought to present to this Parliament today he has not been able to cover that up. The reality is that the inquiry he established had fewer powers than he had in the first place. We saw a typical performance of this man in the Parliament. In the one breath he says, for example: 'I am not going to raise this matter of MacKellar and Moore'. In the next breath he proceeds to do just that. He conspired with Senator Button and sought to cover this matter up. Hayden and the Centre Left met and, of course, he started to cave. I have indicated to this House how he had more power, and the House is aware that any Prime Minister, on knowing of any alleged misbehaviour of his Minister, does not say to another Minister: 'Investigate the matter'. He does not simply come into this Parliament and say he was pleased with the assurance of his Minister that the Minister had been treated the same as any Australian, that any other Australian would get the same treatment. Would any other Australian have a ministerial staff to assist him to prepare for an inquiry, without any duties to be performed? No. Would he get the special treatment of the Department of Administrative Services, which assisted earlier? No. Would he have all his legal fees paid? No. The fact is a special deal was done first of all for the Minister and it was carried on throughout. There was no equal treatment; it was a placement once again of a Minister of this Government above the law, and the whole public knows it. Every survey, every poll and every questionnaire carried out in this country indicated the overwhelming view was that the Special Minister of State should resign. Every capital city newspaper in the land bar one that editorialised on this matter said exactly the same thing. The fact is that this man, the Special Minister of State, has been recycled twice in less than a year. Is this the mark of a government concerned with standards? The Prime Minister here today, and elsewhere, has talked a great deal about standards. He has even talked about the Minister being judged. On, I think , 28 July he said in an interview on the Young scandal: Well I think on the question of standards Mick will have to live by the standards which he himself set in his speech to Parliament last year-1982 I mean -on MacKellar/Moore. What did the Special Minister of State and his colleagues have to say about those events in 1982? We all know, because they have been run in the media time and again. They are the standards set by people who have come in here today and who sit beside a tarnished and discredited Special Minister of State-discredited by his own actions; discredited by his own words. There is abounding evidence that this matter is not covered up by any of the findings of the Black report. It had impossible, restricted terms of reference. It was nobbled at the outset by those terms of reference-something which, frankly, we now see State and Federal Labor governments have developed into an art form. Wran has been doing it for months, if not years. Mr Black had no powers. It is important to recall the sequence of events which led to the establishment of the Black inquiry. The Prime Minister, having failed miserably to tough it out after the Minister publicly admitted on 22 July his breaking of the law, called a Press conference and, lo and behold, there was this new evidence-new evidence which required a secret inquiry. Yet if we read the Black report, all 135 pages of it, there is not one reference to the new evidence. It was phoney from the time the Prime Minister mentioned it at the Press conference . He comes in here and talks about anyone having a different view on the nobbling of the inquiry. Everyone in this building knows that there are different views about the conduct, the treatment and the exculpation of the Special Minister of State and the answers that come out depend on which faction one talks to. Within the Government, in this chamber and elsewhere, there is a considered body of view that the Special Minister of State ought not to be here, and there is the other faction that thinks he ought. What about this new evidence? If it exists, and if it is so earth shattering, where is it? Why does the Prime Minister not come in here and lay it on the table? Why did he repeatedly evade telling the media about it last Friday? Look at the transcripts of that Press conference and one will see how testy he was when questioned on this new evidence. Perhaps, as has been implied, the new evidence to which the Prime Minister first referred on 26 July is the diary of the Customs officers who interviewed the Special Minister of State. I should have thought the Prime Minister would want to lay the Jennings diary in particular on the table. He might not want to, but he ought to do it because it would remind people that it was not part of the first investigation which the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, ordered into the Young scandal, and because it contradicts much of Mr Young's evidence to Mr Black. People would be reminded if they saw that diary that Senator Button and the Prime Minister were first prepared to go public and give the Special Minister of State a clean bill of health, based on a report that did not even refer to the diary of the Customs officer who was at the centre of this matter, and that he did not even notice that there was no reference to the diaries. Any Minister responsible for Customs for 17 months who does not even know that Customs officers are required to keep diaries on such incidents is incompetent. Maybe the Minister for Industry and Commerce did know but ignored this central piece of evidence. Was that also part of the cover-up? I suppose his hand was forced by the strong signals coming from his Department that all was not right with this alleged clean bill of health. The same Minister was very pious about ministerial responsibility and government standards in the past. The Prime Minister instructed Mr Black-honourable members have read his report, tabled last night; they will recall the terms of reference-to answer two basic questions. The first was whether there was any impropriety and the second was whether a breach of law may have occurred. Let me look first at the legal analysis of the Black report. Two sections of the Customs Act can be applied in this case-section 209, which applies where the duty is under $500, and section 234 which covers any evasion of Customs duty. First of all, I refer to Mr Black' s decision not to conclude one way or the other as to whether or not the Minister breached the law under section 234(e), and his reasoning for not concluding under that section is that, firstly, it is not clear that there was a breach and, secondly, the question is hypothetical anyway. Regrettably, the telling fact is that Mr Black was never asked to ascertain whether prosecution should be instituted. He was simply asked whether there had been a breach of the law. There had obviously been a breach; Mr Young said so. Mr Black's rationalisation for no finding is that there is some doubt whether the Minister deliberately misled or did it out of ignorance. The fact is that proof of the existence of deliberate intent is not essential to the establishment of an offence under section 234. A person is clearly liable, without knowledge of the falsity of his or her statement. Ignorance is no excuse. It is suggested in the Black report that section 234(e) is not applicable because the Minister was under no obligation to fill in the form because it was not his baggage. The fact is that there is nothing in section 234(e) to suggest that this is a valid defence. Even if the Minister by some stretch of the imagination could be exonerated from falsely claiming that there were no gifts, how would he explain the other false declarations-that the luggage did not contain goods imported on behalf of any person, and that the luggage 'contains my bona fide unaccompanied baggage'. On these false declarations Mr Black ignores a critical part of the Minister's unaccompanied baggage statement. At one point, Mr Black suggests it was 'debatable' whether the baggage could properly be described as the Minister's bona fide unaccompanied baggage but then leaves this important issue unresolved. There is also the important question of the valuation of the goods. Just look at those valuations! It was easy for my office to go through the list and make up some questions and have answers proffered in regard to the retail value of many of the items. Frankly, the Minister's list and the valuations just do not stand up to examination. The world knows that this matter has been grossly covered up in an attempt by the Prime Minister since the first day firstly to keep it from the Australian public; secondly, when there was a fear it would get out, to push the Minister forward and say that no action would be taken against him; and, thirdly, to claim he was unable to resolve this difficulty. The Prime Minister, with all the powers that he has to question, probe and analyse, could not do that; so he set up an inquiry with phoney terms of reference that nobbled it from the start. The inquiry was not needed. The facts were known. The action should have been taken against the Special Minister of State on 5 July. The facts are there for anyone to see. The Minister's rehabilitation is founded on shifting sands. The actions and inactions of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is responsible for the Australian Customs Service, were both unsatisfactory and motivated out of a fear of what the truth would do. There is no credit to the culprits involved. There will be no end until the full facts, including the documents, are made public because the Government stands condemned for what is nothing less than disgraceful behaviour. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Howard —I second the amendment. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, (3.31) —I have always had some affection for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). It is, I think, a pity that today we saw the Leader of the Opposition under the kind of political pressure which has led him into an attack partly upon the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) but, more importantly, upon the processes of good and honest government. From time to time when these issues arise, the course that is available to a government-the only course that is available to a government-is to appoint a judge or usually a leading member of the Bar to carry out an impartial and honest investigation. I have never met Mr Black, but I know of his reputation as a leader of the Melbourne Bar. I do not believe for one minute and I do not believe members of the Opposition believe for one minute that a man who is held in such high esteem among his professional colleagues would demean himself to conduct an investigation and prepare a report which would not be the property of the Government but which, from the moment he accepted his commission, he knew would be the property of this Parliament. We are playing a dangerous game. It is a dangerous game that goes to the very heart of the parliamentary institution. When we ask members of the judiciary and leaders of the Bar to undertake what are difficult and onerous responsibilities upon which the political future of one of our colleagues may depend, they are at least entitled to believe that whatever report and findings they produce will be considered honestly and objectively by this House. I believe that if this House does not examine any report in that light it does itself, this Parliament and the people of Australia a grave disservice. I invite those members of this House who have had training in the law to examine the first 24 pages of the Black report. In those 24 pages Mr Black set out his view of the legal obligations which were cast upon him to examine the evidence. He said that he had to examine the matter using the widest possible terms of reference. He set out the methodology which he planned to take. He set out the method by which he would select and adduce evidence. He indicated the legal basis upon which he would make his findings. I do not believe there is a single member of this House who, if he examined those first 24 pages, could reach any conclusion other than that this was a distinguished member of his profession prepared to accept an obligation on behalf of this Parliament and to discharge a heavy and onerous obligation. I challenge any member of the Opposition, particularly a member who has legal training, to stand up in this House, having looked at the processes which Mr Black has revealed publicly-there is no secret about them; he has told the Parliament how he intended to proceed and deal with the evidence-and say: 'Here is a man who has been nobbled'. If ever there was a contemptible, dishonest and unworthy statement unfit to fall from the lips of a Leader of the Opposition, that is an unworthy statement and one which should not be tolerated in this House. From the moment the Special Minister of State stood aside he was not able to comment. Mr Black had a duty to conduct the investigation. He was not able to comment. Although Mr Black was appointed on 26 July, that did not stop the Leader of the Opposition continuing to assert publicly that the Special Minister of State was in breach of the law. No Minister of the Crown, no member of this Parliament, having been subjected not merely to all sorts of public accusations by his political opponents-the Special Minister of State has been around politics long enough to wear that-has come through that investigation with conclusions as strong and as positive as those delivered in respect of the Special Minister of State. It is all very well for the Leader of the Opposition to get up in this House and talk about a breach of the law. If honourable members look at page 133 of the report they will see the findings of Mr Black. The report states: There was no impropriety in the actions of any person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the Hon. M.J. Young. No breach of a law of the Commonwealth occurred in the actions of any such person. That deals with Mr Young's staff. What did Mr Black say of the Minister himself? He says: There was no impropriety in the actions of the Hon. M.J. Young. Mr Young did not at any stage use or attempt to use his official position to his advantage or to divert any person from the proper and impartial performance of his duty. Page 131 of the report states: I have concluded that there was no intention to evade duty, no attempt to evade duty and no attempt wilfully to mislead any customs officer. He continues: On the facts as I have concluded them to be, I am of the view that the circumstances fall short of impropriety and that a positive finding that there was no impropriety should be made. They are the findings. Mr Black found that there was no impropriety and no breach of the law. I do not know what more a government can do. We appointed a leader of the Melbourne Bar to examine the evidence and we have received his findings. The Leader of the Opposition did not refer either to the terms of reference or, more importantly, to Mr Black's perception and understanding of his responsibilities, which are fully set out. That is the best he could do. Not once did the Leader of the Opposition say: 'Having examined Mr Black's perceptions of his responsibilities, I believe he may have erred in a way that could put his findings under query'. That was not the way in which the case was put. It was put as a simple political grab bag of innuendo and political smear on a man who does not deserve to be treated in that way by any member of this Parliament. I also want to deal with what I believe is an important constitutional issue that lies, as I have always understood it, within the Westminster system. The obligations of a Minister of the Crown are obligations to so comport himself in the conduct of his responsibilities and his portfolio that he enjoys the confidence of the House. He also has a general duty so to comport himself as a Minister that he does not bring his ministry, the Government or the Parliament into disrepute. There is no general proposition to be found anywhere within our constitutional concepts of ministerial duties that says that any breach of the law-no matter how small, no matter how insignificant and no matter how unrelated to the office held by a Minister-brings automatically on the Minister a disqualification from office. That has always been my understanding of the law and, quite frankly, I think it has always been the understanding of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Hodgman —A law maker should not be a law breaker. Mr HOLDING —Yes, I understand the way in which that argument is put. But I say to the honourable gentleman that there is no basis in constitutional doctrine which enables that proposition to be put in terms of, say, a misdemeanour. If that is so, my friend the Special Minister of State is in no trouble at all because he has received a positive finding. But the Leader of the Opposition carries responsibilities which are equivalent to those of a Minister in this House. He carries the status of a Minister. He carries special privileges in this place which give him that status. On 8 July 1983 the Leader of the Opposition was found guilty of a traffic offence of speeding and he was fined. Mr Howard —Ha, ha! Mr HOLDING —All of a sudden it is funny. The Opposition's argument was that any breach of the law carries with it the obligation to resign. I say that that is nonsense. When I read that particular report, I did not expect the Leader of the Opposition to resign. It would be a nonsense proposition and it is a nonsense proposition. But that proposition would never have occurred to the Leader of the Opposition; nor should it have. On 8 July the Leader of the Opposition knew, as I knew and as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) knew, there was no general provision that stated that a conviction for a minor offence carries a responsibility that the Minister or the Leader of the Opposition is characterised as a lawbreaker and therefore he must resign. It is a nonsense proposition, and it is a nonsense proposition in the case of the Special Minister of State because the Special Minister of State has been subject to what I believe was an impartial and honest inquiry and he was subject to a finding, not merely that there was no impropriety, but that there was no breach of law. Mr Groom —That is wrong. Read the report. Mr HOLDING —Not even a minor breach of law. Mr Groom —Read the report. Mr HOLDING —That is not right. The report is quite specific. The Opposition is so desperate to try to win a political point that it wants to pillory the Special Minister of State on any basis that it can. But in so doing it has become so desperate and contemptible that it is prepared to pillory a leading member of the Bar by saying: 'Here is a man who accepted a commission from the Government when he knew right from the outset that he was being nobbled'. That is an unworthy, untruthful and contemptible statement. As that is the basis upon which the Opposition has launched its mean and despicable case, its case must fail, as this Leader of the Opposition will surely fail. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(3.46) —This debate needs to be put into perspective. The first thing that ought to be done is to address the extraordinary proposition that occupied about two-thirds of the speech of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), that in some way when a report is tabled in this Parliament we have no right to examine that report critically and to make some kind of independent assessment. Of course, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) went much further. He sought to base most of his criticism of the Opposition's actions in this matter on the fact that we had the impertinence, as he saw it, to call into question some of the findings of Mr Black, QC. I state at the outset that I make no criticism of Mr Black's integrity. Mr Young —Your leader did. Mr HOWARD —I will come to what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said. It is not what the Special Minister of State said that he said. I will come to what he actually said. I cast no aspersions on the integrity or the legal ability of Mr Black, and neither did the Leader of the Opposition. It ill becomes members of the Government to lecture the Opposition about comments regarding judges, magistrates and members of the legal profession. The last person to have any credit to do so is the Prime Minister. In 1979 our benighted Prime Minister talked, not about Mr Black, QC, Mr Justice Woodward or other respected members of the legal profession, but about judges of the High Court of Australia. The then President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions-the current Prime Minister of Australia-speaking about the umpire, the person whose verdict we should today so uncritically revere, said: If ever people have to face their maker and justify their existence, certain occupants of the High Court will have a particularly messy time. Those were the words of the present Prime Minister. That is what he thought of those umpires in 1979. He arrogated to himself the right to impugn their integrity, to denigrate them and to criticise them. Yet he says in this Parliament: 'You must never criticise the umpire's decision. You are dreadfully wicked people. You must not call into question the verdict of the umpire. In so doing you denigrate the Parliament, you denigrate yourselves and you denigrate the institution that those people come from'. The Leader of the Opposition, quite correctly in my view, pointed out the enormous restrictions that had been placed upon the brief given to Mr Black. That is what the word 'nobbled' means. Restrictions were placed on him. We said from the beginning that the terms of reference of this inquiry were totally inadequate and the findings of the inquiry-the failure of Mr Black to address fully the fundamental issues raised by this affair-demonstrate how valid our criticism was. It is no surprise to the Opposition that the Prime Minister in his remarks today about the umpire, when compared with his criticism of umpires in 1979, has demonstrated once again what a person of double standards he really is. Once again we have an example of the Prime Minister of Australia saying and standing for one thing before he becomes Prime Minister but now, because it suits his political convenience, standing for something different. Because he is now Prime Minister he would love the Opposition to agree with everything he does, but when he was a political opponent of the Fraser Government he never agreed with anything. He never stood for consensus. He never stood for a bipartisan approach to things when he was in political opposition, but now that he is Prime Minister we all have to bow down and say: 'Aren't you terrific? Should we not all agree with you and say what a marvellous Messiah you are and how eternally grateful we all are, whatever our politics, that you have deigned to become the Prime Minister of Australia'. The Prime Minister need not imagine that that kind of double standard will wash with anybody on this side of the House. If it was good enough for him to insult the judiciary, to insult the occupants of the office of Justice of the High Court in 1979, we have a perfect right legitimately and respectfully to analyse and criticise what has been done by Mr Black. If I could turn now to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), he had one of the worst dock briefs I have heard for a long time. He must have been obtained on legal aid and given only five minutes to read the brief. The first thing he got wrong was the principal finding. In his contribution to this debate he said that Mr Black made a finding that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) had not breached Commonwealth law. Not only did he say it once but, despite our interjections, he repeated it. Yet if we turn to page 132, this is what Mr Black said: I express no conclusion as to whether any breach of a law of the Commonwealth may have occurred. In case the Minister cannot find the place, it is under the sub-heading 'The Hon M. J. Young'. In that same section Mr Black made the other finding in relation to the honourable gentleman's conduct to which the Minister has referred. So much for the contribution-- Mr Holding —Why don't you read the whole lot? Mr HOWARD —I have read the whole lot, and that is what the Minister failed to do . Mr Holding —Read the whole sentence. Mr HOWARD —I am very happy to read the whole lot. It states: I express no conclusion as to whether any breach of a law of the Commonwealth may have occurred. My reasons for taking this course appear in Part XII of this Report. It should not be inferred that I make any finding that a breach of the law of the Commonwealth may have occurred . . . Mr Holding —'May have occurred'. Mr HOWARD —Of course. In other words, he is absolutely silent on the question of whether the Minister may have breached Commonwealth law. Yet the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs twice falsely asserted that Mr Black had made a positive finding that no breach of the law had occurred. The thing that disturbs me most about the Black report is its failure to address what the Opposition from the very beginning has regarded as the fundamental point at issue, and that is that the Special Minister of State made three false statements in a Customs declaration. He made them in circumstances where, at the most charitable, one would really have to wonder that he had the capacity to exercise the standard of care required of a Minister of the Crown. I can say only that if the Prime Minister is satisfied to have in his Ministry somebody who is so recklessly careless, to be most charitable, as to make the sorts of mistakes the Minister made in this Customs declaration, the Prime Minister is clearly not very concerned about ministerial standards. Perhaps we ought to go back in time to understand the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Special Minister of State. Let us not forget that the Minister we are talking about today is the Minister in relation to whom Mr Justice Hope made a finding that he improperly disclosed information that may have endangered Australia's national security. As far as I am concerned, as far as the people of Australia are concerned, as far as the members of the Opposition are concerned, that act alone by this Minister should have totally disqualified him from membership of the Government of this country. Yet on that occasion the Prime Minister, forsaking duty and putting loyalty and mateship above duty, was forced to take back the Minister, and take him back he did, eat humble pie he did. We might well have imagined that, having done it once, never again would this Prime Minister eat humble pie over this Minister. Perhaps some of us had a glimmer of hope when we heard the Prime Minister say, when he was interviewed on the Sunday program two or three weeks ago: 'There is no doubt about it, as far as I am concerned I am going to insist on high standards, and Mick is going to have to live or die politically by the standards he established during the debate on the Moore-MacKellar affair'. We all remember the contribution of the honourable member for Port Adelaide during the Moore- MacKellar affair. We all remember the holier than thou attitude adopted by him. We all now note the incredible double standard. He could say the things he said about my colleagues from Ryan and Warringah and yet, without any sense of shame, he can sit as a member of the Government. This Government has adopted monstrous double standards in the approach it has taken towards my colleagues and the attitude it now takes. How on earth the Prime Minister and the Special Minister of State can reconcile what the Special Minister of State said in April 1982 with the retention of the Special Minister of State in the Ministry is beyond any logical comprehension. There is nothing in the Black report which addresses the central question of the making of the false declaration. There is nothing in that report which excuses the conduct of the Minister in making those three false statements. There is nothing in the Black report that satisfies the Australian public about the questions I raised regarding the matter of valuation. Is it not incredible that the valuation supplied for these goods was a mere $13 less than the level that would have triggered the automatic prosecution of the Minister for a breach of Commonwealth law? Is it not amazing-it will strike many people as amazing- that it actually fell $13 short of that magical trigger level? Yet what does Mr Black say about that? He comes to the incredible conclusion that to call for a valuation would be inappropriate. It would certainly be inappropriate for the Special Minister of State, but it was not inappropriate for him during his speech on 27 April 1982 to call for an independent valuation of gifts that had been brought into Australia by the then Prime Minister, when he was impugning the integrity of the former Prime Minister of Australia, accusing him of stealing. That is what he was doing in that debate, and he called for an independent valuation. Do the Minister and the Prime Minister seriously argue, in the face of that, that the Minister has lived or died politically by the standards he established in April 1982? Everybody knows that Mick Young has survived politically because he has the numbers. It has absolutely nothing to do with standards. It has absolutely nothing to do with propriety. It has everything to do with a crude abuse of numbers, and that is all. The Prime Minister knew his duty last year regarding the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. He should have kept the Minister out of the Ministry. He knew his duty when he spoke on that Sunday program. He attempted to establish a criterion by which he could subsequently have the Minister removed, but once again he failed. I believe the most instructive thing that emerges out of this whole issue is not the behaviour of the Minister, not his failure to aspire to proper ministerial standards, not the liability the Minister now is to the Government, not the double standards, bad though they may be, that have been displayed by this Minister and this Prime Minister; the most important thing that comes out of this affair is that once again, faced with a choice between popularity and duty, the Prime Minister has chosen the course of temporary popularity. He really does not have the strength, when it finally comes to the crunch, to do the nasty unpopular things. He may think he is going okay at the moment. He may believe that in a short term expedient sense the right thing to do is to calm everything over within his own Party. But once a Prime Minister starts to compromise the standards that are needed of that high office, as this Prime Minister has twice done in relation to this same Minister, he embarks upon a very dangerous course. He has started to compromise the obligations and the high requirements of his office. I regard the Black report as having failed properly to address some of the main issues raised by this dispute. We said from the beginning that we believed there was sufficient evidence available in the Minister's statement and on the public record to justify his removal from office. Nothing in the Black report has altered that view. Nothing in the Black report has removed the liability that the Minister must carry in a general political sense for the false statements that he made in that Customs declaration. All the Black report has done is to confirm our concerns about the leadership qualities of this Prime Minister when it comes to the difficult decision of leadership and the difficult decisions of government. All the Black report has done is to confirm the growing concern that we have on this side of the House that this Government is led by a Prime Minister of gross double standards. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(4.02) —It is interesting that neither of the speakers from the Opposition has referred very much to the report of the Black Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration. I can understand that as it would obviously be an argument against their case. In terms of the standards to which the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) referred, it seems that the former Government of Malcolm Fraser had a series of standards-one for the Liberal Party of Australia and one for the National Party of Australia. If one was in the National Party, it did not matter what one did; one could stay on the front bench. I remind the honourable member for Bennelong that, if he is still in the House with the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) on the next occasion that the Opposition wins an election, the right honourable member for New England, with the report of the Cross Special Commission of Inquiry into Certain Allegations by the Rt. Hon. Ian McCahon Sinclair hanging over his head, will be the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. He should not talk to me about standards. I want to go through the Black report because none of the other speakers seem to want to refer to it. Firstly, let me make it clear that I had never met Mr Black before. I spent some hours before Mr Black answering his questions and providing to this inquiry documents that I may have had. On the question of documents and persons who appeared before him he said: For these purposes, written requests for all documents of possible relevance were made to the permanent heads of the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Department of Special Minister of State and the Department of Administrative Services. These requests were complied with very promptly. I also indicated to the permanent heads of those Departments the names of departmental officers with whom I then considered I might wish to confer and asked that all necessary administrative arrangements be made to enable them to confer with me if the officers concerned wished to do so. These arrangements were made. I also wrote to the Permanent Head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet requesting that all relevant documents be forwarded to me and this request was also complied with very promptly. On the question of collusion of evidence, which has been raised by some honourable members opposite during the break, Mr Black said: I noted particularly, moreover, that there was no suggestion of any collusion between any members of Mr Young's staff. For example, I thought it significant that Miss Johnston (Mr Young's electorate secretary) had obviously not sought to influence a more junior member of Mr Young's electorate office staff (Miss Hudson) in what she might say to me. Mr Young had patently not sought to influence his staff or Mrs Young or his sister-in-law as to what they might say to the Inquiry. On the question of the goods being used for commercial purposes, the Liberal Party of Australia set up a national committee to look at this issue. It comprised Senator Durack, Senator Chaney, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, the honourable member for North Sydney, Mr Spender, and a couple of others. No other significant Liberal Party committee has ever been set up on any other major issue that I can think of, but one was set up on this. They sent poor Tony Messner, a senator from South Australia, and his office staff running around Adelaide to see whether my wife or a sister-in-law owned a handbag shop because there were so many handbags in the luggage. Mr Spender —That is absolute rubbish. Mr YOUNG —It was true in South Australia. On this aspect Mr Black said: They made no purchases for commercial purposes and had no reason to do so. On the question of arrangements for the bill for the shipping of the bags, as the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has made inquiries about this, Mr Black states: Mr Hills-- he is the person from the Australian High Commission in London-- told Mr Young and Mr Dodds that he would arrange for the baggage to be sent and would charge the cost to the Australian High Commission and that it would subsequently be charged to the Minister's account. It has been charged to the Minister's account and that account has been paid by the Minister, not by the Government. Later on, in terms of whether Mr Hills was aware of or had been told of the goods in the bags, Mr Black said, following his interview of Mr Hills in London: Mr Hills was asked by the agents if he had any idea of the value of the consignment. He said that he did not really know. He nominated five hundred pounds but this was no more than a reasonable guess on his part . . . Mr Hills said he was confident that there was no discussion with Mr Young or Mr Dodds about the contents of the baggage. On the question of whether I knew what was in the baggage, let me read what Mr Black said. Mr Black, unlike those honourable members on the other side, had to listen to all the evidence so his judgment is based on the evidence placed before him. He said: In this situation, even if I had some doubt or suspicion about what I was told, it would be wrong to conclude that Mr Young had any knowledge of the contents of the bags when both of those persons who knew what was in the bags told me that they did not inform Mr Young of their contents. But the position is stronger than that. I am positively satisfied that Mr Young was not told about the contents of the bags. On the need to fill in a form, it is interesting to see what Mr Black says about whether we should or should not have filled in a form. He states: It is relevant to note that, contrary to Mr Gilbert's- that is, Mr Gilbert from the Department of Administrative Services- belief, an unaccompanied baggage statement would only be required by Customs in Adelaide if the owner of the goods attended to collect them and said that he had packed the goods himself. In other circumstances, a statement would not be required and it would be customary for the goods to be examined. The consequence is that had Mr Young attended personally to collect the baggage he would have been asked whether he had packed the bags. He would doubtless have answered that he did not. No form would have been required and the bags would have been inspected. That is according to Mr Black and the operations of the Australian Customs Service. On the question of supporting evidence given to Mr Black and his conclusions he states: In fact, at the foot of each relevant question the expression appears: ''If Yes describe goods'' . . . Where the person does not know what is in the unaccompanied baggage there is nothing for the person to describe. The foregoing supports the good sense of the Customs practice of not requiring the form to be completed by a person who has not in fact packed the baggage to which it relates. On the question of the basis for the 'No' answer, which has come under attack, Mr Black states: But Mr Young did know facts which bore upon the likely contents of the baggage. He knew, for example, his wife's habits and character. In this sense he ''knew'' that the baggage would not contain drugs of dependence, dangerous weapons or alcohol. He ''knew'' that the baggage would not contain cigarettes because Mrs Young does not smoke. He ''knew'' that the baggage would not contain exposed film because his wife does not own or use a camera. . . . . His process of reasoning involved the belief that most gifts would be purchased in Hong Kong and that gifts already bought were more likely to be given at, or soon after, a family welcome at Adelaide Airport. On the question of knowledge, Mr Black stated: As I have previously said, I am satisfied that Mr Young had no knowledge that there were gifts in the bags. Analysing what Mr Young told me in two conferences I held with him, and considering the whole of the material, I conclude that Mr Young considered the situation, considered that he had to answer either ''Yes or No'' and concluded, on balance, that in fact there were no gifts. I consider that he honestly sought to come to grips with the problem and the question posed to someone without direct knowledge of the contents of the baggage. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong, keeps asking about new evidence. The Prime Minister said that there was some conflict or appeared to be conflict between what the Customs officer had said and what I had said. That was one of the things Mr Black had to sort out. Mr Black said this about Mr Jennings and the entry in his dairy: I accept that Mr Young did not have any intention of circumventing or influencing the manner in which the matter should be dealt with. I am quite satisfied that any reference to a new form was in the context of any inquiry by Mr Young as to what should be done in the ordinary and proper course. It would not be unnatural for Mr Young to make such an inquiry when as had happened, the original form had come back to him. That should not have been done. Mr Black does not say that in his report, but, as honourable members will note later in the report, the form was actually sent back to my office. Mr Black continued: I accept that there was nothing in Mr Young's tone of voice, or in the expression that he used, that was intended to convey to Mr Jennings, or that did convey to him, any hint or suggestion of impropriety. Other evidence which may have been substantial related to the question of the actions of my electorate secretary, Miss Johnston. Then the form was sent back to me without any knowledge of why it had been sent back, except that my secretary in my absence had been told that there were gifts in the baggage. Where I had ticked 'No' she had whited it out and ticked 'Yes'. When she showed me the form I said: 'That is not the form I filled out because the tick has been changed'. She said: 'I changed it because they said there were gifts'. I said: ' You cannot do that'. Let us see what Mr Black found after he had interviewed everybody involved. He said: I do not consider that what Miss Johnston did can be characterised as impropriety for the reason that I am of the view that her motive was to make right that which she then believed to be wrong . . . It is not without significance that Miss Johnston told Mr Jennings- Mr Jennings, the Customs official- what she had done when she first saw him the next day . . . I consider that there is no connection between the alterations to the unaccompanied baggage statement and the conversation between Mr Young and Mr Jennings about a new form. Let us look at another matter which raises the interest of honourable members opposite. I refer to the question of collusion on the valuation that was done by my wife, my sister-in-law and the Customs officials. The honourable member for Bennelong almost spins off the earth when he starts talking about this matter. Let us see what Mr Black says about it under the heading 'The process of valuation'. He said: There was no attempt to work out in advance what the values of the various articles might be with a view to producing a plausible total duty figure of $500 or less. Such a calculation could have been undertaken but it would have been a complicated calculation and it would have taken a considerable time and the wish to do so. It could not have been undertaken without possession of the Customs list of articles and the tariff calculations. It would have involved converting foreign currencies into Australian dollars, calculating the percentage rates of duty, adding penalty rates where applicable, and producing an overall range of individual values which looked authentic. Unless such a deception were then to be revealed, it would have been necessary to memorise a list of values. It would have been necessary to memorise the individual values assigned to approximately 44 items and to do so in three currencies. It would also have been necessary to pay regard to the fact, of which both Mrs Young and Mrs Hughes were unaware before the valuation began, that some articles bore prices which the customs officers had not noted when they made the list of dutiable articles. In the circumstances, the whole idea of some pre-arranged scheme on the part of Mrs Young and Mrs Hughes to arrive at a convenient set of values designed to produce a figure for duty of $500 or less is to be rejected. Nothing of the sort happened. I am satisfied that it never entered the minds of either Mrs Young or Mrs Hughes to engage in any such scheme of deception. Nobody suggested or hinted they should do so, and nobody made available to them the means whereby such deception could have been undertaken. When the process of evaluation began at Adelaide airport none of those concerned had any idea of what the final figure would be. Let us look at what Mr Black says about the people participating in the valuation because some honourable members opposite seem to have a view that I did the valuation. I did not do it at all; it was done both by my wife and by her sister. Mr Black said: I have been assisted in the conclusions I have reached on the valuation aspect and, indeed, on all aspects, by my clear conclusion that Mrs Young and Mrs Hughes are demonstrably honest people. The customs officers were required to form their own opinion about Mrs Young and Mrs Hughes and their opinion-formed for the purposes of the valuation-was the same as mine. On the question of whether I tried to influence anybody in the Australian Customs Service or any other department in these matters, Mr Black said: Despite a detailed examination of the whole of the circumstances surrounding the making of the customs declaration, I found no evidence of any attempt being made by any person to exercise any improper influence on any other person. I conclude that there was no such attempt. On the matter of whether there was an attempt at a higher level, Mr Black said: I am satisfied that the matter was conducted at a regional level. There was no hint of any improper interference or attempted interference in the manner emanating from a higher level. Let us see what was said about evasion of duty and whether anyone was being misled. Mr Black stated: In the events that occurred, no duty in fact was evaded and no customs officer was in fact misled. I conclude that Mr Young had no intention to evade duty and made no attempt to evade duty. There was no attempt wilfully to mislead any customs officer. The unaccompanied baggage statement was not ''an entry'' within the meaning of the Customs Act, 1901. There are obviously other things in the document which honourable members ought to read because it will be an important document in terms of future behaviour. I conclude by saying that the honourable member for Bennelong, who has been crowing about this issue around the country for the last three or four weeks and who thought he did not have sufficient substance in this report to raise the matter to the levels to which the Opposition wanted to raise it, decided to put out a Press release in which he became critical of my friend the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) and said he was not much of a lawyer. What do honourable members think the Hon. John Howard did a few weeks ago? He put out a Press release not in the form of making an allegation but in the form of four questions. He asked whether I brought back a video tape recorder and whether I brought back three or four other items. He asked whether they were valued and whether I told the Customs officers about them when I came through. He said: 'I am not making any allegations. I am only asking questions'. We should ask John Spender, QC, whether that is just as damaging. Does that impugn a person just as much as if one had made an outright allegation against that person? One does not need to be paid $1,500 a day to be able to give that answer to the Hon. John Howard. That is one of the reasons why John Howard will be sitting on the Opposition benches and squawking for a long time to come, because on this issue he has missed the boat. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.16) —The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) complained nobody has looked at the Report of the Black Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration. I will. On examination, the truth is that it does not stand up. In saying that, I do not challenge the integrity of Mr Black in any way at all. What I do challenge, and challenge very directly, is his findings of fact, his judgment and his ultimate conclusions. I have some professional sympathy for Mr Black, who finds himself in a most difficult position, with no powers, under severe time constraints and having to deal with highly charged political issues. Before the Special Minister of State walks out of the House, if that is what he intends to do, let me take up one point that he raised about five minutes into his argument when he said: 'It was unnecessary, Mr Black found, for me to fill out the form'. Is he really telling this House that as Special Minister of State the answer is that he did not have to fill out the form anyway? He is rather like a man involved in a conveyancing transaction who is asked to fill out a statutory declaration and does so falsely, and knows he does it falsely, and who is charged later and finds out then that it was not necessary to fill out any sworn document; a letter would have done. That is no answer. The Special Minister of State knows that when he filled out that statement about the baggage he believed he was bound under the law to fill it out accurately in all respects , and it is patently obvious that he did not. The Government has relied on Mr Black's findings, and there is no doubt that those findings if read literally and not examined critically would exonerate the Minister. The Government has relied, through the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), on the umpire argument. We heard yesterday, and I thought the Prime Minister was repeating it today, the grotesque argument that the umpire appointed by the Government under terms of reference which we utterly opposed is somehow to be accepted. He was not an umpire appointed by this Parliament. He was in fact acting as an umpire between the Prime Minister and the Minister. That is all he was umpiring because the Prime Minister did not have the stomach to resolve the question himself. We have heard a great deal about an open inquiry. Where is the evidence? I have written to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button). I have asked him whether he would have certain documents tabled. Where is the evidence upon which Mr Black acted? Where are the transcripts of the interviews that he had? Where are the documents that he looked at? We have two. When I take honourable members to those two documents they will see that those documents destroy the whole basis of Mr Black's report. If this Government were such an open government, if it were interested in laying the evidence before the House, it would have done so. Indeed, the applications that I have made under the Freedom of Information Act would have been answered. Have they been answered? No. Has Senator Button's office answered ? No. Will he answer? He will not answer until this debate is over for the very good reason that the Government does not want us to see what was put before Mr Black. No other conclusion is possible. Let us now consider the two pieces of evidence which Mr Black appended to his report. First there was the statement itself. Secondly, there was the valuation. It is crucial to the position of the Special Minister of State that the duty valuation came in under the figure of $500 because section 209 of the Customs Act allows for release of goods on payment of a penalty and without prosecution so long as in the opinion of the officers concerned the value of the duty sought to be evaded did not exceed $500. If the goods have a higher value the person involved is looking down the barrel of a prosecution. By the time the Black inquiry commenced everybody knew of and was committed to the valuations which appear in appendix B to the Black report. The Special Minister of State, his staff, his family and the Customs officers knew that there was no turning back from that valuation. Indeed, any hint from the Customs officers that they had done something wrong would at the very least be a gross impropriety and damaging to their careers. It would subject them to disciplinary action. At worst, it would subject them to criminal sanctions. Let us consider what Mr Black had to say about this sum of $500. On pages 88 and 89 of his report he says, when dealing with knowledge: Mr Jennings-- of the Customs Service-- left with Miss Johnston-- the electorate assistant of the Special Minister of State-- a copy of the list of dutiable goods bearing Mr Taylor's tariff classifications opposite each item. How often does that happen? Mr Black continued: The nature and consequence of the procedure under S.209 of the Act were explained to Miss Johnston. Why was that done? What was the purpose? Is that done ordinarily for the average citizen? At pages 105 and 106 of his report Mr Black said: On the way-- we are talking about the day the valuation was made-- to the airport to keep the appointment Mrs Young called Mr Young's Port Adelaide office and only then obtained a copy of the list of dutiable goods. She had not seen the list before. Miss Johnston explained to Mrs Young the significance of the $500 figure but I do not think that Mrs Young really understood the significance of what Miss Johnston told her. Mr Young had not discussed the $500 limit with Mrs Young or Mrs Hughes. In fact , Mr Young had told Mr Dodds-one of his staff-not to mention the $500 limit to Mrs Young when he was speaking to her. On page 106, dealing with Mrs Young and Mrs Hughes again, Mr Black said: It was only when Mrs Young and Mrs Hughes arrived at the customs office that Mrs Hughes had any idea about the significance of the $500 figure. I wish to make it perfectly plain that I do not in any way directly or by implication criticise Mrs Hughes or Mrs Young. My criticism is aimed directly at the Special Minister of State and at the Customs officers. The position is that everybody knew about the $500 figure. Why and how did the Minister learn of it? Why did Miss Johnston learn of it? Why was it that every member of his staff who was involved knew about that magic $500 figure? Why were members of his family told of it? Why was the dutiable list given to the Minister's office beforehand with knowledge of the $500 figure? Everybody knew about the lethal potential of this figure for Mr Young's future career. It could hang on that figure. If the valuation was over $500 that might be the end of it. That is the commencing point. When the valuation began everybody knew that the Minister's career might hang on something as trivial as the cost of a dress. That is inescapable. It is also inescapable that by the time the inquiry began everybody was committed to the valuation. Not only was the Minister's career at stake; the Customs officers also could not in any way depart from the valuation to which they had agreed. It is as simple as that. Therefore, the valuation was central to Mr Black's inquiry. It was essential that he conduct the most rigorous examination of that valuation. We have had the process detailed. Looking at it and looking at the valuation we see that there were three currencies. There were English, French and Australian currencies. A cursory glance at that valuation evokes the most profound suspicion as to how the values were arrived at. Let us consider the items which were valued in Australian dollars. There were 17 items in Australian dollars. Three of those items were grouped as one item; so effectively there were less than 17 items. Ten items came in at a figure of $ 20, not a penny less, not a penny more. Is that conceivable? Is there a $20 shop somewhere in Europe that we do not know about? Is it possible that there is a $ 20 shop which sells at no other price but $20? Some of the $20 items include: A red-grey-blue striped dress; a brown and purple dress and belt; a blue spotted dress; a textile handbag and purse; and so it goes on. Anyone who believes that believes that the moon is made from green cheese. When Mr Black examines the evidence he points out that at one stage a Customs officer thought that some of the values were too high. One item is valued at over $50. One item is valued at $50. What is that $50 item? The $50 item is a chamois dress. What is a chamois dress? Anyone who looks it up will find that it is a dress which is made out of the skins of animals, a soft dress. Fifty dollars? Can that be a serious valuation? Can anyone be serious when saying that nine different items came in at precisely $20, not a penny more, not a penny less? Let us put that to one side. What was the duty on those items? It came to $105 on the nine items. A few dollars more and the career of the Special Minister of State might have been at an end. Was he in fact dealt with as any other citizen? He most certainly was not. Mr Black fails to examine the Customs declaration. He ignores the startling improbabilities of the $20 figure. He overlooks the immense pressures on Mrs Young and Mrs Hughes to do what they might to bring down the valuation. That is perfectly understandable from a human point of view. He fails to inquire about the $500 limit. He fails to consider that all concerned must have been very deeply concerned to lower the valuation as far as possible because Mr Young's chances of survival might hang on it. That is certainly one very clear view which is open. It is beyond belief that the list of items contains nine items valued at this one figure. What do we then consider ? Let us look at the declaration. Before doing that, we should ask about the independent valuation. Mr Black admitted that it might be useful but he put it to one side. Looking at what we have, we see it is not only useful, it is absolutely essential if we are to know the real facts. Let us look at Mr Young's declaration. He says that the baggage was his own bona fide unaccompanied baggage-'three packages consigned to me which are due to arrive and which contain my bona fide unaccompanied baggage for the abovementioned voyage.' That is false. Mr Young knew it was false and Mr Black also knew it was false. What does Mr Black do? He says that the question is debatable as to whether it was Mr Young's bona fide unaccompanied baggage. He then does not resolve that question. That question was never debatable; there was only one answer to it. The same may be said of Mr Young's filling in of the question relating to gifts . What did he know? He knew that his wife had been shopping. He was aware of that because Mr Black made a finding on page 57 to the effect that most of the goods were to be purchased in Hong Kong. This meant that some were not and apparently Mr Young clearly knew that. He knew that a Paddington Bear would be purchased overseas. How could he be other than in a position of suspecting that the goods might be there and how could he possibly say that it was his best knowledge that there were no gifts there? That is utter nonsense. Let us look at the question of a breach of the law. What was Mr Black asked to do? By his terms of reference Mr Black was asked to inquire as to whether there was any breach of a law. He fails to do that. He disregards his terms of reference and confuses two quite distinct questions. The first is whether there was a breach of section 234A of the Customs Act; that is, whether Mr Young made in any document given to a Customs officer a statement that was untrue. He did; there is no contest on that point. The second question is, if so, whether a prosecution can be brought. Section 209 substitutes on the spot penalties. It bars a prosecution, but it does not extinguish the offence. The offence was still there. Mr Black did not understand this. He misdirected himself on a vital part of the law. Therefore, let us sum up the position. We have a valuation which cannot be sustained, a declaration which is false, an appreciation of the law which is utterly at odds with what the law is and Mr Young coming here and saying: ' Forgive me. I have done nothing wrong. I have been exonerated'. The exoneration is given to Mr Young, who has come into this House and in the bleakest of language has set the standards. He set the very high standards in 1982. But he refuses to live by those standards. The exoneration is one of numbers, not of principle. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Peacock's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.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.Fatin, W. F. Reeves, J. E.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Fry, K. L. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.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. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. Lusher, S. A.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Newman, K. E.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. 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) Uren, T. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) by Dr Jeremy Cooper on Legal Services in Australia, together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General relating to the report. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 6 of the Australian Science and Technology Act 1978, I present a report by the Australian Science and Technology Council on Australia's broad spectrum bilateral science and technology agreements. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to sections 6 and 7 of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, I present the Remuneration Tribunal 1984 review. The report was made available to honourable members during the recess. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to sections 34 and 35 of the Services Trust Fund Act 1947, I present the annual report for 1983 of the Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund, together with the Auditor-General's report and audited income statements and balance sheets. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House, I table the determination required in relation to Division 312 of Appropriation Act (No.1) 1983-84. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House I present statements on expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for March and April 1984. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House, I present the Department of Education and Youth Affairs annual report for 1983. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House, I present a report by the Commonwealth Schools Commission on program guidelines for 1984. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Pursuant to section 52 of the Commonwealth Teaching Act 1972, I present the Commonwealth Teaching Service annual report of 1983. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House, I present the National Women's Advisory Council annual report for 1982-83, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) relating to the report. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Pursuant to section 35 of the Student Assistance Act 1973, I present the report on the operation of the Student Assistance Act for 1983. Limited copies of the report are available from the Bills and Papers Office and the Senate Records Office. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Pursuant to section 33(3) of the Australian National University Act 1946, I present the Australian National University, report part 1, 1983, together with text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) relating to the report. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Telecommunications Commission Service and Business Outlook for 1984-85. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Postal Commission Service and Business Outlook for 1984-85. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973, I present the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation annual report for 1983. The report was made available to honourable members during the recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 48 of the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979, I present the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation annual report for 1983. The report was made available to honourable members during the recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Poultry Research Advisory Committee report covering the period 1 July 1981 to 30 June 1983. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 26 of the Tobacco Marketing Act 1965, I present the Australian Tobacco Board annual report for 1983. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present a fisheries agreement between the Australian Government and the Kaoh Siung Fishing Boat Commercial Guild. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —On behalf of the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren), for the information of honourable members I present the Commonwealth Grants Commission report 1984 on financing the Australian Capital Territory, together with the text of a statement related to the report. Motion (by Mr Keating) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —I am happy to adjourn the matter but I would like it brought on for debate as soon as possible, with the concurrence of the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren). I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation . Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CONNOLLY —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CONNOLLY —Yesterday afternoon the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment ( Mr Cohen) came into the House and claimed that he had been misrepresented, without advising me of his intention to do so, in a statement I made on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program. In fact it was on PM of 10 August this year, not AM, to which the Minister referred. He took great exception to the fact that in that program I said that he had not entered into negotiations with the Queensland Government to seek alternatives in relation to the problem of the Daintree Road. There seems to be some difficulty in the interpretation of the word 'negotiation'. I did not say that he had not spoken to various people in Queensland, including Ministers and people involved in the Douglas Shire. I said that he had not negotiated. What I mean by negotiation is to offer terms for a settlement. My statement was based on the results of my own negotiations with the very same people and what they told me and, more significantly, on a statement put out by the Minister on 8 December, in which he said: . . . the Federal Government has decided not to pursue this matter any further. Mr Cohen —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Yesterday I started to make a detailed explanation similar to this and I was told that I was debating the matter. The honourable member is now debating the matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr CONNOLLY —I am referring to the statement released by the Minister on 8 December, which was a key document upon which my remarks were initially predicated. In that statement the Minister referred to the fact that he had talked to Councillor Miojo, the Shire President. He also said that he had sent a telegram asking for the co-operation of the Premier of Queensland. Needless to say, the Premier did not bother to reply to his telegram and I can hardly blame him for that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I would ask the honourable member to keep to the point of his personal explanation. Mr CONNOLLY —My final point is simply that in his statement he also stated: However, I have come to the conclusion that it would be a dangerous precedent for any Government to attempt to stop any activity which may be potentially damaging to the environment, by a Local or State Government body, by offering them money not to take that action. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Would you please point out where you have been misrepresented? Mr CONNOLLY —I have been misrepresented in a most fundamental manner. The Minister accused me of telling lies. I want to make it quite clear to this House that I did not do so and every statement I made was consistent with what he had said in public. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. During the address by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) this afternoon on the Report on an Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration by Mr Black, QC, he said he would not refer to the situation which obtained with the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) and me. Mr Peacock —And then immediately did. Mr MacKELLAR —And then immediately did. He then said we were part of a conspiracy to cover up a situation. I want to point out once and for all that it was I on 5 October 1981 who first drew attention to the colour of the television set that I was bringing in at that stage as part of a composite radio, cassette and television unit. Under that situation black and white television was not dutiable but colour was. It was I who drew attention to the fact that it was a coloured component. Secondly, I was not asked for duty at that time by the Customs officer who pointed out to me the nature of the document that had been filled in on my behalf. Thirdly, the next week I wrote a letter making it plain that I was perfectly willing to pay any duty that was applicable. I did not hear anything more of the matter until it was raised in a newspaper report six months later. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) — 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 calculated and deceitful attempt by the Government to fool the Australian people that real tax cuts have been granted. 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)(4.53) —The Government's claim to have given tax cuts in the 1984-85 Budget is nothing less than a deliberate attempt to deceive the people of Australia. It is a further example of the hallmarks of this Labor Government-the hallmark of sustained deceit and broken promises; the hallmark of putting its determination to hold an unjustifiable election ahead of the truth and ahead of the interests of the people. When we peel away the veneer of deception, the veneer of election gimmicks, what is revealed is a further attack on the living standards of all Australians, a further attack on the freedom of Australians to choose for themselves how to spend their incomes and a further increase in socialism by stealth. The basic reality is that the 1984-85 Budget is a high spending high tax socialist Budget. Labor, on its own figures, is not cutting the tax burden. It is raising the tax burden to its highest level ever in the history of Australia. Twenty eight cents out of every dollar of income produced in Australia in 1984-85 will be taken by the Commonwealth Government. This is more than ever before and yet the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) talk about cutting taxes. The reality is that in a single year, even after fiddling with the income tax scale, the Government is taking a massive and unprecedented 10.5 per cent real increase in revenues. And for what? These unprecedented increases in revenue are needed by Labor to fund its big spending socialist monster, Medicare. There has been a massive 81 per cent increase in health outlays in the last two Budgets. These massive increases in revenue are also needed by Labor to fund interest payments on the nation's debt. This debt has been increased by this Government by as much in two years as over the previous six years. To pay the interest on this debt costs more than is raised in sales tax revenue or company tax. This is the equivalent of a massive $17 a week for every income tax payer. Mr Keating —Where is the $22? Mr PEACOCK —This is unprecedented. This is the amount to be paid back in public debt interest. You struggled all through Question Time. You are almost illiterate to the extreme and you cannot understand the difference now between public debt interest and what you have cost each taxpayer. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I draw the Leader of the Opposition's attention to the standing order that requires all speakers to address their remarks through the Chair and not across the table. Mr PEACOCK —The funding of more politicians and their staff and to increase the size of the new Parliament House to accommodate them will result in more public debt. Unprecedented revenue increases are also necessary to fund Labor's advertisements of its so-called achievements or the accord, because no one understands it, to further its deceit. So the list goes on and on. If we turn directly to the income tax which Labor claims to have cut, this Hawke Government, on its own figures, is not even cutting income taxes within the overall tax burden. Even after allowing for the so-called tax cuts and for increased numbers of taxpayers, pay as you earn taxpayers-wage and salary earners-will be paying over $8 a week more in income tax this year. Yet, this Hawke Government has the nerve to talk about tax cuts. Income tax collections are set to rise to 53 per cent of total revenues. This is another historical record and another clear indication of the deceit this Government is engaged in. This is the Government headed by a Prime Minister who in his 1983 election campaign promised tax cuts for 99 per cent of the community in his first Budget. The fact is that this Budget has increased income taxes for 100 per cent of Australians. Last February I produced facts and figures which showed that Labor owed Australian families over $17 a week in tax cuts and family allowance increases to compensate for its tax hikes and its failure to adjust tax scales and family allowances for the effects of inflation. No one challenged the facts then because they could not. In fact, since last February we have had a chance to cost the effects of Labor's 31 per cent tax on lump sum payments. It adds over $ 5 a week to the amounts that Labor has added to the tax burden, bringing it to a massive $22 a week. Yesterday, the Prime Minister effectively told this House that to compensate for his tax policies over the last 17 months would cost $6 billion. Yet this same man has the nerve to call his tinkering with the tax scales a tax cut. For all his tinkering with the tax scales, the fact is that hundreds of thousands of taxpayers on average incomes are now paying 47c in every extra dollar of income they earn, including the Medicare levy. Australians on average incomes are paying tax at rates reserved in the rest of the world for the rich. Hundreds of thousands more Australians with incomes between $28,000 and $35,000 face an increased tax rate of 49c for every extra dollar that they earn, and out of every extra hour they work half an hour will be to support this Government's big spending habits. Half of that money will go in tax. Perhaps worst of all, this Government's failure to adjust the tax-free threshold for the effects of inflation will mean that thousands of Australians will become income tax payers for the first time. Ask them if they are grateful that they will have to pay the new marginal rate of tax of 25c in the dollar that the Treasurer talks of instead of nothing at all. What clearer indication of the deceit involved in this Government's tax policies could there be than the fact that it has had to introduce a special tax rebate for social security beneficiaries and increase the rebate for pensioners to avoid having them become taxpayers. So here we have it, a tissue of deliberate deception, a futile attempt to con Australians into believing that they are sharing in the benefits of recovery when in reality it is the Government and its socialist programs that are the beneficiaries. This list of tax increases does not end there. In this Budget, the effects of Labor's earlier tax increases are showing up. One does not have to take my word; ask any taxpayer who this year has received a much lower tax refund cheque, or even a tax bill. Tax refunds to pay as you earn taxpayers are expected to fall by $403m-that is, by a massive 16.8 per cent-this financial year. This is the result of changes Labor made only two months after taking office-in May 1983 when it abolished rebates for health insurance premiums, abolished rebates for home loan interest payments above 10 per cent, abolished rebates for dividend income up to $1,000 and increased the block concessional rebate threshold to $2, 000. According to last year's Budget Papers, the full year increase in receipts from these measures was expected to be around $1.1 billion. That May 1983 mini- Budget also imposed the 31 per cent lump sum superannuation tax which is expected to raise at least $60m this year and much more as the years go on. In the August 1983 Budget Labor increased some specific excise duties and provided for half-yearly indexation of excise rates. According to Budget Paper No. 1 at page 300, these measures explain 'a large part' of the $269m extra excise revenue in 1984-85. But on top of this, Labor made some changes to sales tax which will probably contribute more than $40m to taxes this year. So that is around $1,400m to $1,500m which measures announced last night will take away from Australians in 1984-85. Last night Labor added insult to this previous injury with a whole set of new measures. It made changes to the tax scales, which as I have already said will nowhere near compensate the average total wage earner for the effects of inflation. It is applying a 10 per cent sales tax on imported and Australian wines, and this measure will clearly do great harm to the struggling wine industry while adding between 50c and $1 to the price of a bottle of wine. Mr Andrew —Right after the 2J spirit tax had been applied. Mr PEACOCK —Yes, and the honourable member knows more about the industry than any other man in this Parliament. We will hear more from him on this matter. The Government has applied a sales tax of 20 per cent to very low alcohol beer which was previously free from sales tax or excise, and it has increased excises on aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuel, a move which will inevitably result in higher air fares. This is a Budget offering no hope and no assistance to ordinary Australians, and there is nothing in it for families. Do honourable members know what happened this afternoon at the National Press Club? I have mentioned that there is nothing in the Budget for families. We know that in fact families will be worse off. The Treasurer was asked at the Press Club luncheon to say, in view of the election Budget, by how much Australian families would be better off or worse off. He was asked whether he would say whether they would be better off or worse off. Do honourable members know what he said? 'I could not answer that; I would need to think it through for the afternoon'. We know what effect it has on the families but he pleaded for time to determine whether they would be worse off or better off. Are honourable members on this side of the House surprised that this fumbling, bumbling Treasurer could not answer with any literacy at all the questions that were put to him this afternoon? There is nothing in this Budget for decent, hard-working people. We know it and we will say it. There is nothing in it for families. There is nothing but broken promises in this Budget for small business, the greatest vehicle we have for achieving growth and a return to full employment. During the 1983 election campaign the Prime Minister promised a specific program of tax incentives for small business. After 18 months those in small business are still waiting for just one step. We have at least 700,000 small businesses and if we gave even half of them the opportunity to employ just one person, we would make a most savage dent in unemployment. The Government will do nothing despite its promises and all of industry will be hit by the Government's deliberately disguised decision to scrap the investment allowance for plant and equipment ordered after 30 June 1985. At least the Government has extended by one year the date by which plant must be in place to qualify for the allowance and we welcome that initiative. The fact is that the Government has worded it in such a way as to obscure the reality. But business now knows that in fact there will be no allowance for plant ordered after 30 June 1985. This may mean an artificial boost for order books in 1984-85, which no doubt the Government will start fiddling with again, but the bottom line will be the increased costs of investing for all those placing their orders after 30 June next year. That is just one more example of the growing gap between this Government's rhetoric and the reality of its performance; just one more example of the calculating, deceptive way in which the Budget has been presented by a Prime Minister whose whole career has been based on sleight of hand and by a Treasurer who has been a willing accomplice. This whole Budget is an example of an attempt at the old fairground pea and thimble trick-now you see it, now you don't; where it goes to, nobody knows. I did interview after interview around Australia today and I could hear the convoluted words of the Treasurer time and again when interviewer after interviewer ripped into this Budget for the sham and the deceit and the fact that it is the highest tax gathering Budget in the history of this country. The Treasurer cannot run away from it and he has been caught out on what he thought he could cover up. That is why the Budget is being denigrated today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The Leader of the Opposition's time has expired. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(5.08) —The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) is more to be pitied than despised, the poor old thing. The Liberal Party of Australia ought to put him down like a faithful old dog because he is of no use to it and of no use to the nation. Mr Peacock —Is the family going to be better off or worse off? Mr KEATING —You were heard in silence, so some of you scumbags on the front bench should just wait a minute until you hear the responses from me. Mr Hodgman —No wonder they call you Mandrake the Magician. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will remain silent. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, he called us scumbags. Mr KEATING —You are one, of course. Mr Hodgman —You ought to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Denison. Mr Hodgman —He called us scumbags. Mr KEATING —I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker, and will get on with the debate. Mr Peacock —Tell us whether families will be better off or worse off. Mr KEATING —Much better off. Mr Peacock —Have you had time to think about it? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent. I ask the Treasurer to direct his comments through the Chair and, if possible, not to be provocative. Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, if we can get some peace on the other side, we will be right. The Leader of the Opposition's main charge is that the Budget is deceptive. He suggested that, to use his words, it would not compensate for the effects of inflation. The simple fact is that tax indexation this year, not using the shonky method which the former Government used but using the method we use, is calculated to total $1.2 billion. But the cost this year of the tax cut will be $2.1 billion-77 per cent more than taxpayers derived from tax indexation . What the Leader of the Opposition fails to understand is the difference between the tax rates and the tax base. Of course there is more revenue because the economy is in recovery. The farm sector is producing revenue because there is more income growth. The tax rates are not going up; there is simply more income. The same goes for provisional taxpayers. The tax rates are not going up; there is more income. The Leader of the Opposition does not understand the difference between the tax base and tax rates. The fact is that tax rates have not gone up. There is a tax cut which will cut the rates back to the extent of $ 7.60 a week for most taxpayers and will cost the Government $2.1 billion in a full year. Those are the facts. That is the truth about the revenue. The Leader of the Opposition also used sleight-of-hand of trying to suggest that the revenue which the Government collects for the Medicare levy, which was formerly revenue which people paid out of their back pockets to a health insurance fund, is an increase in tax. We are entitled on this side of the House to deduct the effect of the Medicare levy, because the Medicare levy is simply funds which were expended in the past by taxpayers to private health insurance funds. It is not a discretionary increase in tax by this Government. That nails the lie that the Government has actually increased the rates of tax. In fact, the Government has introduced a real tax cut of $7.60. Over the course of the introduction of that tax cut, which is a progressive one, there will be relief for lower and middle income earners. If we had adopted the policy of the former Government and simply indexed the rate steps at 30c, 46c and 60c in the dollar, it would have meant that the highest tax cut, which is about $15 or $16 a week, would go to the taxpayer paying tax at the marginal rate of 60 per cent, a category of taxpayers to which every member of parliament belongs. The Leader of the Opposition stands for big tax cuts for those on high incomes. Yet under the Opposition's method a person who is on a lower income of around $15,000 a year, by way of tax indexation only , would receive $2.30 a week. Under our method that person will receive $7.60 a week. What we have done is concentrate the tax cuts in the hands of low and middle income earners starting from incomes of $12,500 and running through the income range to $28,000. The Leader of the Opposition talked about living standards. He has no idea about living standards. He sent a quarter of a million people to the unemployment heap in 1982-83. Fancy him talking about living standards! In the 18 months before this Government took office 300,000 Australians lost work. He comes in here and talks about living standards. This is the character who is more comfortable as a member of the champagne set on the east coast of the United States. In the Australian Parliament he talks about living standards. What a joke! The fact of the matter is that the Leader of the Opposition has no concept of living standards. He cavils and attacks this Government about living standards. He talks about how much the tax cut will cost the average family and what will be the benefit. There is no such thing as the average person. There are all manners of categories of taxpayers. First of all, there are the 3,000, 000-odd people who are on social security and welfare whom he would have denied increases in this Budget. He would have denied them increases in family assistance and pensions. He would have denied increases to single parent pensioners in rented accommodation who represent the poorest category of recipients in this country. He would have done nothing for them. Secondly, there are the people who are without a home-the 130,000 Australians who, through the actions of this Government, have a roof over their head this year. They did not last year. The Leader of the Opposition is opposed to the first home owners scheme. That is another reason one cannot simply make a family compilation about increases. The Leader of the Opposition opposes full wage indexation. This man says in the Parliament every day that he is opposed to centralised wage fixation and the indexation of wages. Yet since March 1983 when the Government first determined upon centralised wage indexation the average employee has benefited by $25 a week. The Leader of the Opposition says that he is concerned about living standards but he would deny the average worker $25 a week because he does not believe in wage indexation. He would deny benefits to pensioners and first home owners. He is opposed to the tax cut because his deputy said that they would prefer a lower deficit. The Leader of the Opposition came in here crying crocodile tears and talking about the average taxpayer. He is the only Leader of the Opposition who I have heard argue for tax cuts, an increase in spending and a lower deficit. In other words, he wants less revenue, higher spending and a lower deficit. Do honourable members think that anyone in the business community and the financial markets are in the slightest way impressed by the idiot views of the Leader of the Opposition? He never had an economic portfolio. A couple of months after taking over the industrial relations portfolio he spat out the dummy because it was too hard for him. When he held the Foreign Affairs portfolio he was always swanning around. In his whole parliamentary career he has never touched a hard domestic issue. Now he talks to this Government about living standards. When this Government came to office 17 months ago there was no hope in this country. Unemployment was still rocketing by a quarter of a million in one year. There was an inflation rate of 11.5 per cent when the rest of the world had a rate of 4 per cent. We had negative growth for the first time in 30 years. I invite honourable members to contrast that with the position today. Wherever one goes in Australia today one can see that people have some hope; they can see a future for themselves. We have got the rate of inflation down from 11.5 per cent to 5 per cent. From negative growth we have gone to a rate of 10 per cent through the year, which represents the highest rate of growth in the Western world. In 17 months we have created 260,000 new jobs compared with the 240,000 which were lost in the year before that under the former Government. Members of the Opposition talk about Budget policy and how they care for ordinary people. They have never cared about ordinary people. They are members of a Tory party. They are supposed to look after the top end of town. They could not even do that. The top end of town has ditched them because they could not control inflation. They destroyed profits, wrecked most of the public companies in Australia and destroyed hundreds of thousands of small business people by way of bankruptcies. Yet they come in here and lecture us about living standards and budgetary policy. Let me make this point about tax cuts: The record of the former Government on tax cuts needs to be reiterated. It needs to be seen to be believed. Honourable members will remember the 1977 Federal election. Mr Fraser and the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, ran into the election with a fistful of dollars saying: 'Ring up and see what your tax cut will be'. Then in 1978 they took away the tax cuts and slapped a 1.5 per cent surcharge on income tax. That was their performance. They are cheats. As well are being incompetent, they are cheats. I refer to the 1982 tax cut. The then Treasurer brought in the 1982 tax cut which cost $2 billion. The same Budget contained an indirect tax increase of $1.4 billion. There was an increase of $1.4 billion compared with a decrease of $2 billion. In other words, there was a $600m net payment to taxpayers. Our net payment is $2.1 billion, not $600m. It is over three times that-$2.1 billion. That is the shameful record of the coalition parties. Let us look at their other promise concerning tax indexation. In 1977 they promised that they would introduce it. They brought it in in 1978, left it there for 12 months and removed it from the tax law. They broke every major commitment they ever made on tax relief. They have never cared a hoot about revenue growth. The Leader of the Opposition does not even know the difference between the tax rate and the tax base. Of course the revenue is growing. There is a recovery on. Have they not heard that there is a recovery on? The farm sector has picked up. The provisional taxpayers and those who are in business are paying. But it is the same rate of tax being paid on more income. In this country we are taxing more income. One cannot expect to have more income and not be taxed. That is why the revenue is going up. But there has been a cut in the tax rate. We heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about the 46c rate and saw his crocodile tears about the ordinary working person being taxed at the 46c rate. But what he failed to mention was that now, between the threshold of $4,595 and $12,500, there is a new rate of 25 per cent, which is 5 per cent less than the old 30 per cent rate. So it does not matter whether a person is in the 46c bracket; he gets a tax cut of $7.60 whether or not he is in the 46c bracket, by virtue of the fact that his income passes through a lower rate of tax before it reaches the 46c rate. Of course, most taxpayers are not in the 46c area anyway. Most taxpayers do not receive average weekly earnings. Only a few receive average weekly earnings and only a thin slice of their income is taxed at the rate of 46c. The great bulk of it is taxed at the rate of 30c or the new rate of 25c. Of course, they all enjoy the exemption from tax from zero to $4,595 which is the tax-free threshold. So all taxpayers-low, middle or high income earners- gain the benefit from the tax-free threshold. They pay no tax on the first $4, 595. They are taxed at the new low rate of 25 per cent from $4,595 to $12,500 and they are taxed at the 30 per cent rate from $12,500 to $19,500. If a worker is a higher income taxpayer, he pays the new 48 per cent rate, which brings back the progressivity into the tax scales. We have given the Australian public a genuine tax cut. We have lowered their living costs by securing wage indexation for them from March last year, which is worth $25 a week to the average wage and salary earner. They are getting the benefit of lower interest rates on their housing mortgages, which benefits them by about $5 or $6 a week. The Leader of the Opposition talked bunkum about a $22 a week tax increase. Does any Australian think that he has had a $22 a week tax increase? If there had been a $22 a week tax increase the Budget would be $6 billion better off. There would not be a deficit of $6.7 billion; there would be a deficit of $0.7 billion. The dishonest, shabby, tawdry proposal introduced 15 minutes ago by the Leader of the Opposition does not deserve careful consideration. It deserves the contempt of the House, as he does, for his sham arguments and for the Opposition 's uncompromising, hard-hearted attitude. It cares nothing for low and middle income earners. It cares nothing about the underprivileged and the poor. It cares only about the people whom it represents-the high income taxpayers whose confidence it lost at the height of its incompetence as a result of its incapacity to run the economy. The Government absolutely rejects this proposal. We believe we have brought down a Budget which will keep growth moving in the economy and which will restore fairness and equity to the tax system of this country. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(5.23) —We have heard from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) this afternoon about top end of town tories and the like. He is apt to use sparkling words in conversations in the House but he is not nearly as good at using sparkling words in the dictation of Treasury background papers. With regard to top end of town tories, let us look at what the prices and incomes accord is all about: It is about marrying big unions and big business. The consequence of this Budget is to do that right down the path, right down primrose lane, as I heard mentioned the other day. This Budget underlines that consequence in particular with its concessions to the business area. The concessions granted to write off income against expenditure in certain areas of mining or other areas, as long as they are 100 per cent owned-in other words, the old chain company area-have been precisely to accommodate major companies in this country. Only the major companies can achieve that qualification and use those concessions. Where is mention made of the presence of small business, by which the real economy will be buzzed? Small business is not represented these days in the boardrooms of the Australian Labor Party. Only big business and big trade unions are represented. Dolan and company were called in to vet the Budget to make sure that it was okay , so we can understand why this extraordinary approach was taken. When I hear from the Treasurer about top end of town tories I have to snigger, particularly when I see that taxation money is being used to the tune of $6m to accommodate the America's Cup challenge. I can imagine what the Treasurer would say if a Liberal-National Party coalition government made that decision. He would talk about the top end of town tories and so forth. But it is okay now because the challenge will take place in the backyard of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), and maybe that is a good way to hide it. So the Government can do anything so long as the money goes down that track. What are some of the myths? In the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) we read that 99 per cent of taxpayers would get a tax cut within the first year. What happened? Everybody had a tax increase and we had to wait until the presentation of the second Budget before we find tax cuts. While the Treasurer yacked on about the greatness of the Budget, the facts of life are that in the coming year, according to his Budget Papers, pay as you earn income revenue will increase, not by 10.7 per cent in real terms, as the Prime Minister said on AM this morning-indeed, the Treasurer talked about it a moment ago-but by a net figure of 14 per cent. To put it more precisely, personal income tax will be increased by a staggering $4,753m, and $826m extra will be scooped up this year by the Medicare levy. If that represents tax cuts, it is not bad going ! I would like to see what would happen if the Government were to raise taxes! We must look at the new-found idea of increasing the number of steps within the tax scales. What exactly does that mean? The Treasurer has just said how great it is that there is a tax-free threshold and then the 25c bracket. The Government has introduced these two brand new areas! Surely, to people on average weekly earnings the taxpayers of Australia and those who are contemplating undertaking overtime, the question of when they reach the 46c in the dollar bracket becomes a very pertinent point. When does a worker reach the 46c in the dollar bracket according to this Budget? He reaches it much sooner than he did previously. In other words, the Government is ruling out the incentive that it should be trying to achieve within the economy. Previously, people would say: 'I do not want to work overtime this week because I pay 46c in every dollar I earn to the Government. I would rather not work'. In this great Budget the 46c in the dollar threshold is lowered so that the incentive is removed-another great effort in terms of trying to promote the economy! What are the real consequences of these new moves? It is in every sense a self- destructive approach. Next year the income targets amy not be reached, because the Government is certainly being most generous if it believes that it can achieve the gross domestic product growths that are forecast in the Budget and keep the inflation rate at the levels forecast in the Budget. In my judgment that will be quite a task. If a more realistic result is achieved, a higher rate of inflation and a slightly lower level of GDP growth, the Government will be struggling for income. How will it acquire income? It will acquire it, no doubt, through higher levels of inflation. Higher levels of inflation will drag everyone into the 46c in the dollar bracket much quicker than would have been the case previously. So the trap is set. The extra money that will be raised this year, as I have already pointed out, will increase by 14 per cent in net terms, and not the 10.7 per cent which the Prime Minister talked about. So next year the Government's problem will be significant. Yet the Treasurer, in a very colourful speech, used the word 'cheats' about the Opposition. I ask honourable members: Who is cheating? Who is misleading and who is not playing the game? The figures are there. The rhetoric does not disprove them in relation to these matters. The Government is talking up the situation, whereas next year under different circumstances it will certainly be faced with a critical problem. In conclusion, I refer briefly once again to what I see as the major problem faced by small business-the preponderance of effort that has been put into buying off big business interests in regard not only to intercompany relationships but also to the investment allowance. The investment allowance will certainly bring about a distortion within the manufacturing ordering sector . People will order equipment and capital items at this point which are not necessarily applicable to their current circumstances but which will be okay within the tax structures. There is no doubt that the corporate results that will be coming out in the next month or so for the year ending 30 June will be substantially better than the results for the year before. They came from a very poor base, and we gave all sorts of reasons as to why that base was so poor. Nevertheless, those results will be there. It is in the current financial year that the Government has to look for its revenue from these areas. I doubt, on the figures produced in the Budget Papers, that the expectations the Government has will be reached. As a consequence, I cannot see some of the corporations taking themselves into the area of investment allowances to the degree that is anticipated. I can certainly see a very substantial pick-up in the number of corporations that will avail themselves of the deductions within the mining sector, within the chain of company ownership. It will produce a series of takeovers of small mining companies that are cash rich and work short, which in the current year, can be set off totally against a corporate profit of some magnitude. As a consequence, the return to Treasury revenue will be substantially less. I totally reject the proposition that this is a great Budget for everybody and for revenue growth. There are to be immediate tax cuts, but the thresholds at which tax rates increase are set at much lower levels than before. On the surface, it is a superficially appealing approach to taxation, but in the longer term-indeed, it may be only a one-year term-far greater problems must be addressed in the area of taxation if true justice is to be served. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(5.32) — The matter of public importance we are debating today is a pathetic attempt by the Opposition to beat up an issue which is simply not an issue at all. The Opposition talks about a calculated and deceitful attempt by the Government to fool the Australian people into thinking that real tax cuts have been granted. The fact is that there has been no calculated or deceitful attempt to fool the Australian people and real tax cuts have most certainly been granted. In regard to those points let me say firstly that the total cost of the tax cuts is greater than the cost to revenue of tax indexation. If we had simply gone to tax indexation we would have had a much lesser cost to revenue than that being borne by the tax cuts which have been brought into place. Therefore it follows almost axiomatically that there are real tax cuts. The dummies over there simply cannot understand the fact that if we have tax cuts which are in excess of tax indexation there must be, by definition, real tax cuts. If the Opposition cannot understand that it does not know the first thing about finance . Mr Porter —So $7 equals $22. Mr WILLIS —The honourable member should listen more than most people because he has the most to learn. Tax indexation simply means that we adjust the tax schedule so that with increasing incomes people do not move into higher tax brackets. There are various ways in which that adjustment can be done. The Fraser Government talked about tax indexation in terms of using the consumer price increase up to March of the current year against March of the previous year. That is one way it can be done; there are various other ways. If we use the Fraser Government's approach to tax indexation, the cost for the period from November to the end of this financial year would have been $985m. The tax cuts that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced last night amount to $1. 3 billion-30 per cent more than tax indexation. Therefore it follows as night follows day that we have real tax cuts. There is no doubt that there are real tax cuts applying; that is, that tax cuts are being given in excess of tax indexation and that the real burden of income taxes has therefore been reduced. That is the basic underlying reality that the Opposition does understand but pretends not to for political reasons, but it is what the nation will understand because it is the undeniable truth. The fact is that these tax cuts are far greater than tax indexation for most taxpayers. Let us look at the various brackets of taxpayers. Indexation would have given people up to an income of $374 a week, a tax cut of $2.30. Those who were above the threshold and earning up to $374 a week would have got a tax cut, with tax indexation, of $2.30. Between $374 and $540 a week they would have got a tax cut of $7.49. We have said that for everyone who is on an income between $ 135 a week-anyone who is working full time is certainly earning that much-and $ 540 a week, which covers 80 per cent of taxpayers, there will be a tax cut of up to $7.60 a week. Those people are therefore getting a tax cut which is very substantial indeed and above what they would have got through tax indexation. Those getting between $240 and $374 a week-in which bracket there are an enormous number of taxpayers, 36 per cent-would be in the position of losing $5. 30 because they would have got $2.30 under tax indexation as against $7.60 under this system. That key group earning between $240 and $374 a week is better off by $5.30 over and above tax indexation. It is an undeniable fact that low and middle income earners are getting tax cuts well above tax indexation. The real proportion of the income they are paying in tax is being reduced. There is absolutely no doubt about that. The only group for which that is not true is with higher incomes. If we had introduced straight tax indexation, people in the 60 per cent marginal tax bracket of over $35,000 would have got tax cuts of $15 a week. We are giving them just under $3, so these will certainly be an increase in the proportion of income that they pay in tax. We have redistributed the tax burden in the process of giving real tax cuts. We have given substantial real tax cuts to the low and middle income earners and there has been some increase in the tax burden for the top income earners. In our view, that was something that was desirable in the context of making a tax adjustment at this stage, before we have a greater assessment of the whole tax schedule in the future. It seemed to us that that system was a thoroughly appropriate one. It is undeniably a system for providing real tax cuts to the great majority of taxpayers in this country. The Opposition talks about an increase in total tax receipts as though that means something. In Question Time today and in the matter of public importance we have had mention of the fact that there is a 23 per cent increase in total tax paid by individuals. Mr Peacock —And there is. Mr WILLIS —There is, there is no denying it. The figures are in the Budget. We do not walk away from the fact, but it does not alter the basic point I have been making about there being real tax cuts for the great majority of taxpayers. That 23 per cent encompasses all levels of individual tax and it includes a 226 per cent increase in the Medicare levy receipts because the Medicare levy will apply for the full year in 1984-85. It applied for less than half the year in 1983-84, and of course we will get much more revenue from the Medicare levy over the whole year. It is not in any case an increased burden on the taxpayer because it is only replacing what was previously a private payment, and indeed for many taxpayers, particularly lower income earners, it means that they are better off paying this levy than the private payment. There is a 44.7 per cent increase for provisional taxpayers, but that is mainly because there has been an enormous increase in farm income. Farmers had a tremendous increase in their income last year as they recovered from the drought and they will have to pay taxes on that this year. So that big surge of revenue which has come in does not mean a big burden on taxpayers overall. It means that higher incomes of farmers lead axiomatically to higher tax payments. It also comes about because of increases in the business and property incomes, which were quite strong in 1983-84. There is a 39 per cent rise in the prescribed payments system, which was announced by the previous Government, which we introduced, and which is applying for the first time for a full year. So of course there is an increase in revenue of a substantial size from that tax. But the previous Government announced it in the first place. The increase of 23 per cent for all individuals is totally misleading in terms of what is happening to ordinary taxpayers. What is relevant to them is what is happening to the pay as you earn tax. As I have said, most PAYE taxpayers are paying a lesser proportion of their incomes in tax. On the issue of the Labor Government being a high taxing Government, of course that is a total absurdity and the Leader of the Opposition knows it or should know it. The fact is that under the Fraser Government there was a big increase in the proportion of income paid in tax in this nation. When Labor went out of office in 1975 total tax represented 23.1 per cent of gross domestic product. When Mr Fraser went out the figure was 25 per cent. In this year's Budget it will be 24.7 per cent. In other words, the proportion of GDP that total tax receipts represent this year will be less than in the last year of the Liberal- National Party Government. That is the reality. If the Opposition wants to talk about who is the high tax party it cannot walk away from those figures. The fact is that the proportion of GDP going in tax this year is less than in the last year of the Fraser Government. In the last year of the previous Labor Government net PAYE as a proportion of total taxes was 41.7 per cent. It became 46 per cent in 1982-83 and has gone back to 42.7 per cent in 1984-85, this year. So we are seeing a lesser proportion of total tax from PAYE taxpayers this year than occurred under the previous Government. The fact is that the tax cuts announced by the Treasurer are real tax cuts. They are substantially important. They have been accepted by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, on behalf of the trade union movement, as substantial tax cuts. They equate quite substantial wage increases. If one thinks of them in terms of an equivalent wage rise, for a person on $12,500 a year they represent an equivalent wage increase of 4.5 per cent. For a person on $19,500, they represent an equivalent wage rise of 3.8 per cent. On a salary of $28,000 they represent an equivalent wage increase of 2.6 per cent. The tax cuts can be looked at in that way. Indeed, the ACTU does look at them in that way. These tax cuts are important to the accord. They are important in the sense that they fill the vacuum created by the effect of Medicare on the consumer price index which led to no wage increase which would otherwise have come forward in a national wage case in September. Therefore, the tax cuts are not only economically important, which they are in a national sense, but also important to the accord and the continuance of that very important part of this Government's policies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr FIFE(Farrer) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the fifteenth report for 1984 of the Committee, together with the minutes of evidence relating to the construction of the Commonwealth Government Centre, Currie Street, Adelaide, South Australia. Ordered that the report be printed. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.44) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill and the Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Amendment Bill 1984, which I will introduce in a few moments, propose a continuation of short term assistance to the agricultural tractor industry in Australia unitl 31 December 1984 or until the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission report on long term assistance to this industry is announced. Agricultural wheeled tractors and their derivatives having a power output of not less than 15 kilowatts at the power take-off were accorded 12 months temporary assistance from 10 June 1983 in the form of doubling the then existing bounty. The continuation of this short term bounty assistance to the industry was announced by the Government on 8 June 1984. The IAC in its interim report of 16 February 1984 on agricultural wheeled tractors and certain parts stated that the industry's position had changed since the Temporary Assistance Authority inquiry in March 1983 when the market was characterised by depressed demand, high inventories and heavy price discountings . According to the IAC the changed position included a generally improved market outlook for tractors, a lessening of the pressures which led to heavy price discounting during 1981-82 and 1982-83, and a substantial decline in imports in 1982-83. It was the Commission's view that cessation of the existing temporary assistance on 9 June 1984, when it was originally due to terminate, before the Government's decision on the long term assistance arrangements for this industry expected before the end of 1984, would not have resulted in a significant withdrawal of resources from this relatively low cost industry. The major local producer, Chamberlain John Deere Pty Ltd, suffered a substantial decline in sales during the last six months of 1983 despite an upturn in demand in that period and the availability of short term assistance up to June 1984. The extension of the temporary assistance is intended as a holding action. The Government considers that cessation of the temporary assistance would result in greater losses than otherwise being incurred by the industry. It would also result in a reduction in the effective rate of assistance to about 10 per cent compared with the current average for manufacturing industry of about 25 per cent. Moreover it is expected that the Government's decision on long term assistance arrangements for the industry will be announced within a few months and the Government considers it would be undesirable to terminate the temporary assistance before that time. Financial Impact Statement It is estimated that the bounty assistance to 31 December 1984 will cost approximately $1.4m. depending on the level of sales. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Fisher) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.48) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is the companion of the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill 1984 and proposes a continuation of short term bounty assistance to the tractor cab industry in Australia. Temporary bounty assistance for 12 months from 10 June 1983 was accorded the production in Australia of tractor cabs at the rate of 15 per cent of the factory cost of the cabs sold in Australia for fitting to imported agricultural tractors. In its interim report of 16 February 1984 on agricultural wheeled tractors and certain parts, the Industries Assistance Commission found that there had been a significant decline in the share of the market supplied by Australian manufacturers of cabs, and that this was caused mainly by a shift towards the importation of tractors with cabs already fitted. The Commission considered that cab manufacture in Australia was facing a long term structural change and that this was not an appropriate basis for the extension of the temporary assistance. It was the Commission's view that a decision to cease short term assistance for the period June to December 1984. Pending decisions on assistance arrangements to apply from January 1985, would be unlikely to result in a significant withdrawal of resources from this industry. The Commission, therefore, recommended that short term assistance should not be extended beyond 9 June 1984 . As almost all imported cabs enter Australia as an integral part of a tractor and are therefore free of duty, the 20 per cent duty on tractor cabs imported separately has little protective effect and consequently prior to the temporary bounty the local industry had been operating with virtually no assistance. The Government therefore believes that the question of the long term future of cab manufacture in Australia will best be addressed in its consideration of the IAC report on long term assistance. In the interim period the Government considers that the current temporary assistance should be maintained. Financial Impact Statement It is estimated that the extension of the temporary bounty assistance on cabs to 31 December 1984 will cost about $85,000 depending on the level of sales. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Fisher) adjourned. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence)(5.50) —On behalf of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Improvements to on-base housing, RAAF Base, Darwin, Northern Territory. The proposed work is to refurbish 248 on-base married quarters which are presently below acceptable maintenance and structural standards. The work to be carried out involves two components: Firstly, general repairs and maintenance to improve their liveability and, secondly, various structural improvements to increase resistance to high winds. The need for the work arises from the widespread damage caused by Cyclone Tracy on Christmas morning 1974. During those few fearful hours most of the operational, technical and domestic support facilities at RAAF Base, Darwin, including 73 houses, were destroyed or suffered irreparable damage. In common with much of Darwin's housing, RAAF houses suffered varying degrees of damage, and were immediately repaired and protected against further weather damage. More extensive repairs and improvements were postponed, pending decisions as to the future role of RAAF Base, Darwin and its long term housing needs. Until the establishment of the FA/18 fighter base at RAAF Tindal in approximately 1988-89, RAAF Darwin will continue as a forward operational base and the current on-base housing improvement proposal is a component of the total RAAF Darwin housing requirement. The extent of work to be undertaken is dependent on the age, condition and type of house, but typically comprises: Improvements to roof structures, et cetera, to conform with cyclone upgrading standards; replacement of external cladding with more impact resistant materials ; upgrading of internal fittings and finishes to current defence housing standards. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $8.7m at May 1984 prices. I table plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(5.53) —I wholeheartedly support this motion to improve on-base housing at the Royal Australian Air Force Base, Darwin. This condition of housing at RAAF Darwin is a glaring indictment of the years of neglect that defence personnel suffered under the Fraser Liberal-National Party Government. As the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) has pointed out, the need for this work dates back to Cyclone Tracy, which of next Saturday occurred nine years and eight months ago. Until about 18 months ago no attempt had been made by any member of the previous Government to meet the need to upgrade this housing. There were seven years and three months of plain, utter neglect of the needs of the RAAF personnel for decent housing. During this time the RAAF personnel have had to live in sub-standard housing at RAAF Darwin. This situation does not apply only to RAAF Darwin; it applies to most of the defence housing and equipment throughout Australia because the previous Government completely neglected the defence area and let our defence housing and equipment go to rack and ruin. Fortunately for the defence forces the Hawke Government was elected in March 1983. I am told that before the last election the current Minister for Defence raised on a number of occasions the question of neglect on the part of the Fraser Liberal-National Party Government in the areas of housing and equipment for the defence forces, and in particular the problems at RAAF Darwin. In 18 months the Hawke Government has moved quickly to meet this need. Mr White —You cannot be serious after what happened in last night's Budget. Mr REEVES —The honourable member might not like it but it is a fact that for nine years and eight months nothing was done to improve the housing conditions of RAAF personnel in Darwin. He can squawk all he likes, but it is a fact. The 1984-85 Budget delivered last night proposed an expenditure of $8.7m over three years at the RAAF Base, Darwin. In 1984-85, $1.3m will be spent, subject of course to the approval of the Public Works Committee. The fact is that the Hawke Government is acting to redress the Fraser Government's neglect. The Hawke Government will give the RAAF personnel in Darwin the houses they deserve. The Minister has mentioned the other defence-related Budget decision to proceed with RAAF Tindal, which is a $169m project. RAAF Tindal will give the Northern Territory the defence security that it has lacked for years. There is another spin-off from these major capital works programs. I refer to the $8.7m RAAF housing program that I have just mentioned, the $169m construction project at the RAAF Base at Tindal, the $96m Darwin Airport development and a couple of other developments including the $1.1m development at Gove Airport and the meteorological station at Gove. To meet this large investment in public infrastructure in the Northern Territory, the Department of Housing and Construction has made a decision-a decision that I have been pressing for with the Minister since early last year- to upgrade the office of the Department in Darwin to full divisional status. I am very pleased to see that that decision has now been made. This will mean that the design work for the $8.7m proposal for RAAF housing and for the other projects I mentioned will be carried out in the Northern Territory. It will mean more jobs for people in the Territory and more work for local businesses on top of the boost to development and security which will result from the project I have already mentioned. So I wholeheartedly support this project which will meet the need of RAAF personnel for decent housing needs that such personnel have had for nine years and eight months, needs that were not met by the previous Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(5.57) —When I was interrupted at the suspension of the sitting for lunch, I was asking the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to explain to the Parliament and to the people what the Government's intentions are regarding the repeal of section 45D and section 45E of the Trade Practices Act. I was pointing out that it has been a very successful piece of legislation in terms of protecting business, particularly small business, from the militant rogue unions which use secondary boycotts in order to achieve industrial objectives. The Australian Labor Party is committed to the abolition of those provisions. The Government's proposal involves a simple piece of drafting. It has not been brought into this House. The Government has not told the unions that it will go back on its undertaking and it has not told the business community when it will enact it. It has been advised unanimously by the business community not to enact that legislation. It has been advised by its departments and by the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission about the importance of sanctions. The Government still has an undertaking on the books, which was renewed at the last Australian Labor Party conference. The latest statement, to be found at page 122 of the Australian Party's policy, states: A Labor Government will encourage the creation of an atmosphere of discussion and conciliation wherein direct action will be perceived as a weapon of last resort. Those are very fine ideals which we in the Opposition share, but what happens when conciliation breaks down? What happens when that weapon of last resort is used? It is bad enough when it is used in a direct employer-employee relationship; it is totally unjust, absurd, destructive and costly when it is used against someone not even involved in the dispute. That is the situation with secondary boycotts. As I pointed out earlier, there is no way that any other jurisdiction can adequately deal with the matter, especially as the Government seems to be committed also to the removal of the common law right. These are the pieces of legislation that we and the public need to know about. It is not appropriate for us merely to be given this innocuous legislation and for the Government to remain silent. The Minister must tell the public and the business community. They will then know whether this Government can lay claim to trying to bring about unity or whether it is just bowing to militancy and to putting the trade union movement beyond the reach of the law. One has only to consider the way in which the ACTU has failed to handle the Builders Labourers Federation by conceding to the BLF against the judgment of the Arbitration Commission in giving union coverage to the Federated Iron Workers Association at the Melbourne Cricket Ground to know that peer pressure, however desirable it is as an objective, is not yet achievable through the ACTU. Peer pressure alone, conciliation alone, will not achieve those objectives. One has only to read the submission of the ACTU to the Hancock Committee of Review of Australian Industrial Relations to know the hidden agenda. One has only to read the Accord and the ALP policy statement to know what the legislative program is. It is time for the Minister to name those programs that will be fulfilled and those which will not. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Hodgman —I second the amendment. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(6.02) —The first point I make about the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill is that this Government has placed a great emphasis upon the process of consultation. The amendments to the legislation have been agreed to by the National Labour Consultative Council. This Bill has behind it an appropriate degree of consultation which the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) has already referred to. Many of the remarks I will make do not apply particularly to the honourable member for Balaclava. One of the problems that the Opposition has is that it speaks with two voices with respect to industrial relations. There is the voice of the honourable member for Balaclava which is a voice largely of sense and reason; then there are the voices of those behind him which still have the echo of the conflict and the vicious edge to industrial relations that was practised under the former Government. At the moment, we have-- Mr Humphreys —They learnt them from Malcolm Fraser. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —They learnt them from Malcolm Fraser; they were put into practice by Ian Viner, and we saw a good deal of that. That was not helpful. Members of the Opposition learnt those tactics from their Prime Minister and it was a case of divide and rule. The honourable member for Balaclava in this debate has said some things with which I wish to take issue in respect of the Trade Practices Act. The Opposition has in industrial relations a pre-occupation with dealing only with those areas it regards as rogue activity while forgetting about the rest of the Australian union movement and being willing to prejudice the rest of that movement. I do not suppose we should be surprised because when members of the Opposition were in Government they were forever chasing up what they called dole cheats, ignoring the large problem of unemployment; they were forever chasing up pension cheats, ignoring the large problems faced by pensioners; they were forever chasing up what they regarded as rogue unions, ignoring the substantial role that unions play. There is a great difference in the industrial relations policies of the Government and the Opposition. We have only to consider the criticisms of the Opposition about the consultation processes in the run up to this Budget through the Economic Planning Advisory Council, the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Prime Mininster (Mr Hawke) and the Cabinet consulting with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I will return to that in a moment. I think that those opposite have not yet come to an understanding that people working in an organisation or a country have a right to say something about the way that that organisation or country is managed. We have only to look at the background of some of those opposite to understand that in terms of their origins they are socially incapable, in terms of their general ethics they are biologically incapable, and in terms of their politics they are intellectually incapable of understanding that if people work in an organisation they might want to have something to say about how that organisation is conducted. We can talk at length about that and enjoy ourselves. I merely wanted to make the point that there are some of those people opposite. In the Opposition policy statement which was released earlier this year-I will make some remarks about it later-it was very clear that honourable members opposite never have come to terms with the role of centralised wage fixing and the role of consultation and conciliation. One can understand why they do not want to come to terms with it. It is what we would call sensible industrial relations. It is interesting to look at the success of the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). In a sense, industrial relations issues are off the front page. That is because what is happening is largely a process of sensible consultation and conciliation using the arbitral procedures and the conciliation procedures that have been set up and which have the respect of both the union movement and the employers. I know there is the echo opposite of the laissez-faire attitude of the eighteenth century. I can see that that laissez-faire attitude does not involve the honourable member for Balaclava, but it certainly does involve the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). When the Opposition's policy on industrial relations came out we still had that lurking feeling that it was really concerned about leaving the market to determine wages and would ignore the sensible processes of conciliation and arbitration. Mr White —Do not think the honourable member for Bennelong is on his own. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —It is interesting that I was talking about the echo of the eighteenth century, because we just heard it. The recent experience in industrial relations has been that we have in fact reduced working days lost. That is a substantial achievement. We do not claim that that is an achievement only of the Government; it is the achievement of management; it is the achievement of unions. It is a sensible achievement that has been put together because the Government has said that it is about the business of settling disputes, not creating them. That is a far cry from what the people opposite practised when they were in Government. Let us consider the industrial disputes in the year ended May 1984. In that year there were 1,312,700 working days lost. That compares with 1,980,000 for the year ended May 1983. However, in the year ended May 1982-that is, in the last crumbling stages of the Fraser Government-4, 118,200 working days were lost. What in fact has happened is that we have taken an attitude towards industrial relations which says that the prime responsibility of Government is to set a tone, a direction and a process of consultation and conciliation in which unions and management play a responsible part. I know that those opposite find that difficult because during their period in Government they did not do that. We saw the sorry mess they left. We on our side are committed to doing that. An example of the sort of rundown in industrial relations that occurred can be seen in the area of workers compensation. I hear those opposite talk about the problems of small business. We really ought to take up with them that one of the major problems facing small business in Australia at the moment is the cost of workers compensation, an escalating problem. While those opposite were in Government they succeeded in protecting the insurance companies and the lawyers in the common law area of workers compensation, so much so that we have astronomical figures in workers compensation cases. It is interesting that in the Budget we have now brought in some money has been allocated to the occupational health and safety area. The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General are also looking at getting a national no fault compensation scheme. They are examples of structural change and a philosophical change in industrial relations that those who preceded us in Government were incapable of coming to terms with. I have mentioned why they were incapable. It is no good coming to this place and bringing back that echo of conflict and divisiveness. We are saying that there is a different way to go about it. That way is to involve people. In this case we are talking about the involvement of unions and management in the co-operative process of managing an economy. We believe that to be important. I dwell for a couple of moments on the attitudes of the Opposition with respect to its industrial relations policy. It is a policy that has two prongs. There is what I call the more sensible approach of the honourable member for Balaclava and there is the echo of the honourable member for Bennelong. He echoes many of the views of the former member for Wannon, the failed Prime Minister. What they were about was destroying the central role of conciliation and arbitration and reducing the role of centralised wage fixation, leaving much more up to the market in industrial relations. As a consequence, they opened the way at the top end of wage fixation for a blow-out in the collective bargaining arrangement they envisaged. We saw what happened in 1981-82 under their wage fixation arrangements. We saw what happened under what was called the Viner Bill of 1982. That Bill was opposed not only by unions but also by some management and it was given critical treatment by the Senate select committee. That attitude to industrial relations just will not wear. Honourable members opposite must understand that. It must be very difficult in the context of the current arrangements-the Budget and the conduct of economics-to see that our attitude is working. We recognise that there are some areas-I have already referred to one, workers compensation-where some work must be done, but we also recognise that our general direction is satisfactory because we are willing to say: 'Let us consult. Let us not go for conflict first'. Opposition members talk about using the damages provisions under what would be a revised Federal Court arrangement for industrial relations. How can they reconcile that penalty attitude towards industrial relations with a mediation attitude? What do they want? Obviously they do not want industrial peace. Historically Liberal members have been about divisiveness. It is appropriate to say that in Australia the forces of conservatism have had a very interesting attitude to industrial relations. In a sense this was the very origin of the Labor Party. My friend the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) will understand that the unions in collective bargaining disputes in the 1890s recognised that the only way that they could get into some sensible political situation was to form the Australian Labor Party. The forces of conservatism ganged up on them. They changed the rules and used those penal approaches to which I have referred. So when I talk about the echo of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries it is true, it is still ringing around this chamber in 1984 . The community is surprised and asks: 'Have they not learnt?'. The answer is no , they have not learnt. In fact, honourable members on this side will know when they hear some of the other Opposition speakers that they have not learnt because they will talk the same old rubbish-bash, kick and thump. But that is all right, they will stay in opposition and we are not too worried about that. The union movement in Australia developed as a process of recognising and establishing the rights of workers and then it developed into the Labor Party. In the twentieth century a responsible attitude of the labour movement, both in its industrial wing and in its political wing, has developed towards establishing reasonable standards of living. At the same time we have seen historically the development of a conciliation and arbitration system which has as its central focus the role of wage fixation and conciliation and arbitration. In the accord not only have we recognised that role, we have also said that we will be committed to a number of other things relating to the social wage. I shall talk about those in a minute. I conclude this section of my speech by saying why we have a commitment to centralised wage fixation and the role of conciliation and arbitration. We believe that in terms of comparative wage justice, in terms of the principle of social equity, it is the sensible way to go about arranging industrial relations . It is no good coming to this House with the worn out ideas of Adam Smith and laissez-faire and the social Darwinism that was behind that when people were made forcibly to be worse off. We know that is what the Opposition is really on about. The evidence was before us when it was in government. There was massive unemployment, increasing poverty and industrial conflict. Yesterday's Budget demonstrates what we are on about. There is a sensible way to go about arranging industrial relations. I have found a very encouraging thing in dealing with industrial relations. I put this on the record because I think it is important that Opposition members should understand this. I have worked in a large company, CSR Limited, on industrial relations projects. I found that the most valuable thing was the willingness of management to listen to the sensible involvement of unions and workers in the conduct of CSR plants. CSR is a very mixed organisation with interests that range from sugar mills and sugar refineries to coal mines and building materials. It has quite a wide range of activity. In many of its areas of operation that company was committed to involving the work force in the sensible operation of its activities. The result was that in effect it got more sensible management and production and cheaper production because often workers were able to involve themselves in cost saving processes. In terms of the Federal Government setting the tone, that is the right attitude towards national economic management. That is the sort of attitude that we would endorse in relation to individual corporate management. We are not saying that management does not have a role and that management should not be involved in management; we are saying that management is a process that devolves itself to other people in the organisation. We are prepared to accept that in terms of industrial relations and it seems that some honourable members opposite are not. They have an obsession with the penal role of the law against unions. That is still there and it is tragic that this is so. The only thing we can be assured of is that they will not be in government to use that penal power and I must say that management and unions will breathe a sigh of relief about that. I know that we will hear an Opposition speaker soon and he will give substantive evidence to what I am saying. The honourable member for Bennelong said at the launching of the industrial relations policy of the Opposition that our centralised wage fixation and indexation, with two wage increases tied to the consumer price index, was costing jobs. What a tragic misrepresentation that is. Under the Liberal Government we saw the loss of 250,000 jobs. We have created about that many jobs and, as the Treasurer said in the Budget Speech, by June of next year we expect to have created some 400,000 jobs between March 1983 and June 1985. I am really at a loss to understand how our industrial relations system, with its emphasis on centralised wage fixation and wage indexation, is causing the loss of jobs when the empirical evidence is that you botched it and created mass unemployment . You got tossed out of office. We have come in and we have created jobs. We have managed to get inflation down. The economy is recovering and investment is recovering. We do not have to go on too much longer about that because the facts tell the louder and more convincing story. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Chair would appreciate it if the honourable member would speak through the Chair. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —To conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to make some remarks which focus on the Opposition's position. Geoffrey Barker in the Age on 21 April 1984 in his column 'State of the Nation' refers to how Liberal ideology triumphed over reason. He said: The Liberal/National Party industrial relations policy announced this week represents the triumph of flat earth Liberal ideology over expert advice and common sense. Documents tracing the development of the policy reveal that the parties ignored the views of industrial relation experts in assuming that there would necessarily be economic benefits in moving away from the notions of comparative wage justice and centralised wage fixing. They also ignored pragmatic political arguments from the shadow industrial relations Minister, Mr Macphee, against the so-called 'opting out' provisions of the new policy. Far from being a compromise between the pragmatists and fundamentalist free marketeers in the Liberal/NP coalition, it is in fact the first specific instance of the 18th century liberal economic philosophy outlined late last week by the Opposition Leader, Mr Peacock. It is a policy with a touching faith in the assumption that free and unregulated auctions in the labour market will produce, by the operation of Adam Smith's invisible hand, an economic equilibrium in labour supply and demand. If only things were as certain, as deterministic, as this Newtonian theory implies! That really is quite an extraordinary indictment of the Opposition position. It does not make sense and on analysis it does not tie together. What we have is an approach to industrial relations that recognises the role of unions being involved at the level of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in economic planning. We also recognise the role of centralised wage fixing and sensible conciliation and arbitration in the management of an economy. What is on the record is the tragic experience of honourable members opposite-what I would call the Viner disease-with massive industrial disputes and a falling out at the level of the Confederation of Australian Industry and the ACTU with the then Government. We are not just talking about a casual falling out but the hostility that was generated about the Viner legislation of 1982. Since coming to government we have tried to put the relationship back together again. It is a difficult process. I commend the Minister for Industrial Relations. When this is done properly one is hardly aware of it because the processes fit together. That is the reality. The Budget is a recognition of that. There is a sensible commitment to doing something about tax cuts and the welfare area as well as doing something about stimulating investment. In concluding my remarks, I am pleased to say that I think the direction of this Government's policy and the direction of this Minister for Industrial Relations show a sensible and responsible attitude to industrial relations, one that reflects the 1980s and not, as the Opposition would have it, the eighteenth century. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(6.21) —I listened with some interest to the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) and I have no reason to suspect that he is not genuine in what he says about the necessity to have this highly centralised wage fixing authority. Nevertheless, I think he would do everyone in this House a little credit if he showed at least some appreciation of the fact that there might be an alternative system to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It may have served us well in the past but I believe it has come to the stage where it is doing a great deal of damage, not only to industrial relations in this country but also to the productivity of industry. The Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill seeks to improve the operations and the running of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I suggest that we should stop short of improving its operations and abandon it altogether. I am very pleased that the Opposition has adopted the policy of replacing the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with a tribunal. This would enable wage fixing negotiations at least to go back where they belong, that is, between the employer and the employee, so that some degree of productivity could be taken into account and concern expressed by employers who want to take people on, who want to expand their business, but who presently are in no position to do so because a central authority makes decisions on wage fixing principles and fixed conditions of employment that have no relativity whatsoever to the market place. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in his second reading speech introducing this Bill spoke of 'the establishment of a review of Australian industrial law'. That in itself must be an admission that the present system is bad. He knows it cannot go on because our manufacturing base in this country continues week by week to shrink as manufacturers either close up or move overseas for the simple reason that in world terms we are not competitive. Because of that, our standard of living in this country continues to decline. Not so many years ago we had the highest standard of living in the world. We are now something like the fourteenth of the developed countries. If we do not recognise the slippery track we are on, then obviously, as someone said recently , we will finish up becoming the poor white trash of Asia. That is not a prospect that fills any of us with any degree of comfort, and it must be recognised that the system which may have served us so well in the past cannot be allowed to continue unchanged. It seems sensible for the Minister to undertake a review, but judging by this Bill he is approaching it with a closed mind. Part of that review must include the place in our system of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Minister is not waiting for the report. He is going ahead and strengthening the Commission willy nilly. It appears to me that he has closed his mind in respect of any change in the operations of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This body is central to the unions in this country, and what the unions say goes . If any demonstration of that is necessary, we have only to remember what happened in this chamber last night when the union view of the Australian economy prevailed. It did not matter what economics dictated, the unions said to the Government what would happen and they were successful. The first Dolan Budget was introduced. The Minister in his second reading speech also said: The amendments proposed in this Bill will not in any way impede the committee's work . . . They will not impede the committee's work because the Government knows it would be a waste of time recommending any fundamental changes to the Commission. The Commission is locked in because the unions want it. The Government is committed to a highly centralised Commission whose task is to settle disputes without paying any attention to the conditions or the cost of production in certain areas of Australia. It is this highly centralised system to which we object and which is being strengthened in this Bill. It is this system which is contributing to the decline of manufacturing in Australia. There would not be anyone in this House or in Australia who could deny that our manufacturing industry is declining. The Government acknowledges that decline and the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) daily acknowledges it. It can be saved only by an increase in productivity and an encouragement of modern technology. It was with some interest that we saw what happened in last night's Budget. After all the rhetoric of the last 18 months by the Government and the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) about the absolute importance of research and high technology to industry in this country to get it back on a firm footing absolutely nothing happened in last night's Budget in the area of science and technology. The Minister was left high and dry. So much for the Government's commitment to industry and to putting manufacturing industry back on its feet. The most damaging decision by the Commission in recent times must have been its decision on redundancy and severance pay. Employers now have to give anything up to four weeks' notice of retrenchment-five weeks for people over 45-and one day a week for people to look for a job. Payment in lieu is not allowed. What will happen when an employer gives an employee five weeks' notice? How much work will that employee do? The employer will have a sour disgruntled employee on his hands for five weeks. Severance pay is required to be paid for up to eight weeks . One of the most interesting aspects of that recent decision is that there will be no dismissal because of race, colour, sex, marital status, family responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin. I put it to the Government and to honourable members on the other side of the House that we do not seem to have taken into account that there is a very distinct prejudice in this country against those who do not belong to a union. Perhaps someone on that side would like to explain why it is that we can discriminate against people who do not want to belong to a union but we have outlawed discrimination in these other areas. It is interesting to see what the Australian Council of Trade Unions's legal officer, Mr Alan Boulton, had to say on that decision, and I quote from the Australian of 3 August. He said: It's going to mean significant improvements in job protection standards for the average workers, greater job security and fair treatment in the workforce. That is not what it will mean. The effects will be very severe on the work force . It will not affect some employers because, as far as they are concerned, it is the last straw and before it comes into effect next month they will have simply closed up business. It will not affect others because they will be in an impossible position and unable to meet these conditions. On employees the effect will be very severe because there will be fewer jobs, particularly for older people. Let me give honourable members two or three examples which people have told me about in the last few days. A company in Brisbane that employs 80 people has taken a decision not to take on any more employees over the age of 42 years. This company will rely increasingly on casual labour which obviously means that there will be fewer permanent jobs. Because its costs are going up it is looking at putting off some of its existing labour. The second example is that of a bricklayer on the Gold Coast who at the moment has seven employees stood down because of lack of work. A requirement to pay these employees off would break him. He cannot do it. What he is going to do is put them off before this legislation comes into effect. An engineering company in my own area put off 12 people last week because of the effect that this redundancy pay will have. This is also the case with a mining company that has put off 25 people. It is of some interest to read the editorial in the Australian of 21 August 1984 which, in part, states: Our centralised wage-fixing system is a cartel of the worst kind. It is a vested interest club for the employed and the cost of it is borne by the unemployed. It is not only immoral, it is downright un-Australian. That seems to me to be quite a fair summary of what this centralised wage fixing system is doing to the Australian economy. We should be doing away with it instead of strengthening it by this Bill. If we cannot get off the very slippery economic track that we are on at the moment the future for us in Australia will be very grim indeed. It is my firm belief, and the belief of many others, that we must revert to a more flexible system which will take into account the productivity of employees, the capacity of industry to pay and the various conditions under which people live and work in various parts of Australia. I say this not because I want to see the present system destroyed-if it was working it would be to the good. I want to see the Commission abolished because in the long run its decisions are going to mean fewer and fewer jobs for all Australians and that is not what any of us want to see. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(6.34) —I concur completely with my colleague the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), who spoke earlier in this debate. I particularly agree with his comment that at least the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) had some idea of industrial relations even though at times they would seem to be misguided. But even the honourable member for Balaclava would not agree with the remarks that were made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). I would give the honourable member for McPherson the benefit of the doubt because I feel he would know nothing whatever about unionism or the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I would say that it would be his right as a former professional soldier to speak about the Army. He would possibly know something about the Army. But some of the remarks he made about the Conciliation and Arbitration Act were completely outrageous. For instance, he believes in doing away with centralised wage fixing . In such a situation we would have complete and utter industrial anarchy. What tends to happen, and what has happened in the past, is that unions with muscle get the conditions. There is no doubt about that whatever. However, the unions that do not have any industrial muscle fall further and further behind in the industrial wage structure. At the present time centralised wage fixing has meant that we have complete and utter industrial harmony within this country. Both employers and employees are content. The economy has certainly picked up because of this. Inflation and interest rates have come down simply because of the accord. Naturally, I speak in support of the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1984. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act is currently under examination in the review of Australian industrial relations which was initiated by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) last July. These amendments are part of a process of progressive functional changes being put into effect as the need for them is identified. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, establishment of the review will in no way prevent changes being made to the Act as they are required. These proposed amendments are considered to need immediate attention. One section of the amendments comprises further changes to a part of the Act which was amended last year. This is Part VIIIAA, which is concerned with the filing of accounts with the Registrar by organisations registered under the Act. Last year's amendments permitted federal bodies of unions to consolidate accounts for the whole organisation, but only where there was effective federal control over financial management of the whole organisation. Otherwise, under present legislation, the federal office and branches of a union are required to file their own accounts separately with the Registrar. The new amendments allow all filing to be done by a federal body where rules of the federal body and branches provide, but without the requirement for centralised control. There is a requirement for all offices to bring their accounting periods into line and a provision is made to help branches do this. The existing obligation will remain for each part of an organisation to prepare , audit and present to meetings its own accounts. Branch members will have the same access as previously, and the Industrial Registrar will have the same powers to investigate any irregularities. The aim is to simplify and reduce the cost of filing financial documents as well as helping the federal body of an organisation maintain a central co-ordinating role. This is, of course, in keeping with this Government's policy of treating trade unions as responsible and very necessary components of the community, industrial, and national scene. Without such a policy, and without the trust and dignity it both conveys and depends on, the brilliantly successful prices and incomes accord which has played a vital role in this country's steady climb out of the economic trough of 1982 would not have been possible. It would certainly not have been possible had the confrontationist conservatives remained on the government benches. Mr Ronald Edwards —Economic vandals. Mr O'NEIL —Exactly. They went as near as they are capable of going to making reasonable-sounding overtures to wage workers and trade unions when they were selling the wage pause. But as we all know, that sweet reasonableness was about as sincere as the smile on the face of Red Ridinghood's wolf. In both cases it was a way of concealing the underlying intention to pounce. That intention came to the surface last month when the Opposition's long cherished dream of emasculating the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was put on show dressed up as a wages policy. It was aptly summed up by Terry McCrann of the Age when he said: The industrial relations pragmatists have lain down with the free-marketeers and the product of their union is a camel. For the benefit of anybody who has not heard the saying that a camel is a horse designed by a committee, that is the sort of camel he meant and the sort of committee too, no doubt. Actually though, I think it was a very good thing they did show their hand at this time. As the Opposition's spokesman for industrial relations, the honourable member for Balaclava, made quite clear at the time, this policy is intended to be imposed on a disunited workforce when the accord breaks down. We are left in no doubt about the Opposition's intention to make the accord break down should it ever get the chance. It is a timely warning to any trade unionists who may be starting to chafe under the necessary restraints of the accord as to what could be lying in wait as an alternative. I do not think too many would relish the prospect of swapping the Arbitration Commission and full wage indexation for a tribunal operating on the principle that comparitive wage justice is wrong, and with power to set only minimum wages which can be undercut by arrangement. I am not suggesting that the coalition's new tribunal would be weak in all respects-far from it. Its main strength would appear to be in the enforcement powers it would have transferred to it from the Federal Court; powers which would include the garnisheeing of union funds. I return to the amendment Bill. It includes some changes to administrative provisions relating to members of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and registrars. One of these enables leave for commissioners to be approved by the President of the Commission instead of by the Minister, which is the present arrangement. Another clause enables the appointment of persons to act as Industrial Registrar or Deputy Industrial Registrar. At present the absence of such a provision causes unnecessary difficulties when the need arises. The amendments also propose that when the senior vice-president is required to exercise the powers and functions of the President of the Commission in accordance with section 10, he should be regarded as Acting President, which would entitle him to receive the salary and allowances of the President. Clause 6 of the Bill sets out a number of amendments to section 133AB. This section was introduced last year and is concerned with providing organisations with the means in their rules to fill casual vacancies. The amendments are designed to overcome difficulties which have been brought to light in the wording of the section. This is intended to restore the original intention of enabling unions to fill casual vacancies without being obliged to go to the expense of holding an election as was previously necessary. Under this legislation casual vacancies can be filled this way for a period of up to three- quarters of the complete term. Provision is made for an organisation's rules to allow an office holder reaching retirement age to continue in office for up to 12 months beyond the normal expiration date. The legislation includes a provision to prevent casual vacancy rules being declared invalid because of inadequacies in section 133AB in its unamended form. I congratulate the Minister on these very thorough measures taken to get full value out of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act (No. 2) 1983. This is in keeping with a Labor government's responsibility to ensure that the trade union movement in this country remains a healthy and viable vehicle for the people who produce the wealth of the nation, the wage workers. Honourable members opposite, with their market-place philosophy, would prefer to see the union movement fragmented, with sections of workers in more affluent industries making their individual deals with employers and those at the other extreme going cap in hand to be allowed to work for less than the minimum award, with the sanction of a new look industrial tribunal, just to keep their jobs. It is characteristic that while the rule of divide and conquer remains the opposition's guiding principle in its dealings with organised labour, this Government has consistently maintained that a strong and united work force, acting in accord with the national Government along worked out economic guidelines, is absolutely essential to any lasting recovery. When the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions signed the prices and incomes accord early last year, they were faced with the twin problems of inflation and unemployment getting out of hand. It was only because of the early stress on consultation rather than confrontation that the accord was able to produce the restraint that was vital to recovery. When Australia returned to centralised wage fixing last September the economy was on the mend but could easily have been wrecked by disunity. However, because of the sound basis of co- operation that had been established on all fronts, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was able to put smoothly into effect a range of principles it had established for co-ordinating claims from wage and salary groups as part of the return to centralised wage fixing. From September all unions made a no extra claims commitment and agreed to limit claims for reduced working hours to a minimum of 38 hours a week. That was the foundation for the recovery which has since been able to cope successfully with another national wage case increase and some sorting out by the Commission of anomalies and special claims, such as increases based on changes in work value. It is highly significant that the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was the architect of much of Australia's arbitration and wage fixing system, as well as of the accord, the National Economic Summit Conference, and the overall strategy of consensus. For the sake of industrial peace and progress we must nurture and protect all components of that strategy. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(6.46) —The House is discussing the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, which seeks to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in a number of respects-to deem a Deputy President in certain circumstances to be an Acting President; to enable the President to approve leave for Commissioners; to provide administrative machinery for the appointment of an Acting Industrial Registrar or Acting Deputy Industrial Registrars, adopting the standard provision for this purpose; to clarify the procedures for the filling of casual vacancies in offices of organisations; to enable an organisation to provide under its rules for its accounts, statements or auditor' s report and those of all of its branches to be filed together by the organisation with the Industrial Registrar; and to make a number of minor technical amendments. One would think in the context of a Bill of that sort that the discussion would be rather brief because they are a number of amendments with which the Opposition is essentially in agreement. It largely accepts that the procedures which are laid down for consultation between employer groups and the trade union organisations are appropriate amendments to be made. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) indicated in his second reading speech that these amendments were being proposed at this time notwithstanding the fact that there is a substantial inquiry into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and for that reason he expects that in due course a number of significant amendments will need to be made to the legislation. The Opposition is of the view that the Act requires significant amendments in part because of the way in which the legislation has been found wanting in the past and I guess the extent to which an inquiry is necessary indicates that the current legislation, notwithstanding these amendments, is defective in a number of respects. The Opposition has advanced in its policy a number of proposals which it sees as having positive advantage if put into place and it will continue to articulate the need for significant changes to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the way in which it operates. There has been in the course of this debate a considerable degree of discussion about the Opposition's policy and its purpose. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), who spoke earlier in the debate, was very concerned about the Opposition's policy. He was of the view that the Opposition had no understanding of the way in which unions operated and their special place, as it were, in the system that we have now. He suggested that we on this side of the House needed to develop more co-operative attitudes, I suppose, and should not be as confrontationist as he suggested that we are in our dealings with the trade union movement. He believed that if we did take up such a role, everything would be quite in order. He endeavoured, as did the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil), to indicate that the arrangements that have been put in place by the Government in the form of its accord with the trade union movement had brought substantial advantage to this nation. I must say that I do not accept those points. I believe the significant advantage that this nation has received of late in economic terms is largely the result of policies put in place by the former Government in the form of its wage pause which brought about a significant reduction in the level of inflation and increases in wages, which do have harmful effects if they are out of kilter with increases in productivity. I very much accept the comments made by my colleague the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). His comments and those of the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), who is the Opposition spokesman on industrial relations matters, about the prospect of Australia being the poor man in Asia are, I think , as true today as ever they were. Notwithstanding what appear to be runs on the board as a result of the breaking of the drought and the wage pause which was put in place by the former Government, we are in a situation in which, unless we are able to see significant investment, a reduction in the level of inflation in Australia in comparison with other countries in our region, particularly developed countries, unless Australia is able to open up more markets for its goods, whether manufactured, mining or agricultural goods, and unless we are able to bring about a situation in which we live within our means and sell more, we lose. We lose as a nation. The likelihood is that we will become the poor men and women of our region. That is not a prospect that I nor anybody else would enjoy. The real harm in terms of the Government's approach to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, I think, arises not from the prospect of any confrontation on the part of the Opposition but rather from the way in which the present Government has instituted a system of appeasement. To my way of thinking, at this time the Act seems to be used in that way. I believe one can see that very clearly in the area in which I have some responsibility, that is, the Australian Capital Territory. Notwithstanding all of the Government's rhetoric and the special relationship that exists between the Government and the trade union movement in the Australian Capital Territory, there have been significant industrial disputes that have added quite large amounts to the cost of major public buildings in this area. These disputes have gone on over time notwithstanding significant steps on the Government's part to accommodate the trade union movement. I want to emphasise some of those. First, I refer to a report which appeared in the Canberra Times recently. A journalist, Mr Jack Waterford, obtained certain information under the Freedom of Information Act concerning arrangements for certain charges against certain trade unionists to be discontinued. The report, which appeared in the Canberra Times on 26 June, I believe, was a remarkable report for what it showed in terms of this special relationship about which we hear so much. It was of considerable concern to me that when a number of trade union officials and members of various unions, including the President of the Australian Capital Territory Trades and Labour Council, Mr Peter O'Dea, were arrested at incidents involving demonstrations and picketing, the Government, as part of the settlement of an industrial dispute and in an endeavour to appease- it was advocated as an appropriate course of conduct-discontinued the charges which were brought properly under the legal system. The reasons that this occurred are outlined. The charges were brought against Mr O'Dea in particular. He was charged with hindering the police. In the case of Mr O'Dea and the Parliament House demonstration, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) decided not to press an order for costs made against Mr O'Dea when he was convicted on that charge. The report which I have before me states: The Canberra Times sought files associated with the decision not to continue with the prosecutions from the Attorney-General's Department. The department made only a small number of documents available, but the minister intervened to give access to all but one of the relevant documents. There we had revealed to us a situation in which Ministers were seen, notwithstanding the views of the Australian Federal Police, to be making representations for those charges to be dropped. In this case we saw a report from the Acting Special Minister of State and Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) who had written to Senator Evans saying that he thought it would be helpful if he outlined the approach that he thought ought to be taken in relation to the charges. He made these points: First, I believe there is the generally accepted right of persons in a democratic country such as ours to demonstrate. It would seem important that this Government not be seen either as unnecessarily restricting that right or, alternatively, as taking 'retaliatory' action against those who choose to exercise this right to demonstrate. These particular matters have highlighted the narrow constraints placed by the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act on the police in dealing with pickets, sit-ins and other demonstrations in public places. He went on to say: As you know . . . the police cannot lawfully, under this Act, lay hands on persons unless they arrest them. I believe your department is currently examining the legislation with a view to amending it so as to provide police with the power physically to move demonstrators (as opposed to arresting them). I believe that it would not be inconsistent for the charges which drew attention to the need for such an amendment to be withdrawn. It is also relevant that the withdrawing of charges is part of a package developed by the TLC and the Government to overcome a worsening dispute. Another part of that package was the TLC's agreement to begin discussions with the AFP about the future handling of disputes, such as those which led to the present situation. He went on to say: After careful consideration, it would seem to me that, in all the circumstances , the package developed by the Government and the TLC, including the withdrawal of the charges, is in the public interest, particularly in promoting industrial reconciliation and harmony rather than confrontation. One would expect that when one had reached the point where charges against trade union officials had to be withdrawn after representations by a Minister-in this case the Acting Special Minister of State-that in the Australian Capital Territory, where the same people were involved, industrial confrontation of this sort would be at an end. That is not the situation that we have seen. Since that time there have been continuing reports of difficulty in the Australian Capital Territory. Reports have appeared in the national Press such as this one under the heading: 'Parliament site dispute flares again'. It is stated that the Builders Labourers Federation has been accused of breaching undertakings to improve its industrial behaviour only three weeks after it signed an industrial peace agreement with employers. In that case the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia alleged that there were attempts to approach its members. There were suggestions that in relation to the Parliament House site the Builders Labourers Federation had an almost closed shop in relation to other unions. Because of the events that are taking place, at various times a number of people's jobs are continually at risk. I do not want to take sides because I do not know who is right and who is wrong in these sorts of disputes. What I do know is that the sorts of people who are involved, the leaders in the Trades and Labour Council against whom charges have been withdrawn to encourage them to participate in discussions and to get them on side, are seen to be eternally involved in these disputes. Some people call them demarcation disputes. A report appeared in one of the Sydney newspapers under the headline: 'ACTU asked to act on building row'. Mr Jack Taylor, an industrial reporter, wrote a report on this matter. The article states: Two members of the BLF and one member of the FEDFA have been sacked during bitter squabbling which has broken out between the two unions on the site. In one incident a crane is understood to have been driven at a group of workers. The Assistant N.S.W. Secretary of the FEDFA, Mr Ian Peel, said yesterday that the actions of the BLF were making peace in the building industry almost impossible. The newspaper report continued: Unless the BLF abides by its undertakings concerning demarcation policy, work on the Parliament House project could be brought to a stop. This seems to be the situation over and over again. The problem is certainly not confined to the demarcation issues between the Builders Labourers Federation and the FEDFA regarding the Parliament House site. There are also the claims that have been made in another remarkable area regarding the building superannuation scheme. I believe that matter gives considerable cause for concern. It will only exacerbate the problems of which we are all aware in relation to the Parliament House site of which I have spoken already. We have had again in that area appeasement on the part of the Government which is designed to bring about industrial peace. Notwithstanding the prices and incomes accord and the guidelines that the Government has set down for dealing with industrial disputes , we have a form of building industry package which has been pursued, and in which employers have to an extent been co-operative to a degree which is perhaps economically unjustified. We had first a package of proposals to establish a building industry recoveries procedure allowance, which was a form of over-award payment to encourage people to abide by reasonable dispute settling procedures. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission thought that an allowance of that sort was not appropriate. Of course, that was followed by the superannuation claim of the building unions, and they are pursuing that claim relentlessly at this time. We have noted comments from people such as Mr Clancy of the Building Workers Industrial Union, who told the Commission that in relation to the superannuation claim, in the light of the disallowance of the building industry's recoveries procedure allowance, they should now proceed to a working party to investigate the possibility of the introduction of a national superannuation scheme for building workers, which would be introduced with Federal Government assistance. This was seen as a method of obtaining salary increases over and above those which could ordinarily be allowed and a means of getting round the accord which the Government sees as being so essential. I do not believe that industrial relations should be conducted on this basis while our economy is allegedly improving significantly. Steps taken by the trade union movement outside of the guidelines that the Government has established are not helpful. In my judgment the arrangements that the Government has in place are not as helpful in any event as they should be to our national economy. But assuming that the Government's arrangements and the Government's accord are all that are required, the extent to which the trade union movement is endeavouring to circumvent the accord must be of very considerable concern to all thinking members of the community. I think that there is a justifiable need for the maintenance in our armoury-in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the Trade Practices Act-of all the mechanisms at our disposal to ensure that industrial relations are conducted in a way which is reasonable to all who are involved. I have mentioned before in this place in discussions on the Conciliation and Arbitration Act the need as I see it to redress the balance in part. I think there has been a significant change over time in the power that the trade union movement exerts as a whole. Nobody questions that there was a time when people who were properly categorised as employees were very severely disadvantaged in relation to employers and that there was a need some time ago to redress the balance. I think that that has largely occurred, to the point where the balance now lies very much in the other direction. One matter that is of considerable concern to the Opposition, to me and also to the Business Council of Australia and other employer groups is the Government's proposal to put in place arrangements to deal with secondary boycotts, in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act rather than in the Trade Practices Act as is the case at present. The Government's announced intention to repeal sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act which prohibit secondary boycotts would remove one of those very important legislative capacities to deal with very difficult situations. Secondary boycotts, of course, involve those situations in which the trade union movement can use a boycott as a means of applying pressure indirectly on an employer through other employers. It is a very harmful economic practice. It is one which has no justification. The provisions in sections 45D and 45E do not exact penalties in relation to a breach of those sections, but through them we have seen a number of very difficult industrial situations averted. Were those powers in sections 45D and 45E to be removed and placed in the context of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, where there are no real consequences for breach of the legislation, I think the very important powers that exist in our armoury at this time to deal with difficult situations will have been given away for no real advantage. I do not think the Government is well served by appeasement. I have recounted ample evidence in the Australian Capital Territory that shows that appeasement does not work and that the Government's special relationship has not enabled very difficult industrial disputes, in particular in regard to the Parliament House site, to be overcome. If the Government is to give away as an act of appeasement to the trade union movement the powers that it presently has in the Trade Practices Act in much the same way as it did in relation to the prosecutions I have recounted, I believe it will be for nought in terms of any improved industrial relations climate. There is no evidence to suggest that that would be obtained and it would be a very harmful act. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(7.06) —I thank the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) for his contribution to the debate. I do so mainly because if I do not I am sure that no one on the other side of the House will do so. The shape of our industrial relations system has, in my view, provided a distinctive feature of the Australian social, legal and economic landscape. The relative strength of the trade union movement in this country in membership terms-that is a reality which I hope that both sides of politics will come to accept-the long evolution of industrial health and safety regulations and, of course, the qualitative mix of conciliation and arbitration in the process provide a distinctive and somewhat unique system of industrial relations compared with those of our Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development partners. Equally distinctive has been the characteristic of our political system that, perhaps because of the greater identification of the bulk of the trade union movement with our side of politics, our industrial relations system has been in the past a political football. Of course, it is worthwhile remembering in this House tonight, and reminding all those who may care to view industrial relations now or in the future, that this infatuation with playing politics with our industrial relations system has occurred chiefly in the 34 years since 1950, in times when 30 of those 34 years were dominated by the predecessors of honourable members opposite; that is, by the conservatives in the political spectrum. Against that background these minor changes in the legislation before the House tonight are reflective of the Hawke Labor Government's attitude towards industrial relations, based very soundly on the very effective prices and incomes accord. That attitude, of course, is one of refining the system, making it more efficient, while all the time acknowledging the rights of the players in the tripartite system. We should note that it is reflective of the smooth administration of policy and the goodwill that currently exists, and is most likely to remain in the system for many years to come, that instead of the macro main event fights about penal provisions, indexation, partial indexation and the like, in this House tonight we have the opportunity of stepping back, taking a longer and calmer view, and making the small but important changes that are needed to restore greater health to the system. Of course, the ultimate indicator of that goodwill and the sound administration of industrial relations that exists in this country as the ultimate indicator is the lowest strike rate, in terms of days lost, in the last 16 years. That is due as much to the good efforts of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who is at the table, as to the efforts of anyone else. These amendments continue the line of previous legislation and amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act introduced by this Government since March of last year. They continue in the vein of liberalising the system, adding flexibility and, above all, maintaining and enhancing respect for the rights of the parties involved. Already this Government's changes, which are designed to improve co-ordination between the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the State tribunals, have been most effective. Already we have seen this Government bring in provisions to ease the road to union amalgamations , which any industrial relations professional, whether on the employer side or the union side, would agree is long overdue in this country. The number of people in private enterprise who strongly urged the former Fraser Government to bring in provisions such as we ultimately brought in so that our industrial relations system could rationalise itself in the union sector was amazing, but those calls from private enterprise fell on deaf ears when those opposite were in government. The most important legislative change that this Government has brought about prior to this legislation is the abolition of the Industrial Relations Bureau and all that it stood for. As I have said, these amendments, like those previously legislated by this Government, are overdue. For that reason it is good to see that the Opposition will not be dividing the House tonight on the amendments. It is probably appropriate that the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) led the debate for the Opposition on this issue. He is a man who I acknowledge quite readily is respected very widely in the industrial relations field, unlike many of his colleagues. These changes will facilitate administrative arrangements and changes to allow a more flexible and efficient operation of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Office of the Industrial Registrar, the clarifying of procedures for the filling of casual vacancies in labour organisations in particular and, of course, the enabling of trade unions to provide in their rules for the rearrangement of the disclosure and filing before industrial registrars of their accounts and financial statements. All are somewhat minor but they are important in the longer run. They add flexibility to the system. They make the system more humane and, if you like, they take the starch out of it. Before entering Parliament I had the privilege of working in industrial relations both for the trade union movement and, for a number of years, with one of Australia's largest corporations. I may be something of a product of the University of New South Wales's school of industrial relations, but there seems to me to be an inevitable, con- sistent faith in the broad parameters of the system. When the system becomes legalistic and is impinged on by out of date laws, not only will the unions walk outside the system, as we saw in the early 1970s, but also the employers will lose faith. I hope that both sides of politics will see that the attitudinal changes, the legislative changes and the administration of industrial relations in this country within the confines of the system are probably the best, the most efficient and the smoothest we have had for a long time, not just in terms of days lost and strikes but in terms of the general social fabric and what has been able to be achieved under the prices and incomes accord for the broader good of the nation. It is therefore with much zeal that I urge support for these changes. They are small but they are overdue and they are necessary. Again I draw to the House's attention the fact that the climate in which industrial relations now finds itself in this country offers a perhaps unique opportunity not only for employer and employee organisations but also for both groups of parties in this chamber to reflect on the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and all that is related to it for the greater progress of industrial relations for some years to come. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(7.15) —I invite the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to reflect on the remarks of the previous speaker, which encouraged him to reflect on the industrial relations situation in Australia, but I invite him not to do it for too long because Australia is now in a very desperate situation. The wage rises of the last quarter are about to overturn the advice offered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in its last report. If the Government is serious about the well-being of Australia it must really take a hard look at the matters that are confronting it in regard to wage settlement, real wage costs and industrial relations at large. The Government should not reflect and look at its navel. It should be very active and positive in its attitude towards the problems confronting us. In the legislation before the House the Minister sets in place most of the commitments of the prices and incomes accord. I quote from an agreement document which was given to me by the Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union and which purports to set out the details of the accord. I draw the Minister's attention to the section headed 'Industrial relations'. I point out to the House that the Minister has almost achieved the ultimate. He has fulfilled almost every aspect of the industrial relations commitments entered into in that accord . That means that he has got full marks from the union movement except for one point, and that is the restrictive law inhibiting the amalgamation of unions, on which there is a promise of reform. I will run through the various points, if the Minister wants to check with his copy of the accord, but the whole matter is quoted and I believe it to be an official copy of the agreement. The first point states: The Government will endeavour to create a better industrial relations climate by itself adopting and encouraging other employers to adopt a rational and less confrontationist approach to industrial relations. The Government will encourage the settlement of disputes between employers and unions by conciliation and without recourse to legislative or common law penal sanctions. That is completely obvious. The Government has achieved that. It does not matter whether it is the unions or the Builders Labourers Federation; the Government has encouraged employers and employees to settle these matters. If it means that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister have to call in the representatives of the building employers and heavy them to drop the deregistration processes, that is what the Government does. The Government will accede to overaward claims and to outside award settlements such as superannuation schemes. Of course, by this process of complete abrogation of any responsibility, by adopting a one-way attitude, the Government has created a situation where there is no recourse to legislation or common law penal sanctions. The implications of that are that the Government will go one step further and remove any common law sanctions against the union movement. The second point the Government has achieved is an inquiry into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the regulations. That is under way, and I think many people in Australia will welcome that approach. However, within the review the Government has committed itself to give priority to the reform of laws relating to the internal affairs of unions to ensure their continued effective, efficient and democratic operation. Other words in other places, such as in the Australian Labor Party's policy platform, spell out the details of the democratisation of unions, which basically means that they operate under their own rules. The third point the Government has succeeded in achieving under the accord is this: . . . will support the establishment of rights for employees, through their unions, to be notified and consulted by employers about the proposed introduction of technological change. That is a fact. It also states that the Government is committed to what is called a fair redundancy protection. That has also been achieved. The Industrial Relations Bureau has been scrapped. The Government has committed itself to adopt a better approach to consultation with Australian Government employees. It states: The Government will consult fully with employers, and the trade union movement through the ACTU, before the introduction of new industrial legislation. That is under way. But one turns the page and under the heading 'Industry development' one sees what the Government's achievements are. One's mind boggles at the lack of achievement in that area. The first point to which the Government has committed itself states: The paramount objective of economic policy is the attainment of full employment . Industry development policy should be integrated with macro economic policy to achieve this goal; Yet the Government removes from its policy the fact that it is committed to full employment. Goodness gracious; it has already gone back on a commitment in the accord that promised employment and areas in which one would seek to balance the scale of government commitment. Another area to which the Government has not addressed itself under industry development is the producer goods manufacturing area which includes not only capital goods but also intermediate goods used in the production of a wide range of goods. The Governments has given no attention to these matters. There is a whole series of dot points in the accord under that item which seek to address the problems of our international competitiveness. But not one really takes up the matters in the area with which I commenced, that is, the OECD report to which I refer. The OECD, in its examination of the Australian economy, at page 50 of its conclusions, made some very telling statements, a few of which have been selectively quoted by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), and others by the Prime Minister. But I draw the attention of the House to some absolutes stated by this international organisation, an expert in judging the economies of its members, with regard to wages, inflation and other such matters. It states: . . . OECD Economic Surveys of Australia have argued that the stubbornness of high inflation and rising unemployment have largely reflected inadequate understanding by the parties to wage determination of the relationships between inflation, real wage costs and employment. To a considerable extent, anti- inflation policy between 1975 and 1982 foundered as it proved impossible to get agreement on the need for greater real wage flexibility. Policy is now designed to reduce and overcome this barrier through the consensus approach, but a number of comments are in order. These are the comments: First, it is essential that all sections of the community eschew rigorously any wage and salary increases outside the agreed wage fixation principles enunciated by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and which will be in force until October 1985. There was a 14 per cent annual increase for the last quarter's figures. That is not following the proposals put down by the OECD-proposals that the Government knows are essential to the health of the Australian economy. We deal tonight with legislation that goes further to meet the requests of the union movement but without any compensating factors with regard to the creation of employment, of stability or soundness of the economy. It is Dolan's Budget. Dolan designed it and Dolan approved it. But Dolan has not read this report. We want long term benefit for Australia for all Australians-not for the Builders Labourers Federation or the Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union, but for all Australians. Mr Dolan and the Minister at the table, who claims to be familiar with at least some economic theory, should take note that the OECD states: It is to be hoped that the present strong upswing in the real economy and the strengthening demand for labour do not again add to inflationary wage expectations and widen the real wage gap. A faster increase in wage costs than implied under the wage fixation principles would probably damp the already relatively weak outlook for investment. Moreover, lack of flexibility in wages across individual firms or sectors has been a problem in Australia. Greater relative wage flexibility would facilitate improved resource allocation. Time and again, in each paragraph of this report, the significance is spelt out of wage restraint and proper flexibility. But the Minister wants to enshrine it in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and that great club in Melbourne of which he is a member. He not only wants to do that but also he does not want to deal with the investment factors on the other side. The Government has walked away from some of the hard facts of job creation. It has even changed its policy to say that full employment is not on. It does not ever aspire to that again and it will accept whatever level of unemployment comes along and say that it is inevitable. I would have thought that a part that claims to be a part of principle could have been more effective in dealing with these matters. But the Minister, by his actions, has demonstrated just how he approaches the matter. The legislation tonight vindicates my view because step after step has been taken to achieve the goal of the accord. All of the industrial relations aspects of the accord, except one, are now in place. But none of the industrial development aspects is in place. The Government has failed because it has a one track mind about keeping things quiet with the union movement. It does not matter whether it is Mr Dolan, Norm Gallagher or any one of the heavies in the union movement with whom it will not deal, and I must admit with whom few have tried to deal. Its policies are set and governed by those individuals. The Minister will be aware of where the accord and some of the policies that he has introduced can lead us. I draw to the attention of the House an advertisement in last week's Bulletin and Australian Financial Review put in by Australia's own Broken Hill Proprietary Co . Ltd. It is headed 'What initiative, hard work and consensus have achieved'. It is an advertisement for the Government, supporting its advertising of the accord , consensus and reconciliation. Do honourable members know why BHP was advertising for the Government? It was because in the same week BHP sacked 1,000 workers. The deal was that the Minister said to BHP that this matter would not be raised publicly provided BHP advertised for the Government. I have the advertisement here. In the same week, the Sydney Morning Herald of Tuesday, 31 July had the headline 'BHP plans 1,000 workforce cut'. What a coincidence that that was in the same week that BHP advertised for the Government. In that same week those sackings were allowed without a whimper, comment or any concern by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) or the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations about this process. What hypocrisy! I use that in the general sense for the Government at large. The Minister is but an example of the Government which has these attitudes. It is really concerning that it can so manipulate our community by threat of union action and use people with whom it is so friendly to keep this matter quiet. It is concerning that one advertisement placed in two newspapers by the 'Big Australian' will keep the Minister and the Government quiet when workers are losing their jobs. What lack of concern! Nobody in this place will forget the ructions, the comments and the sarcasm of 1982 and 1983 when BHP hit trouble. One thousand jobs at a time was the worst that BHP did in those years. But the same thing has been done again within the last few weeks and not a comment has been made because BHP has advertised in support of the accord. I refer to a few other matters that the Government really needs to come to grips with. I refer to the flow-on factors related to a national superannuation scheme. Surely the Minister must be aware of what such a scheme will do to the building industry in which it is being promoted at the moment. The Minister must know that to heavy the building employers to withdraw from deregistration proceedings is going down a deadly track of compliance with some of the worst elements of the union movement. The Minister will not come to grips with Norm Gallagher. Nobody in the Australian Labor Party can or will come to grips with Norm Gallagher. What a tragedy that is. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(7.30) —In the Budget of August 1983, in an act of gross stupidity, the Hawke Government imposed an excise at the rate of $2.61 per litre on grape spirits for fortifying wine. This act repudiated a promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in Griffith in March in a vain attempt to win the seat of Riverina. That attempt failed and failed dismally and that promise is now seen as a farce and no more than that. Public outcry from those of us representing wine growing electorates and recognition that the grape growing industry was being destroyed caused the Government to reduce this tax to $1.50 per litre and backdate it to the 1983 Budget. But fortified wine production basically stopped and some wineries actually had to close their doors. This Government simply has not learned its lesson, and it is at it again. It is obvious to me that the socialists on the other side of the House indicate a distinct preference for Bollinger rather than Great Western champagne. This is obvious because their action is openly encouraging exports as against our local products. Not only is the Government in a mad drive to collect taxation; it has succumbed to the lobbying by the brewing industry. Of course 66c per litre is too high an excise for the brewing industry, and it should be lower, but surely that industry should not have asked for a tax to be placed on wine but should have asked for a reduction in its own excise. It seems to me that the industry's lobbying is like a one-legged man asking for everyone else to get a leg cut off so that everyone will be equal. Sales tax on all Australian wine in the Budget released last night has now been placed at a rate of 10 per cent. This impost took effect from 8 o'clock on 21 August 1984. At the same time, the pre-existing discriminatory 20 per cent sales tax on imported alcoholic grape wine will now be replaced by an additional ad valorem customs duty equivalent to a discriminatory tax of 10 per cent. This action is said by the Government to be fully consistent with Australia's obligation under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. What a weak excuse and what nonsense! It is the first time I have heard the Labor Government recognising our obligations under the GATT system. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics believes that as a result of the Government's action long term demand for wine could fall by 13.5 per cent. This will cut the grape intake throughout Australia by some 65,000 tonnes per year and a massive loss of sales is estimated of up to some 40 million litres of wine . Mr Hodgman —How much? Mr FISHER —Forty million litres, which will mean a gross loss to growers of some $15.6m. Of course, the new tax that has been implemented by the Government is expected to cost the industry some $50m in a full year. I am concerned that there will be a massive loss in production and a shortfall in revenue. I hope this will mean that the Government will once again realise its stupidity, as it did with regard to its ill-conceived fortified wine tax, and that it will be forced to reduce this severe impost. The decision to refund tax collected under the fortified wine tax had to be made because the introduction of new tax meant that a double taxation would have been imposed on the wine industry. To add to the nonsense, the Government has decided to establish an inquiry to look into the problems of the industry. Why was not an inquiry established before the Government took a decision to impose a new tax and a penalty on the industry? The Hawke Government in its two years in office has now introduced two taxation measures to the detriment of thousands of small grape growers. The very real threat now is not just the loss in sales and the loss in revenue to the Government which will result from this measure but the Government's decision threatens the whole social and economic life of a number of horticultural regions throughout Australia and the many thousands of small wine grape growing producers. The decision will also have an effect on the wine industry's associated industries, particularly the dried fruit industry which is presently experiencing a severe crisis. For the Government this measure is simply a matter of collecting tax but for the thousands of small producers throughout Australia it will mean a total end to their viability. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(7.35) —Yesterday I presented a petition from some constituents of Wentworth which expressed concern at the continued persecution by the Soviet authorities of Dr Andrei Sakharov, despite protests from all over the world including a unanimous resolution of this House on 30 May this year. The petition then requested the House to urge the Government to rename that part of Canberra Avenue which runs alongside the Soviet Embassy. The new name suggested for that part of Canberra Avenue is Andrei Sakharov Avenue. Since I received that petition a news report has come in of a sort of precedent for the petitioners' suggestion, and I would like to draw the House's attention to it. New York city has named a street corner Sakharov-Bonner Corner-Yelena Bonner is Dr Sakharov's wife-and has installed signs to mark the spot, which is near the Soviet Union's mission to the United Nations. The corner in question is the corner of 67th Street and Third Avenue in mid-town Manhattan. At formal dedication ceremonies on the 9th of this month, the New York city Mayor, Edward Koch, said there were two reasons why New York city decided to name the corner after two Soviet citizens. The first was simply to honour the courageous couple. The Mayor said the second reason was: . . . to show the Soviet Union that we will not condone its effort to allow dissidents to fade into oblivion. The Mayor went on: . . . though I wish we could do more, right now this is a step for showing a government such as the Soviet Union that they cannot silence the people of the United States. We will speak out. We will speak out against oppression, the inhumanities around the globe. After the ceremonies he said that he was realistic about what any one person could do but the Soviets do respond to pressure and may change in some way. He said: This is the time for all free people to band together. Perhaps the Soviets will not listen to individual voices but can they truly ignore the voice of an entire city, of an entire country, of a large part of the rest of the world? As the Soviet personnel cross this corner to enter the Soviet Mission halfway down that block, hopefully they will have a constant reminder that while they may try to silence the Sakharovs they cannot silence freedom. They cannot extinguish our voices, the voices of those in the free world. We will not let their barbarism go unmarked. By gathering here to-day at the very door of the Soviet Mission our voices speak out with one voice. The Sakharov case is only the most famous of recent and current examples of Soviet oppression of dissidents as Soviet policy now appears to be entering a period of what can be described as re-Stalinisation. Dr Sakharov, who is one of the world's greatest scientists, has for more than 16 years been one of the leading dissidents in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. After helping to break the grip of primitive Stalinist Lysenkoism on Soviet science, he published in 1968 a famous 10,000-word manifesto calling for intellectual freedom. In 1970 he formed the Moscow Human Rights Committee and in subsequent years worked for the release of political prisoners and the right of Soviet citizens to emigrate. He attacked the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and warned the West against unilateral disarmament. For their part, the Soviet authorities retaliated with all kinds of harassment. He has been drugged and robbed. He has had his passport confiscated. He has been stripped of all honours-he had so many-and he and his wife have been sent into internal exile in the closed city of Gorky. The current crisis began in May this year when Dr Sakharov went on a hunger strike in an attempt to persuade the authorities to allow his wife, Yelena Bonner, to go abroad for urgently needed medical treatment for her eye disease and heart condition. He is now believed to be in a hospital where he is being forcibly administered with mind altering drugs in an attempt to break his hunger strike. His wife is to be tried for defaming the Soviet state and therefore is at risk of being sentenced to three years in a labour camp. At the same time, the authorities will allow no foreigners to visit them. It has been suggested that the Soviet authorities think that if no one is allowed to visit or see them , few people abroad will believe these terrible stories, just as in years past few at the time believed the incredible but true reports of the millions being killed in Stalin's collectivisation drive or of the millions of Ukranians dying or being killed in the Stalin-made famine. These stories did and do strain the imagination but they were and are true. In any case it is nowadays harder for the Soviet authorities to conceal the facts. We all know that for the past several years human rights activists in their hundreds have been arrested, exiled, imprisoned or confined to psychiatric hospitals. We cannot and do not ignore the Soviet treatment of the Sakharovs and the others, and the Soviets will only avoid world condemnation if they let the Sakharovs go. This House condemned the Soviet authorities last May for their persecution of the Sakharovs. I hope the Government will continue in this spirit and adopt the petition of my constituents and rename that part of the avenue outside the Soviet Embassy Andrei Sakharov Avenue so that it may be, as Mayor Koch put it in New York, a constant reminder to Soviet officials as they enter and leave their Embassy that their barbarism does not go unmarked. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(7.40) —I raise tonight a matter that should give us all a great deal of concern and heartburn. I refer to the number of casualties during the British atomic tests conducted at Monte Bello, Emu and Maralinga. I am proud to say that this Government has taken issue with the particular problem and the announcement of a royal commission headed by Mr Justice McClelland is to be welcomed. That is a correct step for the Government to have taken. It is a pity that it has taken 20-odd years for this to occur. In the early years of an organisation called the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association figures of deaths thought to be related to the tests at Maralinga were collated. I believe there were 114 reports of deaths, all of them from one form or another of cancer. That organisation has had a great deal of difficulty in trying to get governments in the past to take heed of its problem. I put to this Parliament, and I will do so formally, the proposition that the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association and those organisations representing the people who were involved in the tests, both civilian and military, should be given some assistance from the Government. I must here give credit to the Fraser Government for forming the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. Those honourable members who have had time to go through their mail this week would have seen the first report of that counselling service. It is doing an excellent job. Its Budget allocation last year was some $840,000. It had a staff of some 34 people servicing Vietnam veterans throughout Australia. It is to the credit of the Fraser Government and the then Labor Opposition that support was given to the formation of that service. I would like to see the same type of service emulated for the Australian nuclear veterans who were involved in those tests at Monte Bello, Emu and Maralinga. I think certain parallels can be drawn. In the case of the Vietnam veterans a Royal Commission into Agent Orange was set up. If the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam is to be meaningful, the best submissions possible must be given to it. I believe that the counselling service will be able to do that. I would like to see the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association given the same kind of assistance so that the Royal Commission that has been set up by this Government will have the best possible submissions from individuals and organisations. Then , once and for all, we can clear up exactly what happened at Monte Bello, Emu and Maralinga. The numbers of people who were involved in the various atomic tests conducted by the United Kingdom in fact exceeds the number of troops sent to Vietnam. Some 16,000 people were involved in the British atomic tests. Unfortunately, the Fraser Government set up a health survey; the use of the word 'unfortunately' refers to the fact that only some 8,200 of those nuclear veterans were able to be traced. From memory, the response to the health survey was less than 16 per cent. Even so, there was evidence that those people required the kind of support service that a counselling service financed by this Government would give. The Kerr Report of the Expert Committee on the Review of Data on Atmospheric Fallout Arising from British Nuclear Tests in Australia was recently released and has been very critical of that health survey. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(7.45) —Recently, considerable publicity was given to the problems in a small town in my electorate, the town of Pingelly, where a doctor, one Dr Rex Hood, has been a victim of the recent nationalisation of medicine known as Medicare. He has been banned automatically for three years from participating in this nationalised system. Of course, he has no alternative because there is today no alternative for Australian people or their doctors if they fall foul of this system. His crime was to operate a system that seemed to have a fair bit of administrative sense. Basically, he was charging his customers $5 when they entered his surgery, saving them the problems of filling out the mass of paper work that is necessary under this nationalised scheme and then bulk billing them for the balance. That gave him exactly the same remuneration as had he put his clients to the considerable trouble that is required of private patients of paying him the full amount. Then, of course, in the case of Pingelly, they would have to write to a Medicare office because there are practically no Medicare offices in the 170,000 square kilometres of the O'Connor electorate to get their money back. The people of Pingelly were happy with the arrangement; the doctor was happy with the arrangement. But it was contrary to the socialist views of the Government. A question has been asked in the Senate of the Minister representing the Minister for Health and some interesting things came out of that response. Senator Grimes, in answering, said: In signing the Medicare claim form for assigned patients, the form DB1, immediately above the doctor's signature is the statement 'no payments have been sought from the . . . patients for the provision of services supplied in the attached assignment forms'. That was put down as one of the main reasons why this man should lose his livelihood. But another form was presented to the Parliament today. A Minister of the Crown said: The three packages consigned to me which have arrived, and are due to arrive, at MELB per QF002 on 29/6/84 contain my bona fide unaccompanied baggage for the abovementioned voyage. That is right above his signature. But, of course, that was a mistake. He has been whitewashed. He has been voted innocent, as have other members of this Ministry. Honourable members opposite come in and vote them innocent. But is it not amazing- Mr Holding —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I raise the question of whether the honourable gentleman is not reflecting on the judgment of the House which was made earlier today. Mr SPEAKER —I have considered the other matter which involves not only the judgment of the House. I refer to whether this question should be the subject of a substantive motion. I have allowed the honourable member to make a passing reference. I suggest he does not persist with the references. Mr TUCKEY —I am making a passing reference, Mr Speaker. But the facts are that the Government, through Senator Grimes in his reply, also suggested that Liberal policy said: . . . a medical practitioner found guilty of two or more offences of medical benefits fraud would be excluded automatically from medical benefits arrangements for three years. The Minister accredited his statement to the previous Minister for Health, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). Mr Barry Jones —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think this matter is really sub judice. My recollection is that I am the defendant in an action in my former capacity as Acting Minister for Health. I think that Dr Hood's case has been appealed to a court. On that basis, I think the sub judice rule ought to apply. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member should have thought of that when the question was asked in the Senate yesterday. I question that, Mr Speaker. The point I make is- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I assume it would be a civil case and until proceedings commence it is not relevant. Mr Holding —But it is on appeal. Mr Barry Jones —I think it is on appeal, Mr Speaker. Mr TUCKEY —There appears to be considerable concern from the Government about this matter. What is the worry of honourable members? It is the truth. The point I am making-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It is not competent for me to know the stage at which this case is. Mr TUCKEY —I doubt that sincerely because it was only on 15 August that the Minister replied that he had rejected the man's appeal to the Minister. He was charged on five counts at the same time. The argument is that he has had more than three convictions. He could have had 105 convictions, because all the statements were exactly the same. The policy of the Liberal Party on this matter was that any single action would be a single action only and a doctor would have to be brought back again. This is not what the Government is doing. The man was charged on five counts and every bill he made out was for the same amount. He could have been charged on every one of them. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(7.51) —It is always rewarding to be asked to convey recognition of service given in the spirit of dedication to a cause. So tonight it is mandatory that I comment the Young Christian Workers Movement of Australia. This week the YCW is holding its National Unemployment Congress here in Canberra. The purpose of the Congress is to review and evaluate the YCW action on unemployment over the past six years. The YCW has been actively involved in the study of unemployment and its effects here in Australia, a subject that we are all familiar with. It has centred on five main areas of unemployment, which are the unemployed person, homelessness, the Commonwealth Employment Service and the Department of Social Security, technology and co-operatives. The focal point is the challenge, the challenge to Australian people in their knowledge, understanding, attitudes and action in the face of unemployment in this country. Unemployment leads to many things, including homelessness, family breakdown, crime, vandalism, suicide and drugs. The YCW has made case studies of all of these problems, and it is on reflection that it has found a deprivation of needs whether they be basic bodily needs, ego esteem needs or self-fulfilment needs. Everyone has the right to life , liberty and security of person. We all have a basic need for shelter, care and friendship. Refuges which are set up to compensate for homelessness are generally only short term and act only as band aid measures, therefore there is a much needed gap to be filled. I can only hope that as the economy continues to pick up we can allocate more funds towards this crisis situation. The majority of those who make social security claims often feel depersonalised and degraded due to the administration carried out. Many claim that the systems of the CES and Department of Social Security are carried out with a maximum regard for efficiency, with a minimum regard for the unemployed as people. The overall reaction to the technological revolution is a lack of challenge. There is less personal contact and more mundane, menial, boring jobs to be done, where little effort is required by those employed. This is hardly encouraging to those who await jobs. Happiness and fulfilment in working is central to human living. The setting up of co-operatives, while showing no signs of visible success, has been a positive learning experience for all concerned. I am personally aware of the many problems faced by the unemployed. In my huge electorate of Grey I come into contact with pockets of 20 per cent unemployment in the industrial areas of Port Pirie, Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Lincoln. I make daily contact with these people and it is disheartening to see the frustrations and the loneliness and sadness of these young people. To live in a family where there is unemployment enlightens me much more. It is depressing enough to see an older man become unemployed through retrenchment and the struggles he faces. The emotions of inadequacy, embarrassment and degradation only add to the problem. For the young person who has never been employed the results are harrowing. For young people who are unsure of the future, the problems are tremendous, and they certainly have a harder and more frustrating time than we have ever had to face. The constant knockbacks and hopelessness of the situation completely awes them. It is no wonder that they lose dignity. We as members of the public should be supportive of the unemployed in as many ways as possible. We should welcome them within our communities and help to instil a sense of worth in the unemployed, as the YCW has been and is continuing to do. In conclusion, I would like to add that the involvement of the young is essential if we are to solve the problem of unemployment. The world of the future is theirs, theirs to mould and their to live with. I cannot commend the YCW highly enough for its involvement with the unemployed, and the fact that it is still searching and studying to satisfy the needs of the unemployed is an example to the rest of us. I hope that the National Congress is successful and justifies the work that the YCW has collectively put in, and that in the not too distant future it will see the fruits of its labour come into being. This will certainly happen under the Australian Labor Party. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(7.55) —Under self-styled President Hawke Australia is fast approaching-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows that he should refer to members of this House in a different way. Mr HODGMAN —Under the honourable member for Wills Australia is fast, and indeed inexorably, approaching George Orwell's 1984. I and many others from all sides of politics, including such notable people as Patrick White, are becoming increasingly appalled by the Hawke socialist Government's disgraceful tactics in recent public debates on contentious issues. The 'kindly consensus' of 1983 has now been replaced by the new ugly authoritarianism, the new McArthyism of 1984. If one disagrees with a single clause of the Sex Discrimination Act, one is branded a sexist. If one asks questions, or dares to disagree with the honourable member for Wills on immigration or Aboriginal land rights, one is immediately liable to be branded a racist. It is a typical tactic of the honourable member for Wills to try to bully and intimidate the Opposition into silence. He successfully employed this tactic in his trade union days, he has tried it repeatedly on his own party and he is now trying it on the Opposition. He will not succeed and we in Her Majesty's loyal Opposition will not be silenced. If we back away from proper debate on these important national issues we will not just be letting ourselves down; we will be letting Australia down and betraying Australian parliamentary democracy. The honourable member for Wills is unfit to hold the high office of Prime Minister of Australia. In a disgraceful speech, a most intemperate outburst at the Australian Labor Party national conference in Canberra on 12 July, he made some shameful and irresponsible statements. I quote just a few of them to demonstrate the depths to which he was prepared to sink; the extent to which he was prepared to go to misrepresent and smear the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and me. He said: . . . when the murky and discreditable emerging campaign of our opponents on this issue started to take shape in the Parliament . . . . . . Mr Chairman, as has been indicated, we have had this person Hodgman come back into Australia yesterday and make his statements . . . . . . If it is within the reason of Mr Hodgman we should not have very high hopes for the maintenance of decency in this area of politics . . . . . . If the recent past is any indication we can have no hope for decency from the Leader of the Opposition. . . . It is a question of the man whose loins are suppler, Hodgman; and it is a person who allows those more supple loins to be exercised now in the gutters of prejudice in this country . . . . . . reject this desperate resort to racial prejudice and degradation which is coming to characterise our opponents in this matter. In the last session of this Parliament the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) said in this House that he was satisfied there were no racists on either side of the House. With that statement I respectfully concur. Does the honourable member for Wills suggest that the honourable member for Oxley, Mr Hayden, was not telling the truth when he made that statement? I am not a racist , my Party is not racist, the National Party is not racist; but we do love Australia. We will not be silenced by a Prime Minister who seeks to intimidate and bully those who dare question, let alone criticise, anything that he and his big Brother government decrees on matters of contention. If an opposition fails to question and criticise it is the end of parliamentary democracy. If an opposition is cowed into silence democracy dies. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Holding —Mr Speaker, I require the debate to be extended. Mr SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 8.10 p.m. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports)(8.0) —I am not prepared to let the attack that has been made on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) go unanswered. I looked at two areas, one of which was raised by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). One is the area of Aboriginal affairs and the other, of course, is the area of immigration. It happens to be a sad fact of life that in an area where there was consensus within this Parliament on both these issues, we have seen an Opposition without philosophy, incapable of formulating policy, move to embrace arguments which three years ago would not have been tolerated even by its former Prime Minister. The honourable member for Denison is a man of some intellectual perception and capacity, trained as a lawyer, but he made a decision that some seats could be won for the Liberal Party, irrespective of the cost. He was not prepared to launch himself and his Party into a critical and constructive evaluation of our immigration policies but simply moved away from policy which his Party had endorsed and which was being carried out by the present Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West). When the honourable member for Denison reached out to exploit a section of the community who had come to Australia as refugees, he denied the tradition of his own Party and demeaned an area of policy which had had common agreement and consent in this Parliament. Let me deal with the question of Aboriginal affairs. I do not rely on any statement made by the Prime Minister, whose support in this matter at every level has been overwhelming and whose commitment is without question. I rely on what is occurring around Australia. An organisation known as the League of Rights, the most notoriously racist and anti-Semitic organisation in the history of Australia, has been mounting a deliberate campaign of misrepresentation, falsehood and mischievous allegation designed to produce a white racist backlash against the most deprived section of Australian society. What is the League of Rights' track record? What is the track record of Mr Eric Butler, who leads this organisation? The Commonwealth inquired into this man's activities immediately after the outbreak of war because he was an open and public sympathiser with the regime in Nazi Germany, the nature of which was well established. He described Sir Winston Churchill, the great British wartime Prime Minister, and all the Marlboroughs as tools of international Jewish financiers. He said the same of President Roosevelt and accused him of pursuing communist policies. Mr Butler is the man who demeaned Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, who affronted him by going to a Jewish function, in his capacity as Prime Minister, wearing a yarmulke. This is the man who peddles the false and pernicious Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, who has himself written a scandalously anti-Semitic book known as The International Jew. Suddenly he is appearing around Australia on platforms involving members of the National Party and members of the Liberal Party as a spokesman, an expert, on Aboriginal affairs. Neither I nor the honourable member for Denison nor any self-respecting member of this Parliament, if we do not believe what this man says about the Jewish people, will believe what he says about Aboriginal people. This is the organisation which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) describes as running in parallel with the Liberal Party of Australia. How does one run in parallel with a racist without being a racist? I ask honourable members opposite to answer that. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. If no other Minister rises he may continue. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(8.5) —It was the Leader of the Opposition who, when questioned about this, said that he did not agree with all the positions of the League of Rights, and neither he should. But he said-let me use his terms-that it is running in parallel with the Liberal Party. What the hell does that mean? Perhaps the honourable member for Denison, who does not like the term 'racist', will explain to us what it means. Running in parallel, to the simpletons on the Government side, simply means that it is heading in the same direction. It is running on the same course and the ultimate objective is the same. What a scandalous state of affairs for the once great Liberal Party to be running in parallel with the League of Rights. Did the honourable member for Denison say: 'No, that is not true'? Did he say: 'I will not be heard to say that we are running in parallel with Mr Butler, with all the extreme statements that have been made about Aboriginal hopes and aspirations'? The Leader of the National Party in Queensland demeans Aboriginal people by saying that Aboriginal land rights are about providing bases for guerrilla and terrorist activities. Does the honourable member for Denison not know that that is specious nonsense? Does he who now says that the Opposition must have the freedom to argue its position get up in the House and say: 'I dissociate myself from this palpable nonsense'? Has any Opposition member got up in this House on any occasion to dissociate himself from the slurs and misrepresentations that have been made about the aspirations of Aboriginal people? There has not been a single occasion in this House when that has happened. Now as we approach, obviously, an election situation the Opposition, desperate as it is to try to pick up votes on any basis of racist backlash, whether it be an attack upon Asian immigration or upon Aboriginal hopes and aspirations, leaves it to the Eric Butlers of the world, the anti-Semites, the crypto- fascists, to spread their vile propaganda. They say on the platform: 'That was a very interesting contribution. I do not necessarily agree with all of it but, my word, isn't it interesting?' What a contemptible, mean and despicable political position. Opposition members use the Eric Butlers of the world-- Mr Hodgman —I do not even know him. You are mad. Mr HOLDING —The Liberal Party is running in parallel with him. That is the statement of the Leader of the Opposition. Opposition members know the role that is being played. Suddenly the very vocal honourable member for Denison is shamed into silence. He could have used his time as the spokesman for the Opposition in this critical area to say in this House: 'Look, whatever view the Opposition has is not added to by the kind of nonsense that is being talked, the kind of racist propaganda that is being fuelled in this society, putting one Australian against the other'. He has not done it and he should have. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 8.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8.10 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Hayden to present a Passports Amendment Bill. Mr Jacobi to amend notice of motion No. 507, general business, on today's Notice Paper by omitting paragraphs (4) and (5) and substituting: (4) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (5) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (6) That the committee elect a Government Member as its Chairman. (7) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (9) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into. (10) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub- committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at the meeting. (11) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (12) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (13) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (14) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (15) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. (16) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (17) That the committee in its inquiries take account of the investigations of other parliamentary committees and avoid duplication. (18) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (20) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take accordingly.''