Thursday, 13 September 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 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: (a) 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 become 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 Ewen Cameron,Mr Fisher and Mr Staples. 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 its 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 Carlton and Mr Ruddock. 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 (1985-87) 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 Mr Ewen Cameron and Mrs Kelly. 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 as Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs ( Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the ACT Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law. The power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; The power to require imported video tapes/discs for non-commercial use to be registered by the Film Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure That the Attorney-General enforce existing laws: That Censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; That further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond and Ms Fatin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that the Attorney-General should introduce laws to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography 2. Prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications 3. Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board 4. Require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes 5. Protect Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation; and Your petitioners also request 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 Lusher. To the Honourable the 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 recognise 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 Baldwin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we believe that there are unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental, technical and ethical problems associated with the mining of uranium and the Development of Nuclear power, in particular: (a) to the proven contribution of the nuclear power industry to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increased risk of nuclear war; and (b) the absence of procedures for the storage and disposal of radioactive wastes to ensure that any danger posed by such wastes to human life and the environment is eliminated. Your 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 the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: 1. That we unreservedly oppose the Federal Government's proposals in relation to the censorship laws designed for the Australian Capital Territory; and further we oppose any such proposal on censorship laws becoming law in any State in Australia. 2 That we consider it right and proper that the citizens of this nation be consulted, and their views and desires respected in the formulation of law in censorship and similar areas. 3. That it is with alarm the proposed censorship laws are regarded by citizens living in a society based on Christian ethics. In essence Australia is a Christian nation and our nation's laws must reflect and uphold our established values. Legislation which sanctions behaviour repugnant to Christians, is legislation not appropriate to Australia. Moreover, it is legislation which condones the destruction of the very fabric of our society. Legislation which promotes the degradation, abasement and exploitation of people, both young and old, and of our nation, is unacceptable. 4. That we the undersigned request the Government to heed the points in this petition, and abandon its 1983 decision to alter the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that we object to the alterations to the Customs Regulations which will allow the introduction and circulation of video tapes and other publications supporting hard core pornography and the use of hard drugs. We the undersigned request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and the 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. Recognizes that the flag as a symbol of pride for most Australians, such that several organisations, including the ALP, incorporated the flag in their motifs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will resist moves to change the Australian flag, or if changes is contemplated that the question be put to the Australian people by referendum to seek their views. 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority, the decision of the Hawke Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with deep concern, and deplore the decision of the Government, to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become even more widespread during the period of the inquiry. We request the Federal Government to immediately re-enact the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. 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, and in particular the citizens of the Manning Valley, respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia and in particular the citizens of the Manning Valley, firmly express our strong opposition to the classification of the Taree Open Cadet Unit as a unit to receive limited support only under the restructured Army Cadet Scheme. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that; The Minister for Defence direct the Australian Army to re-classify the Taree Open Cadet Unit as an open, community-based, regional cadet unit (R.C.U.). And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that the House of Representatives will vote in favour of the Senate resolution calling for the appointment of a Select Joint Committee to examine the effects upon children of viewing pornographic, violent and obscene video material, because not all parents are supervising all children all of the time, and not all video outlets are impoverishing themselves by compliance with the law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. 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 guidelines for classification of video tapes and discs for sale and hire issued by the Film Censorship Board places no realistic restriction on the sale to adults of explicit hard-core pornography and coupled with the widespread existence of video playing machines, little or no realistic family control can now be exercised over the likely viewing of explicit hard-core pornography by children and juveniles. Noting that the Parliament refused to disallow regulations permitting these circumstances to occur your petitioners therefore pray that: A Joint Parliamentary Select Committee be established with the following terms or reference: (a) Examine the extent to which video tapes and discs containing pornographic and violent material are available; (b) examine the extent to which children under the age of 18 years obtain access and are exposed to such material; (c) investigate the effectiveness of legislative controls upon the dissemination of such material; and (d) examine the likely effects of exposure to such material upon children and emotionally disturbed persons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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 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. Your petitioners that Members and the House will close Omega. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This being the petition of your undersigned respectful subjects sheweth. To prevent liberalisation of laws relating to X-rated videos in Victoria. Yours the Petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in parliament assembled should ban the X-rated videos And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many people in Australia are currently being denied appropriate psychological help because they cannot afford private health insurance. Rebates for psychological services within the Medicare system would enable all persons, regardless of financial and social status, to receive appropriate psychological assistance. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament will give consideration to the inclusion of psychological services within the Medicare Scheme. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of Parliament for the Commonwealth of Australia assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned would call upon our government to introduce or amend legislation 1. To place controls over video-cassettes so as to provide for the open availability through sale and hire outlets only of G. NRC, and M Rated video- cassettes. 2. To prohibit the availability through sale and hire outlets of R rated video- cassettes and restrict their use to adult theatres. 3. To prohibit completely the concept of X rated video-cassettes by the revision of the Customs and/or Censorship Regulations so that the production, import and distribution of such pornographic and sadistically violent material be prevented. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Morrison. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth 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 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 Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Cross,Dr Everingham,Mr Humphreys,Mr Lindsay,Mr Moore,Mr Wells and Mr White. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of New South Wales , Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wells. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. We the undersigned citizens of this district of Pioneer Valley, near Mackay, Queensland, view with great concern the matter recently before the House, wherein your Government passed legislation which will facilitate the procuring of pornographic material of various kinds, including videos and literature. Most people seem to be convinced that pornography and bad videos are doing great harm to our young people, and we feel that we would be remiss in our duty to them if we did not voice our protest. Parents have already enough difficulty in protecting their children. Your new law will make their task impossible. We hope and pray that your Government will see fit to reverse its decision in this matter. 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. The petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully show: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; Alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths; Alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; Alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to Ban the Advertising of Alcohol from Commercial Television and Radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. The Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled: The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectively showeth that: 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decision which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Allan Morris. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain concerned citizens of the Southern N.S.W. Coal Regions shows: 1. that approximately 600 mineworkers employed by Kembla Coal & Coke at its Coalcliff and Darkes Forest Mines are threatened with retrenchment, 2. that further retrenchments are threatened at mines in the Burragorang Valley of N.S.W. and in the West Moreton Field in Queensland, and 3. that these threatened retrenchments constitute: (i) a crisis in the Coal Industry, and (ii) a major threat to the economic and social stability of the regions dependent on these mines. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, take immediate action to: 1. halt these threatened sackings, 2. implement Labor policy and establish a National Coal Authority, and 3. increase Government intervention in the mines if the companies refuse to withdraw the threatened retrenchments. by Mr West. Petitions received. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its disgust with the New South Wales Government's attempt to influence the evidence about to be given to the Senate inquiry into the behaviour of Mr Justice Murphy; (2) deplores the crass manipulation of the processes of justice, exampled by the decision to reappoint Mr Clarrie Briese, the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, only after the Senate hearing at which Mr Briese is to be a major witness; and (3) concludes that there is collusion between Senator G. J. Evans, Mr Justice Murphy and Mr Landa to manipulate the Senate inquiry by blackmailing Mr Briese. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House expresses its revulsion at the barbaric and cowardly act of the brutal South African police and the racist South African Government for having killed 9 year old Sebokeng school boy Wisey Mnise by shooting him 11 times in the back. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with absolute concern moves by the Tasmanian Wilderness Society and sections of the Tasmanian ALP to push for the establishment of a Great Western Tasmanian Management Area, and (2) affirms that any such establishment would lock-up an additional 14% of Tasmania. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Griffith will second: That this House- (1) notes that calls by the Minister for Health, supported by the honourable member for Petrie, for the Queensland Government to account for $23 million received from the Commonwealth as a Medicare special grant; (2) condemns the Federal Opposition and the Queensland Government for failing to give any information whatever as to where those federal funds have gone; and (3) is of the opinion that the Queensland Government owes the taxpayers of Australia in general, and the taxpayers of Queensland in particular, an explanation of how their money is being spent. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) calls for the resignation of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment for his inept handling of the Daintree rainforest issue; (2) condemns the Minister for his failure to initiate negotiations with the Queensland Government or the Douglas Shire Council since November 1983; (3) notes that the Minister's offer of a $1 million package to Queensland is a blatant political act preceding the announcement of an early federal election; and (4) condemns the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment and the ALP for deceiving the environmental movement and all Australians who care for the environment. Dr EVERINGHAM(Capricornia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recognises the increasing burden on learners of written English because of the persistence of traditional orthography adopted and adapted centuries ago to represent our evolving language; and (2) requests the Government to commission a report on (a) methods adopted by non-English-speaking countries to update written codes, (b) proposals for an initial, small, consistent reform of spelling including that of Mr Harry Lindgren, retired patent examiner, of Canberra, in his 1969 publication ''Spelling Reform: A New Approach'', a proposal consistent with all major spelling reform movements in the past century, and (c) recommendations for official recognition and support of the use of such an initial spelling reform in official documents. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Riverina will second: That this House- (1) acknowledges that the largest on-shore crude oil flow of 6,000 barrels a day has been discovered from the Bodalla field at Quilpie in south-west Queensland, and (2) Calls on the Minister for Aviation to establish night navigation aids at the Quilpie airport in the Electoral Division of Maranoa as the Government will derive an enormous tax revenue from oil in the Cooper Basin. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that Cabinet has decided to approve the entry of foreign banks into Australia, and (2) urges the Government to consider a foreign bank licence for a bank based in Perth. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes with concern that the overseas current account trade deficit for the first 2 months is $1,922 million. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) Notes that the first elections for the Kiama Municipal Council, N.S.W., were held on 13 September 1859, and since that time the Kiama Municipality has enjoyed 125 years of responsible local government; (2) congratulates the Kiama Municipal Council and the organising committee for the 125th anniversary celebrations, and (3) urges all honourable members to visit Kiama over September and October 1984 to join in the celebration activities. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) deplores the inadequate provision for Australian science in the 1984-85 Budget, in particular for the CSIRO and the Australian Research Grants Scheme, and (2) urges the Government to reorder its allocations to provide additional amounts for each of the CSIRO and the ARGS of at least $10 million. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) Notes- (a) the renewed outbreak of widespread anti-Government demonstrations in Chile, and (b) the appalling human rights record of the Chilean Military Government headed by General Pinochet; (2) supports the Chilean people's call for a return to a civilian parliamentary system; (3) condemns- (a) the repressive measures of the Chilean authorities in responding to protests against this regime; and (b) the death of a French priest in disturbances in Santiago on 5 September 1984, and (4) supports action by the Government and the United Nations to urge the restoration of democracy and internationally accepted standards of human rights in Chile. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that (a) the Government has increased the income tax responsibilities of an aged pensioner, earning only $20 per week above the pension from such things as mowing and cleaning duties, by more than 400% since the Liberals lost power, and (b) living standards of these pensioners have decreased, and (2) condemns outright this high-taxing Government for its failure to make adjustments to tax thresholds applicable to the aged and those in the workforce. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls upon the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to make a detailed statement to the Parliament setting out the screening and security procedures for refugees wishing to come to Australia from El Salvador and Chile. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) notes with deep concern the eruption of renewed violence in the black South African townships; (2) condemns the brutal use of force exercised by the South African Police Force involving gunfire, rubber bullets, teargas and whips against protestors which have resulted in the death of 29 people; (3) supports the non-white disenfranchised South African communities demands for universal suffrage in that country; (4) re-affirms its condemnation of the apartheid system; (5) condemns the new constitutional arrangements which further institutionalise the system of apartheid; and (6) calls for stronger action by the United Nations to use its influence in international fora to bring an end to apartheid in South Africa. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the honourable Member for Dawson has given notices of motion relating to the sugar industry, on 19 October 1983, 7 December 1983, 31 May 1984 , 1 June 1984, 21 August 1984 and 11 September 1984; (2) condemns the Government for not coming to terms with the tremendous problems facing the Australian sugar industry, and (3) calls on the Government to provide the opportunity of debate in this House on the problems of the sugar industry to try and reach a meaningful solution on a bipartisan basis. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) urges the Queensland Government to consider sympathetically the package of proposals by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment aimed at establishing a land-use survey and management plan for the north Queensland coastal wetlands, including the Daintree forest region, and (2) considers that the future of this important part of Australia's environmental heritage can be guaranteed by constructive negotiations and congratulates the Minister on his initiative. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) deplores the fact that the implementation of a 10 per cent sales tax on wine particularly hurts smaller wine producers, many being those small family businesses that produce higher quality wines, and (2) condemns the Government for again ignoring the needs of small business. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide) —Special Minister of State)-by leave-On 7 September I tabled the report by Mr Vincent, QC, of his review of matters affecting the Australian Telecommunications Commission, Telecom Australia, and indicated that the Government's detailed response would be made available in the near future. At the outset I should like to thank Mr Vincent for the thoroughness with which he has tackled this task and for the expeditious manner in which it has been completed. It is noteworthy that in reviewing these matters Mr Vincent conducted the widest possible consultations and research relevant to his terms of reference. He consulted with Special Prosecutor Redlich; the Chairman, senior management of Telecom and other officials of the Commission; Federal and State representatives of various law enforcement agencies and people who had been involved in investigations of organised crime and who had expressed views in relation to Telecom and organised crime. Submissions were also sought from the public but the response was minimal. The review looked at the question of crime and Telecom. Comprehensive details of all charges against Telecom employees over the last five years were examined. It was concluded that the nature and extent of the activities reflected in the statistics did not indicate significant penetration by or involvement with organised crime at senior management or any other level. None of the persons consulted by Mr Vincent, including the journalist Mr Bob Bottom and former members of police task force investigations into illegal betting, provided any information or evidence that Telecom as an organisation has been compromised by organised criminal interests. Significantly, following these extensive consultations and inquiries he concluded that the perception of substantial corruption within Telecom lacks anything remotely approaching an adequate evidentiary base. Absolutely no evidence was produced to the contrary. Mr Vincent also concluded that any involvement by Telecom employees in starting price betting was relatively minor. I trust that these findings will put to rest for good the allegations of corruption and involvement in organised crime in Telecom that have been made over recent years. The report also addresses the question of Telecom's responsibilities in relation to the use of its facilities. The fact is that the integrity and privacy of the telecommunications system is given and extremely high priority by senior Telecom management in accordance with their statutory obligations and community requirements. As the report says, it is important that any requirement for Telecom to ensure its facilities are not used for unlawful purposes be considered in the context of its other obligations to protect the privacy of telephone communication. Mr Vincent, in his investigations, found a number of matters where he felt criticism of Telecom's management was appropriate. He stated, however, that care must be taken to ensure that such criticisms are not exaggerated. Mr Vincent recommended changes to the Telecommunications Act to incorporate in the Act certain offences dealing with interference to the Telecom network and the use of the network for illegal purposes and to increase the monetary penalty for these offences to $500. The Government has accepted these recommendations and the Act will be amended accordingly. The recommendation to allow district Telecom managers to take disciplinary action against officers in limited circumstances does not require legislative action. Telecom is examining the implications of this recommendation for other supervisory levels in its organisation. It is particularly important to note Mr Vincent's findings concerning illegal telephone betting. This was a matter to which we have given considerable attention. Mr Vincent says that only small numbers of Telecom personnel have been detected being associated with or providing assistance to illegal telephone betting operators. Some have been prosecuted and others are currently under investigation. Some changes to Telecommunications (Staff) By-laws to safeguard areas of potential malpractice and conflict of interests were recommended. Telecom will respond administratively to these. Telecom is also taking action to improve staffing levels and salary classifications in audit functional areas and will undertake more extensive auditing of tendering and direct procurement of materials. A chapter of Mr Vincent's report is devoted to consideration of the travelling allowance system. It is an area where he found some problems of abuse, problems which could have been avoided by the exercise of appropriate managerial control. Telecom is conducting a full scale review of all administrative instructions and payments of travelling allowance with a view to rendering the system less open to abuse. As I mentioned in my tabling statement of 7 September Mr Vincent found that Telecom's responses to detected misbehaviour within the organisation were ' open to criticism'; inadequate emphasis has been given to questions of public responsibility in relation to improper or criminal activities. I am advised that Telecom has always endeavoured to attain a proper balance over all its activities. In its view, some aspects of a financial, planning, commercial, service and operational nature need to have a priority since that is the very basis of Telecom's existence. However, in the light of Mr Redlich's original comments and Mr Vincent's findings, Telecom has responded quickly and positively. By agreement with the Director of Public Prosecutions, where Telecom has evidence that one of its employees has committed an offence it will be referred to the DPP for advice on prosecution action. Detailed guidelines for prosecutions and disciplinary matters have been prepared and will be promulgated throughout Telecom. In relation to the assistance given to law enforcement agencies the Government is pleased that Mr Vincent recognised the considerable efforts by Telecom over a long period of time and notes his finding that, although there are strains and tensions present, the relationships are relatively harmonious. Telecom is examining in detail the best way of recording additional information on installation and maintenance of services which will further assist law enforcement efforts. Whatever procedures are devised will be discussed with relevant staff associations prior to implementation. The Government is on record as stating that Telecom has a positive duty to ensure the telephone system is not used for illegal activities. Many of Mr Vincent's recommendations are in harmony with this view. An interdepartmental working party has been established to report to Cabinet within three months on necessary amendments to the Telecommunications Act. Mr Vincent's proposals have been referred to that group for consideration. Mr Vincent recommended that the Telecommunications (Interception) Act be amended in relation to proof of execution of a warrant. The Attorney-General's Department has under consideration a similar proposal and the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) will shortly be making a submission to Cabinet on the matter. As I said when tabling the report one of Mr Vincent's main findings was in relation to the use of subscriber call record printing or SCRP machines. The Government is aware of the many views surrounding the extension of use of these machines to police for law enforcement purposes, including those of Mr Vincent and the Special Prosecutor Mr Redlich. Mr Vincent viewed the unfettered use of SCRP machines as quite unacceptable. He felt, however, that a proper balance could be struck between the competing claims to privacy and the need for effective and efficient police investigation if the use of the machines was limited to the investigation of serious crimes and was strictly controlled. This included the requirement that such operations come within the warrant procedures under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 and the need for report to parliament by the Attorney-General. Mr Vincent was also of the opinion that police should have access only to the information produced by the machines and not to the machines themselves. In addition to the views of Mr Vincent and Mr Redlich on the use of SCRP machines, the Government must also take full cognisance of the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission-ALRC-on interception powers which were contained in its recent report on privacy. The Government is in the process of evaluating the several recommendations on the use of SCRP machines before it, and will respond to them in the context of its consideration of the ALRC report. Mr Vincent examined the role of the internal investigation unit in Telecom. He concluded that there was a significant role for it to play. The Government concurs. In line with Mr Vincent's recommendations the unit will be retained, with increases in classifications and numbers and with a revised charter reflecting new arrangements agreed between Telecom and the Australian Federal Police. The arrangements referred to above have been reviewed in the light of comments made by Mr Vincent and an agreed division made between offences which by reason of the penalties prescribed for them are serious enough to warrant AFP involvement and others which may appropriately be dealt with by Telecom. The final chapter of Mr Vincent's report dealt with deficiencies in legislation and administration arrangements. Apart from those already mentioned above, his recommendations suggest amendments to the Telecommunications Act to increase the monetary penalty for disciplinary offences and establish statutory criteria-to mirror common law rules-for termination of the services of Telecom personnel. These are matters which have implications for Commonwealth employment generally. As such the Government proposes to study them in detail before deciding whether to implement them in Telecom. The Government believes that the review conducted by Mr Vincent has been a valuable exercise. The matters raised by Mr Redlich which led to the establishment of the review were serious ones and they have been given prompt and thorough investigation. The Government is confident that the steps outlined above in response to Mr Vincent's findings and recommendations will have the salutary effect of correcting such deficiencies as he found in Telecom and enhancing both the operations and image of the organisation. Mr LLOYD(Murray) —by leave-First of all I thank the Special Minister of State ( Mr Young) for his courtesy in regard to this matter. The statement made today is the culmination of a series of reports and statements concerning Telecom Australia. Today's statement is the Government's response to the Vincent report on the Review of Matters Affecting the Australian Telecommunications Commission and follows a shorter response by the same Minister last Friday. The Vincent report, which was also tabled at that time, in turn, follows the annual reports, allegations and criticisms made in the annual reports of Special Prosecutor Redlich concerning Telecom and leaked correspondence which the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has incorporated in the Vincent report and which was the subject of the terms of reference for Mr Vincent. The Minister for Communications also made a statement to Parliament in March of this year on the same subject. All of these reports and statements concern the question of malpractice within Telecom. Even this series of allegations is not new; it goes back to 1963 to the Taylor Royal Commission into Improper Practices in the Postmaster-General's Department in Victoria, the Connor inquiry into casinos in Victoria, the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, police Ministers conferences, the Age tapes and so on to this final chapter. Some of the criticisms from these inquiries were not included in the Vincent reference and there has been no further reference to those points. The original response of the Special Minister of State also referred to a separate report made by Mr Vincent on certain matters which require further investigation or action but no reference is made to those today. I hope that we do get some response at an appropriate time to these matters. There is, however, a tremendous similarity between the comments of Special Prosecutor Redlich and those of Mr Vincent, QC, concerning Telecom. The first point on which they agree is that there is no organised crime or great degree of corruption in Telecom. To my knowledge that allegation has never been made by any honourable member on either side of the House. It is certainly reassuring to find that both those people have indicated that that is the case. They have said as well, and the Special Minister of State indicated this today, that Telecom management's first priority is to protect the security and privacy of the telephone system. The necessity for that is fundamental and is respected and acknowledged by this side of the House. Telecom is the greatest employer of people in this country, employing approximately 90,000 people. It is the largest organisation-the largest company, if you like-the largest industry contained within one organisation in this country. Therefore it would be very surprising, given that there are 90,000 people, if there were not some corruption or illegal practices. That would be natural in any organisation, any grouping of people of such a size. The fact that nothing of a substantial or organised nature has been found is to Telecom's credit. Telecom is not just an ordinary organisation. It occupies a critical and key position in our society and among our industries and organisations in that it controls the telephone system, which is such an integral part of communications in our private lives, business associations and so forth. Redlich and Vincent agreed also that the reaction of Telecom's senior management had impeded, rather than assisted, the investigation of the illegal activities that were taking place. They said that, in fact, a double standard was applied by some of the senior management-one must emphasise that, once again , they were referring to only a small percentage-to the illegal activities of Telecom's employees. Redlich and Vincent said that they were also concerned over the lack of action against people for internal administrative abuses-in relation to travelling allowances, conflicts of interest, et cetera-that there should have been. Their overall comment, if it can be summarised-I think Vincent himself said this at one stage-was that Telecom's management should put its house in order. The Special Minister of State acknowledged that in his statement last Friday, when he said of Mr Vincent: He concluded that there seemed to have been inadequate emphasis given to questions of public responsibility in relation to improper or criminal activities within the organisation. I make two points in relation to that. First, I believe that it is far better for Telecom's image for it to be seen to be pursuing the few who abuse the trust of their position than it is for it to say that that activity does not exist. That is a fundamental problem faced by Telecom's management. A fundamental change of attitude must take place. Secondly, I point out-the Minister for Communications and the Special Minister of State have made this point-that Telecom is not the only body that should look to putting its house in order. Not only government bodies but also large private companies should do so. Unless others in similar organisational positions can honestly say that they have checked matters and pursued inquiries and can, therefore, say that corruption does not exist in their organisation, they are not in a position to criticise Telecom. Special Prosecutor Redlich has performed a great public service. He has been persistent in his endeavours. He has made repeated comments so that those practices will not continue and so that his recommendations and criticisms are not forgotten by government. Had there not been the reporting of the Redlich letter of 17 January in the Age , I doubt very much that there would have been a Vincent inquiry or any response by this Government to the repeated criticisms that he made of Telecom. I am disturbed by the Government's response to the Vincent inquiry. In a descending order of concern about the managerial situation in Telecom in relation to illegal activities and malpractice, Redlich's concern would have to be at the top and the Minister's concern, from his response today, would have to be at the bottom. The Minister's response bears little resemblance to the Vincent report in either acknowledging the existence of a disturbing situation or responding to those recommendations. Vincent is far closer to Redlich than this document is to Vincent, and even the Minister's statement last Friday more accurately reflected the Vincent view. I am forced to conclude that the Government is not responding appropriately to the situation as revealed by Redlich and confirmed by Vincent. Vincent had six specific terms of reference from the Minister for Communications and Vincent in turn made 13 very specific recommendations. Today' s statement has none of those specific points in relation to either the terms of reference or the recommendations. Without going into all of them, some I think are so important that specific recommendations should be made on them. The first of the terms of reference from the Minister for Communications was: That employees of Telecom had engaged in illegal activities and in particular activities relating to SP Bookmaking. If one wants to generalise, one could say that it asked whether Telecom should be concerned with State illegal activities or just Federal illegal activities. To be fair to Telecom, the Act at present does not require it to fully take into account illegal activities at the State level in the same way as it does activities at the Federal level. SP bookmaking, which is a State crime, is the obvious example because of its extent, because it cannot exist without a telephone, because large amounts of money and the loss of State government revenue are involved and because of possible connection with organised crime. Vincent found that such unlawful installation could not occur without the participation of relatively senior Telecom management. Special Prosecutor Redlich recommended on several occasions that there was a need to create a Federal offence for using Federal facilities in furtherance of a State crime. This, he reminded us, is the procedure followed in the United States to handle this problem. Vincent rejected the Redlich proposal. He has suggested amending the Telecommunications Act by incorporating by-laws, increasing the maximum penalty to $500 for each offence of unauthorised connection and providing a penalty of two years imprisonment for such connections if committed in furtherance of other criminal activity. The Minister for Communications in his March statement said: . . . it is proposed to amend the Telecommunications Act to make it clear that Telecom should take positive steps to prevent use of telecommunications services for the commission of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory. In today's statement all we are told is that an interdepartmental working party has been established to report to Cabinet within three months on necessary amendments to the Telecommunications Act. That was on page 5 of my copy of today 's statement, but the Minister stated on page 3 that the Act will be amended to deal with the use of the network for illegal purposes. Does the Minister mean the same thing? Is he saying that there will be two series of amendments to the Telecommunications Act, one in this session which the Minister for Communications more or less indicated in his March statement, or that there will be one such amendment at some time in the future after this interdepartmental committee reports? The second specific term of reference concerned whether there was hostility and an unco-operative attitude by Telecom staff towards internal and police investigators. Redlich, in his January letter to the Minister, states that as early as the 1963 inquiry Mr Justice Taylor admonished the then Postmaster- General's Department's management for its tendency to turn a blind eye to employees using their position and facilities for illegal purposes. He also stated that this encouraged an environment conducive to illegal activity. Redlich maintains that this continues. Equally disappointing to Redlich were the attempts by some senior Telecom personnel to conceal this illegal activity from public scrutiny. One result of this attitude, he claims, has been an unco- operative attitude towards Telecom's own internal investigators as well as the Australian Federal Police. In fact senior Telecom staff had interfered with the work of this investigation, and Vincent confirmed that. Redlich continued: Overall the unsatisfactory pursuit of improper conduct by Telecom employees is compounded by the guidelines for the relationship between the internal investigators and the Federal Police. The point is that these guidelines had not materially altered even though they were criticised in several inquiries. The guidelines basically require the Federal Police to refer to Telecom management every suspected case of illegal activity and it is then Telecom management which decides whether the police or its own internal investigators will be allowed to take further action or no action. Would not we all love to be in that position-to have our own boss say: ' We will look after it rather than let the police take over'? The Minister for Communications in his March statement said: The Government has instructed all government agencies to take positive steps to ensure that their facilities are not used for illegal purposes and to be more positive with law enforcement. The Minister stated in March that new working arrangements or guidelines were in place with Telecom and that the internal investigation unit was being strengthened. Redlich had previously reported that in Victoria, the worst of the State sections for illegal activity, the number of investigators had actually been reduced from 21 to 11. Redlich also reported that State police were deprived of any information gained by Telecom investigators, but the Minister considered that there was no need to change that arrangement. However, he stated that formal arrangements had been established in each State between Telecom and the State and Federal police. The police had also criticised Telecom procedures which did not provide adequate information for the proper investigation of illegal activities. The Minister stated in March that Telecom would henceforth keep additional information for longer periods. Vincent basically agreed with Redlich's view of the negative attitude to internal investigations and to police inquiries by Telecom management. Vincent was evidently not impressed by the new guidelines which the Minister stated in March were in place, if, in fact, those new guidelines have actually been put in place. This is one of the questions that have to be asked. Vincent recommended that there be further changes, including that the identity of the installing technician be contained in Telecom computer information on the subscriber for a period and that new, more formal arrangements between the internal investigators and the police for the investigation of illegal practices were necessary. Today we are told that Telecom is examining the best way of recording additional information on installation and maintenance of services. This question has to be asked: If Telecom today is investigating the best way of recording this additional information, does this mean that between March and now Telecom has done nothing to put in place these additional requirements that the Minister in his March statement had instructed Telecom to do? Mr Cadman —You would have to assume that. Mr LLOYD —I think that has to be assumed, but in the meantime Telecom has done nothing or, if it has done something, Vincent himself considered that those increased procedures were not adequate. The next reference to the Vincent inquiry made by the Minister was as follows: Telecom employees who had engaged in business activities outside their Telecom employment had taken improper advantage in relation to those activities. Vincent detailed a number of other practices less serious than SP bookmaking which were improper, particularly in relation to the special position many Telecom employees enjoy. He recommended changes to the by-laws to require permission for outside employment to be in writing. He recommended that the categories of prohibited outside employment be widened and better defined and that criteria be established which must be met before permission for outside employment is granted. He also referred to the need to develop, promulgate and enact in staff by-laws a code in relation to conflict of public duty and private interest. But will this actually be done? Doubt that it will be done was raised by Vincent himself when he stated that this Federal Government has accepted the recommendation of the Bowen Committee of Inquiry Concerning Public Duty and Private Interest, and a sub-committee of the Telecommunications Consultative Council was established to consider the application of a code of conduct within Telecom in relation to conflict of interest. Vincent then went on to say: No code has been promulgated. He believes that the sub-committee is moribund. Today we are told that Telecom by-laws will be amended and that Telecom will respond administratively. I for one would have greater confidence if the Minister for Communications were able to report in future on the actual implementation of the recommended changes which Telecom is doing itself internally. The next reference was that Telecom had made improper use of its power under section 58 of the Telecommunications Act to deal with employees found engaging in criminal conduct by internal disciplinary action rather than by way of criminal charge in the courts. This was one of the major complaints of Special Prosecutor Redlich against Telecom management. He said that management had not allowed the proper course of legal action to be followed either by the internal unit or by the police and had improperly substituted an administrative fine of up to $40 when illegal activity had been discovered. Redlich also referred to the internal structural management problems which prevented the proper exercise of discipline for administrative breaches as well as criminal activity. Vincent came to the same conclusion as Redlich-that the guidelines and procedures were inappropriate, that the section 58 procedure should not be used instead of legal action for criminal activity unless so advised by the Director of Public Prosecutions and that the decision to prosecute rests with the Director of Public Prosecutions. He concluded furthermore that offences should be graded according to seriousness and that the decision as to whether Telecom or the Federal Police should investigate an offence will be determined by the seriousness. Today we are told that the Director of Public Prosecutions and Telecom management have agreed that where Telecom has evidence that one of its employees has committed an offence the matter will be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Detailed guidelines have been prepared. One has to ask: Are these guidelines the Vincent guidelines or are they some watered down guidelines in their place? Even if the Vincent guidelines are faithfully implemented a great and grey area of discretion still remains with Telecom management to determine what will happen. I believe that the Government should consider more specific legislative requirements rather than guidelines. The next reference was that the senior personnel of Telecom had interfered with internal investigations. Mr Kerin —This is like a reading from the Bible. Mr LLOYD —This is a very serious subject and I believe that I am treating it in the manner it deserves. Special Prosecutor Redlich stated that the manner and degree in which senior personnel were able to interfere with internal investigations urgently needed rectifying and that the internal investigators were not truly independent and thus not able effectively to carry out their work . This was one of his reasons for recommending that the Australian Federal Police take over all of Telecom's investigations. Vincent disagreed with that recommendation and suggested changes. He was particularly critical of the Victorian situation where investigators complained of senior level interference. Victoria, of course, is where the unit was halved in size and the greatest problem of illegal and improper activity occurs. Vincent's response must be a minimum recommendation and is hardly acceptable or adequate for the future good image of Telecom when both he and Redlich were very critical of management interference. The question for the Government is how it and Telecom will implement procedures to ensure that this practice stops and how it will be monitored in the future, as it is obvious that Telecom management so far has been incapable of doing so. Unfortunately, in today's statement there is no direct reference to this particularly serious problem. It is one of the terms of reference, and doubt must continue on the resolution of that problem without its inclusion in today's statement. The final reference of Vincent concerned the subscriber call record printer machine. The critical part played by the telephone system in the conduct of SP bookmaking and other more serious illegal activities has resulted in repeated requests by the Police Ministers Conference for access to the records of call record printers. This is obviously a sensitive matter involving the security of a telephone system and the rights of privacy of subscribers. Interception can be legally made only under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. Redlich recommended that the Act be changed to allow police access. Redlich, in support of that recommendation, reminded us that in the United States the Supreme Court has ruled that the machines, because they record only the number and not the conversation, do not constitute an interception and do not violate the right to privacy. Mr Duffy —That is not the view here. Mr LLOYD —I accept that point; just because it is the view in the United States it should not necessarily be adopted here. Of course, Vincent, as we have noted, recommended rejection of that. Mr Young —It is something upon which the Americans and the Russians agree. Mr LLOYD —The Russians might also listen to the conversation, I think. The Minister, in his March statement, stated that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) had been requested to consider the Police Ministers' request and possible amendments to the interception Act. He also indicated that safeguards such as the issue of a warrant would also need to be considered. The Minister was reminded of this in a question I put to him on Monday. He stated that there would be a specific response to the use of the machine. Of course, that is what the Minister would claim has been done today. However, there are two matters that worry me about this. One is the earlier attitude of Caucus to the CRP machines, because Redlich referred to this in his 17 January letter. Secondly, there was an article in the Canberra Times, only two days ago, I think, indicating once again Caucus reservations to any access, not just to the machines but, as I understand that article, to the information on those machines . Vincent, in his recommendations, said that a distinction should be made between access to the CRP machine or the information on it for SP bookmaking, on the one hand, and access in relation to serious crime, on the other hand. He also made the point, as I have said, that it should be only to the printout, that it should be only on the issue of a warrant for a limited period, and that the whole matter should be reviewed. He also acknowledged the problem of achieving a proper balance between effective police investigation and privacy. He has recommended that, in cases of serious crime where conviction for the offence would attract a gaol sentence of seven or more years, access should be available . For SP bookmaking it should be used or able to be used in those States where a substantial prison sentence may be imposed. Vincent also made the very interesting and important point that not every State considers SP bookmaking to be a serious matter. In New South Wales there is no gaol sentence for a first offence. In Victoria it attracts a gaol sentence of up to two years as a maximum. Presumably, Victoria would come within the ambit of the Vincent recommendation, and New South Wales would not come within it. If New South Wales has any complaint, the obvious thing for it to do is to change its Act and to make, in its own view, SP bookmaking a serious crime. Mr Young —The Law Reform Commission wanted up to seven years gaol. Mr LLOYD —For all-- Mr Young —Unless the offence attracts a penalty of seven years gaol. Mr LLOYD —Yes. It is not out to make the special qualification for SP bookmaking . My final point on that matter is that the Government has said in its report that amendments to the interception Act are being considered. The Opposition believes that better arrangements should be possible for the effective use by police, under limited circumstances, and that we would positively consider any legislation on the Vincent proposal that the Government puts forward. The Government has not responded adequately to Vincent, either in specific detail to the six terms of reference or to the 13 series of recommendations. Too much of the response is vague and generalised and is dependent on Telecom management making internal changes or procedures. In view of Telecom's management record, this cannot be acceptable, as most of the problem is not with Telecom staff but with the attitude and practice of a small percentage of the management. To reassure the House and the people of Australia who depend on Telecom, and for the good name of Telecom and its 90,000 employees, the changes to the two Acts should be made as soon as possible, and the Minister for Communications should report to Parliament in detail on the implementation of the Vincent recommendations. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to raise a matter concerning the proceedings of the House today. I do so whilst the Leader of the House (Mr Young) is in the chamber. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The honourable member may proceed. Mr GROOM —The blue sheet that honourable members receive is not an official document; I understand that it is only a guide to the proceedings of the House. But it is an important document. We receive it each day, and it gives us some idea of the sort of business that is to come before the House so that we can plan what we shall do and the matters on which we shall speak. Today I am disappointed to see at the end of the blue sheet a statement to the effect that a supplementary program of business will be issued later in the day, covering the remainder of the day's proceedings. That indicates to me that the Government does not know at this stage of the day what business it will bring before the House later today. I understand that this has happened on previous occasions, but it is a fairly rare occurrence. I wonder whether the Minister could indicate just what sort of business will be coming before the House later in the day. Is the Government out of control? Does it not know what is happening? What are the Government's problems? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think that the honourable gentleman has made his point. I call the Leader of the House. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —I do not know why the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) is so concerned. As he can see, there is considerable business on the blue sheet. There was some debate as to whether the grievance debate would go on, but it will proceed as planned. The matter of public importance will go on as planned. We shall have to readjust some of the business because one of the Ministers dealing with the first lot of Bills that were to be debated, the bounty Bills, will not be present this morning. We shall have to put those Bills on this afternoon. We were waiting to see what time may be available at the end of that to see whether we had time for any other business at all. At present, it may be that we shall not even complete the business on the blue sheet. But, if we have time left over after the blue sheet is completed, we shall give honourable members plenty of notice of our intentions. Mr Groom —When will we find out? Mr YOUNG —Mid-afternoon. Bill presented by Mr Young, and read a first time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(10.56) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. On 24 August, the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), who has done such an outstanding job in his role as chairman, presented the Committee's second report to the Parliament. In all, the report puts forward 10 recommendations, the majority of which are related to the subject of political advertising. Honourable members will be aware of the valuable work executed by the Joint Select Committee since it was first appointed in May last year. The Committee's first report, which was tabled in this place on 13 September 1983, contained more than 130 recommendations, many of which were substantially adopted by the Government and which served to provide for the radical and beneficial amendments made to the Commonwealth Electoral Act early this year. The completion of the Joint Select Committee's second report represents a significant phase in the continuing task of providing this country with a truly democratic electoral system. The Government acknowledges the unstinting efforts of the bipartisan Committee and of its staff in this task. The Government is closely examining the proposals put forward by the Committee in its second report, and a response to all of its recommendations is still being determined. It is clear to the Government however-as indeed it will be, I believe, to all honourable members-that the commonsense of the Committee's first two recommendations is self-evident. The Government shares the Committee's view that , whilst fair advertising of political parties' election promises, and of their rivals' counter-arguments, is a desirable objective, it is not one that can be obtained through legislation. Political advertising quite often needs to deal with the abstract and, for that reason, it assumes a different form from that of other advertising on radio, on television and in the newspapers. Sub-section 329 (2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, as it stands, prohibits untrue, misleading or deceptive political advertising. Those honourable members who have witnessed the realities of past elections will know that the provision is unworkable. The Government accepts the conclusion of the Joint Select Committee that any amendment of the provision would either still be ineffective or would reduce its scope to such a degree that it would not prevent dishonest advertising. The Government proposes therefore that sub-section 329 (2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, and its virtually identical counterpart in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act-sub-section 122 (2)-be repealed. In the final analysis, if deemed necessary, the law of defamation provides an avenue for those concerned enough or having good reason to pursue the issue in the courts. I also take this opportunity to bring to honourable members' attention a drafting oversight in relation to sub-section 273 (20) of the Electoral Act, which concerns the order of election of senators. The Government proposes that the provision should clearly indicate that it refers not only to the Electoral Act but also applies for the purposes of the Representation Act 1983. There are no financial implications flowing from these proposals. Further information on the clauses of the Bill may be obtained from the explanatory memorandum, copies of which have been distributed to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Fisher) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill implements the Government's decisions on the elements of the wheat marketing arrangements which will apply from the five years commencing on 1 October 1984. The wheat arrangements automatically expire at the end of each five-year period when a complete review takes place. The review has been completed, the Industries Assistance Commission has submitted a report to government and consultations have been held with the States and the Australian Wheatgrowers' Federation. The scheme is a co-operative arrangement between the Commonwealth and State governments because certain essential elements are the constitutional responsibility of the States. Complementary legislation will therefore be required in each of the States to implement a national scheme and I understand that legislation will be passed by the States as soon as their parliamentary programs allow. Overview The Bill continues in operation the basic elements of the current wheat marketing arrangements. Growers' net returns will be underwritten at 95 per cent and they will receive a high first advance from the Australian Wheat Board when they deliver their wheat. Changes made in the basis of calculating the underwritten price will reduce the risk to the Government of the guarantee. Export marketing will continue to be prerogative of the Australian Wheat Board. Changes in domestic marketing will bring the administered domestic prices more in line with export parity pricing, and enable stockfeed wheat to be traded outside the normal pooling arrangements under permit issued by the AWB. The home consumption price of wheat will fall in the new plan but the Tasmanian freight subsidy will continue with certain changes, pending its examination by the Inter -State Commission. The Government has also agreed to change the membership structure of the Australian Wheat Board to more accurately reflect its current functions. The Wheat Finance Fund will be wound up and the monies returned to growers. Underwriting-First Advance I will now briefly describe the operation of the major provisions in the Bill. The Government will continue to underwrite 95 per cent of wheat returns on a net basis calculated through a guaranteed minimum price-GMP-for Australian standard white-ASW-wheat. There is, however, a change in the method of calculating the GMP in that the high priced year has been removed from the averaging formula. The basis will not be the estimated returns from the subject season and the lowest two of the previous three seasons. This avoids the triggering of a government underwriting commitment because of a short term rise in prices rather than a fall. A further change is that only the subject season's costs will be underwritten rather than the current three-year moving average. This will ensure that the Government's liability is not increased by annual cost rises such as occurred in the 1983-84 season with its record crop and high proportion of weather damaged wheat. Once the GMP has been established for ASW wheat, the Bill provides for guaranteed differentials for other specified categories of wheat based on the expected market value of those grades relative to ASW. Instead of receiving the full advance payment on delivery, growers will receive a split first advance. I will determine the interim GMP by 1 October each year. Growers will be paid on delivery 90 per cent of the then estimated GMP and guaranteed differential. Early in the season I will determine the final GMP and at which time the remainder of the first advance will be paid to growers. The Bill provides that the final GMP be determined no later than 1 March. However, it is the intention of myself and the Australian Wheat Board that the final advance payment be made to growers during February. As several aspects of these advance payment arrangements are new there is great interest among growers as to how they will operate. I will therefore provide some examples for illustrative purposes of the operation of the underwriting and first advance arrangements in the current season. I should stress that these arrangements are not final. The actual interim GMP and guaranteed differentials will be announced in the next few weeks. The interim ASW GMP for 1984-85 can be expected to be slightly below that for 1983-84. This is due partly to the generally flat state of world prices and partly to removal of the high year from the underwriting formula. I expect the AWB to advise me that there will be four categories of wheat-in addition to ASW-to which guaranteed differentials will apply; that is, two above and two below ASW. The interim BMP for these growers will therefore be the ASW GMP plus or minus the differential. The first advance payment to all growers will be 90 per cent of these interim GMPs-less the normal State handling and transport charges. When the final GMP is determined early next year the remainder of the first advance will be paid to all growers. The AWB intends to operate provisional allowances for quality within each category of wheat. This will ensure that all growers will receive the eventual market return which their wheat achieves so long as the Government underwriting liability is not triggered. The definition of a wheat season has been changed to 1 July to 30 June to take into account the early harvesting of wheat in Queensland. AWB Powers The Government has accepted that the financing of wheat receivals and their marketing requires that the AWB operates on futures markets. This Bill increases the commercial flexibility of the AWB by enabling it to operate on the United States corn futures market and to operate a cash out option for equities in pools. Its capital expenditure limit without ministerial approval has been increased to $500,000. It will also be empowered to operate combination cargoes of wheat and other grain, but must deal with the State marketing boards and not directly with farmers. All of the above changes, which are primarily the Commonwealth Government's responsibility, have the general agreement of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. The Bill provides that the AWB must still obtain the approval of the Public Service Board to the terms and conditions of AWB staff. However, when the Government has decided on its general policy on the remuneration of statutory authority officers, I and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) will reconsider the AWB's staffing position. AWB Membership The Government has agreed to increase the marketing and financial expertise on the AWB. The functions of the AWB have dramatically changed in recent years and have involved much more sophisticated and complex financial arrangements. These include enormous commercial borrowings, both in Australia and overseas, the use of futures markets and matching credit sales receipts with borrowing repayments. The time is therefore ripe to change the Board structure which has not altered for many years since 1946, I believe. As soon as possible I will be replacing the current representatives of the flour millers and the unions-and the position of finance member-with experts in finance and marketing as well as appointing an additional member for expertise in government affairs. In addition, from 1 July next year the Board will operate with a minimum of 10 members comprising the current grower Chairman, one grower member from each State and the four new non-grower members mentioned above. As well the Act will leave open the option of the Government being able to appoint up to six additional members, one of which could be the Managing Director, and up to five of which would be selected from growers nominated by the AWF. I will conduct a review of the AWB's performance in about May next year in order to decide how many, if any, of the six additional members will commence their terms from 1 July 1985. The Australian Wheat Board will have a statutory obligation to consult the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. Domestic Pricing and Marketing All the matters I have referred to are basically the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. However there are other important aspects of the scheme which are the constitutional responsibility of the States. Provision is made for these matters in the Commonwealth legislation but in order for them to be effective in the States the same provisions must be included in the State complementary legislation. One such matter is domestic pricing. There will be a new method for determining the domestic price of human consumption wheat. This involves a quarterly determination based on the averaging of the AWB's export prices for the forward quarter and the past quarter. In addition, the price will include a margin a tonne which relates to the cost to the AWB of servicing the domestic market. I am currently consulting my State colleagues on the size of the margin. This arrangement will result in a significant fall in the price of human consumption wheat and therefore should bring down the price of bread. Another significant change which is the responsibility of the States is the proposal to enable domestic stockfeed wheat to be traded directly between growers and buyers under permit issued by the AWB but outside the normal pooling arrangements. The IAC recommended that private traders operate more freely in domestic marketing and I have received many representations which indicate that there can be substantial savings both to users and growers under this permit system. The system will operate under guidelines issued by me and in addition may be subject to guidelines issued by State ministers. These guidelines have not yet been finalised. However, I am holding urgent discussions with State Ministers to finalise the guidelines in order that the permit system can be introduced on a standard date throughout Australia. I hope that an announcement will be able to be made on that date within the next few weeks. Direct grower to buyer sale through the normal pooling arrangements will continue to be possible. AWB-Authorised Receivers Delivery of wheat in the States will continue to be required to the State authorised receivers on the AWB's behalf. However, instead of having one remuneration agreement for these services with each authorised receiver for an indefinite period, the AWB will enter a new agreement with each receiver by 1 October 1985 which will expire in 1989 at the same time as the other arrangements. Wheat Finance Fund The Fund will be wound up and therefore no grower deductions for the fund will be necessary in the future. Moreover, the contributions collected in 1983-84 plus any interest earned will be paid out as soon as possible after the passage of the legislation. This amount of about $60m will be repaid to those growers with the oldest outstanding equity in the Fund, that is from the 1980-81 and 1981-82 pools. The remaining moneys in the fund, comprising the $100m plus outstanding interest, will be repaid to growers as soon as practicable after 1 July 1985. I believe that the new wheat marketing package has been generally well received by the industry and provides a sound basis for the future growth of one of Australia's largest and most efficient agricultural industries. Members, I have noted that the Opposition has indicated that it will get the Australian Democrats to oppose these Bills in the Senate with respect to the membership question. But I remind the Opposition that this is a package of legislation and, if it is held up, growers will not be paid. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Mr McVeigh —Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a brief point of explanation on account of the concluding remarks of the Minister, which were in error and I think should be corrected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —No, I am sorry; this is a formal presentation of a second reading speech. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.11) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill amends the current legislation in two important respects. First, it amends the calculation of the Government's underwriting liability in the case of a payout to ensure that that liability matches the Australian Wheat Board's borrowings and that growers' premium entitlements are protected. Secondly, it sets out the arrangements for the repayment of the Wheat Finance Fund. Wheat Finance Fund The Wheat Finance Fund will be wound up and therefore no grower deductions for the Fund will be necessary in the future. Moreover, the contributions collected in 1983-84 plus any interest earned will be paid out as soon as possible after the passage of the legislation. This amount of about $60m will be repaid to those growers with the oldest outstanding equity in the Fund, that is, from the 1980-81 and 1981-82 pools. The remaining monies in the Fund, comprising the $ 100m plus outstanding interest, will be repaid to growers as soon as practicable after 1 July 1985. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Wheat Tax (Permit) Bill enables the agreed fees to be imposed for the issue of permits for domestic stockfeed wheat sales outside the normal pooling arrangements. This fee will comprise the wheat research tax, the Tasmanian freight subsidy tax, and if a particular State desires, an authorised receiver charge. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill enables the Australian Wheat Board to collect the fees to be imposed for the issue of permits for domestic stockfeed wheat sales outside the normal pooling arrangements. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.14) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill amends the Wheat Research Act 1957 to enable the payment to the wheat research account of the wheat research taxes collected by the Australian Wheat Board-AWB-in respect of wheat actually purchased under permit issued by the AWB for the sale of domestic stockfeed wheat outside the normal wheat pools. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill extends, for the duration of the new wheat arrangements, the imposition of the wheat research tax, on grower to buyer wheat sales through the normal pooling arrangements. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide basic authority for imposing a levy on Australian boats to raise revenue to support fisheries management measures and costs of associated research for the effective management of fisheries. Foreign boats already pay levy under the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act 1981. Boats licensed by Papua New Guinea to fish in the Torres Strait protected zone are exempt from payment of Australian levies and statutory fees by virtue of Article 26 (2) of the Torres Strait Treaty. The Budget includes greatly increased allocations to support implementation of new and improved management arrangements for our major off-shore fisheries. While the Government has been moving quickly to address the problems of excess capacity in many of our fisheries and low returns to fishermen, the situation has been reached where we must look to the fishing industry to contribute to the costs of management programs offering long term benefit to the industry. It is proposed to impose levies on the grant or renewal of prescribed kinds of fisheries licences or on making prescribed kinds of endorsements or entries on licences, as the case may be. These prescribed authorisations will relate to particular managed fisheries in which measures are being implemented for the benefit of that sector of the industry and it is clear that industry should meet all or part of the cost of administering the management program. Rates of levy will be set by regulation and may be different for different fisheries. Each levy rate and the method of calculating the amount payable in respect of the authorisation for a particular boat will take account of the operational characteristics of the fishery in which it is imposed and the nature of the management program which the levy will be used to fund. The time at which levy becomes payable is when the licence is granted or renewed or an endorsement or entry is made in it. The holder of the licence is the person liable to pay the levy. This is a straightforward Bill that does no more than establish flexible machinery for subsequently imposing levies. It is not intended that the fishing industry levy should be a means of raising general revenue. Levy will be imposed only to fund specific management programs or associated research activities in particular fisheries, after consultation with the segment of the fishing industry and the State or States concerned. I now turn to the financial impact of this legislation. I have discussed the proposal to impose levies with my State colleagues in the Australian Fisheries Council and their major concern has been the effect it will have on State revenue. I have assured them that the levy will apply only to fisheries which the Commonwealth has the sole or a major responsibility for managing and will not apply to fisheries for which States are solely responsible. The percentage of cost recovery in any managed fishery will be determined in the light of the costs and benefits that flow from that management. For example, in a situation such as the proposed buy-back of authorisations to use boats in the northern prawn fishery, it is already apparent that the principal long term beneficiaries will be those licence holders who remain after their colleagues have sold their entitlement to operate in the fishery. Those beneficiaries will over time meet the full cost of the buy-back program. To support the initial phases of the program, the Government has authorised the raising of a loan to be repaid from the levy collected in the northern prawn fishery. It should be clearly understood that all levy moneys collected will be spent on the fishery management programs and associated research which each levy was imposed to fund. However, a portion of the levy will be applied to cover the overhead costs of my Department in collecting and administering it. The Taxation Office has advised that under existing tax laws, all levy money paid will be fully deductible from income as business expenses for taxation assessment purposes. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.23) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Fisheries Act 1952 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984 to facilitate collection of the levy to be imposed under the provision of the Fisheries Licences Levy Bill 1984 now before the House. Honourable members will be familiar with the requirement that one Bill impose a levy and one or more Bills deal with its collection and disbursement. The two Acts which the present Bill amends provide for the implementation of the fisheries management plans that the fishing industry levy is intended to support . Incorporating the levy collection provisions in those Acts gives recognition to the concept of fisheries management and fishing industry levy as closely related elements of a single package. Proposals to strengthen the management powers in the fishery laws of the Commonwealth to facilitate the imposition of certain levies are being considered and I expect to introduce appropriate amendments into Parliament early in 1985. I mention this because I consider it very important to be aware of the close relationship between the fishing industry levy and fisheries management. To facilitate collection of the levy, the Bill provides for the refusal of a prescribed kind of authorisation, which could be the grant or renewal of a licence or making an endorsement of an entry on a licence, on which levy is payable, unless the holder of the licence first tenders the amount of the levy, together with any statutory fee, to the licensing authority. The grant or renewal of the prescribed kind of authorisation will serve as evidence that the levy has been paid in respect of the period for which the authorisation is valid . If the management rules of the fishery concerned require the licensing authority to refuse to grant the authorisation applied for, there will be a refund of the amount of levy and any fee tendered with the application. To enforce the payment of levy, the Bill provides for the imposition of higher monetary penalties in circumstances where a boat was used in a fishery without the appropriate authorisation on which levy was payable. The maximum fine in these circumstances will be $5,000. The court may, along the lines of similar provisions in the Income Tax Assessment Act, also order convicted offenders to pay an extra penalty not exceeding the amount of levy and such an order will be enforceable as a civil debt to the Commonwealth. In addition to the foregoing, the other non-monetary penalty provisions in the two Acts being amended will be applicable. This range of penalties will provide a strong deterrent against the unauthorised use of a boat and avoidance of the levy. Because boats licensed by Papua New Guinea to fish in the Torres Strait protected zone are exempt from payment of Australian levies and statutory fees by virtue of Article 26 (2) of the Torres Strait Treaty, the Bill does not impose the additional monetary penalties on persons convicted for breach of the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984 involving the use of such boats. The Bill amends both Acts by inserting the powers, offences and penalties I have outlined, at the relevant points in each Act. As well, the Bill adds to the existing power of officers to go on board a boat, the power to inspect the boat, its engines or its fishing equipment for levy assessment purposes, using professional assistance such as qualified ship surveyor where necessary, and also provides power for joint authorities to refuse to grant leviable authorisations unless the levy has been tendered. The Bill provides power in each of the Acts to make regulations for remission or refund of levy or statutory fees in specified circumstances. It will be apparent to honourable members that this Bill, together with its associated Fisheries Licences Levy Bill, simply constitutes the framework for imposing and collecting the levy. Details of particular levies will be contained in regulations made from time to time in accordance with the provisions in the Fisheries Licences Levy Bill. As the prime function of this Bill is to allow collection of the levy it has no direct financial impact. It is proposed that levy will be paid into Consolidated Revenue and made available for expenditure on each specific management program for which it was collected through the annual appropriations to my Department. Where appropriate, trust accounts can be set up under the Audit Act, into which individual levies, particularly those recovering the full cost of the relevant management program, will be paid and from which they will be disbursed for purposes of that program. I would emphasise again that the Government does not intend to use the levy as a general revenue raising measure and that no levy will be imposed in respect of a fishery except after consultation with the people in that fishery and the State or States concerned, about the management program and the levy to be imposed to fund that program. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.26) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to impose a charge on the export from Australia of meat that is intended for human consumption. This charge will complement the charge imposed on the slaughter of livestock at an abattoir used for the carrying on of operations in connection with the slaughtering and dressing of animals from which meat for export is obtained under the Live-stock Slaughter ( Export Inspection Charge) Act 1979 and the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1979. In brief, the overall charge for the inspection of meat for export will, as a result, have two elements. All meat that is inspected by the Commonwealth will bear a slaughter floor charge. For meat exported, an export charge is to be imposed to recover part of the costs of inspection incurred between the abattoir and the point of export. At the request of the Government, the interim Inspection Policy Council reported on 1 May of this year on the impact of meat inspection charges on the viability and competitiveness of the meat industry. The council recommended to Government that certain costs of providing the meat inspection service for industry should be removed from the cost base on which charges against industry are determined. These exclusions related to the costs of surplus inspection staff, abnormally high short term costs of meat security, abnormally high research and development costs and the cost of servicing the Government. The Government agreed to exclude these cost items from the charging base and took early action to reduce the existing meat inspection charge effective from 1 July 1984. The previous charge of $5.40 per adult beast equivalent was reduced to $4. 35 per adult beast equivalent, a reduction of 20 per cent. This action by the Government will save industry an estimated $6m in a full year. The Council also recommended that a new charging structure for meat inspection be implemented consisting of a base charge per carcase for inspection on the slaughter floor and an additional charge per kilogram for exported product. The Government has agreed to this recommendation. Because of budgetary restraints, however, the Government did not agree that there should be a two-year moratorium on implementing the export charge nor that the reduced cost base be made retrospective to 1 October 1983. A major problem for industry identified by the Policy Council was the inability of export abattoirs to effectively compete with domestic works for the purchase of livestock. The two-tiered charge will enhance export abattoirs' ability to compete for stock for processing for sale on the domestic market because of a significant reduction in slaughter floor charges. The intention is that this two -tiered charge will also closely relate to the costs of inspecting stock slaughtered in export works and to the costs incurred beyond the slaughter floor to the point of export. As the operative rate of the proposed export charge is intended to be 2.4c a kilogram, the livestock slaughter component will be further reduced with effect from the date of commencement of the new legislation to $2.55 for cattle and proportionately for other species. The new component of the inspection charge will be imposed on an application for the issue of a certificate of fitness for human consumption under section 23 of the Export Control Act 1982, commonly known as a health certificate. Where no such certificate is needed, the charge will be made on an application for the grant of an export permit for the purposes of section 7 of the Export Control Act. The health certificate is the preferred vehicle for imposing the charge as it covers meat which has been exported. However, not all exports require such a certificate. In these cases the charge will be made on the quantity of meat covered by the export permit. Where some or all of this meat is not subsequently exported, provision has been made in the associated Meat Export Charge Collection Bill for refunds of charge. The new charge will apply to meat and meat products containing more than 5 per cent of meat that are intended for human consumption. The new charge will not apply to meat of game animals, rabbits, hares or birds as export inspection services in relation to those kinds of meat are provided by the Commonwealth on a contractual basis that will be charged for separately. The maximum rate of the charge will be 4.8 cents per kilogram. In order to calculate the weight of meat or a meat product for the purposes of the charge, the weight of any covering in which the meat or meat products is packed or any other substance packed with the meat or meat products, including bones, will be disregarded. This Bill provides that a person who makes an application upon which the charge is imposed may lodge a certificate as to the proportion of meat in a meat product and the charge will be calculated accordingly. The Meat Export Charge Act also provides for regulations to prescribe the manner of determining the net weight for bone-in or carcase meat. I now turn to the financial impact of the proposed legislation. The passage of this Bill and the associated Meat Export Charge Collection Bill will allow an estimated $8.2m of revenue to be collected during the remainder of 1984-85 for inspection of meat exported for human consumption. The intended operative charge of 2.4 cents per kilogram that will be set by regulations is designed to recover 50 per cent of the cost of inspection undertaken beyond the slaughter floor. The export charge will not increase the total cost to industry for the provision of meat inspection services because livestock slaughter export inspection charges will be reduced accordingly. It is simply a restructuring of the charges on industry for inspection of meat by the Export Inspection Service. The combination of a reduced slaughter floor charge per adult beast equivalent and the export charge per kilogram will raise approximately the same amount as the existing charge of $4.35 per adult beast equivalent so that industry will continue to pay only half of the costs of the inspection service. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Dr Harry Edwards) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.32) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for collection of the charge to be imposed as a result of the enactment of the Meat Export Charge Bill 1984. This Bill makes provision for collection of the export charge on meat using existing export documentation. The Bill provides that payment of charge shall be at the time of issue of a certificate of fitness for human consumption under section 23 of the Export Control Act, or, where no such certificate will be applied for, the charge will become payable upon application for an export permit for the meat or meat products. Where the export permit is granted at a place other than an office of the Department of Primary Industry, the proposed charge will be payable within 28 days of the end of the month in which the application for the permit was made. The Bill provides that no certificate or permit will be issued or granted to a person who has not paid any charge or penalty in relation to a past certificate or permit. The provisions of the Bill are designed to ensure that liability for charge will not arise where an application for a certificate or permit has been withdrawn, refused or rejected. Where part or all of a consignment for which a certificate has been issued is not exported, a refund of the charge will be made . Provisions in the collection Bill dealing with penalty for non-payment of charge and access to premises are drafted in similar terms to existing export inspection charge collection legislation dealing with other primary products. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Dr Harry Edwards) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.34) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to make certain minor amendments to the provisions of the Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Act 1978. The amendments are essentially of an administrative nature, and concern the timing of payment of the equalisation levy. Together with the associated Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Act 1978, this Act provides a statutory scheme for equalising the returns received from domestic and export sales of dried sultanas, dried currants and dried raisins. The scheme is designed to prevent destructive competition within the industry on the domestic market during periods when prices in Australia are above those obtainable from export markets. Under the scheme a levy is imposed on dried fruit sold on the Australian market. The levy proceeds from each season 's crop are then redistributed to producers pro rata to their total production in that season. The levy is payable by the packer of the dried fruit. The Act presently provides that the levy becomes due for payment three months and 14 days after the month in which the leviable fruit 'ceased to be in the custody of the packers. This time lapse was provided at the request of the industry to provide time for the packer to receive the proceeds of a sale before being required to pay levy on that sale. In particular, it was designed to cover situations where a packer sent fruit to another firm for re-packing or for storage by an agent prior to sale. The Australian Dried Fruits Association, on behalf of the industry, has requested an amendment to the due date provisions aimed at speeding up levy collections and disbursements while still allowing reasonable time for packers to receive sales proceeds before levy is due. The Association claims that under present arrangements there are many instances where packers receive the proceeds of domestic sales well in advance of the due date for the levy payment. The Association is anxious that there should be no undue delays in disbursement of equalisation payments especially when so many producers in the industry are in desperate financial straits. The Government has agreed to the ADFA request and accordingly proposes that the levy due date provisions be amended in two ways. The first element of the amendment is to provide that the levy is to become due for payment one month and 14 days after the month in which the fruit leaves the packer's custody. That is to replace the present provision for a delay of three months and 14 days. The second element is to provide that dried fruit shall be taken to continue to be in the custody of the packer so long as it is in the custody of or is in transit to an agent appointed by the packer to sell the dried fruit or a person to whom the dried fruit is sent by the packer for re-packing on behalf of the packer. Provision is made in the Bill for the new arrangements to apply from 1 December 1984. In selecting that commencement date we have in mind that liability for levy is related to movement of fruit in discrete calendar months and that levy payers should desirably be given reasonable notice of their liability for levy under the new arrangements. The amendments are to apply only to fruit that was in the custody of the packer immediately before 1 December, or came into the custody of the packer on and after that date. The existing arrangements will apply to fruit that ceased to be in the custody of the packer before 1 December. The proposed amendments will expedite payment of levies into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the consequent redistribution of equalisation moneys to the industry. The amendments will have no other effect on Government revenue and expenditure. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Fisher) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.38) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to extend the marketing provisions of the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979 for three years ending 31 December 1987 and to implement a number of changes to the Act which are designed primarily to improve the operation and commercial flexibility of the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation. The Bill will come into effect on 1 January 1985. Honourable members will know that the canning fruit industry is important to the social and economic well being of the Goulburn Valley in Victoria, the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area in New South Wales and the Riverland area of South Australia. The industry comprises four co-operative owned canneries and some 950 orchards employing 2,300 persons full time and a similar number seasonally. The industry is a major employer in the towns of Shepparton, Mooroopna, Leeton and Berri. Since 1 January 1980, the marketing of canned deciduous fruit produced in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia has been controlled through the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation under the terms of agreements between canners and within the legislative framework provided by the Commonwealth Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979 and complementary State legislation in New South Wales , Victoria, South Australia and Queensland. Under these arrangements, the Corporation acquires and arranges the marketing of canned deciduous fruit, sets minimum selling prices, equalises returns to canners from domestic market sales and sales to certain export markets and arranges for the provision of seasonal finance to canners. These arrangements have worked well. A greater measure of stability in marketing has returned to the industry compared with the late 1970's. The industry has met a particularly difficult period of adjustment with a substantial cut in production having occurred and with one major cannery ceasing to process deciduous fruits. Sales to overseas markets are forecast to continue to decline, indicating there will be continuing pressure on the industry to adjust progressively the amount and composition of its production to meet the changing market requirements. The Government recognises the adjustment pressures faced by the canned fruits industry and the need for continued stability in marketing to allow this adjustment to occur in an orderly manner. The Government had decided last year, following its review of the Industries Assistance Commission report on the industry, that the statutory marketing arrangements needed to be extended for a further period beyond 1984. This Bill now provides for there to be a three year extension to December 1987. The Government is of the view that by that time the industry would be in a position to manage its own marketing without the benefit of statutory arrangements. The legislation has no financial implications for the Commonwealth. The Corporation's marketing and related costs are met from the proceeds of sales of canned fruit. Its administrative and promotional costs are met by a levy on canned fruit production. Continuation of the marketing arrangements requires legislative action by not only the Commonwealth but also the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia to extend their State Acts which are complementary to the Commonwealth's Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979. The States are expected to put into place complementary legislation. In addition to the extension of existing marketing arrangements, this Bill provides for a number of changes to the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation which are designed to improve its operational performance and to enhance its commercial flexibility. The Bill provides for Corporation membership to be strengthened by the appointment of two additional specially qualified members and for the Corporation to draw up plans of its activities over the three year extension period. Presently, apart from the Chairman, the Corporation has four canner members, three grower members, a Government member, and one member with special qualifications in commerce, finance or economics. This Bill provides for the addition of two more members with special qualifications to strengthen the opportunities for independent business judgment in Corporation decisions. The selection of the extra members will be on the basis of their professional qualifications, expertise and ability to make a positive contribution to the workings of the Corporation. The overall performance of the Corporation and its ability to assist the industry to adjust to changing market circumstances will be enhanced by its being required to develop a corporate plan setting out its objectives, including its marketing strategy, for the three years ending 1987 and for this to be supplemented by annual operational plans. These plans are to be submitted for approval by the Minister and, once approved, significant variations from them are also to be approved by the Minister. I attach particular importance to the development of these plans. They will enable the Corporation to address the strategy, structure and programs for the marketing of canned fruit appropriate for the market circumstances that are likely to develop over the next few years. The Corporation's powers are also to be changed in a number of ways to improve its commercial operations. The Bill expands the borrowing powers of the Corporation by ensuring that it may raise finance by the use of more contemporary financial instruments, such as the discounting of commercial bills and the issue of promissory notes, as well as from more traditional borrowing methods. In line with consultative arrangemens agreed between the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and me, the Bill provides that all Corporation financial raisings are to be subject to approval by the Minister and not of the Treasurer as provided under the current Act. The Bill enables the Corporation to undertake in its own right hedging operations on foreign exchange and financial futures markets subject to any guidelines approved by the Minister. In addition, it provides for more flexibility for the Corporation to decide on the extent to which it is fully covered by insurance. Subject to any guidelines approved by the Minister, the Corporation will have flexibility to arrange for its insurance needs in respect of the canned fruit it has acquired. However, the Corporation will be required to establish an insurance account for the purpose of making adequate provision against risks to the extent that these are not covered by insurance. It is understood that the changes to the insurance provisions could reduce significantly the costs to the Corporation and the industry of protection against risks of loss or damage of the canned fruits. The Bill provides the Corporation with increased flexibility to allow canners and marketing agents to retain premiums obtained from the sale of canned fruit. As a general principle, it is considered appropriate that premiums realised above the Corporation's minimum prices be retained by the canners and marketing agents who earn them. Finally, the opportunity has been taken to update the Marketing Act in a number of ways including describing members in non-sex-specific terms, adjusting the membership of the Australian Canned Fruits Industry Advisory Committee, providing that the Deputy Chairperson of the Corporation shall be the Chairperson of the Advisory Committee and act as Corporation Chairperson when required, and adjusting the sizes of penalties in the Act. Overall, the proposed changes to the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation are part of a general program of review and restructuring of statutory marketing authorities within the primary industry portfolio. Changes are being made progressively to these authorities to ensure that the commercial operations they conduct are more effective in a competitive market environment and to make them more accountable to both industry and government. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.46) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to redefine the term 'season' in the principal Act so that it is more closely aligned with the actual canning season for deciduous fruits. The existing legislation provides for a calendar year season for the imposition of levy to fund the operations of the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation. However, cannery intake and the canning of apricots begins in early December. As a result, it is possible that levy may be imposed on apricots at two different rates for the one canning season. The Bill redefines 'season' as the period 1 December to 30 November. This will ensure that one standard rate of levy is applied to all canned deciduous fruit production of a canning season. The legislation has no financial implications for the Commonwealth. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.48) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to change the due dates for payment of a levy imposed under the Canned Fruits Levy Act 1979 on canned deciduous fruits produced in Australia. Under the existing legislation, levy currently becomes due and payable on 15 July and 15 January. In compiling its financial statements , the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation has followed the practice of including expected January levy receipts in its calendar year accounts on accrual accounting grounds and queries have been raised as to whether this is strictly appropriate. The Bill overcomes this problem by providing for levy to be due on 15 June and 15 December and payable by 15 July and 15 January respectively. In addition, the opportunity has been taken to update penalty provisions and procedures relating to appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the principal Act. The legislation has no financial implications for the Commonwealth. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr McVEIGH —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr McVEIGH —At the conclusion of the second reading speech of the Wheat Marketing Bill the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) indicated that I had had discussions with the Australian Democrats. That is not true. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(11.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to approve an agreement between the Federal and Tasmanian governments relating to the future of the Bass Strait sea passenger service. This agreement is a milestone, marking the beginning of an improved Bass Strait sea passenger service which will greatly assist the Tasmanian economy and people. The Government's approach to the future of the service has always been to achieve a solution which best meets the needs of Tasmania. The Bill is a very simple piece of legislation containing four standard clauses . It brings into effect the agreement which forms the schedule to the Bill. It provides for payment of a grant to the State in accordance with the agreement. Moneys for the purpose are included in Appropriation Bill (No. 2). The agreement is a straightforward document setting down the terms and conditions of a grant of financial assistance to the State. The grant will assist the State in meeting the capital costs of acquiring the vessel Nils Holgersson and putting it into the Bass Strait service. It will also assist the State Government to make necessary terminal alterations in Melbourne and Devonport. A total of $26m is to be provided to the State for this purpose. As explained in the agreement, approximately $958,000 was provided in June 1984 to allow the State to enter a provisional purchase contract for the vessel. The remainder is provided in this year's Budget. For its part the State, in return for the financial assistance, has agreed to provide the Bass Strait sea passenger service for a period of not less than 10 years. It will have full operational and financial responsibility for conducting the service. This is a major feature of the agreement. Henceforth, the State Government will be the master of its own destiny as far as the Bass Strait sea passenger service is concerned. Successive State governments have consistently argued that the sea passenger service should be improved. They have often complained that the standard of service and facilities provided are not appropriate. This agreement allows the State Government to tailor the service to meet the needs it perceives for the service. Tasmania is the major beneficiary of service. The Tasmanian Government, which is closer to the service, should have the ability to decide how the service should be conducted. This includes the type of standard of facilities as well as fares and charges. This is consistent with our overall approach to the question of a successor to the Empress of Australia. Our aim has been to achieve a solution which best meets the needs of Tasmanians. The previous Government made very little effort to address this question. When we came into office we found that there were no well-developed proposals aimed at ensuring the continuation of this important link between Tasmania and the mainland. Over the seven years it had been in office, the previous Government had consistently avoided the problem of the long term future of the service, hoping a commercial solution would come forward. We have worked quickly with the full co-operation of all parties involved to address this problem. No doubt, many people would be disappointed to see the end of the Australian National Line's direct 25-year involvement in Bass Strait sea passenger services ; however, selection of the operator of the vessel is a matter for the Tasmanian Government. It is not readily appreciated that the Line has had a very difficult job to do in recent years. It has had to operate an outdated ship with the bare minimum of financial assistance. This has been in the face of a lot of criticism beyond the Line's control. It has not been possible to meet that criticism with the Empress still in service in the absence of leadership or real interest from the previous Government. It had what I describe as a Clayton's policy on this matter-the kind of policy you have when you have not got a policy. That Government just hoped that the whole matter would go away. It was not concerned about the fact that the vital interests of Tasmanians were being threatened. The agreement would not have been possible without the Line's involvement. The Line's officers worked closely with the Tasmanian Government in its initial investigations that led to the identification of the ship finally selected by the Tasmanian Government. This agreement marks an end to a new beginning. It brings to an end the long period of uncertainty about the future of the Bass Strait sea passenger service. It marks the beginning of a new service with vastly improved capacity, facilities and promise. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Fisher) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.55) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Government is resubmitting to the Parliament two Bills to give legislative effect to changes to the income equalisation deposits scheme which were not passed by the Senate during the autumn sittings. These changes were previously announced in ministerial statements. The two Bills are the Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill 1984 and the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Income Equalization Deposits) Bill 1984. The Government is also introducing, for the first time, the Income Equalization Deposits (Interest Adjustment) Bill 1984. The Government intends to submit the three Bills for consideration by the House and to refer them together for subsequent consideration in another place. I need not dwell on the provisions of the two Bills which have been considered and passed through the House previously. Details were given in the second reading speeches at that time and were also described in the explanatory memoranda then circulated. The provisions of the Bills that the Government is now introducing are identical to those previously introduced, but which failed to pass the Senate. In essence, the aim of the income equalisation deposits scheme is to encourage primary producers to deposit moneys, in years when their incomes are high, so as to provide funds which can be drawn upon when incomes are lower. The scheme, as amended, will have no taxation consequences other than the normal taxation of interest on deposits as income. The new tax averaging arrangements generally remove the inequity which would otherwise be experienced by primary producer taxpayers with fluctuating incomes without the need for income equalisation deposits. The averaging provisions have the effect that tax in both high and low income years will be calculated at the average rate corresponding to average income. Over a run of years, that gives a comparable result to taxpayers with similar but non-fluctuating incomes. While the removal of the in-out option under the various averaging provisions removed much of the possible manipulation associated with the interaction of the former IED and averaging schemes, continuation of the former IED arrangements would still have allowed the possible manipulation of provisional tax payments. The old arrangements also provided the greatest benefits to those with the highest marginal tax rates. Hence, those with the highest incomes benefited most . All primary producers using the new scheme are eligible to receive similar benefits. The incentive to make deposits will be an attractive interest rate, set quarterly at two percentage points above the short term Commonwealth Treasury bond rate. The eligibility criteria which determine whether this high rate is received on deposits will be broadly the same as those under the former arrangements. Only primary producers are eligible for the higher rate. Deposits can be made up to a limit of $250,000 deposit stock. Above that, they will not be eligible for the concessional interest rate but would be paid interest at a rate three percentage points below the short term bond rate. In respect of any income year, a primary producer may make new deposits eligible for the higher rate of interest, up to an amount equivalent to the lesser of 60 per cent of his or her gross receipts from primary production in respect of that year and his or her taxable income in respect of that year net of other than income derived from property. An eligible deposit made at the higher rate will continue to attract that rate as long as the depositor continues in the business of primary production. Withdrawals from the scheme will be possible on a similar basis as in the past-that is, deposits may be withdrawn at any time after 12 months, or within that time on grounds of financial hardship. The Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Income Equalization Deposits) Bill 1984 which I shall introduce in a few moments provides for amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act so as to remove the former basis on which income equalisation deposits made by eligible primary producers attracted income tax deductions. As a result of that Bill, deposits made after 1 September 1983 will attract no special income tax consequences and, in particular, the income tax deduction previously allowable for eligible deposits will be withdrawn. I have outlined the provisions contained in the Bill on a previous occasion. I again draw to attention that the Bill will enable depositors under the former income equalisation deposits arrangements or the previous drought bonds scheme to convert those instruments to the new scheme so as to take advantage of the special rate of interest payable. Further explanations of the features of the Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum that was made available to honourable members when the previous Bill was introduced on 2 May 1984. When the Senate failed to pass these two Bills to which I have now referred and which support the operation of the income equalisation deposits scheme as revised by the Government, the Treasurer announced on 29 June 1984 that the Government intended to maintain its policy on the scheme-as had been announced in 1983 and as had been operating since September 1983. Because of the failure of the Senate to pass the Government's legislation, however, primary producers, in the absence of any action by the Government, could have gained unintended benefits, that is, deposits lodged since 1 September 1983 would have remained tax deductible and would also have earned the higher, concessional interest rate intended to apply under the revised scheme. Having regard to the unintended benefits, the Government lowered the rate of interest applying after 29 June 1984 to deposits made since 1 September 1983. The rate was lowered to 7.5 per cent per annum, to apply pending reconsideration by the Parliament of the legislation now being resubmitted. Thus, the purpose of the Income Equalization Deposits (Interest Adjustment) Bill 1984 is to provide for backpayments of interest to those holders of income equalisation deposits made since 1 September 1983. The backpayments will relate to the period between 29 June 1984 and the commencement of this Bill and will be calculated as the difference between the interest actually paid during that period and the interest which otherwise would have been paid had the Senate passed the IED Bills when they were presented to it. If the legislation as resubmitted by the Government giving effect to its intention that income equalisation deposits are not deductible for income tax assessment purposes is agreed to on this occasion, eligible deposits will receive the higher interest rate as if the Loan Amendment Bill had been passed in the first instance. The revenue costs of the new incentive arrangements are not expected to be very different from the cost of the former scheme but the benefits will be spread more equitably. In conclusion, I remind the House that the new IED scheme has been designed to allow primary producers to deposit funds with the Commonwealth at interest rates higher, and on conditions more favourable, than those on Commonwealth securities offered to the general public. This subsidy is intended to motivate primary producers to prepare for lean years but does not enable the wealthy to benefit more per dollar deposited, as did the former scheme. As such, this scheme should be particularly welcomed by smaller primary producers and those concerned with equity in our community. I commend the Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill 1984 to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(12.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. In introducing the Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill 1984, I outlined the general purpose of this Bill. Its detailed provisions were described when it was previously introduced to the House and those provisions remain unaltered. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(12.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. In the second reading speech on the Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill 1984, I described the purpose of this Bill and its relationship to the Loan Amendment Bill and the Income Tax Assessment (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(12.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. A year ago in this place I introduced the First Home Owners Bill 1983. I said at that time that the Government has an ambitious and innovative program for action in housing, designed to achieve the dual objectives of ensuring that housing plays a key role in our economic recovery and in ensuring that Australian families can gain access to adequate housing at a price they can afford. I identified the objectives of our programs as being: to provide more effective assistance to low income families seeking to buy a first home and to ensure an adequate supply of housing finance at affordable interest rates; to generate additional activity in the housing industry in order to stimulate job creation and economic growth-to re-establish confidence in this vital industry; and to increase the availability of public housing and other innovative forms of low cost housing for the large number of needy households in the community. The Hawke Labor Government was elected with a firm commitment to renegotiate Federal housing arrangements with the States. I am pleased today to introduce the Housing Assistance Bill 1984 which honours our commitment to revamp public housing policy and assistance for housing in Australia. This is an important piece of social legislation. No honest person can deny the success of the Government's measures to date. In the short time since coming to office the Government's policies have led to a rejuvenation of the housing industry, and to a large number of Australians acquiring their first homes. Housing finance has increased by some 30 per cent, and housing starts have risen from a low 105,000 in 1982-83 to an estimated 135, 000 in 1983-84. Some 55,000 first home buyers received assistance under the Government's first home owners scheme during 1983-84, and an additional 80,000 first home buyers are expected to benefit from the scheme in 1984-85. The housing industry is now set on a firm footing for the future and housing finance is readily available at affordable interest rates and, in recognition of these facts, measures announced in the Budget have enabled FHOS to be better targeted. Housing commencements in 1984-85 are expected to be in the range of 140,000 to 145,000. With regular reports from the Indicative Planning Council and through wide consultation with the industry, the Government is determined to avoid the costly 'boom and bust' syndrome of recent years, and will be seeking to ensure that commencements continue at sustainable levels in the future. A year ago I said that, with the introduction of the first home owners scheme, we would not be resting on our laurels. I indicated that the Government had commenced work on the renegotiation of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, and that a key feature of the renegotiation would be a focus on more innovative approaches to the provision of public housing. I said that we would also be holding discussions with the State governments, local governments and community groups on measures to expand the range of low cost rental housing for people with an acute need for housing, and to expand community housing. These negotiations and discussions have now been completed, and the Housing Assistance Bill 1984 authorises the Commonwealth Government to enter a 10-year agreement with each State and the Northern Territory for the provision of home purchase and rental assistance housing for low to moderate income earners. This legislation sets the stage for our 10-year assault on housing poverty. It will be the largest housing assistance package ever undertaken in Australia. Taken together with the related increase in the Budget in the level of supplementary assistance for pensioner households in the private rental market, it reaffirms this Government's intention to improve the housing circumstances of those least able to help themselves. The new Agreement is an important social document. It sets out principles to guide the development of public housing over the next 10 years. The twin objectives are to alleviate housing related poverty and to ensure that housing assistance is, as far as possible, delivered equitably to persons resident in different forms of housing. All State housing Ministers have endorsed these objectives. The legislation recognises that housing assistance provided under the Agreement should be available to all sections of the community provided that priority in granting assistance is determined by the need for assistance. Programs under the Agreement will be developed so as to increase progressively the availability of public housing to a level commensurate with the need for it in the community. This will be done in such a way as to avoid the social stigma and related problems so frequently associated with past housing assistance. All housing Ministers agree that it is essential to provide a viable and diversified choice of public housing. The Agreement covers programs of assistance to tenants and home purchasers. These programs are structured so as to ensure that those unable to obtain or afford housing in the private market have considerable flexibility in choosing the form of assistance that suits them best. The spirit of the new Agreement is that every Australian has a basic right to adequate and affordable housing. There are currently some 137,000 people on waiting lists for public-rental housing, and many thousands of others discouraged from applying because of the lengthy waiting times for assistance. Most of those applying for assistance are pensioners and beneficiaries currently paying high proportions of their income in rent or staying in overcrowded or sub-standard accommodation. The Government recognises that the massive housing problems facing low income earners cannot be overcome in one or two years. This is why the Agreement is placed in a 10-year framework. We have entered into a long term commitment to those in housing need. Currently throughout Australia there are some 250,000 dwellings in the public housing stock. This Agreement will cover rental and tenancy policies for these dwellings and others progressively added to that stock. Rents for dwellings will be related to the cost of provision and not so-called market rents which are outside the influence of the public sector. Over the life of the Agreement this should result in a decline in real terms in the level of rents for public housing which will provide long term tenants with some of the benefits of home ownership. Those tenants who are unable to afford the asking rents will continue to pay rents which are related to their incomes. About 60 per cent of public tenants pay reduced or rebated rents. As a means of further enhancing the position of tenants, the Agreement provides for tenants to be actively involved in the management of their dwellings. Co-operative housing arrangements, for instance, are encouraged through both administrative and financial practices. The Agreement also provides for specific housing assistance programs including pensioner housing, Aboriginal housing, crisis accommodation, mortgage and rent relief, and local government and community housing. Even with ongoing programs, such as Aboriginal housing, there will be a new approach. For example, under the new arrangements, agreed with the States, Aboriginals will be closely involved in the provision of Aboriginal housing assistance and a number of States have or are moving to set up Aboriginal housing advisory boards to assist in the administration of these funds. The crisis accommodation program will rationalise a number of small unco-ordinated programs. The aim is to provide emergency accommodation where needed. This program will link in with the proposed supported accommodation assistance program. Mortgage and rent relief assistance was previously provided outside the CSHA. The mortgage and rent relief scheme is now properly brought within the CSHA to ensure that assistance is fully co- ordinated with other public housing assistance. One innovative feature of the new Agreement will be the new local government and community housing program which will aim to give local communities a bigger say in public housing. The focus of the program will be on providing alternative forms of public housing and on developing tenant participation in the management of public rental housing. Local governments and community groups will be able to develop projects such as co-operatives, group housing and boarding house accommodation, which will assist in meeting needs in their areas. Financial assistance will be provided to local governments and community groups to buy, build, lease or upgrade dwellings for low cost rental housing. Local communities will also be able to borrow from the private sector with government assistance. The net effect of this will be to expand and diversify Australia's stock of housing available for low income earners. The dwellings will be managed by local governments and community groups. Most Australians aspire to home ownership. The home purchase programs in the Agreement are structured to make this achievable. Borrowers will be provided with low start loans, repayments will be linked to income, interest concessions available in the early years will be repaid where possible. These arrangements will mean that should a borrower face a reduction in income, loan repayments will not become crippling. The home purchase assistance arrangements also make provision for new rental purchase arrangements, as a means of further ensuring that those wishing to buy a home are able to do so. The arrangements will provide a safety net to both public housing tenants and those renting privately who wish to purchase but are uncertain about their financial ability to do so. To achieve this, title of the dwelling will remain with the housing authority. Thus, in a case where the purchaser does get into financial difficulty the household can remain securely in that dwelling. However, in order to maintain the stock of public rental dwellings, rental housing assistance funds will not be allowed to be used to finance rental purchases. These purchases will, instead, be financed in the same way as other assistance for home purchase under the Agreement. The principles and policies incorporated in this legislation will benefit many thousands of Australians. However, funding commitment is required to back up these fine principles. This Government is providing the necessary funding commitment. In 1984-85, some $623m will be provided for public housing through the Agreement. As part of the financial arrangements, $569m is being appropriated in the Budget and will be supplemented by $54m appropriated by the Housing Assistance Act 1981. Funding this financial year will be about 9 per cent higher than comparable funding in 1983-84 under various programs, including the special employment assistance provided under the wage pause program. I seek leave to incorporate details of comparative funding for public housing in recent years. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Federal Assistance to the States and the Northern Territory for Public Housing 1981-82-1984-85 Loans Grants Total $m $m $m 1981-82 146.0 118.1 264.1 1982-83 146.0 260.2 406.2 1983-84 146.0 420.9 566.9 1984-85 . . 623.3 623.3 Mr HURFORD —I thank the House. All Federal funding in 1984-85 will be provided by way of grants. This is not necessarily a precedent. In future years some 75 per cent of Commonwealth funds will normally be provided as grants, and the remainder will be provided as loans on the highly concessional terms of 4.5 per cent per annum interest repayable over 53 years. This generous assistance recognises the cost pressures being faced by the State governments in housing very low income persons. The State governments will be expected to continue to play their part. In 1984- 85 States will be expected to match $450m of the Federal funding. In later years they will be expected to match all Commonwealth untied funding on a dollar for dollar basis. As an additional incentive to the States to provide funding for this vital area of social need, in 1984-85 the Government is continuing to permit States to nominate funds from their Loan Council borrowing programs for public housing and receive these funds on the concessional CSHA loan terms and conditions, namely, interest of 4.5 per cent per annum repayable over 53 years. Some $227m was nominated by the States under this arrangement in 1983-84. I am pleased to see that South Australia has nominated all its loan funds in the current year as well as nominated funds under this arrangement. In all, I expect that over $1,500m will be made available for public housing in 1984-85 from Commonwealth and State Government sources. The legislation provides for base funding of $500m in 1985-86 and 1986-87. It also provides for $10m in each of these years for the local community housing program. This compares with minimum funding of $200m per annum under the 1981 Agreement. The Bill provides for Commonwealth funds to be allocated between the States and the Northern Territory on the basis set out in the 1981 legislation. This maintains the move to per capita funding over the period to 1990-91 subject to minimum provisions to protect the smaller States. There will be an annual report to be tabled in Parliament each year which will include an assessment of housing needs and a summary of assistance for housing being provided by governments. This Bill reaffirms this Government's commitment to ensuring that all Australians, no matter what their station in life, have access to adequate and affordable housing. It is the result of inputs from a wide range of interested organisations and individuals. It has been moulded after considerable discussion with State Ministers responsible for housing. It is a consensus reflecting their assessment of how best to deliver an effective and equitable program of public housing assistance. I thank the State Ministers for their co-operation and extend my thanks also to their officers. I would also particularly like to thank officers of my own Department and of my personal office for their dedicated service in helping this Government produce what I hope everybody will come to agree is an excellent piece of social legislation for the Australian people. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(12.22) — I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is introduced in conjunction with the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1984 and forms part of a legislative package with the Bill for arrangements to deal with secondary boycotts. The major purpose of the Bills relates to the Government's intention to repeal sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and to replace them with a more effective mechanism under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act for dealing with disputes involving secondary boycotts. Sections 45D and 45E which prohibit secondary boycotts and agreements giving effect to secondary boycotts were introduced into the Trade Practices Act by the Fraser Government. Section 45D has operated since 1977 and section 45E since 1980. Section 45D has its origins in the 1976 report of the Swanson committee, established to review the Trade Practices Act. One of the specific terms of reference of that Committee was to give particular attention to the application of the Act to anti-competitive conduct by employees and employee or employer organisations. In a wide ranging report, which only briefly discussed the problem of secondary boycotts, the committee recommended that the law provide an effective avenue of recourse for a trader directly affected by a boycott, by allowing him access to an independent deliberative body. The committee was not satisfied that satisfactory procedures for solving these matters were available at that time. The committee had no firm view as to whether such procedures for recourse should be established under the Trade Practices Act of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Following this report, the Fraser Government added section 45D to the Trade Practices Act in 1977. As enacted, section 45D went far wider than proscribing only those price maintenance activities that were of prime concern to the Swanson committee. Unlike other provisions of Part IV of the Act, section 45D is not solely concerned with competition. Indeed the section was so widely drawn that its main operation is in respect of industrial action which often has little, if any, effect on competition. In fact one test for the section- substantial lessening of competition-has been little used. During the entire period of its existence, section 45D has not been widely accepted as a provision concerned with competition. Rather it has become more a weapon directed at the industrial relations activities of trade unions under the guise of competition policy. The Fraser Government amended section 45D in 1978 and 1980 to broaden its application against union activities. In addition during 1980 section 45E was introduced into the Trade Practices Act. Section 45D commonly operates to prohibit boycott situations arising from a refusal by employees to handle goods intended for a third party for the purpose of pressuring the third party to accede to certain demands. Section 45E supplements that provision by prohibiting contracts, arrangements or understandings between a union and another person to prevent or hinder the supply of goods or services to, or their acquisition from, a third party. At the same time, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act was amended to permit the Commission to play a conciliation role in relation to disputes involving secondary boycotts. The relevant provisions are contained in existing division 5A of Part III of the Act, which is to be repealed. Under these provisions, where there has been a contravention of section 45D or 45E of the Trade Practices Act and an injunction has been applied for in the Federal Court of Australia in relation to that contravention, the dispute concerned may be notified to the Commission. The Commission is empowered to conciliate, if the dispute involves a federally registered union, or a member or officer of the union, or work under a Federal award. This was a more realistic assessment of how secondary boycott disputes are resolved. It suffered, however, from the destabilising effects of the contemporaneous proceedings before the Federal Court under the Trade Practices Act. Sections 45D and 45E have been the subject of considerable controversy since their introduction. It is the Government's view that these provisions should not have been enacted in the Trade Practices Act. The essential concern of trade practices legislation is to promote fair trading and free competition. On the other hand, the real purpose of sections 45D and 45E is to prohibit union activity which usually has little or no detrimental effect on competition or fair trading. In the context of legislation dealing with trade practices matters , the sections provide unrealistic sanctions to be applied against unions in relation to their industrial activities. The Government's position is absolutely plain. The Government does not in any way condone the industrial tactic of a secondary boycott. However, the Government does not believe that such action is so different in nature to other forms of union and employee action in support of their industrial claims that it should be singled out to be dealt with under the Trade Practices Act rather than through the established industrial channels. The principal objective of any regulation in this area must be the speedy, fair and effective resolution of the underlying dispute. The Government believes that this will not be achieved by the legislative prohibition of secondary boycott activity. Indeed, provisions such as sections 45D and 45E may only serve to exacerbate a dispute and resort to them may result in a worsened industrial relations climate not only between the parties, but also in the relevant industry as a whole. The special characteristics of industrial disputes demand that they be handled by expert bodies under our industrial machinery rather than under trade practices legislation which is not designed to resolve the underlying issues which give rise to the boycott activity. The Government is concerned about the possible effect of the remedies of penalties and damages which are available under the Trade Practices Act for contraventions of sections 45D and 45E. These are potentially highly disruptive to Australia's industrial relations. Their application, where boycotts occur, is unlikely to lead to the effective or satisfactory resolution of the dispute. Indeed it is worth pointing out that pecuniary penalties under the Act have never been imposed. In addition, damages are not the principal objective of the parties where proceedings are instituted. Practical experience has shown that the remedies provided under the Trade Practices Act have not been effective in the way which is often claimed. The only remedy which has been seriously pursued has been the granting of an interim injunction to seek to force a union to lift its bans before or during negotiations on the issue at the hearing of the dispute. Yet when the evidence is examined, there is not much reason to conclude that the injunctive process has been particularly speedy or that using this legal remedy will help to resolve a dispute. In some cases, the issuing of an injunction under the Act has even led to a worsening of the dispute. To illustrate this, I will refer to the applications which, as the Government is aware, were made under sections 45D and 45E in relation to secondary boycotts involving unions. We know of 78 such applications. Periods of two weeks and more between the imposition of bans and the application for an injunction are quite common. This occurred in 38 of the 64 cases for which relevant information is available. We are most concerned about the delays in resolving boycotts. It is hardly sensible that these legal remedies under the Trade Practices Act are available in relation to secondary boycotts if no action is taken to resolve the disputes before those remedies have to be called upon. Once injunctions are granted their effect on the boycott dispute has varied considerably. My Department has examined the 25 boycott disputes involving unions which have occurred since the beginning of 1983. Interim injunctions were granted in relation to 15 of these disputes. In five of the cases where injunctions were granted, action under the Trade Practices Act actually led to an escalation of the dispute through, for example, the widening of bans or the extension of their duration. In nine cases, including those I have just mentioned, the injunction appeared to have little or no direct impact on the secondary boycott action. Bans have continued, for example, for periods ranging from five to 25 days. The injunctions appear to have been of direct effect in only three of these 15 cases. In none of these were damages granted or penalties imposed and no permanent injunctions have been granted. I have argued to this stage that action under the Trade Practices Act in respect of secondary boycott disputes is neither the most appropriate course for resolution of the dispute nor necessarily a particularly quick or effective course of action. Following our repeal of these sections, we are not proposing to leave a void in the handling of such disputes. Let no-one underestimate our concern at the impact of these disputes. What we are proposing is an alternative mechanism whereby such disputes can be dealt with, in the first instance, through the established industrial relations machinery. Such a course of action will ensure that boycott matters are dealt with effectively and speedily through the tribunal best qualified to deal with them. Earlier this year, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and I issued for public comment a discussion paper on the application of the Trade Practices Act to trade unions. That document examined these issues and outlined the Government 's views. Many responses were received to the issues canvassed. The Government has carefully considered all the views expressed by employers and their representatives, as well as by some State governments, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and individual unions. Extensive discussions have also been held within the National Labour Consultative Council on the substance of the government's proposals. It is clear that employers and their organisations are seriously concerned about the resolution of secondary boycotts. In essence, the position of employers is that the remedy of injunctions is required to protect them from secondary action by trade unions. They seek the retention of this remedy under Commonwealth legislation. It has been suggested that it be introduced into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in addition to what the Government has proposed. At the same time, there is widespread acceptance that the Commission should be able to seek to resolve these disputes. Nonetheless, our consideration to the responses to the Green Paper and our examination of the operation of sections 45D and 45E have led us to the conclusion that the retention of a statutory legal remedy for secondary boycotts is not warranted. Whatever the effect of proceedings under sections 45D and 45E may have been in years immediately after their introduction-I have to say that it is simply not clear that they were generally effective then-it is apparent that unions have paid far less regard to them in recent years. I have mentioned that in some cases the issuing of injunctions under the Trade Practices Act has even exacerbated disputes. We do not believe that the retention of similar remedies under Commonwealth law will help to resolve boycott disputes. Our emphasis is not upon prohibition and sanctions but on the settlement of disputes where they occur. Experience has shown that by far the greatest number of secondary boycott disputes involving unions arise in relation to industrial issues. The best way to deal with such disputes is to provide for them to be brought before an industrial tribunal. Accordingly, the Government proposes that, upon the repeal of sections 45D and 45E, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission should be able to deal with such disputes where a federally registered union or its members or work under a federal award is involved. We believe this should also apply where these boycott disputes do not concern strictly industrial issues. The Commission should be able to bring the parties together to see whether they can settle their differences. We propose to allow the Commission to conciliate in relation to these disputes. This is similar to what exists at the moment, but with a significant improvement . Instead of the delays under the present arrangements which require the initiation of Federal Court proceedings under sections 45D or 45E, anyone involved in or affected by a boycott dispute will be able to notify the Commission immediately, and the Commission will also be able to act of its own motion. These matters should be dealt with as quickly as possible by the Commission and provision is to be made to ensure that this will be done. The legislation will enable the Commission to deal with boycott disputes in relation to both industrial matters and non-industrial issues. Industrial matters will be the same as those which the Commission can deal with in its normal jurisdiction except that they will not require a particular employment relationship. Security of employment, which sometimes gives rise to boycott disputes, will be included as an industrial matter for the purposes of the Commission's jurisdiction under this legislation. We do not believe that the Commission should be asked to deal with boycott disputes over non-industrial issues if it cannot play any useful part in their resolution. Provision will therefore be made to require the Commission to make a threshold judgment as to whether it will be able to resolve the dispute or bring about an end to the industrial action. It may be unrealistic, for example, to expect the Commission to play a role in overcoming a boycott which has an explicitly political basis such as a ban in protest against aspects of Government policy. There have been some suggestions that in lieu of remedies like those under the Trade Practices Act, the Commission should be able to arbitrate in secondary boycott disputes in a binding and enforceable way. We do not consider this necessary or appropriate. Where a secondary boycott is imposed, as is often the case, in support of claims in an industrial dispute within the Commission's normal jurisdiction, the Commission will be able to arbitrate, if that is required, in relation to those underlying claims. This is because the Commission will be able to use the arbitral powers under the Act that are available in industrial disputes. To facilitate this, provision will be made to allow the joint hearing of an industrial dispute and an associated boycott dispute, where that is appropriate. In some cases, of course, secondary boycotts are ancillary to industrial disputes which can be dealt with by industrial tribunals. However, if there is not an industrial dispute involving an employer and employee relationship, the only formal procedure at the federal level to resolve the dispute is the unsatisfactory mechanism of existing Division 5A. In other cases, the Commission would, if it had to arbitrate, be required to deal with issues which are simply not suitable to be dealt with under its award making powers. An example is where there is a dispute over marketing or pricing arrangements which arises through union concern over employment for its members. An area like this involves considerations which the Commission could not realistically be expected to deal with by decisions which could be enforced under the Act. There are other problems. An arbitrated decision could have the direct effect of putting a company which was the target of a boycott out of business entirely or depriving that company of a substantial share of a market. Its enforcement would present difficulties and might well destabilise employment in that market. It would also be undesirable if enforceable arbitrated decisions over those wider issues which would not involve direct employer and employee relationships were to conflict with other Commonwealth or State laws, reflecting, for example, competition policy considerations or marketing arrangements. On the other hand, if such laws were to be overridden by arbitrated decisions, this could actually encourage secondary boycotts as a mechanism to circumvent those laws. Nonetheless, there may be some place for arbitration in situations where the parties are close to agreement. We will enable the Commission, therefore, to be able to arbitrate with the agreement of the parties. However, its decisions will not be enforceable or reviewable under the Act. In addition, these decisions, like agreements to settle boycott disputes reached through conciliation under our proposals, will be subject to the general law. By way of example, such a decision or agreement may require authorisation under the Trade Practices Act where it would otherwise contravene a competition provision of that Act. In providing for more effective machinery to deal with boycott disputes, we are not proposing to restrict access to common law remedies in relation to secondary boycotts, except in one important respect. The exception concerns injunctions which may be sought where an action in tort is taken in relation to a secondary boycott. We believe that the granting or enforcement of an injunction while a matter is before the Commission may destabilise the efforts of the Commission to resolve the dispute. Indeed, as I have already said, we see this as an important defect in the existing legislation. We are proposing, therefore, to restrict such action where the Commission is dealing with a dispute involving a secondary boycott. This restriction will not apply to injunctions which prevent personal violence or the damage or destruction of property. Employers will also be able to pursue action for compensatory damages. This proposed restriction is to be strictly limited to the period in which the Commission feels that it is likely to bring about promptly the end of the boycott or the settlement of the dispute. If it concludes at any time that this is not likely, a party to the proceeding will be able to obtain a certificate to that effect from the Commission which will end the restriction on the injunction. The Commission will also be able to recommend the lifting of industrial action connected with a boycott dispute and, consequently, to take into account any lack of compliance with such a recommendation when considering the issuing of a certificate. I have already mentioned the delays which frequently occur in seeking injunctions under sections 45D and 45E. Similar delays can be expected in relation to common law proceedings, if they are used. Under our proposals, during the period before the initiation of proceedings, conciliation will be able to take place before the Commission. As I have indicated, the absence of such an arrangement is a serious deficiency under the existing provisions. A further important point is that there is no reason why an employer affected by a boycott should not be able to prepare his case for a common law remedy while Commission proceedings are underway. If that party is suffering serious harm through the continuance of the boycott, there will be no obstacle to that party immediately applying for an interim injunction when a certificate is issued by the Commission. In a case where the situation was extremely serious for the applicant, this could conceivably happen within a matter of hours of the granting of a certificate. This does not mean that the Government believes that resort to the common law would prove any more effective than the remedies under the Trade Practices Act have been. In our view, common law remedies are unlikely to play a useful role in the resolution of disputes involving secondary boycotts . Another important aspect of our approach is reflected in the Trade Practices Amendment Bill. I refer to the provision in that Bill which is designed to maintain an across-the-board prohibition of price maintenance activity. Successive governments have accepted that the prohibition under the Trade Practices Act on resale price maintenance should not be subject to any exemption . It has also been accepted that any action to promote resale price maintenance should be prohibited. The prohibition on price maintenance activity extends to trade unions which are generally not suppliers of goods and therefore cannot engaged in resale price maintenance themselves. However, they are capable of bringing about that result through their activities. Our concern is that the repeal of the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act may leave a gap in the prohibition on such price maintenance activity. To ensure that this does not occur, we are proposing the amendment contained in clause 12 of that Bill. I now turn to the main provisions of the Bill. Clause 3 of the Bill establishes the new arrangements whereby the Commission will be able under proposed sections 88DA to 88DN to deal with boycott disputes. These provisions will comprise a new Division 5A of Part III of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act when sections 45D and 45E are repealed. Proposed section 88DB identifies the types of boycotts which will be able to be dealt with by the Commission. These boycotts are similar to what is covered by existing sections 45D and 45E. Proposed section 88DC enables a wide range of persons to notify the Commission of the existence of an impending, probable or actual boycott dispute. Under proposed section 88DD , the President is to refer the dispute forthwith to a member of the Commission. This can also be done where the Commission itself becomes aware of a boycott dispute without formal notification. The Commission must then commence within 48 hours proceedings to determine whether there is a boycott dispute within its jurisdiction and if so whether it involves an 'industrial matter' as defined. The Commission has to make a written finding of the dispute. If the dispute does not concern an industrial matter, the Commission can deal with it only if it certifies in writing that it is satisfied it will be able to bring about a prompt cessation of industrial action, the abandonment of the boycott or the settlement of the dispute. I draw the attention of honourable members particularly to proposed section 88DE. This provision requires the Commission to deal with a boycott dispute expeditiously. This reflects the Government's concern that boycott disputes should receive the active attention of the Commission without delay. In some circumstances a boycott dispute may relate to some other industrial issue before the Commission. Proposed section 88DF enables the President to allow a boycott dispute to be dealt with jointly with such related matters. The Commission as so constituted would, of course, be required to deal no less expeditiously with a boycott dispute in joint proceedings. Proposed section 88DG provides for the form of arbitration which I mentioned earlier, by consent of the parties, and with their agreement to abide by all decisions reached by such arbitration. Proposed section 88DH defines the parties to proceedings under the proposed division. Honourable members will note that all directly involved parties may be represented, as well as a Minister. Other interested persons will be able to seek leave to intervene in the usual way. Proposed section 88DJ provides for the prohibition on the granting or enforcement of injunctions in connection with actions in tort against any persons engaging in a boycott dispute. Proposed section 88DK requires the Commission on application, or of its own motion, to certify that it cannot bring about promptly the abandonment of the boycott or the settlement of the dispute. When a certificate is issued, the restriction on injunctions will end. An unsuccessful applicant will be able to re-apply for a certificate to a full bench or to the member dealing with the dispute. I have already mentioned that the Commission will also have to take into account the extent of compliance with its recommendations in the proceedings. This package of provisions provides a comprehensive mechanism by which secondary boycott disputes can be dealt with effectively and speedily. By removing the provisions prohibiting boycotts from the Trade Practices Act, and establishing new machinery in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to deal with boycott disputes, the Government is ensuring that such disputes are dealt with in the forum which is best equipped to achieve a satisfactory resolution to the industrial relations issues which underlie most disputes. Finally, I refer to other provisions of the Bill which are of a more technical nature. They concern the financial accounting and reporting requirements under Part VIIIAA of the Act for registered organisations and their branches. It is proposed to provide less onerous and costly requirements for small organisations and branches. This principle has the support of members of the National Labour Consultative Council. The proposed amendments will not, however, prejudice the proper financial administration of these bodies. Clause 5 of the Bill enables organisations or branches whose annual incomes do not exceed $10,000 to apply to the Industrial Registrar for a certificate of exemption from certain of the existing financial and reporting requirements of Part VIIIAA of the Act. An organisation or branch which obtains a certificate will be exempted from the current requirements in relation to the preparation of accounts, their supply and presentation to members and their filing with the Registrar. Instead the new requirements that are to apply will be more appropriate to the type of organisation or branch concerned. The organisation or branch will be required to prepare its accounts and other statements for the financial year in accordance with less onerous requirements that will be prescribed by regulation. The accounts and statements of the organisation or branch are to be presented to a meeting of members. Members of the organisation or branch will be able to obtain free of charge copies of the accounts on request. The accounts and statements and the auditor's report are to be filed with the Registrar within 90 days after the date of the auditor's report. I would point out to honourable members that, in all other respects, the existing requirements of Part VIIIAA will continue to apply to organisations or branches with a certificate. Thus, the rights of individual members to seek further information concerning the accounts or to ask the Registrar to investigate the accounts will continue to apply. Likewise the powers and duties of the Registrar to investigate any deficiencies and to require rectification will also continue to apply to such organisations and branches. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(12.50) — I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is introduced in conjunction with the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 for the legislative purpose already outlined in the second reading of that Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to repeal sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act 1974, clearing the way for the commencement of new provisions in the other Bill which will enable the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to settle secondary boycott disputes. Pricing and marketing agreements reached under those new provisions will be made subject to the Trade Practices Act. Certain transitional measures must also be introduced and necessary consequential changes made. Transitional Provisions No new proceedings may be instituted concerning conduct prior to the repeal of sections 45D and 45E. However, proceedings already instituted will be unaffected . Appeals also will not be affected. Section 80AA is repealed but that section will continue to apply to enable an injunction granted before repeal to be stayed to facilitate conciliation. Price Maintenance Activities by Non-Suppliers Proscriptions on price maintenance behaviour have existed since 1971 but have been limited to conduct by suppliers only. Governments of all persuasions have recognised since that date that resale price maintenance is inherently bad. Non- suppliers are capable of effecting the same detriment to competition through secondary boycott activity although they may have no commercial objective. Accordingly, the Government has decided that resale price maintenance activities by non-suppliers should be subject to injunction. Conciliation resulting in Marketing and Pricing Agreements The Government's position is clear: Secondary boycotts are a symptom of industrial disputation arising out of industrial demands and the reaction to them. What, however, may appear to be a matter of industrial disputation can lead to arrangements which are essentially commercial. Marketing and pricing agreements between employers and unions would fall into this category. If they are anti-competitive the Government sees no reason why they should not be dealt with under the Trade Practices Act. The Government also considers it to be necessary to prevent the new provisions in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act from being used as a 'back door' to avoid the Trade Practices Act. Accordingly, the Bill makes clear that conciliation resulting in legitimate industrial agreements shall fall outside the Trade Practices Act but that marketing and pricing agreements will continue to be subject to that Act. Such agreements may, of course, be capable of authorisation by the Trade Practices Commission on public benefit grounds pursuant to the Trade Practices Act. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HAWKER —I do. In the debate yesterday on that part of the Appropriation Bill concerning the Department of Primary Industry, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) made the following statement, and I quote from Hansard, page 1135: The honourable member for Wannon . . . raised the question of the Export Inspection Service . . . He talked about the 22 meat inspectors at Tennant Creek - These are the 22 inspectors who were suspended on full pay following the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry on the meat substitution scandal. The Minister went on to say in relation to me: He said that they were actually receiving additional income for additional services performed. I can show from my speech on page 1111 of Hansard that I said no such thing. All I said was that the 22 inspectors were suspended for 18 months; that while they were suspended they were on full pay; and that the cost to the Export Inspection Service was over half a million dollars. At no stage did I suggest they received additional pay over and above their normal salaries. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(12.55) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of grave concern to the legal profession in New South Wales and one that should be of grave concern to members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The matter concerns the appointment of five magistrates in the State of New South Wales. It is a matter which has been surrounded by controversy, and concern has been expressed by many section of the community over the last few days. The background is that the appointment of the Chief Stipendary Magistrate, Mr Clarrie Briese, was announced by the State Government of New South Wales. Within the last 24 hours the Attorney-General for New South Wales, the Hon. Paul Landa, has announced that Mr Briese will not be appointed until after he appears before the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge, which is inquiring into the affairs of Mr Justice Murphy. It wish to read to the House an extract from this morning's AM program on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation when Mr McGeoch, the President of the New South Wales Law Society, was interviewed. Mr McGeoch said: I think I can speak on behalf of the whole of the solicitors profession when I say that we are very disappointed. I don't blame Mr Landa . . . for the problems about the proclamation of the Local Courts Act and the problems with some of the these magistrates. I think he is not at fault for the timetable. But I think it is another thing again for this Government to withhold the confirmation of Mr Briese's appointment for what I can't see to be any other reason than that he is politically out of favour with them. I mean, the fact of the matter is, his integrity and his performance are beyond question. There would be absolutely no reservation about his appointment with the whole of the legal profession. I do not extract these words carelessly. They represent the total text of what he said. At a later stage in the interview Mr McGeoch said: I don't think there is anybody in the legal profession today that can understand the logic of the Government's decision. On what basis is his fitness put in question. On what basis is a cloud over Mr Briese when we have got a unanimous inquiry saying he acted honestly, with integrity and performed his public duty. I wish to pursue this matter for I have received calls from Sydney from solicitors and barristers who are seething with discontent about this decision of the New South Wales Attorney-General. It is a most serious matter; in fact it goes to the ethical behaviour of the Attorney-General, which is deplorable in this instance. I wish to raise with the House the question why Mr Landa would seek to postpone the appointment of Mr Briese to a certain set date. That is a matter of grave concern to this House and, I believe, particularly to the Senate. Why has he chosen, first of all, as the date for Mr Briese's reappointment the termination date of the Senate inquiry into the Murphy affair? That has nothing to do with the appointment of magistrates in New South Wales. Mr Coleman —Blackmail. Mr CADMAN —As the honourable member for Wentworth says, it smacks of blackmail. We can seek to examine the possible reasons for Mr Landa's decision. Firstly, Mr Landa may not think that Mr Briese's appearance before a Senate committee is compatible with his position as Chief Stipendary Magistrate and may be saying that Mr Briese in that position should not appear before a Senate committee; or there could be other reasons for Mr Landa not wanting Mr Briese to appear before the Committee. But there can be no doubt about one fact, and that is the integrity of Mr Briese. I quote again what the President of the Law Society of New South Wales, Mr McGeoch, said: There would be absolutely no reservation about his appointment with the whole of the legal profession. The President of the Law Society of New South Wales has categorically supported the appointment of Mr Briese and the fact that he has been appointed. I would say either that Mr Landa is not committed to seeing justice done in New South Wales and is not upholding the high commitment his office demands as the First Law Officer of that State, or that he is blackmailing Mr Briese not to appear. Either way, one can interpret it only as misconduct affecting these Houses of Parliament. If one were to go to Odgers Senate Practice or Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice and examine the processes that need to be applied to someone who is interfering with the appearance of someone before committees of this Parliament or before this Parliament itself, one could only conclude, on all the precedents and on all the facts in this Parliament and in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, that the Attorney-General in New South Wales, by making this decision, by withdrawing the commission of Mr Briese, is seeking to influence his appearance before these committees. Mr Briese's job is on the line. He is being told: 'Either do not appear or, if you do appear, be aware that your appointment will be confirmed after the hearings.' If that is not seeking to interfere and intervene in the processes of the Parliament I do not know what is. Erskine May and Odgers both say that at the very least these are matters of privilege for the Parliament, and this could amount to misconduct or criminal behaviour on the part of the Attorney-General of New South Wales. I am most distressed, and the legal profession of New South Wales has also given expression to its discontent and concern, by this unwarranted action of the Attorney-General of New South Wales. I believe that Mr Landa has indicated that Mr Briese's job is on the line. He has said that to Mr Briese, and it cannot be interpreted in any other way. 'Your job is available', the implication is, 'provided that when you return from that Senate inquiry I am then content to appoint you.' My contention is that the matter has nothing to do with the appointment of magistrates in New South Wales. Mr Briese's appointment has been announced and he has been stood aside for the duration of this hearing. Another related matter is why Mr Landa, a State Attorney-General, would take this initiative on his own behalf. It has nothing to do with the affairs of New South Wales, but he is seeking to influence evidence given before one of the committees of the Federal House. I can conclude only that there has been some atmosphere of collusion between the Federal Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the State Attorney-General on this matter. We know how seriously Senator Evans regards this matter, how he did not want the Senate inquiry to proceed, and I believe that Senator Evans has sought means to prevent that inquiry being conducted in a satisfactory way. He has, I believe, colluded with the Attorney-General of New South Wales. Who would know whether or not Mr Justice Murphy himself or Morgan Ryan or anybody else is involved in this whole sorry affair? I think it is bad news when the people of New South Wales and Australia can be subjected to this cheap political trick. A man of impeccable reputation has been put upon by the Attorney-General of New South Wales. One could say only that it is a conspiracy and that the Attorney-General of New South Wales is party to that conspiracy. I have said that the legal profession is concerned. I believe that the Senate itself should take action. Either way, it is my intention later this day to introduce a motion that this House take note of the action so that we can explore the matter and take it up for ourselves. I do not believe that any State Attorney-General has the right to interfere with the proceedings of this House. It is stated over and over again in all writings and all documents, all historical events, that no one has the right to interfere with witnesses appearing before this House, the other House, or both Houses meeting jointly, and that is what has occurred. It is a dreadful and sorry day when the Attorney- General of New South Wales can give such public evidence of his unconcern for the processes of justice in that State. We now see publicly what has been going on in private for years in that State in the processes of the courts and the carriage of justice. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(1.05) —I rise in this grievance debate to discuss a number of issues relevant to the electorate of Moore. The first is that of the impact of the 10 per cent wine tax on the Swan Valley. This area consists mostly of small grape growers and wine makers. Whilst I do not share the opinions of those who are forecasting the demise of the wine industry, nevertheless it is true to say that for the small grape grower and the wine maker there is a risk that their present small margins will be severely affected. There is genuine concern in the industry. I have discussed the issue with industry representatives both in and out of Western Australia, as well as having talks with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and his Department. It seems to me there are two issues of real concern to the small wine maker. Firstly, for many of them income is largely obtained from counter sales at the winery. In order to attract customers to the winery they provide for tastings. This, I might add, is a boost to the tourist industry, a factor which should not be overlooked, particularly in Western Australia, which is trying all the time to promote its tourist industry. Now they will be paying a tax on the wine provided for the free tastings, and I ask the Minister to give consideration to a proposal that wines used for free tastings be excluded from the tax. The second point is the industry's concern about the growth of imports of wines from overseas in recent years. The industry is deeply concerned at the threat of dumping, and the Government must be prepared to act before the situation gets out of hand. There is no doubt in my mind, from talking to Swan Valley wine makers, that they operate on small margins and have been further threatened by the discounting carried out by the larger operators, particularly the PLO of the wine industry-Penfolds, Lindemans and Orlando. I therefore welcome the Minister' s proposal to set up an inquiry. This inquiry will cover both the grape growing industry and the wine industry, despite comments being made in Western Australia to the contrary. The inquiry has three objectives: Firstly, to review the structure of the grape and grape product industries; secondly, to identify the major policy issues of concern to those industries; and thirdly, to make recommendations on ways in which the efficiency and competitiveness of those industries can be improved. I trust that the inquiry will take into account the problems confronted by the small grape growers and wine makers in the Swan Valley, as well as in the Margaret River area and other areas in the west. If I can turn now to my own Shire of Wanneroo, this is a significant part of the electorate of Moore. I have said on more than one occasion that this shire has the highest growth rate in Australia. It now has a population of nearly 120, 000 whereas 14 years ago it had a population of about 5,000; yet with this population it has no Department of Social Security office. The nearest office is about 14 kilometres from the town site of Wanneroo, and some pensioners living in the Yanchep area have to travel up to 50 kilometres to obtain information and benefits. Worse, there is no Commonwealth Employment Service office in the electorate, although I am assured that shortly one will be placed in the southern boundary of the shire. The effect of having no CES office has been to make it difficult for the unemployed, who may already have to travel great distances, to register for work. The Shire of Wanneroo consists in the main of young families with children attending primary or secondary schools. To illustrate the growth of school attendance in the area, in 1974 there were over 6,500 students. Now there are about 30,000 students enrolled in 38 pre-primary, pre-school and kindergartens, 38 primary schools and 10 high schools. Significantly, nearly all these schools have been built in the last 10 years. School population growth in the area is at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. I have always maintained that there is a need for a tertiary institution in the northern corridors of Perth. I am pleased to see that the Western Australian College of Advanced Education has established what I can describe only as an embryo CAE within the Shire of Wanneroo. I commend the College and the Shire of Wanneroo, which has given it premises on a temporary basis, for that initiative. This is a very much needed facility in the area. At the moment, the universities and the CAEs are situated well south of the shire. Despite the planned growth in the area, little consideration was given to higher education. Now about 8 per cent of total enrolments in tertiary institutions come from the Shire of Wanneroo alone. This means that those wishing to attend post-secondary education facilities have had to travel considerable distances. They are disadvantaged. In relation to technical education, residents in the Shire of Wanneroo comprise about 10 per cent of total enrolments in TAFE colleges in the Perth area. About 4,000 students attend the nearest technical college, but 94 per cent of people from the shire wishing to undertake courses must do so outside the shire's boundaries. There is also a real need in a growing area such as Wanneroo for child care facilities. The highest concentration of pre-school age children in Western Australia is to be found in the suburbs of Wanneroo. However, only about 3.5 per cent of these children, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates, are likely to be in government-sponsored child care. In many homes both parents are forced to work out of economic necessity. Perth's northern suburbs, including those of Wanneroo, also have one of the highest rates of married women in the work force, thus increasing the demand for child care. The needs of single parent families are also of particular concern to me, with the concentration of State housing in the Wanneroo area as well as in other parts of the electorate of Moore. There is as a result a disproportionate number of single parent families in the area too. Apart from the few expensive private day care centres in the area and those run by welfare agencies, parents are forced to rely on informal and, I regret to say, inadequate child care services. The need for more and better quality child care in the Wanneroo area is important, and it is a need that must be rectified as soon as possible. I call upon the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) to give the area the highest priority in the future allocation of child care funding. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(1.14) —I wish to draw to the attention of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and seek his intervention in a serious matter which has developed within the Special Broadcasting Service and which is causing an uproar among the ethnic communities of Australia. At the present time, a comprehensive inquiry is being undertaken into the Special Broadcasting Service. I am told that it will cost about $1m and that the inquiry will be completed and a report presented to the Government by the end of November. I understand that there is a formal written agreement between the chairman of the committee of inquiry and the Minister that the Special Broadcasting Service Board will not make any changes to policy, with one exception, without the approval of the Minister. I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the Board is about to implement a radical departure in policy by calling public meetings in Sydney for the Greek community and in Melbourne for the Italian community later this month to elect community consultative committees for the Special Broadcasting Service ethnic radio broadcasts in those languages in Melbourne and Sydney. If the Minister is aware of this, has he given his approval? I strongly urge the Minister not to approve and to intervene to stop these meetings being held. As I have said, the meetings are to take place later this month. If the Minister has approved, I very strongly recommend and request and urge that he withdraw his approval for reasons which I will outline. If the meetings go ahead and these committees are elected, it will make a mockery of the whole Special Broadcasting Service inquiry, costing about $1m, and of the time and effort of the members of the inquiry and of all those other people who have treated the inquiry as a very serious one, considering the future direction of the Special Broadcasting Service. It is absurd for a new and dangerous policy development to be allowed at a time when the report will be with the Government in about two months. It trivialises the whole tenor of this inquiry. It trivialises the work of the members of the Board and their recommendations, whatever they might be. The proposal is dangerous because it implies a radical departure from the accepted bipartisan policy for the SBS ethnic radio stations 2EA and 3EA, that is, that they will be professional ethnic radio stations and not community ethnic radio stations. I am not opposing community ethnic segments and participation in community stations, but that is in community radio, not in 2EA and 3EA. The policy of professional ethnic radio has so far been clearly a professional one, and it costs the taxpayer about $5m per year, so it is at some expense. It has the strong support of the ethnic organisations in Australia, and these ethnic organisations are horrified and revolted by this proposal. They claim that the inevitable result will be the politicisation of 2EA and 3EA and that the disrepute this will create for ethnic radio will result in a fate similar to that of the discredited and closed down 3ZZZ. They blame Mr Zangalis, a recent appointee to the SBS Board and an avowed communist, for creating this problem, in the same way that he created a similar problem for 3ZZZ, with the fate I have already indicated. I urge the Minister to hold everything-hold everything in regard to ethnic radio, ethnic television, the SBS-until that report is received. Both sides of Parliament, the ethnic organisations in Australia and all those who presented evidence to the SBS Board will then have time to consider logically and calmly the future of the SBS and the future direction of its policy, and to oppose strongly this unwarranted move by the SBS Board to bring in a new and radical change to policy. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(1.19) —In the short time I have available I should like to draw the attention of the House to some anomalies that have been created by the changes to the first home owners scheme, and I am pleased to see that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) is in the chamber today. At the outset I should say that he is to be congratulated for this most successful scheme, which has helped many people gain their own home. However, in my view, the changes that occurred recently have hurt some people on the margin. There have been two recent changes to the scheme. The income limits have been reviewed for those whose contracts to buy or build a house were signed after 21 August. Following the review, the upper income limit of $27,900 will remain unchanged for families, joint applicants and sole applicants with dependent children. For those home buyers the maximum grant of $7,000 will still be payable. However, the people whose assistance has been changed to their detriment are those who are sole applicants. There will be no changes for families or for joint applicants, but for sole applicants there will be a considerable change. Their income limit will be half that of other applicants. The upper income limit will be $13,950 a year, with the full grant of $5,000 payable to applicants with incomes up to $10,000 a year. I might add that these limits are before tax is deducted. A person on $13,950 is not earning what one might call a substantial income. I believe that the reasons for these changes are valid, and the Minister was quite right to review the scheme and change the income limits to ensure that assistance is targeted towards those most in need. I also recognise that the scheme is still the best first home owners scheme any government in Australia has ever put together. Indeed, the scheme might be said to have been too successful, and that has necessitated some of the changes that have occurred. While the Minister was right to change aspects related to those in need, he should consider those people who had already entered into arrangements to purchase a house prior to the date of announcement of the changes. Many people have come to see me in my electorate office and have written to me about problems they have encountered. They have paid a holding deposit on a house and have accrued legal fees because of the process of financial approval and conveyancing-a process, I might add, that can take up to six or eight weeks in New South Wales-and in some cases these people have lost their deposits. I feel sorry for such people and I think the Government should have a look at whether any assistance can be given to them. In theory, they could have gained financial approval on the Monday or Tuesday of Budget week, rung their solicitors to go ahead with the transactions, and on the Wednesday the solicitors could have proceeded and committed the clients due to ignorance of the changes. The clients could have lost not only their legal fees but also the 10 per cent deposit because they were not able to go ahead with the purchase. They would already have lost the expensive legal costs involved in arranging finance and conveyancing and legal searches by their solicitors. These people have quite obviously proceeded through the legal steps of acquiring finance and, in my view, the Government should consider them as special cases and see whether some assistance can be given to them. They can document their cases and show that they had made applications to lending institutions. They can show that they had paid holding deposits and that they had approached their legal advisers to begin the legal process. Their real problem is that they had not signed a contract by 21 August. I think that people who can show that they had genuinely begun the transaction should be given some assistance by the Government. In many instances they had been given approval for finance and they now find that with the loss of the grant to which they would previously have been entitled, they are not able to proceed. They lose the prospect of a house as well as the deposit they had paid and the legal fees they had accrued. I have received a number of letters from constituents about this matter, and all of them fit into the category of applicants with no dependants. They are honest people who have been caught in the change. Other people less honest than they would have used the expediency of having their lawyers backdate the contract, thus ensuring that they could get the finance. The people who are honest and honourable have not done that and find themselves caught. They are the people I am hearing from and they are the people I would like to see get a fair deal. One of my constituents from the suburb of Ashbury complained that it was almost impossible either to save a deposit for a home or to be recognised as a genuine borrower by any lending institution. She had mostly good things to say about the scheme, as I do. With 55,000 first home buyers last year being assisted under the scheme it is commendable and successful. It has been successful in encouraging low to moderate income earners to buy their first home and it gave many people who would never have had the chance or opportunity to get into the great Australian dream. It has stimulated construction and created more jobs in the industry. However, the changes that were made occurred overnight, as is normal with budgetary arrangements, with the new limits becoming effective immediately. Governments say that that is necessary to ensure that people do not take advantage of changes in arrangements, and I think that too is right. However, the Government should look at people who are caught in this shoulder effect. They have made a genuine attempt to raise finance and can document that attempt and have done everything except sign the contract prior to the date. I ask the Minister whether these people, who in some cases have lost their deposit and in others have incurred significant financial costs, could be given a chance. Will the Minister consider the situation in which these people find themselves and reconsider the case of those who were in the final stages of exchanging contracts prior to the changes being made. I do not think that a great many people are involved but they are genuine and honest, and we should be attempting to give them a fair go. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(1.26) —The number of Commonwealth public servants retiring because of physical or psychological disabilities exceeds norms in the private sector to an extent which gives rise to serious concern. There seems to be no doubt at all that a Commonwealth public servant is much more likely to retire disabled in mid-career than is his or her equivalent in the private sector. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard two tables giving figures germane to the points I wish to make. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Table 1: Comparison of Public Service and Private Sector disability rates disability retirement per 100,000 employees per year ACTUAL EXPECTED Private Sector Experience1 applied Permanent Public to age structure of Service Board Staff permanent staff Age group (average 1970-822) in 1977 under 50 180 24 50-54 1,750 270 55-59 4,200 580 60 and over 10,600 1,200 All ages 820 110 1. Disablement rate from ''a large life office'' cited in PTOW/TPF&C: ''Report to the Economic and budget Review Committee on Disability Experience in the Victorian State Superannuation Fund'', Melbourne, Government Printer, 1984 p13. Rates for ages not specifically cited between 21 and 60 determined by interpolation. Rate for age 20 applied to all staff aged under 21. Rates for ages over 60 estimated. 2. Data from ''Public Service Board Statistical Yearbook 1980-81'' and Public Service Board Annual Reports. Age distribution in 1981 and 1982 projected from trends in preceding years. Table II: Variation in Public Service disability rates disability retirement per 100,000 employees per year age groups Year under 50 50-54 55-59 60 & over All 1970 140 1,100 2,800 5,100 500 1971 160 1,100 2,700 5,400 530 1972 120 830 1,800 4,900 390 1973 140 1,200 2,600 8,300 580 1974 140 1,200 2,300 8,000 570 1975 160 1,300 2,600 7,700 620 1976 220 2,000 3,700 12,800 970 1977 260 3,100 7,000 21,200 1,500 1978 260 4,300 7,800 21,300 1,500 1979 260 2,600 6,400 16,100 1,200 1980 150 1,900 5,200 11,200 880 1981 150 1,200 2,700 6,700 540 1982 160 1,100 3,500 6,600 580 Whole period 180 1,750 4,200 10,650 820 Source: See note 2 to Table 1. Mr ROCHER —I thank the House. The incidence of disability retirement for permanent Public Service staff who come under the ambit of the Australian Public Service Board is averaged over the years 1970 to 1982 inclusive. From the tables it can be seen that there has been an average of one disability retirement each year for every 120 public servants. The incidence has varied over the years, as will be noted later. Combining all age groups, it was one in 200 in 1970, rising to one in 67 in 1977 and 1978, declining to one in 83 in 1979, and declining again to one in 170 in 1982. Whilst it is difficult to get reasonably comparable figures from the private sector, some are available and they appear in the tables. Comparisons reveal that the numbers of retirements occasioned by some disability were one in 4,000 in the private sector for people aged under 50, whereas the figure was one in 560 in the Commonwealth Public Service. There were one in 350 such retirements for people aged 50 to 54 in the private sector as against one in 57 amongst public servants; one in 470 for those aged 50 to 59 in the private sector compared with one in 24 in the public sector; and one in 80 for people 60 years of age and over in the private sector as against one in 10 in the public sector. For all age groups combined, the figure for the private sector is one in 900, as opposed to one in 120 in the Commonwealth Public Service. In every case but one, the actual Commonwealth Public Service disability experience is about seven times the rate in the private sector. The one exception in the age group 60 years and over, where the figure is even greater at a factor of nine. It is necessary to note here that early retirement and disability retirement in the private sector tend to have the same result in terms of income from superannuation benefits. From that, there is a very important and expensive lesson to be learned. That is, it is impossible to escape the conclusion that the incidence of disability is dependent on the generosity of disability benefits. The better disability benefits are compared with benefits on resignation or retirement on reaching a specified age, the higher will be the rate of disability. There are two criteria which led to this inescapable conclusion. First, disability retirement in the Public Service confers on the beneficiary an entitlement to 70 per cent of his or her final salary, fully indexed for life. By comparison, private sector schemes generally offer a lump sum entitlement on the establishment of a bona fide disability, which typically would be equivalent to somewhere between two and five times the final salary of the beneficiary. Few private sector schemes offer continuing payments, and there are none that are fully indexed as a matter of right. Benefits in the public sector are much more generous. The second criterion is the influence of disability benefits on the incidence of disability retirement and how they correlate to changes in disability rates for Public Service Board permanent staff during the 1970s. In 1976 the Commonwealth superannuation scheme was redesigned. One of the changes was that disability benefits were much improved. In 1975 the rate of disability retirement for people aged 50 to 54 was one in 75; in 1977 it was one in 32, and in 1978 it was one in 39. Similar, though not identical, movements in the incidence of disability retirements may be seen for other age groups in the years 1977 and 1978. Altogether, the disability retirement figure for the Public Service was one in 160 in 1975 and blew out to one in 67 in 1977 and 1978. It should be stressed that these figures do not indicate the proportion of disability to all retirements, they indicate the proportion of disability retirements to all permanent public servants. If we ignore comparisons between disability retirements and age retirements, the figures are even more stark. In 1978 almost 1,600 permanent public servants retired on grounds of disability, whereas only 682 retired because of age-that is, a ratio of 70:30. Furthermore, another 270 public servants aged under 50 were retired on grounds of disability, making 1,862 in all-almost three-quarters of all retirements. It is interesting to note that in 1940, 16 per cent of all disability retirements were due to nervous and mental conditions; and by the year 1974-75, 50 per cent of all disability retirements in people under 50 were attributed to neuroses, psychoses symptoms and ill-defined conditions. For the age group 50 to 54 the figure was 41 percent; for 54- to 59-year olds it was 36 per cent; and for all age groups 37 per cent. On the other hand, although the percentage of mental disorders and dubious complaints decreased slightly, the actual numbers involved increased threefold to almost 1,400 public servants, in line with the vast increase in disability retirements, for all reasons after the changes made in 1976. The dramatic increase in the mid-1970s can be rationally explained only by relating it to changes in the superannuation scheme, which encouraged people to try for disability retirement and its financial advantages instead of simply resigning or hanging on until retiring age was reached. A study should be undertaken to determine how many of those who have retired on disability pensions over the last 14 years have since taken up full time or part time employment, which has no effect on their entitlement to receive their generous indexed pension for life. If the figures do not call into question the quality of medical assessments, it is possible that the subsequent acts and behaviour of disability retirees may. There is absolutely no sign that the role the Department of Health plays in determining the bona fides of those claiming retirement benefits by reason of disability has improved over recent years. On the contrary, the Department's recent decision on the pay of part time relieving Commonwealth medical officers suggests that it does not consider the medical assessment of candidates for disability retirement to be a very responsible job. There are other fundamental problems arising out of regulations covering public sector superannuation. In particular, the divorcement of each of employment, assessment and Public Service superannuation is illogical. In the private sector , where disability benefits from a superannuation fund have to be financed from company profits or, more often, by premiums paid to a life office, there is an incentive to ensure that people are not taken on unless they are likely to stand up to the stress of the job. Where there is a medical examination, the doctor is conscious of the interests of the employer or the insurer who is paying the fee. In the public sector, it is no skin off the Public Service Board's nose if the superannuation fund has to pay out a few hundred or even a few thousand extra disability pensions. Consequently, there is no incentive for Commonwealth medical officer to go out of his way to identify malingerers or those who would seek to abuse the system. Furthermore, pension payments do not come out of any one department's budget allocation and therefore there is little, if any, concern within the departmental structure if the superannuation fund has to shell out a few tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money. What we have recently learnt about the inadequate administration and funding of public sector superannuation schemes in the Commonwealth and the two most populous States lends a good deal of weight to the theory that the trouble is due to the separation of the functions of employment assessment an actual superannuation schemes. These circumstances demand a thorough examination and they demand remedial action. Ms FATIN(Canning)(1.36) —I am grateful for the opportunity today to raise in the House the problems being faced by residents in two areas in my electorate. A reliable telephone system is for most of us an essential part of our business and social lives, so much so that it is usually taken for granted. For the people in Byford making phone calls can be an expensive, frustrating and time- consuming procedure. While the system is more reliable in the Rockingham area, there are still enormous problems presented by the fact that Rockingham is excluded from the Perth telephone district. Rockingham is about 43 kilometres south of Perth by road. It has a residential population of over 26,000 people, which rises to more than 35,000 in the summer. It is a designated growth area which was hit extremely hard during the economic recession. It is part of the Perth metropolitan area and includes the HMAS Stirling naval base within its boundaries. The Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale consists of the towns of Byford, Mundijong, Serpentine and Jarrahdale. The whole shire down to Keysbrook is part of the Perth metropolitan area and Mundijong, where the shire headquarters are based, is 48 kilometres from the centre of Perth. However, except for a small part in the north of the shire which is connected to the Forrestdale exchange, the whole area comes under the STD system for calls to the metropolitan area. It became very clear to me over recent years that the telephone service provided in the areas I have just mentioned was presenting major problems to the local communities. Earlier this year I invited the Standing Committee on Expenditure Sub-Committee on Telecom Zonal Charging Policies to come to Western Australia so that the various interest groups from Byford, Serpentine, Jarrahdale and Rockingham could present their case on a formal basis. The fundamental problem, at least as far as Western Australia is concerned, is that the boundaries of the zones covering the capital cities have remained substantially unchanged since the 1960s. Telecom, not surprisingly, has received a large number of requests for changes over the years and has responded so far with two new schemes-Community Access 80 and Countrywide Calling. While these significantly improve the situation, there has been concern expressed for some time that a more adequate response is needed. The Committee's report, which is due to be released very shortly, will address itself to the question of how Telecom's charging policies can be made more equitable and responsive to the needs of the community. The Sub-Committee held a hearing in Perth on 12 June 1984. A considerable amount of time was spent discussing the situation in Byford and Serpentine-Jarrahdale and Rockingham, and tribute must be paid to the men and women who proposed and presented the submissions. One of the main anomalies which emerged from the hearing was that, while Telecom's charging policies are based on radial distances, the development of Perth has taken place in corridors. Mr Bill Mann, the Serpentine-Jarrahdale Shire Clerk, made the point that Perth developed in fingers rather than rings, making the problems in Western Australia quite unique. Councillor Ray Baker, who is the Chairman of the Serpentine-Jarrahdale Committee of the Armadale and Districts Chamber of Commerce, spoke of the inadequacy of the Access 80 scheme and described the quite serious technical problems associated with the local exchanges. Mr David Gorham, the General Manager of the Rockingham Chamber of Commerce, told the inquiry that the Chamber had been discussing zonal policy charges since 1952. Both Mr Gorham and the Rockingham Shire Clerk, Mr Gary Holland, pointed out that Rockingham is joined socially, economically and in terms of unbroken development to Fremantle and Perth. Mr Alec Wood, Director of the Armadale and Districts Chamber of Commerce, must be congratulated for his efforts to co-ordinate submissions from the Byford area , and Mrs Orlando, from Orlando Realty and Travel Service in Byford, in her submission mentioned the cost of the STD phone calls and the problem of not being able to check on the costings, even though people often felt they were overcharged. Mr Ross Smith and Mr Robert Maxwell, both members of the Executive Committee of the Rockingham Chamber of Commerce, spoke to the inquiry about the grave difficulties of running a business with the STD system. Mr Des Mays, the Rockingham Shire President, gave details of a recent study which showed that more than 80 per cent of the business contacts made from Rockingham go outside the local call area. He said that the STD charging system was a significant factor in keeping new developments and business enterprises away from Rockingham . All the witnesses spoke about the psychological barrier attached to giving an STD number to anybody when people either make a call or speak to people outside that area. This is particularly important when we think of the effect on potential employees. This was a point that came up repeatedly during the inquiry . The unemployment rates are very high in the areas I have mentioned, particularly amongst young people. Many employees hesitate to ring someone who is automatically assumed to be in the country, even though they might in fact be only a few miles down the road. The same situation applies to businesses. Mr Phillip Davies, from the Small Business Development Corporation in Western Australia, spoke of Rockingham being a glaring example of an anomaly and described some of the significant benefits that would be associated with Rockingham's inclusion in the untimed call zone. Apart from the restriction on STD calls which many businesses place on employees , there is the added difficulty of Rockingham not being included in the Perth telephone book. The same problems apply, of course, to the Byford area. Telecom is, as I understand it, the only authority to treat Rockingham as being outside the metropolitan area, and it has been a constant frustration to the people there that all other authorities-local, State Government and Federal Government- include Rockingham in the metropolitan area. It is when people pick up their telephones that they know that as far as Telecom is concerned they are considered to be living in the country. Yet, as I have already stated, 80 per cent or more of these people ring into the city or go to the city or surrounding areas for employment. As far as everybody who does that is concerned, they are in the metropolitan area and, I believe, have had justified complaints to make for many, many years now about this problem. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you will have gathered, the Sub-Committee's visit to Perth was extremely productive, and I pay tribute to my colleagues on both sides of this House, as well as to the witnesses concerned, for their contributions to the hearing. The release of the Sub-Committee's report is being eagerly awaited by many people in Western Australia. I know that this Government and Telecom will be strenuous in the search for ways to implement new arrangements to bring our telephone service into line with the requirements and priorities of the community. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(1.45) —The Hawke Government has now been in office for some 18 months and already we are heading towards an election. Over that period it has had no fewer than two Budgets, as well as a minor mini-Budget in May last year. During that period quite clearly it has been unable to develop and apply at least the most significant elements of its grandiose policy package, particularly in the area of the environment. The paucity of the Government's record stands as a constant reminder that this Government was elected on a dream and remains in so many areas of policy far short of its own expectations. Having failed to reach at least the minimum standards of its own Labor policy, with some regret yesterday and again today I had to call on the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) to resign from his portfolio. Not only has he failed to live up to the expectations of the Labor Party's environment policy, he has also lost credibility amongst those hundreds of thousands of Australians who were foolish enough to believe in him and in the Party he represents. The only honourable thing for him to do is to go back to other areas of his policy and admit that he has been less than satisfactory in his handling of the environment. This morning the Minister gave a speech in Sydney where he again gave an account 'of my stewardship in the 18 months since I became the Federal Minister responsible for environmental matters'. It is quite clear that the Minister knows he is under threat. He realises that his record has been less than satisfactory. I ask one simple question: Has he no shame? At what stage is the Government prepared to face the realities that not only do we see the crisis of the Daintree as a demonstration of its failures of policy, but in so many other areas of the environment, in particular the interface between the Department of Home Affairs and Environment and other departments of state, do we see a total breakdown in the Government's capacity to appreciate that the environment is not isolated. It is not something that can be locked up within one area of a portfolio responsibility; it cuts across the complete ambit of all areas of government activity. I have on previous occasions emphasised some of the shortcomings of specific policy, but I would like today to make certain comments on two areas in particular. We have seen in the last Budget serious cutbacks in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation funds. On the one hand, we see reductions of funding for forestry research, which means effectively that there is less, if any, money for rainforest research through its centres in north and central Queensland. How does this lie beside a Minister responsible for the environment who stated a few months ago, when he opened the rainforest conference at Cairns, that the preservation of rainforest areas is of major concern to the Government. Apart from talk-talk, the Hawke Government is not prepared to make funds available so that the basic research can be carried out. We have the promise of an environmental contaminants authority, which again was a commitment made in the last policy that has not been met. In terms of national parks and wildlife, we have the classic example there of a total breach of policy. In addition, the national kangaroo monitoring study group was established to plan commercial exploitation and to ensure the conservation of kangaroos on both a national and regional basis. Yet there are no funds in the Budget for that group, while at the same time the Minister has permitted the export of kangaroos, and a number of varieties of euros in particular, for which there are no estimates of population in existence. These are all examples of where the Government has failed to take the minimum requirements to protect the Australian environment. In a wider area of policy such as soil and water conservation, which is currently the responsibility of the Department of Primary Industry, again in the first Budget it allocated about $1m. In this Budget it has allocated another $3m . How does that lie beside a policy which stated so clearly that the Government was going to establish a national soil and water conservation program and to turn back the problems of the Murray Valley? Where are the promised new powers to be given to the Murray River Commission? So little has taken place and no new legislation has yet appeared in this Parliament in these key areas. In terms of the national conservation strategy the Government was very slow to get off the ground, although the principles had been well laid down by the previous Administration. Labor claims to believe in working with the States, but look at the record in that area. In this last Budget only $120,000-an average of $6,000 per year-has been provided by this Government in two Budgets, compared with an average of $370,000 per year under the Fraser Administration. How can States go out and buy unique areas of the Australian environment to protect them for future generations unless funds are going to be provided from their own sources and in particular from Federal sources as well. The fact of the matter is that this Government is not serious about preserving the environment. It has broken more promises in this area than possibly in any other area of policy, and that is saying a lot because this Government has broken more promises than possibly any other government in Australia's Federal history. On questions such as the Great Barrier Reef the Minister tells us that he has made a considerable extension in the areas covered. That is true as a basic fact; but in his policy he talked about the need to declare the reef to the low water mark. This did not take place. We have for some time been saying that the high water mark was satisfactory, and again he had to admit that the coalition policy was correct. In all these areas we see backtracking and filling and obfuscation wherever possible. I would like to explain a subject I brought up publicly only two weeks ago. I said in an address in Melbourne that governments would never have sufficient resources, either financial or in terms of personnel, adequately to protect all areas of the Australian environment under threat, especially areas on the east coast of Australia where population densities are rising all the time and where the area of land is obviously a finite resource. I put forward the proposition that the private sector should be encouraged to establish environmental companies controlled by the environment movement, to buy and manage areas of conservation significance. Investments should receive Federal support in the form of a taxation deduction. This objective was met with derision. A member of this House, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) , a well known member of the extreme socialist Left, considered I was propounding a heretical concept of some nature. Apparently it is an appalling suggestion that individual Australians should be given the opportunity to put their money where their concerns are and be prepared to make a financial contribution to the protection of the heritage of their country if they so wish. So what happened? The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment came in here at the behest of the honourable member for La Trobe and did his best to huff and to puff, like a self-inflating balloon and to pour scorn on the proposal that individual Australians should have the opportunity to assist financially the protection of Australia's national heritage. What is so extraordinary about such a proposition? Are we to be the only country in the Western world which has to depend on government for everything? Are we to be the only country in the Western world which does not see it as the responsibility of every citizen to take a role in defending the heritage and the environment of our society? It is worth noting that in both the United States and the United Kingdom this proposition has been in place for many years. For example, in the United States the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club control over a quarter of a million acres. They own or lease sanctuaries right across America, mainly for wildlife, especially bird life. Because of that they have been able to protect various species which previously were under threat. They control this area. Whether it is owned by the Government under lease to the societies or the societies purchase the land or receive it as a gift, they are acting as a major supplementary resource to governments and are able to protect so much more. We find the same situation in the United Kingdom, where the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds owns or leases, again mainly from the state or individuals, and manages a series of reserves ranging from one acre to more than 1,000 acres right across the country. There are 32 of them in England, three in Wales, 14 in Scotland, and four in Northern Ireland. They employ full time wardens and part time wardens. The land is acquired by a private company with funds provided by its members and also from commercial sources. The important thing is that the National Trust in the United Kingdom, as well as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, owns or leases land as a supplement to what governments can do to protect the environment. When I supported this proposition in this place and in this country, I was met with derision by a Minister for the environment! How awful that any person should suggest that individual Australians should be prepared to be involved or that the environmental movement , which has a view of what standards of management be in place, should be prepared to establish a private company, and say to individual Australians: 'We ask you to buy shares in this organisation so that we can buy areas which are currently under threat'. In that context I suggest that parts of southern Daintree, which are currently for sale, may well be an area which should be looked upon as a first test to demonstrate that the average Australian is concerned with protecting the Australian environment and that we are able and willing as a people to look after our heritage for future generations of our citizens, even when Labor governments are unwilling to do so. Mr BEDDALL(Fadden)(1.55) —My grievance today is the lack of concern shown to the primary industry sector in the National Party rural policy. In my own electorate of Fadden genuine primary producers, particularly dairy farmers, have been disadvantaged by sweetheart deals between the National Party and the huge conglomerates around the Brisbane area. Prior to last year's State election there were allegations that milk quotas were being flogged off to the highest bidders. Those bidders were leading members of the National Party. The result was an outrageous disadvantage suffered by dairy farmers around Beaudesert. The benefactors were the National Party interests who control the Gold Coast area. Queensland consumers also suffered badly under this agreement. They pay 12c a litre more for milk than consumers in any other State in Australia. There is no doubt that when the National Party gets its hands on something it rigs it to suit its big and powerful friends. If we look at the situation of the Babinda sugar mill from 1974 to 1983, the mill was run in that time by a National Party member of Parliament. Today the mill is in serious financial difficulties. The sugar industry in Queensland is in a state of total collapse, due solely to National Party inaction. The National Party can claim $50m for racing in Queensland but cannot assist the sugar industry. The National Party in Queensland is a national disgrace. It is obsessed with real estate developments and little else. The Queensland economy is in a state of contraction and confusion. The industrial base in Queensland is so narrow that the only hope for jobs and employment is through tourism. Tourism has been promoted very well by this Government, particularly by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). It is no wonder the Queensland Premier wishes to control Question Time in such a way that members cannot ask probing questions of the National Party. The Nationals can get away with this only because of two former Liberals who deserted the Liberal Party. The Queensland coalition crisis has now come to a Federal level. They are standing candidates against one another in the next election and the Premier has said he will not campaign on behalf of the coalition because it will not face up to its responsibilities in addressing problems with the Government. The National Party now says the Liberals are a trendy group and even the so-called candidate for the Northern Territory has little to say on behalf of the coalition. It is an absolute disgrace that this situation can exist. The people who are missing out are rural Queenslanders. The National Party professes to champion these people, but in its rush to protect powerful interests it has deserted them people. Last Friday I asked a question in this Parliament concerning the Egg Board and all the National Party members could do was sit and make inane farmyard noises. That is their response to the egg producers in my electorate. The National Party certainly has nothing to crow about in this regard. We hear day after day in this House how the deficit is too large and our taxes are too high. Yet the National Party rural policy will cost $312m on top of the $316m that will be spent this financial year. I ask: Where will the extra money come from? What primary industry measures will be cut back to pay for the big tax cuts? What primary industry measures will be cut back to lower the deficit? Let the National Party do something it has never been able to do before. Let it be honest enough to say what it would cut back. Perhaps the best way is to look at what it did in government. In the wool industry it slashed wool promotion funds and sold off the Australian Wool Testing Authority. It halved the interest rate subsidies for the wheat industry, and I will be reminding growers of that in the Darling Downs in the forthcoming election. It did nothing about restructuring the meat and livestock industry organisations. It presided over a meat substitution scandal which has permanently damaged the meat export industry. It presided over the Asia Dairy Industries scandal, and the former National Party member for Gippsland was found out. It panicked on the drought, it ran down funding for the rural adjustment scheme, and it wiped out the national soil conservation program. The National Party has the hide to come to this House and complain about the amount given to research. A total of $27m has been allocated to the Rural Industry Research Fund . This is an increase of $5m over last year's expenditure. With a National Party Minister, a mere $279,000 was given to this important part of research-a very shameful record indeed. They do not care about the rural producer. The National Party rural policy is a return to the day of the handout mentality of the past. It is a policy that has sent the New Zealand economy into a decline, and the National Party wishes to emulate that in Australia. National Party policy will not keep up our export industries and will not have them on a competitive level internationally. It fails to realise that we are exporting in world trading conditions and that it is far better to ensure that our primary industries are viable and profitable on a world market. I have a number of small crop farmers in my electorate who live in the suburb of Rochedale. They are small crop farmers and are used to market conditions. They compete on the Brisbane market in open and fair competition. They seek no handouts from the Government. All they ask is to trade on fair and honest marketing arrangement. The National Party handout philosophy does not do this. Our rural industries need investment, not handouts. Money spent on soil, land, water and forestry is money well spent. Funds spent on research extensions and promotions makes far more sense than money spent to meet the short term needs for political purposes. In Queensland we have seen what happens when the National Party interferes with statutory authorities. The rorts going on in the Peanut Marketing Board in the Premier's own electorate show this. These authorities need to function better in order effectively to service primary producers. Funds to help those authorities become effective exporters are worthwhile investments. It is clear that, with the coalition leaderless and in disarray, it offers nothing for primary producers. I believe that farmers and those dependent on the rural industry should be well rewarded for the-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106 as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(2.00) —Mr Speaker, I wish to raise with you a matter of parliamentary privilege. What is the status of the flag being flown parallel with the Australian national flag in the precincts of Parliament House, which is under the control of you and the President of the Senate? Secondly, what criteria are used by you for the flying of flags under your control other than the Australian national flag? Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member has raised a matter that should be put in the form of a question to the Speaker rather than as a matter of privilege. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Trade and Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Lionel Bowen) left Australia today to attend a special ministerial meeting convened in Rio de Janeiro by the Brazilian Minister for Finance to discuss the current international trade situation and to visit Italy, Romania, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is Acting Minister for Trade, the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) is Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is representing the Attorney-General in this chamber. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Science and Technology, continues our public debate held earlier on the front lawn. Mr Peacock —You did very well, too. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I thank the honourable gentleman very much. I refer the Minister to his statement last evening at page 1155 of Hansard where he said: . . . the consequence of modest Budget support would be a backlash from those who supported our- the Australian Labor Party's- strategies and whose business is science and technology. He also said: . . . as a nation we have to face up to the implications of this, and they are very serious. Will the Minister tell the House, first, the strength of the backlash and, secondly, the implications of the Budget cutbacks for future jobs and sustained economic recovery? Mr BARRY JONES —There is undoubtedly a backlash in the scientific community but it is not aimed specifically at this Government. This is a recognition that, over seven lean years under the Fraser Government-honourable members opposite all went along with it-- Mr Peacock —An unprecedented demonstration outside the Parliament; never happened before. Mr BARRY JONES —That is the nature of the unprecedented. There is a backlash within the scientific community. There is no doubt that scientists are not exactly pelting us with rose petals-- Mr Cadman —You promised the world. Mr BARRY JONES —No, I did not promise the world. I made a prediction, which I quoted last night, in May 1982 that I thought five things would happen: First, we would win the next Federal election; secondly, we would inherit an economic shambles; thirdly, we would bring out a science and technology policy which was generally regarded as the best the nation had ever seen; fourthly, that priority in the Budget would be given to economic and social reform, and, fifthly, there would be a backlash in the scientific community. I recognise that and I am concerned about it. Nevertheless, I went along with the overall Budget strategy because I am conscious that there is a different climate for science and technology from that of two years ago. The States are in the act now when they never were before. The banking system is taking an active role when it never did before. There are significant elements of the private sector that were never in it before. Mr Peacock —Are you working yourself out of a job? Mr BARRY JONES —My future in the job is in the hands of the Prime Minister. Mr Hawke —You are very secure. Mr BARRY JONES —He tells me that I am very secure. We have had to bring about a fundamental change in thinking. I said in the election policy in March 1983 that we would encourage a doubling of expenditure in research and development over the next five years on the basis that virtually the entire increase came from the private sector. That was what we promised in the election. We did not say that there would be vast increases in the amount of government funding. There needs to be that recognition by the private sector. The situation is very serious in some areas. That has to be looked at, but as part of a long term strategy, to encourage overall economic growth. It is the overall strategy that is essential. Mr WELLS —Is the Treasurer aware of claims by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the Government's legislation to recoup tax lost through bottom of the harbour schemes is immoral? Does the report of the Special Prosecutor, Mr Gyles, QC, indicate that hundreds of millions of dollars of tax revenue will be lost because the former Government's legislation collects only tax evaded in respect of company profits and not the tax in respect of retained earnings distributed to former shareholders? Does this demonstrate that the Government's legislation would collect tax properly payable to the Commonwealth and that the rejection of this legislation by the Opposition means that the beneficiaries of bottom of the harbour schemes will retain the benefit of those blatant abuses of the tax system? Mr KEATING —The Gyles report, tabled in the Senate today, is a damning indictment of the policies of the former Government and of the continuing approach to tax avoidance taken by the Opposition, in particular by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Gyles report not only reveals the magnitude of these taxation losses but also the Opposition's continued protection of the tax avoidance industry in this Parliament. On four occasions now the Government's legislation has been defeated. Despite that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition gets up in this House moralising about the policy which the Opposition now pursues in opposing this matter. Let me quote Mr Gyles on the former Government's record. All honourable members should listen to this intently. He says: Tax avoidance and evasion of this kind in such volume is extraordinary in absolute terms but almost incredible in relative terms having regard to the small Australian economy. It has recently been reported that the largest United States revenue fraud case ever brought is being heard-it involved $US48 million. The two committals currently being heard involve revenue loss- in this country- of well over $200 million. He goes on to say: If there had been an adequate administrative, judicial, and political response in the first place the situation would never have arisen. That is the report of a special prosecutor appointed by the former Government; not appointed by us. Mr Gyles was appointed by the former Government. That is his damning indictment of the tax avoidance which went on in this country. He sees that as a political responsibility. He says: If there had been an adequate . . . political response in the first place the situation would never have arisen. There cannot be anything more pointed than that. Where does the political response fall? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may not be interested in the answer because he is totally embarrassed by it because he was the Treasurer when these shocking frauds on the revenue occurred and he is now damned by a prosecutor appointed by his own Government. What Mr Gyles says about this loss is this: I am pleased to note that it has been agreed that assessments will be raised in a series of cases in order to test the application of S.260 in the company stripping field, both as to current year profits and- wait for it- undistributed profits. This statement is of profound significance because this Government is seeking to get the Senate to agree to raise the taxes on those undistributed profits which Mr Gyles now says we must chase with section 260 because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong, and the Leader of the Opposition opposed the passage of the Government's bottom of the harbour legislation. Yesterday in this Parliament we had the Deputy Leader up on a matter of tax avoidance lecturing and moralising about why members of the Opposition disgracefully-- Mr Howard —And we had the Minister for Finance up. Mr KEATING —You just listen. You were up here moralising yesterday about the morality of the Opposition in the Senate. The Deputy Leader on a matter of public importance was moralising about why members of the Opposition are opposing the collection of tax on undistributed profits. And yet here is a report of a prosecutor, appointed by his Government, saying that because we cannot get legislation in the Senate for undistributed profits taxes we now have to go to the root of section 260. That makes a total mockery of the opposition to the Government's legislation in respect of bottom of the harbour schemes. In other words, the Opposition has no moral position; it has been blown away by Mr Gyles, the prosecutor appointed by the previous Government. That is the fact of the matter. His report shows that bottom of the harbour legislation introduced by the former Government will not recoup much of the avoided tax from bottom of the harbour schemes. Yet yesterday the Deputy Leader stated: Our legislation-the Fraser Government's legislation-recoups all of the illegally evaded tax under bottom of the harbour tax arrangements That is a lie which Mr Gyles nails. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer knows he should withdraw that term. Mr KEATING —I withdraw the word 'lie', Mr Speaker. That is an untruth which Mr Gyles nails as an untruth because he understands-- Mr Howard —Will you be here for the personal explanation? I feel one coming on. Mr KEATING —I understand the honourable member. He is embarrassed by his predicament. He proposed himself as a leader. When this other gigolo falls over he will propose himself as the leader of a major party in this Parliament. Yet the honourable member stands here protecting the tax avoidance industry. He is damned by his own prosecutor. Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order. The Treasurer is talking about standing next to tax evaders. He is sitting next to one. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Once again I remind the House that the Treasurer has the call and should be allowed to be heard. Mr KEATING —The honourable member for Bennelong will propose himself as the leader of his Party in the not too distant future. There is a view that because he fell into every microphone put under his nose, because he agreed to every interview that was ever asked of him, he is not a bad fellow. The fact is that he supported tax avoidance in this country. He stands here with the most damning record of any Treasurer in the history of this Commonwealth. Here is Mr Gyles saying that bearing in mind the size of the Australian economy which is one- tenth of the size of the economy of the United States of America, the magnitude of the fraud is $200m apiece against $48m for the largest fraud ever committed in the United States. That is the degree of avoidance that went on under the former Treasurer's administration. One would not mind if indeed Opposition members passed the Government's legislation on undistributed profits tax, as Mr Gyles suggests they should. We get the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition up moralising and in fact protecting the rip-off merchants that are part of the Liberal Party of Australia. They have always protected the rip-off merchants, frauds and crooks both in government and now in opposition. I wind up on this point: The Gyles report is the most damning report of the former Treasurer. Mr Gyles is a prosecutor appointed by the former Government and it makes a mockery of the opposition in the Senate to the Government's bottom of the harbour legislation. Mr SPEAKER —I direct the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of Minister Tizard from New Zealand who is not an infrequent visitor to Australia and of Mr Ila, a member from the Parliament of Papua New Guinea. Although we usually restrict our mention of visitors in the gallery, we do have in the gallery members of the newly appointed Sports Commission. They include Olympians Betty Cuthbert, Glynis Nunn and Grant Kenny. I felt it appropriate that I direct the attention of the House to that fact and offer them a warm welcome. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer in his capacity as Minister responsible for the taxation law. I refer the honourable gentleman to his refusal yesterday to refer to the Commissioner of Taxation the new material I raised regarding the tax avoidance activities of the Minister for Finance. In view of that refusal, will the Treasurer now ask the Minister for Finance to give his assurance, first, that the sale of the shares in the Minister's company actually took place on New Year's Day, outlining who was present at the sale; secondly, that the opportunity to backdate the sale by some months that was provided by the registration of the transfer not taking place until April was not taken; finally, that Coomel Pty Ltd and the Minister for Finance did not avoid the consequences of the bottom of the harbour legislation by misleading the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation by incorrectly claiming that a transaction took place at a time that was backdated and at a price that was below the price ruling at the time the transaction was actually decided on? Mr KEATING —I do not find anything exceptional about the fact that shares are registered after a sale; most shares are registered after a sale. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition-he stumbled in his indecent haste yesterday-sent a letter to the Taxation Commissioner. The administration of the tax Act is, by statue, the responsibility of the Taxation Commissioner, not of me. The former Treasurer knows that. He has answered similar questions on half a dozen occasions. The honourable member should not get up here moralising about tax avoidance. We do not want to hear any moralising from him. The honourable member for Bennelong, as the former Treasurer, was in absolutely anything in the tax avoidance game. For five years little Johnny Howard was up to his proverbial-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is imputing an improper motive there. Mr KEATING —Mr Speaker, it is not an improper motive. He was the Minister in charge of the tax Act and for five years he was lectured by the Commissioner of Taxation about massive tax avoidance. Mr SPEAKER —I point out to the Treasurer that it sounded like a personal imputation rather than a reference to his speech. Mr KEATING —I make only this point: For five years the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong, was written to repeatedly by the Commissioner of Taxation, in what is now the famous telephone book of letters, looking for the political will to which Mr Gyles refers to tackle tax avoidance in this country. He is still running around saying that tax avoidance is dead and all the rest. There was a very interesting statement by his colleague in the Senate today-- Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order-- Mr KEATING —It is getting too hot for you, John. You can never cop a bagging. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition wishes to raise a point of order. Mr Howard —I take the point of order that I asked a question about the tax avoidance activities of the Minister for Finance and, thus far, the Treasurer has totally avoided and evaded any reference to the tax avoidance practices of the Minister for Finance. Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr KEATING —It pays to cock an ear to the Senate. This morning I was listening to Senator Durack speaking on the tabling of the Gyles report. He had this to say: The statistics that are revealed here show, if anything, how much greater the task was, how much greater the problem was, how much greater the threat to the revenue of this country was, than was believed two years ago, even in the wake of the McCabe-Lafranchi report which, of course, led in the first place to action being taken by the Fraser Government. Subsequently there was the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, immediately in the wake of which the Special Prosecutors Act was passed and Mr Gyles appointed. So today Senator Durack said that the problem was much bigger. Yet he was the Attorney-General and the honourable member for Bennelong was the Treasurer. They sat on their hands for five years while the Commissioner of Taxation implored them to do something about the hundreds of millions of dollars ripped off by the shonks in the bottom of the harbour business and the other paper schemes. So we will not have any lecturing in this Parliament from the honourable member for Bennelong about tax avoidance or have him asking about anything. There is a statutory responsibility in the hands of the Commissioner of Taxation. He has already cleared the Minister for Finance. I believe that no information provided by the honourable member yesterday was any different from what the Commissioner had previously. If, indeed, it is different, it is for the Commissioner to make a judgment about it. Mr LINDSAY —Will the Minister for Finance give details of trends in funding in the Commonwealth Budget for capital purposes over the past nine years and, in particular, of how the past two years compare with the previous seven years? Mr DAWKINS —I address an issue which is of great interest to the entire country, as distinct from those issues which occupy the small minds of those opposite. The honourable member for Herbert raised a very interesting question about the composition of the Budget, particularly in relation to its capital and recurrent components. He drew attention to the fact that the Government has made a particular commitment to increasing capital expenditure, notwithstanding the difficult financial situation which we inherited and over which we still preside . In relation to north Queensland, of course, there have been some spectacular new investments and important infrastructure. I refer first to Bob Hawke's Burdekin dam-- Mr Peter Morris —The Lindsay Burdekin dam. Mr DAWKINS —I refer, then, to the Lindsay-Hawke Burdekin dam on which expenditure this year will be $19m. Expenditure on Commonwealth accommodation for 1984-85 is $7.4m in Townsville; $300,000 on Thursday Island and a commitment of over $6m in Mackay. The airport at Townsville is a matter that will soon be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. This goes to a more important question about the total irresponsibility of our predecessors, particularly the poor and shocking financial mismanagement of the failed former Treasurer. If one looks at the criticism which has been made of this Budget by the failed and discredited former Treasurer, one finds that he has completely ignored the fact that he presided over a total disintegration, a total neglect of the important Commonwealth assets around this country. The former Government inherited a situation in which capital expenditure in the Budget was about 20 per cent of outlays. It declined by more than half to 9 per cent of outlays during that Government's period in office. The Opposition often talks, of course, about the level of expenditure in this year's Budget compared with that during its period in office. What we find, of course, if we look at the non-capital expenditure during the former Government's period in office, is that it increased by 31 per cent in real terms. We have had to start to redress the dreadful neglect which occurred as the former Government took the easy way out. It took the soft cop in trying to contain government expenditure by simply postponing or abandoning important capital works on behalf of the Commonwealth. Where were these cuts and this neglect most dramatically visited? In the first instance there was a dramatic decline in Commonwealth support for expenditure on public housing. There was also a dramatic decline in support for the accommodation of the Commonwealth, whether in relation to its own offices or for its own employees, particularly in the defence services. We now find that we have a $1 billion headache in trying to redress the neglect of accommodation for Commonwealth employees. Mr Sinclair —So have some taxpayers, thanks to your administration. Mr DAWKINS —The right honourable member is supposed to have an interest in defence. What has happened? What happened under his brief and hardly startling administration was that the accommodation of defence personnel was reduced to an appalling situation. We now have to redress that problem. If one looks at the record of the former Government's seven Budgets one finds that there were dramatic real declines in capital expenditure which managed during one famous year to decline in real terms by 22 per cent. In five of its seven Budgets there was a dramatic real decline of capital expenditure. This Government has been the first to recognise that there are important differences between capital and recurrent expenditure in our Budget. For the first time we have identified not only the scale of the disaster which we inherited in this area but also the way in which we will redress the problem in this Budget and in future Budgets. Mr STEELE HALL —I address my question to the Prime Minister. It concerns the subject of the suppression of the Press. In view of the fact that the Attorney- General, in the Senate today, twice confessed to having attempted to suppress a story that was to be published in the Age, I ask: Why did a senior adviser to the Prime Minister, Mr Peter Barron, visit the Age last Thursday to have discussions with the Age? During those discussions, did he seek to suppress publication by the Age of material relating to the possession of a safe deposit box in the Union Bank of Switzerland held jointly by a judge of the High Court of Australia and Miss Junie Morosi? Mr HAWKE —Before I give the unequivocal negative to that, may I say that the Opposition, in its desperation-week after week it refuses to address any question to the Government and its Ministers about the Budget and the economy-is sinking further and further into the mire of the gutter. Here we have another example. The answer to the honourable member's question is yes, there were discussions between Mr Peter Barron-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —'Woof, woof'-we have a pack of baying woof-woofers. Yes, Mr Barron had discussions with the Editor of the Age and no-unequivocally no-there was no such request as alluded to by this desperate and fast-disappearing member. Mr JACOBI —I address my question to the Prime Minister; and this matter ought to occupy the Fourth Estate for some time to come. In the light of recent media speculation, can the Prime Minister advise when the Petrov records will be released? Mr HAWKE —Not only will the Fourth Estate be interested; will those opposite, who have this desperate desire for early and immediate release, be interested. Under normal circumstances, the records of the Royal Commission on Espionage-which is colloquially referred to as the Petrov Royal Commission-would be progressively released over the next three years. However, I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that I have approved arrangements allowing for the accelerated release as a single package of the records of the royal commission, related Cabinet material and contemporaneous Prime Minister's departmental files. That will be done on Monday, 24 September 1984. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —I am glad to see the approbation with which that announcement is greeted by honourable members opposite. Of course extensive consideration has been given to whether any material should be exempted under the provisions of section 33 of the Archives Act. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Curtin and the honourable member for O'Connor shall cease their conversation. Mr HAWKE —They cannot hide their glee and anticipation. After that extensive consideration about the provisions of section 33 of the Archives Act, I am very pleased to say that, in the end, nothing that affects the meaning or the historical substance of the records has been withheld. Obviously, there will be a great deal of interest in these records. Therefore, in anticipation of this interest, the Australian Archives is preparing multiple copies of the key documents and these will be available on 24 September at the Mitchell, Australian Capital Territory, office of the Archives. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Is it a fact that Mr Costigan has referred 42 separate lines of investigation, not termed reference under the National Crime Authority Act yet, to the National Crime Authority and to its transition team for the drafting of references to the intergovernmental committee? Is it a fact that the 42 separate lines of investigation have been set out in the form of references and each reference has been given a code word? Is it a fact that within the National Crime Authority the 42 separate lines of investigation have now been downgraded to the status of 'material' only? Is it the case that some of the more controversial areas will now never see the light of day as formal references and that the intergovernmental committee will not be shown all 42 separate lines of investigation? Mr YOUNG —Firstly, let me repeat what I said yesterday. It cannot be said that the 42 matters-40 in the first instance and the two that have come subsequently- could have all reached the position of being draft references at any given time. Certainly some references that should be granted will be recommended by the National Crime Authority to the intergovernmental committee. If one looks at the functions of the Authority under the Act, one will see that they are quite complex; they are not just references from the intergovernmental committee. There is the question of other law enforcement agencies that could be involved and State jurisdictions that may be involved in some of these investigations. These matters have not all reached the same level of investigation so far as the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union is concerned. Obviously, the National Crime Authority will deal with them in the manner and at the speed which it thinks it is competent to do so. It is not upon my shoulders to upgrade or downgrade material which has been handed to the National Crime Authority. Obviously the Authority will come before the intergovernmental committee saying that it has reached the conclusion that certain matters have now reached the stage where it seeks a reference from the intergovernmental committee. I repeat: It will not just be the material that may be handed over by the Costigan Commission. Mr Peacock —There could be additions. Mr YOUNG —There could be additions. For instance, the Australian Federal Police as well as State governments may have matters on which they are seeking a reference to the National Crime Authority from the intergovernmental committee. I do not believe that it was ever intended by the Costigan Commission, from the material which it handed over and the manner in which it was handed over, that it expected the 42 matters would go to the National Crime Authority and there would be an automatic request to the IGC for 42 references at the one time. I think a great deal more investigation is required for some of these matters. Again that is a judgment which will have to be made by the National Crime Authority. Let me reiterate what I said yesterday. I think to some extent we will have to await the final report of the Costigan Commission because a lot of that material will probably add to the 42 matters that have been handed over. The amount of material that has been handed over will now be backed up by a rather lengthy report-the final report-of the Costigan Commission. I would think that the National Crime Authority, quite sensibly, will say: 'We will wait and have a look at this to see its relationship with the material that has been handed over before we go to the IGC'. As I said yesterday, in my discussions with the National Crime Authority I have been of the view that perhaps we could call the IGC together for informal discussions with the National Crime Authority prior to the seeking of any references if it thought that appropriate. Those matters are still being discussed between my Department and Mr Justice Stewart. If he thinks that is an appropriate step that is the step that will be taken. Certainly, the matter of when the National Crime Authority is to come before the IGC is the Authority's decision. I have not been given any notice that the Authority wants the IGC called on any date nor have I received any reaction from the National Crime Authority as to its attitude to the material that has been handed over by the Costigan Commission. Mr O'NEIL —I ask the Minister for Communications to confirm that an Australian Broadcasting Corporation television service is currently planned for 1985-86 to serve the Le Hunte district of the Eyre Peninsula of South Australia? Is it a fact that townships in South Australia such as Moonta, which already receive a television service, will receive an upgraded service under the remote and underserved communities scheme prior to the Le Hunte district receiving the service? Can the Minister explain the thinking behind such a policy? Mr DUFFY —Planning has been completed for the establishment of a national television translator on the Eyre Peninsula which will include the Le Hunte district. The new services are currently being scheduled for construction in 1985-86 and their completion is expected in 1986-87. In relation to the second part of the question from the honourable member for Grey, to say that some projects under the remote and underserved communities scheme, such as improving the national television service to the township of Moonta which he mentioned, have already been approved is not correct. I have recently approved criteria for the selection of communities under RUCS to ensure that emphasis is given to the extension of services to areas without any existing service rather than to those which have some sort of service at this stage. I have asked the National Broadcasting Service Planning Committee to report to me before the end of the year on the selection of the first 22 communities. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer the Minister to the article published on the front page of the Age today, relating to one Stuart John Perry. Despite the enthusiasm of the Attorney-General and the ardour of his staff in promoting the cause of Mr Perry and his re-entry visa, does the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs intend to deport Mr Perry? Mr WEST —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. This morning I conferred with my departmental officials on that matter. I am informed that for some time the Department has been considering the immigration status of Stuart John Perry and whether he should get permanent residence on the grounds of his marriage to an Australian citizen and adoption of Australian children. The Department has been considering, on the other hand, the fact that he has an extensive criminal record and could be liable to deportation. This matter has been around from 1979 to 1983. I shall explain further. A decision by the Department on his status was imminent in August and September 1983, but was postponed because, on 27 September 1983, Commissioner Costigan indicated an interest in questioning Stuart John Perry, and he subpoenaed the Department's files. In retrospect, I believe that in the circumstances it is very fortunate that no decision was taken by the Department or me either to grant permanent residence or to deport him. I am quite pleased about that aspect . In June this year, the matter was drawn to my attention. I decided to write to Commissioner Costigan saying that I wished to regularise Perry's status one way or the other and asking whether he had any information arising from his investigations that might influence my decision. Commissioner Costigan replied to me giving me a certain amount of material at which we are currently looking. I believe that I should not at this stage make a decision either to deport or to regularise Mr Perry's status. Until we ascertain-- Mr Peacock —Has the Storemen and Packers Union been in touch with you on this matter too? Mr WEST —Listen; this issue has been around since 1979. Mr Peacock —And no Attorney-General has weighed in on his behalf before. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr Young —Your fellows had a call girl racket going on in Western Australia. Mr Peacock —All the mates again. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister should resume his seat. While such exchanges are occurring across the chamber, it is useless for the Minister to try to complete his answer. I call the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Mr WEST —I want honourable members opposite to understand that before I decide whether to deport Perry I am determined to make certain that the Australian Federal Police, State police authorities or the National Crime Authority have no further interest in this man. I am sure that honourable members opposite would agree with that. Honourable members interjecting-- Mr WEST —Mr Speaker, honourable members opposite seem to find some amusement in this matter; I do not. I am determined that this matter will be, as it always has been, handled by this portfolio with absolute probity and with great assiduousness, in the interests of Australia at heart. Senator Evans, through his staff, simply made a normal representation to me on behalf of a constituent, and that is all there was to that. I ask honourable members opposite to consider the occasions on which they have made representations on immigration matters to past Ministers and to me. I ask whether they checked the past records of each and every individual involved in the multiplicity of representations that honourable members opposite, as individuals, have made to me over the past year. Mr STAPLES —I assume that the Prime Minister is aware that Mr Xavier Connor who has been appointed counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge is also chairman of an inquiry into the Special Broadcasting Service. Will his appointment cause delays in the conduct of the Special Broadcasting Service inquiry? Mr SPEAKER —I take it that the question was to the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —I have assumed that, Mr Speaker. The honourable member for Diamond Valley asked a very important question. I assure him, and all members of the community who have a particular interest in the affairs of the SBS, that there is no expectation that the dual appointments will cause delays. I remind the honourable member that, in fact, it is not expected that Mr Xavier Connor will be required by the Senate Committee for, I understand, about another five weeks. It is a matter of pride for us all that it was unanimously agreed that Mr Connor was the person to appoint to this recent exercise. We in the Government look forward to the earliest possible completion of the inquiry into the Special Broadcasting Service so that we as a government can ensure that the interests of all involved are properly catered for. Mr FISHER —Does the Minister for Primary Industry agree that the crisis in the grape industry will be further aggravated by the sales tax on wine? Does the Minister agree that a drop in a horticulturalist's income from $290 a week to $ 153 a week in a two-year period is satisfactory? Why did not the Minister instigate an inquiry into the grape industry before imposing a further impost on it? Why has the Minister reduced funds for rural adjustment when the dried fruit , sugar and dairying industries are in need of increased assistance? Mr KERIN —Questions about the wine tax come, of course, within the Treasurer's administration. Nevertheless, I shall make some comments on this question because I stand fully behind the Government's decision in this matter-not that there has been much controversy about this, since the Deputy Leader of the Opposition agreed with what the Government is doing. He stated at the National Press Club that he would have to agree that there should be equal tax treatment for all alcoholic beverages. With or without the tax, this industry was in a great mess. The inquiry has come about not as a consequence of the wine tax but because of the problems from which the industry is suffering. There is not much sense in referring the industry to the Industries Assistance Commission as a whole. This inquiry will focus on the grape industry and the structure of the grape industry at the wine making and grape growing level. It will focus on such questions as the quality of wine. Instead of every industry immediately going for the reactionary position, it would be a good idea if, once and for all, we started looking outwards a little and worked out ways and means of achieving the international standard for our wine industry that we know it can achieve, going after exports and paying attention to more aspects of quality. This is a tax on the consumers, not on the grape growing industry. It is very obvious that distortions in terms of equity and tax treatment were getting too great. Consumption of other beverages was going down, whereas the consumption of wine, say, from 1976-1977 had increased by some 46 per cent. Mr Donald Cameron —What about beer? Mr KERIN —The sales tax equivalent on beer is 80 per cent in bottles or 155 per cent in bulk. If the honourable member wants to argue about tax equity he has to face that. It is simply too early to predict the overall effect on the grape growing and wine industries. The cost of casks in the discount stores and supermarkets ranges from $3.99 to about $7 or $8, and I imagine that a 10 per cent sales tax at the bottom end would put about 56c on to the price of a $3.99 cask. The Government thinks this will have no effect whatsoever on sales. As all other beverages are taxed, the sales tax on soft drinks and mineral water being 20 per cent, there are no tax equity arguments as to why there should not be a tax on wine. The honourable member referred also to the effect on grape growers' incomes. Last year an excise levy went on to grape spirit and the prediction was that 100 ,000 tonnes of grapes would be left on the vine. No grapes were left on the vine last year, and comparisons of the consumption of fortified spirits for the months for which we can get comparisons-the levy was on for only a little while- show that consumption held up. In measuring the effects of this tax we simply do not know what will happen. The effects will be masked, and we will not know for quite some time what they are. But it is my prediction and the Government's prediction that there is now such a long term change in taste in this end of the beverage industry that there will be hardly any effects. The inquiry is not about the tax; nor is it consequent upon the tax. It is a constructive and forward-looking approach by the Government. The final part of the honourable member's question was with respect to the rural adjustment scheme. Unlike the Liberal-National Party Government which took assistance under the rural adjustment scheme right down to $17m at the height of the drought, when we came to office we doubled the RAS component to $35m and spent an additional $11m with respect to the sugar industry, taking the total to some $46m. We responded to the needs of the industry. The rural adjustment scheme is very much geared and directed towards the needs of primary industry. We took assistance under parts A and C of the rural adjustment scheme down from $35m to $25m basically because the States did not spend all the money. As a matter of fact, we had to chase them to spend it, even with respect to the sugar industry. We were also able to divert some $3.1m of the $35m to Western Australia where a special need arose. If the honourable gentleman had time to read some of the reports with respect to natural disaster relief arrangements from my colleague the Minister for Finance or with respect to the rural adjustment scheme from myself, he would learn that we are moving into a rural adjustment scheme that is open-ended and that no longer will the Government in Canberra or any government be setting the level of rural adjustment assistance. We will be moving to more flexible and more open-ended arrangements from 1 July 1985 wherein the Commonwealth involvement will be in respect of interest payments. We are aware of and do react to the needs of primary industries. We are adopting a lot more flexible approach rather the political whim approach of the National Party. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to correct what may have been a misimpression gained from my last answer about Mr Xavier Connor? It has been pointed out to me that I may have left the impression in the language I used that he would not be called for five weeks. I apologise if I left that impression. I intended to convey that it is anticipated that he would not be involved for more than five weeks. I am indebted to the House. Mr HAND —Is the Prime Minister aware of reports that the South African Government has banned public meetings in black townships to avert further unrest ? Is it not a fact that the unrest arises from the perpetuation of apartheid which South Africa has tried to disguise in its new constitutional arrangements? Mr HAWKE —In answer to the very important question from the honourable member for Melbourne, I want to say-and I would think that on this I speak for the whole of the House-that we deeply regret the recent violence and tragic loss of life in South Africa's black townships. The situation arises from a combination of circumstances, but the major factor is the growing frustration and anger of the black majority in South Africa in being excluded from participation in the government of their own country. The simple fact is that the more than 20 million blacks who constitute more than 70 per cent of the population of that country are completely excluded from any participation in the election process at the national level. These much-heralded and much-vaunted new constitutional arrangements which extended the franchise to coloureds and Indians represented, as I think is now universally recognised, only a marginal increase in democracy and unfortunately further institutionalised the apartheid system in that country . I believe the Australian Parliament and the Australian people should not and will not give any credence to a so-called democracy in which the real power is still held exclusively by the white population, a 'democracy' for which the coloureds and the Indians have shown their contempt by the massive rejection of attendance at the polls and a 'democracy' which can detain non-white community leaders without trial because they oppose the new constitutional arrangements. The true nature of the South African system was unfortunately underlined by the government measures announced on the 11th of this month which, over a wide area of South Africa, banned until the end of the month all indoor gatherings critical of the Government. Symbolically, a major purpose of the ban is to prevent meetings to commemorate the seventh anniversary of the death in police custody of the black South African fighter for political rights, Steve Biko. This ban on political gatherings follows the detention of more than 40 leading African and Indian activists associated with the multiracial United Democratic Front, the body which led the very successful boycott of the elections to which I have just referred. In this context I use advisedly the words in today's Australian which said: The panoply of repressive measures taken by the Government strongly recalls the state of emergency after the 1960 Sharpeville massacre . . . In this House on 4 September, my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs urged the Opposition to reconsider policy declarations that it had made calling for a more accommodating attitude to the apartheid system in South Africa. That is the fact and it is on the record. I repeat the call of the Foreign Minister. I would simply say this: I have had occasion a number of times in the past-and I do so again-publicly to applaud without reservation the totally principled stand taken on this issue by my predecessor, the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser. He has at all times been unequivocal in his opposition to apartheid in South Africa. He has never by word or deed qualified that commitment in any way, and it is a pleasure for me in this place again to commend my predecessor for that continuing totally principled commitment. I express the hope that that position will not be qualified, as it has been, by his successors. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Maranoa raised with me a matter which he suggested was a matter of privilege and which I suggested was a question. He did not get the opportunity to raise the matter in Question Time. Therefore, out of courtesy I think I should respond. The honourable member asked me about the flying of the Aboriginal flag from a flagpole in front of Parliament House. The President of the Senate and I were advised of a recent Government decision, taken to mark National Aborigines Week, to fly the Aboriginal flag on a second flagpole next to or near the national flag on official buildings and establishments. That decision, I understand, was made with no intention that the national flag should be replaced by the Aboriginal flag where only one flagpole was available. The President of the Senate and I considered the matter and decided that the Parliament should similarly mark National Aborigines Week by utilising two poles in front of Parliament House so that the Australian flag and the Aboriginal flag could be flown side by side in front of the House during the week. A similar practice has been followed on other special occasions. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.02) —by leave-I move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith a motion of censure of the Government. Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr Sinclair —I second the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, could I ask whether the Leader of the House accepts this motion under standing order 110 relating to censure of the Government. Mr Young —No. Motion of Censure Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.03) —I move: That this House censures the Government for (1) the failure of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Attorney-General to allow effective investigation into organised crime; (2) its systematic attempts to weaken the fight against crime in Australia; (3) its refusal to grant effective powers to the National Crime Authority; (4) its indecent haste to close down the Costigan Royal Commission in the midst of major investigations; (5) its deceitfulness over the tabling of correspondence between the Government , the Costigan Royal Commission and the National Crime Authority; (6) its failure to ensure the continuation of the Costigan Commission's attack on crime by intervening in the dispute over transition arrangements between Costigan and the National Crime Authority; (7) its failure to institute an effective investigation into the substance of the Age tapes; and (8) its failure to give the Director of Public Prosecutions effective powers. For the last two weeks virtually all we have seen in this Parliament is a government twisting, turning and obstructing on the issue of confronting organised crime in this country. The Opposition has exposed the weaknesses of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and duplicity on the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, exposed the Government's irresponsibility on the handover to the National Crime Authority-- Mr Cadman —Where is the Prime Minister going? Mr PEACOCK —I see that the little crook is running, as he has been running for months as the screws were put on him to wind up Costigan. He is a crook and he knows it. He is a crook and he is running from the Parliament. He is running away from the enforcement of the law. Mr SPEAKER —Might I suggest to honourable gentlemen on my left that the Leader of the Opposition is addressing the House and that, with the noise they are making, he cannot be heard. Mr PEACOCK —This little crook is slowly being judged for what he is, a perverter of the law of this country and one who associates with criminals and takes his orders from those who direct those criminals. The Prime Minister was forced, for example, to the early tabling of the Redlich report, which shows the nonsense of the Government's claim to be serious about fighting organised crime. The point is that these events are only one chapter-- Mr Robert Brown —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: My concern is that the reference by the Leader of the Opposition may not have been heard by you. He referred to the Prime Minister as a crook. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition should be required to withdraw that statement and to behave himself. Mr SPEAKER —I point out to the House that, although this is a substantive motion , such a motion does not allow the use of unparliamentary language. If the Leader of the Opposition made that imputation, he should withdraw it. Mr PEACOCK —The point is that these events are just another chapter-- Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition should withdraw. Mr PEACOCK —I will withdraw the reference to the 'little crook'. Someone may think it relates to his physical-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr PEACOCK —I withdraw. The point is that these events are just another chapter in the success of a powerful group of people within the Australian Labor Party which will do everything to avoid effective crime fighting and which will do anything to avoid eroding their power base in New South Wales-the same power base of the Prime Minister and the personal fiefdom of the Treasurer (Mr Keating ). We are no longer talking about just a continuation of the historical links between criminals and the New South Wales Labor Party. We now have a systematic attack by the New South Wales right wing to stifle crime fighting and the active complicity of the Prime Minister in this cover-up. When one adds up the events of the last 18 months, one does not have a set of isolated incidents; one has a systematic attempt to weaken crime fighting in Australia and a systematic attempt to obstruct effective investigation by this Prime Minister and his Government. Why is this Prime Minister racing to an early election? A salient factor is that he has learned from Mr Wran to get in first before it all comes out. This is the very same Prime Minister who set the standard when he said in September 1982: But my point is quite explicit in this regard. I say let it all hang out from these inquiries of the Royal Commission and let it fall where it will. They were the words I used in the Parliament and I adhere to that. The difference between September 1982 and September 1984 is that the Prime Minister's future is now firmly in the hands of a power base which is corrupt, and when the Prime Minister is too tainted the New South Wales Right will spit him out. Let me briefly detail the events of the last 18 months to show clearly how systematic this attack on crime fighting has been. Firstly, the Jackson affair. It started with Mr Farquhar and Mr Jackson-relative sideshows on the way to the big events-but still it is indicative of the refusal of the Prime Minister and his National President to confront crime. When I first raised in this Parliament the Jackson issue all we got was ridicule and blocking instead of rigorous examination. It is only now that Mr Jackson is being tried. Then one moves to the Age tapes because, if Farquhar, Jackson, Wood and Allen were all about protecting the Prime Minister's mates and power base, the so-called Age tapes provided the first direct test of the Hawke Government's commitment to fight organised crime. If ever there was a near consensus on crime in Australia, the Age tapes provided it. But what a failure on the part of the Government. Almost a year after the Government became aware of the Age tapes, we are advanced no further towards a full and proper investigation of the Age tapes, tapes which reveal a vast network of crime in Australia. With the exception of Mr Justice Stewart, who is examining the authenticity of the tapes, every other aspect of the investigation into the Age tapes has ceased after a stream of powerless prosecutors. State Attorneys-General have come home saying: 'We lack the power to get to the bottom of the tapes'. We want a royal commission into the Age tapes, with full powers to investigate not only the authenticity but also the substance of the tapes. But of course the Prime Minister will never agree to do this, because he knows that a full investigation would destroy Mr Wran and it would destroy the right wing of the New South Wales Labor Party. Mr Redlich in his 1983-84 annual report has highlighted the total failure of the Government to confront the information on the tapes. In early 1984 Mr Redlich asked the Attorney-General how the Special Prosecutor might pass to the Victorian gaming squad some information from the Age tapes on race fixing. The Attorney-General did not. When the Opposition raised this issue with the Attorney, he said that there needed to be special legislation to pass the material on. He also said that, because of a mistake in his office, Redlich had not received a reply to his advice. It seems, considering the history of the Attorney-General's relationship with, for example, Stuart John Perry, that the Attorney makes a lot of mistakes. The key point is this: Why was no legislation passed for some months while this vital information on race fixing, drugs and other aspects of organised crime sat in a file in Canberra? The Attorney-General is quick enough to issue statements attacking people who have information about organised crime but he is a tortoise when it comes to supplying information which is of use to the police. Are these the actions of a government dedicated to fighting crime? Of course they are not. The Government's record on the National Crime Authority is further proof of a systematic weakening of the fight against crime. It is now a matter of history that, after much vacillation, the Government tried to introduce a crime authority which would have been totally ineffective and that the Opposition had to toughen it up in the Senate. Let me dwell briefly on the transition from the Costigan Commission to the National Crime Authority. Since 30 June the Costigan Commission has had to use all its resources to write the final report. The National Crime Authority is highly unlikely to become operational until December at the earliest. This means that for almost half a year Australia has had no national authority investigating crime. This Government has ensured that major criminals are given a reprieve. Let us go over the history of Costigan's relations with the Government. Costigan did not want to go on forever. He made that plain in his letters of 1983. He wanted a national crime authority with a power to continue the work that he was doing. I refer to his letter of 10 August. He would then have finished up gladly. The second thing that he wanted was to be able to continue his investigations into financing the big money men on the drug trail. He told the Prime Minister on 2 November that he would like to quit but his investigations were 'at a critical point and it would be contrary to the public interest to stop'. On 24 November he wrote to the Prime Minister and said that he wanted an extension to the end of 1984. His main reasons were 'because it was in the public interest' and that if he were closed down 'it will not be possible to maintain the thrust of my investigations'. He was talking about making sure that his investigations continued unabated in getting to the heart of organised crime in this country. Did the Prime Minister say: 'Costigan is on the hunt; we will have a crime authority but we will make sure that Costigan nails the big boys'? No. After the December Cabinet meeting in which Keating stuck the knife in and Senator Richardson called the shots from the sidelines, the Prime Minister wrote back: ' You must finish everything, including the transition from your commission to the NCA, by 30 April'. This is a measure of the Prime Minister. This was his acid test. Costigan said 'I can crack these people' and Hawke said 'Finish up'. From there on the correspondence continued, each time with the Government putting pressure on Costigan to finish up and then Costigan asking for a little more warning, a little more time. He warned, for example, on 3 February that if he were forced to finish up his investigations would be destroyed. Let us remember that, as the screws were tightened on Costigan, from Easter to June he was sick. In that period he was able to sit for only two weeks. The Government would give him a month here and a month there, but never did it relent its pressure. I think the House can imagine just how destabilising that pressure was on the operations of the Costigan Commission. The Prime Minister never said 'You have been sick; have some extra time'-not once. Finally the Government forced Costigan to finish investigations on 30 June, at the end of a period in which he had been able to sit for only a few weeks in the continuation of his investigations. Now, of course, the Government has given him an extra month-and why not? The Prime Minister has done his job. The investigation finished on 30 June, Costigan is not sitting and his Commission is not investigating. The people he wanted to get back into the witness box cannot be recalled by him. The Prime Minister has done his job. Costigan has been finished. The Treasurer has done his job. Costigan has been finished. Neville Wran, hearing the distant thunder from Costigan, has had his election. All the facts about the transition have had to be squeezed day by day out of this Government. It was only after persistent questioning that the Prime Minister agreed to table the correspondence on the transition. What did the Prime Minister do after he had been found out in the tabling of that correspondence, and the lack of some of it? Did he apologise? No. Did he say that it was an error that he did not table all the correspondence? No. Instead, he tried to argue his way out of it, claiming that the correspondence did not relate to the transition and to Commissioner Costigan's concerns, when it is so very clear that it did. At every turn this Prime Minister has tried to twist and turn and to obstruct. But this is not the end of the Government's record of deceit and cover-up. Let us refer to the Redlich report. The Redlich report is a massive condemnation of the worsening situation of the Australian Federal Police. It is also a massive vindication of Mr Costigan. Mr Redlich states that as a consequence of Mr Costigan's work over 600 charges have been laid and there are more to come. This puts the lie to the Attorney-General who criticised Costigan for having a gung- ho approach and who has for the last two weeks been going around Parliament saying that the final Costigan report will be 26 volumes of fiction and one volume of fact. So much for the words of the Attorney-General. Twenty-four hours before the Redlich report was publicised by the Opposition in this Parliament, the Attorney -General was trying to induce the Government to tip a bucket on Costigan by saying that Redlich's report would show that no charges could be laid on the basis of Costigan's findings. Well, on the basis of how many prosecutions Redlich has already laid, it looks as though the Attorney-General will be wrong again. Mr Redlich has laid 600 charges and there are more to come. Redlich has also pointed to an inadequacy in the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions. He says that only 30 per cent of the civil remedies that could have been taken against organised crime can at present be taken. This is the legislation of a Prime Minister who so confidently said in 1982: Any other Royal Commission or any avenue or inquiry which is available to investigate the tax evasion industry and any associated criminal activities should be given those powers so that this industry and any associated criminal activity can be pursued. Let these investigations go where they may and let the results be what they will. What happened to change the Prime Minister's mind? Who persuaded him to look at the matter differently? We have subsequently had some intimations from Senator Evans that he will seek to remedy the situation. I only hope that he acts with expedition. When we look at the case of Stuart John Perry, we wonder. I come to that matter which my colleagues will dwell on in some detail later in this debate. The essence of the Perry matter is this: Perry went to Attorney-General Evans in 1983 seeking support for his application for a visa. He told the Attorney- General and his staff that he had a long criminal record. One would think that the Attorney-General might have been somewhat reluctant to support this application. If he had done any investigation of Perry he would have found that Perry had misrepresented to him the number of charges he had had since 1979. If he had probed he would have found that the Costigan Commission was extremely interested in Perry, as we discovered here today. Indeed, shortly after the Attorney-General's support for Perry, Perry spent a couple of interesting days being cross-examined by Costigan. I refer the House to the publicly available transcripts of evidence of the Costigan Commission of 30 September and 11 October. It demonstrates the immense stupidity of the Attorney-General that it does not seem to have occurred to him that if a man comes before him seeking the Attorney's support over his immigration status, he ought to consider whether or not he might be in the situation eventually of prosecuting or deporting the same man. I can only add to this farce a very serious note. Senator Evans has confessed that, like the Prime Minister, he twice approached the Editor of the Age, seeking to suppress this story. Did he speak to Chadwick or to Perry? He did. Is that why Perry went to the Age and menaced reporters, threatening them, the day after Senator Evans spoke to editor Burns? This is negligence by a Minister which is inexcusable, inexplicable and dangerous. But the other significant element in this story is the presence of Mr Chadwick of the Storemen and Packers Union. Mr Chadwick is the Storemen and Packers Union standover man. He is the one who puts the heavy on when the Prime Minister's mates in the Storemen and Packers Union-Crean, Landeryou and the like-want to keep any protest in their ranks quiet. The Storemen and Packers Union is one of the Prime Minister's key power bases in the union movement, and Chadwick is one of its key men. He keeps company with this Mr Stuart John Perry-let us put it bluntly; a noted hit man-and the poor fool of an Attorney-General snaps into line when a heavy from the Storemen and Packers Union calls the tune. What is going on? Where do all the links lead to? Keating, Chadwick, Evans-they all have one thing in common: They are all the Prime Minister's men. All these links will continue to weave a web around this Prime Minister as he struggles to obstruct inquiries into the Age tapes, as he seeks to make sure that never again is there a body so fierce and determined as Costigan, as the Treasurer protects the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) for fiddling his bottom of the harbour schemes, as the Attorney-General seeks to delay action on the Redlich and Gyles reports, as the Attorney-General runs away from his foolish and dangerous behaviour in regard to Perry, as Keating, Richardson and Wran-the corrupt princes of the New South Wales Labor Party-seek to worm out of the revelation of the truths about themselves, and as the Treasurer seeks to cover up the truth about his interference over the Gyles reports. In weeks to come we shall be hearing a lot more about this Government's moral corruption, and about the role that this Treasurer has played as well as the role of the Prime Minister. This Government is deserving of censure today. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr PEACOCK —I say unashamedly that there is more to come, and come it will. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. Is the motion seconded? Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(3.22) —Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I invite you to cast your eyes to the right of the Chair. You will see four members of the Government ; one extreme back bencher, one sitting in the middle and hiding behind a newspaper, and two Ministers at the table. That is the importance that the Government puts on the fight against crime. Even one of the Ministers is a part time Minister, because he is often in and out of his portfolio because of his indiscretions. The question must be asked: Are Labor Party governments organically deficient in their capacity to fight crime and overcome the criminal element in this community? Is there a structure within the Labor Party, or is it built in such a way that it is unable to resist the claims of mateship? Since Labor has come to office, the atmospherics about crime in this community are heavy with revelations of further criminal activities and the concealment of those activities. The difference of attitude between the Government and the Opposition about the matter of crime would be understandable if it were on a philosophical basis, although it would not be excusable. However, it is far less excusable and it is reprehensible when that difference is built upon mateship. Who are the mates who claim the patronage of the Federal Government? How many more people within the Labor ranks are there like the Jacksons of New South Wales? Mateship within the Labor Party reaches right into the Ministry. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) was returned to that portfolio because of his mateship within Caucus. He sits at the table today as the evident example of mateship within the Labor Party. We know of the mateship that existed among State Labor communities and that resulted in the destruction of the special files of the special branches of the police in South Australia and Victoria. It was because of the mates of Labor Party Ministers whose names appeared on those special files that those files were destroyed. As far as the States go, perhaps that is the apex of their demonstration of mateship. The false civil libertarian values of Labor Ministers are at the heart of what is happening today. They make a judgment on libertarian values. Where does their judgment come down? In almost every case it comes down on the side of the criminal element in the community; that is whose interests they have at heart when they mention civil libertarian values. In so doing, in giving the benefit of the doubt to the criminal in this community, they are reversing the onus of proof on to innocent people to protect themselves and to preserve their positions in society. My Leader referred to the question of Perry and the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in Victoria-a very strange case indeed. As an Age article said today: The case of a man with a long criminal record arrested in Australia as an illegal immigrant . . . The Federal Government has allowed the man, British born Stewart John Perry, to remain in Australia and is now considering his application to travel overseas and return. The Attorney-General, Senator Evans, as a member of parliament assisting a constituent, has twice written to the Minister for Immigration, Mr West, asking him to consider the return visa. The article goes on at some length, but the reply of the Attorney-General, upon questioning, is that he acted as a senator. At the behest of Mr Chadwick, to whom the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has already referred as a standover merchant in the Storemen and Packers Union-I am sure the Special Minister of State knows him-the Attorney-General says that he acted as a senator representing a constituent. He was not acting as a senator when he saw his colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) when he was attending a Cabinet meeting and said, 'Here is the file. I am distressed that this man has been subject to two months of examination by the Department. Do something about it quickly'. When he moved from writing letters to the Minister as a senator to the day when he handed over the file physically when he was attending a Cabinet meeting, he moved to the position of Attorney-General of this community. So, the Attorney-General of Australia, at the behest of Mr Chadwick, was making urgent representations to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on behalf of Mr Perry. One can only assume that the Attorney- General knew what he was doing and was quite content that he should pursue it in this way and should go on and represent a person who was then subject to the investigation of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. We could move further to the problem of New South Wales. I suppose that the Attorney-General's venture into the question of crime and representing criminals in Victoria at least spreads the attention paid to the ambit of crime. Nevertheless, New South Wales occupies the centrepiece in Australia if one wants to study crime. I suppose that one could say that it is the cockpit of crime in our nation. The origins of the Jackson case began there when a journalist printed an article in June 1983 referring to what he said then was the early release of prisoners for payment from the gaols of New South Wales. This matter was raised by my Leader here in October last year, and his subsequent questions and others' questions in this place got the information from the Government that it had known all about it from the middle of May. The Australian Federal Police had detected this practice and had raised the matter of a Minister in the New South Wales Government allowing prisoners out of gaol for payment. This had been known since May. The Leader of the Opposition had to ask a question here in October, months later. The Special Minister of State knew all about it because he conveyed the information to the Deputy Premier in the absence of Mr Wran in New South Wales. The Minister at the table sat there for all those months in 1983 knowing that his mate in New South Wales was a crook. He sat there with that knowledge. That is how much he cares about crime. Mr Young —I thought that he was facing a trial. Mr STEELE HALL —The Special Minister of State knows the events in New South Wales quite clearly, the strange events-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member for Boothby that if criminal charges have been laid against the Minister mentioned the matter is sub judice, so I ask him to be careful. Mr STEELE HALL —Mr Speaker, because of your concern I will not again refer to Mr Jackson by name. Mr SPEAKER —It is not a matter of concern; it is a matter of the practice of the House. Mr STEELE HALL —Mr Speaker, I will then refer to the ambit of the actions of the Special Minister of State, who is sitting at the table. On 10 or 11 May he conveyed that information to the Government of New South Wales. He conveyed it to Mr Ferguson. He did not tell his counterpart, the Minister for Police in New South Wales. Mr Young —Who did? Mr STEELE HALL —No one told the Minister of Police in New South Wales. Mr Abbott , at that time the Commissioner of Police in New South Wales, stated that in his report. Of course, it is what Mr Bob Bottom says in his well researched book, published recently in Australia. It is one of the strangest of events that the Special Minister of State conveyed that information to the Deputy Premier of New South Wales, Mr Ferguson, and that the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, Mr Grey, conveyed it to Mr Abbott but that everyone waltzed around Mr Anderson, the Minister for Police in New South Wales. I have no idea why this was so; whether they thought he could not be told because he might tell someone or whether, in fact, he could not be told because he might prosecute someone. I have no idea what view they took of Mr Anderson. One of the most intriguing things in the conveying of that information was the absence of a report to the Minister for Police in New South Wales. We know that the response of the New South Wales Government is to attack those people who come out with allegations against criminals. The setting up of a judicial commissioner's office of public complaints in New South Wales is, in fact, just such an attack on those people who want to reveal crime in the community. Even a body as august as the Australian Society of Labor Lawyers said that the establishment of this body by Mr Wran was: . . . calculated to discourage complaints of serious corruption by persecuting the people who make such complaints. When that is recognised by a body such as the Society of Labor Lawyers one can assume that that is not a body that is biased against Mr Wran or his Government in New South Wales. The evidence that comes out of a study of crime in relation to the Australian Labor Party is that it will never move against criminals unless pushed by the publicity of the media. Matters concerning people such as Mr Farquhar and, I mention in passing, Mr Jackson, and other matters in crime are never pursued by this Government until it is pushed to the nth degree by publicity. The Government will never of itself move of its own volition. Of course, my leader has mentioned, in moving this motion of censure, how the Government has tried over long months since it has been in office to slow down and make ineffective Mr Costigan's investigations. What has the Government done-it is a fair question-in relation to the request for remedial action by investigating officers? We know full well that Mr Costigan said in the seminar held in the Senate chamber last year: . . . a comparatively small group of people in this community are waging war on it in an organised fashion across a wide spectrum of criminality. He continued: If nothing is done about the current problem, within five years this country will become a jungle. With that background the report of Special Prosecutor Redlich defines the weaknesses in the Government's program in fighting crime. He specifically says: From my perspective the capacity of the Australian Federal Police to deal with Commonwealth crime has deteriorated since my last annual report. I recommend that necessary funds and human resources should be allocated to the Australian Federal Police as a matter of priority. What has been the answer in the Budget to the demands which are now made in this special form on the Australian Federal Police? The budget for the AFP this year is $127.9m. However, to be covered by that budget are special additional responsibilities-$3.5m for coastal protection and $1.2m for additional protection for the Family Court of Australia. If those figures are subtracted from the total budget for the AFP we find that effectively the figure for the continuing policing and investigative work of the Australian Federal Police is $ 123.1m. Last year the Australian Federal Police got a vote of $115.9m. If that figure is upgraded in relation to a 6.5 per cent inflation rate and compared with the figure in the inflation adjusted Budget we find that this year the Australian Federal Police is getting several hundred thousand dollars less than it got last year. This is the Government's answer and the Minister's answer to the cry for help from special investigators and royal commissioners to meet crime in this community. The Government's response has been, in effect, to reduce the resources that the police are given. I find this most disturbing. It applies also to matters of legislation, not just to money. On 25 July Mr Costigan made a plea for additional banking control. He recommended: That each person opening a bank account be required by law to provide certain written statements. These would apply especially to people moving overseas. Mr Redlich has asked for further resources for the Australian Federal Police. He has asked for information to be put in the hands of the Victorian Licensing, Gaming and Vice Squad about material from the Costigan investigation. Mr Costigan has asked for banking controls. These people want money and legislation . Not one move has been made by this Minister or by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke )-who is absent from the chamber-to answer the specialist people, with the specialist bodies at their command, to investigate crime in this community. This Minister, the Prime Minister and the Government are guilty by their cover-up of this matter, by their failure to act and by their running along with crime wherever it is in this community. In closing, if we ask the simple question 'If you were a criminal in Australia whom would you vote for?' the answer would have to be that one would vote for the Labor Party. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(3.38) —A couple of things must be said about a censure motion in this House. Firstly, it is a very serious motion; it is the most serious motion that the Opposition can move. Secondly, I refer to the tactics adopted by the Opposition today in moving the motion of censure. I think it can be said that almost without fail a censure motion on the Government is moved as soon as the Parliament meets for the day if the Opposition has matters serious enough to censure the Government. Otherwise, matters come out of Question Time which necessitate the Opposition's moving a censure motion. Nothing came out of Question Time to provoke a censure motion. The Opposition belittles and devalues the forms of the House in moving the censure motion. Mr Peacock —The Prime Minister has lied once again. The Prime Minister lied about the visit to the Age. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw that remark. Mr Peacock —It is very hard to withdraw it as I am telling the truth. Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw that remark. Mr Peacock —The Prime Minister-- Mr SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, in deference to you, I withdraw. Mr YOUNG —Mr Speaker, one can only assume that today's operation of a censure motion revolves not so much around the content of what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) have put forward but rather around the fact that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) has spoken twice this week on matters of public importance and they are trying to even up the ledger. I think this censure motion has more to do with votes in the Liberal Party party room after the election than it has to do with this Government. If members of the Opposition want to play their games about whom they are going to elect as their leader after the election, that does not really worry me. But when they bring a matter of this proportion into the Parliament, especially on an issue such as this, they should have some evidence. They should have just a skerrick of evidence that this Government is being charged with perhaps holding up the law enforcement agencies or the intelligence gathering agencies of this country. Not one shred of evidence was put forward. There were lots of guesses, lots of innuendoes and lots of allegations. The honourable member for Boothby wants to be the Special Minister of State and Minister for the police in a new Liberal Government. What a sham! I suggest to the honourable member for Boothby that, if he is so loose of tongue, he ought to go and get some briefings from the law enforcement agencies and find out what is happening in Australia; he has access to them. Why does he not go and use them? Why does he not go and talk to the Commissioner of Police? Why does he not talk to Commissioner Costigan? Why does he not talk to Mr Justice Stewart about what is going on in Australia? He does not talk to them because then he would not be able to make the speeches that he has made in the Parliament today. He would be too well informed to be able to make the sort of speech that he made today. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) talked about our holding up the tabling of the Costigan report. We have a legitimate request from Commissioner Costigan to extend the life of the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union because he cannot complete his report. But somehow we are guilty and we are helping all the criminals in Australia because we accede to his request. What sort of logic is that? What sort of logic can we draw from that? If we had said to Commissioner Costigan 'No, you can't have another month', the Leader of the Opposition would have been up in this chamber saying: 'You are trying to hide something'. When we say yes to Commissioner Costigan we are helping the criminals. What sort of logic is that from the honourable member for Boothby and the Leader of the Opposition? Then they say: 'We want the report straight away. As soon as Commissioner Costigan finishes it and hands it over to the Governor-General, bring it in here and table it'. Let us look at what the Liberal Party of Australia did when it received Commissioner Costigan's reports. It received the first report on 30 March 1981. It has never been made public. It received the second report-- Mr Hodgman —At his request. Misrepresentation, Mr Speaker. Mr YOUNG —Let me finish. Sit down, you boofhead; you have had your chance. The second report was received on 30 July 1981. It has never been made public. The third report was received on 21 December 1981 and it was tabled on 25 February 1982. The three volumes of the fourth report were received on 27 July 1982 but only volume 1 was tabled on 24 August. Volumes 2 and 3 have never been made public. The three volumes of the fifth report were received on 25 July 1983 but only volume 1 was tabled on 12 October 1983. Volumes 2 and 3 have never been made public. Five volumes of the Costigan Commission's reports have never been made public. I will tell honourable members opposite why they have never been made public. It is because in most cases Commissioner Costigan said: 'I don't want them to be made public'. But all of a sudden the people who served in the former Government and who knew the circumstances of the relationship between the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the Government and what could be made public said: 'To hell with all the investigations that might be going on in Australia. We don't care whether they are successful or not. What we really want is the report of Commissioner Costigan in case there is just a paragraph in there somewhere that might embarrass the Government'. The Opposition does not want us to review and use the same standards as it may have used. What a ludicrous stand for any political party to take on a subject as important as this. Obviously the reports of Commissioner Costigan will be looked at. Obviously the law enforcement agencies, the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority will look at the reports and recommend to the Government what should and should not be made public. Are Opposition members suggesting for one instant that we would be idiotic enough to answer their request on the material that has already been handed over by Costigan to the National Crime Authority? I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Should we be making that public when investigations are half-way through? Does he want us to throw it up in the air so that all the criminals in Australia can see what tactics and methods the police are using to chase them? Of course not! Members of the Opposition come into this House with this absolutely unreal censure of the Government. The honourable member for Boothby has said that it is all mateship in the Australian Labor Party and, because that is the way in which we operate, if a person happens to be a mate no matter what that person does the Australian Labor Party will protect him. The honourable member for Boothby, a former Premier of South Australia, has said that we have proved how we look after our mates because we destroyed the special branch files in South Australia. When the honourable member for Boothby was Premier of South Australia we did an investigation of the special branch security records under Mr Acting Justice White. Do honourable members know what he said about these files and the political consequences of them? He said: Some well-known, moderate figures, often senior Labor members of parliament, have recorded about them scandalously inaccurate opinions about their political standing. The mass of information about Labor organisations and personalities must be contrasted with the paucity of information about the Liberal and Country Parties. The latter parties warranted one card relating to the party headquarters-- this is the Liberal Party of Australia- and one card about a university Liberal club card. But there was a card and a mass of information about every Labor person in South Australia. The honourable member for Boothby was the Liberal Premier who put those files together; the most right wing reactionary person that South Australia ever saw. The Leader of the Opposition charges that, while all this has been going on in Australia since we have been elected, someone has turned the tap off on the law enforcement agencies and nothing is happening-the criminals are going wild; they can do whatever they like under this Labor Government. Does the Leader of the Opposition think everybody in Australia is a fool? There are 2,500 members of the Australian Federal Police. I ask the Leader of the Opposition or any honourable member opposite to bring in just one shred of evidence that this Government, or any member of it, has said to any member of the Australian Federal Police: 'Don't do this in terms of that investigation'. All I want is just one shred of evidence. I advise the Leader of the Opposition- - Mr Peacock —Costigan is not holding any hearings. The Crime Authority is not working. The Crime Authority is not even talking to Costigan. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has already been warned. Mr YOUNG —I will answer all the Leader of the Opposition's charges. Mr Peacock —Costigan is not even holding hearings. Mr YOUNG —I listened to the Leader of the Opposition in silence. He should sit there and listen in silence-- Mr Peacock —He was getting too close to your mates. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition. Mr YOUNG —He will learn a lesson about what is going on in Australia, which is something he does not want to know. It is a pity that the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) is not in the chamber today because he could have told the Leader of the Opposition, before he moved the censure motion, not to make a fool of himself. The Minister for police receives regular briefings from the Commissioner of Police or the Acting Commissioner about current investigations in this country; not one or two, but 60 or 80 major investigations that are being conducted at any one time. Sixty-five per cent of the police force are conducting investigations right here and now. This afternoon, as we discuss what we are supposed to be stopping, 65 per cent of the 2,500 members of the Australian Federal Police are out doing investigations on criminal activities. This is the sort of file that the Commissioner of Police brings regularly to the Minister for police about what is happening in Australia. He does not come to the Minister for police and say: 'I want your direction as to which ones we should conclude'. He comes to the Minister to say: 'That is what we are doing'. He does not seek directions because that is not the relationship between the Minister and the Commissioner of Police. The Commissioner of Police comes to tell us what is going on. We have heard a great deal about what Mr Redlich might have said about the National Crime Authority. Let us have a look at what he said. It is unknown to the Leader of the Opposition that Mr Redlich was visited by the people who did the management review of the Australian Federal Police-the report was published six months ago. He gave the views that he has put in this report about the Australian Federal Police to the management review. The management review has made 124 recommendations, 99 per cent of which will be adopted by the Australian Federal Police. So we did not have to wait for the Redlich report. Let us see what Mr Redlich said about the National Crime Authority. He said: The National Crime Authority Act 1984 gives genuine emphasis to all three considerations. The Authority has the scope to maintain the initiatives developed by the Costigan Royal Commission. There are substantial safeguards within the Act to protect the rights of witnesses and those under investigation. The States and their investigative agencies are given a voice in the operation of the Authority. The Authority must now be given an opportunity to work. That is what Mr Redlich said about the National Crime Authority. Honourable members will also see that he paid tribute to the work and the co-operation and his satisfaction with the results of the work of the Australian Federal Police. Opposition members are in cloud cuckoo land when they chase these things. Mr Peacock —And he said that there was a gross deficiency in resources and that it had got worse. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has already made his speech. Mr YOUNG —I can understand his interjections because he has made an absolute ass of himself today. Instead of picking up points on the honourable member for Bennelong, the Leader of the Opposition has given him more help. He ought to get some political advice about his tactics in the Parliament. Do not be worried about the honourable member for Bennelong; have a look at the polls because the polls still tell us. The figure might not be very high, but the Leader of the Opposition is still slightly more popular than little John, the little dog barking over there. He is up there yapping all the time, running around Australia talking about things, and no one is taking any notice of him. So do not worry about tactics in the Parliament based on his charge at the leadership. Talking about intercepting phone calls, I say to the Leader of the Opposition: ' You ought to tap the phone of the honourable member for Bennelong to see what he is saying to all your mates about the leadership'. Let me now deal with the Treasurer (Mr Keating). There is a bit of scuttlebutt around the Parliament that the Leader of the Opposition gets. He says: 'I know that at a Cabinet meeting last December Paul Keating said ''Let's get Costigan off our backs''.' That is conclusive evidence that he will bring a prosecution against the Treasurer, based on this mammoth amount of evidence he has that Paul Keating said: 'Let's stop Costigan'. Paul Keating gets up and says: 'I have never said any such thing'. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and other Ministers in Cabinet say that there has never been any such thing. But that is not sufficient for the Leader of the Opposition; he is looking for an issue. He cannot talk about employment, inflation, interest rates or any of the major issues affecting the Australian people. All he can do is to try to throw a bit of mud and hope that some of it sticks. If Opposition members are going to come into the Parliament on this issue and hope that they are going to be able to present an argument about what this Government is or is not doing in the fight against crime in Australia they are going to find that they did a lot less than we did. The reports of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and the Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking not only criticise the former Government for what was happening but also are a gross criticism of the previous Government's neglect of what was occurring in Australia during the years that the Liberal and National Parties were in government. I know that the Leader of the Opposition was not taking any notice in those days-he was highfalutin in New York, Paris, London or somewhere-but all the other members of the Opposition were there when all these things were going on. It is as if they make the charge now that crime started only on 5 March 1983. The real fight against crime in this country started on 5 March 1983. That is when the tax avoiders started to go. The honourable member for Boothby talks about people being guilty because they might associate with criminals. Let me tell the Parliament that the honourable member for Boothby was guest speaker for the representative of the Nugan Hand Bank in Adelaide-a bloke who is now overseas and is being chased because of all the money he flogged out of South Australia-but the honourable member for Boothby, when he was leading the Liberal Movement or some other political party, was guest speaker at the Hotel Australia telling South Australian people how wise they would be to invest their money with this person. Why does not the honourable member tell us where he is if he is a great mate of his? Tell us where Mr Schuller is. If Opposition members want to talk seriously about these matters and if they think that there is some evidence that this Government is not doing the right thing, let them bring the evidence forward. If they have not got it, let them shut up. I move: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Morrison, W. L.Duffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Everingham, D. N. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. 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.Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.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 (Teller) Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. O'Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele Wilson, I. B. C.Hawker, D. P. M. Charlesworth, R. I. Newman, K. E.Fry, K. L. Fife, W. C.Hayden, W. G. White, P. N. D.Bowen, Lionel Katter, R. C.Saunderson, J. Hicks, N. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion (Mr Peacock's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.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 (Teller) Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. O'Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele Wilson, I. B. C.Hawker, D. P. M. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Morrison, W. L.Duffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Everingham, D. N. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. 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.Jacobi, R. Newman, K. E. Charlesworth, R. I.Fife, W. C. Fry, K. L.White, P. N. D. Hayden, W. G.Katter, R. C. Bowen, LionelHicks, N. J. Saunderson, S. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby) —Mr Speaker, I seek permission to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented during the debate just concluded? Mr STEELE HALL —I have been scurrilously represented, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr STEELE HALL —The Special Minister of State-- Government members interjecting- Mr STEELE HALL —The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) need not interject on me, Mr Speaker. He is just Mr Fix-it. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) did not tell the truth in his reference to me in relation to the Nugan Hand Bank. I do not know whether that was deliberate or whether it was inadvertent, but at least it was untruthful. The reference that he made to my speaking at a function at the Hotel Australia in the early 1970s related to a function at which I was pressed to speak by my constituents. One of the sponsors of the function was referred to by the Minister as being connected with the Nugan Hand Bank. I refer the Minister and the House to the fact that the Nugan Hand Bank was not formed at that time. In fact it was not formed for some years after that function. It is entirely pertinent and necessary for me to inform the House that this charge was first made by Australian Labor Party members of the South Australian House of Assembly. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr STEELE HALL —It is very pertinent that I continue with this, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The Chair will judge whether it is pertinent. The honourable member has been given indulgence to correct where he has been misrepresented. I suggest that he confine himself to that and not to history. Mr STEELE HALL —With due deference, Mr Speaker, there is a very severe and important history to this. The assertions made by Labor Party members in South Australia-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Boothby claims to have been misrepresented by the Special Minister of State. It is that misrepresentation that he has been given indulgence to correct. Mr STEELE HALL —Mr Speaker, I know that you carefully weigh your response to points of order but I put it to you that my explanation is by no means finished if I am to reply to the serious charge that the Minister made. I am seeking out the facts, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Boothby misunderstands the indulgence given by the Chair. It is the practice to allow an honourable member to correct a misrepresentation. If he wishes to indulge in a debate on the matter there are other procedures which he must follow. I ask the honourable member for Boothby to complete his personal explanation. Mr STEELE HALL —Mr Speaker, I in no way wish to indulge in a debate. I put it to you, sir, that the debating aspect has come from interjections from the other side, not from me. I still claim to have been misrepresented and my explanation has not yet been fully given. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I patiently say to the honourable member for Boothby again that he has been given indulgence to correct any misrepresentation that was made during the debate. I ask him to complete his explanation. Mr STEELE HALL —I will complete it, sir, as briefly as possible. Assertions were made; they were reported widely in Australia. They defamed me and another person . The other person took legal action and received very substantial damages from those who published that untruthful statement. I know that the Minister will not repeat the statement outside the Parliament. I make no threat to him but he ought to know-if he does not know-that the matter has been fully tested in the courts and some of the most substantial defamation damages in Australia's history have been awarded against those who printed exactly what the Minister has said. I know of no better refutation than-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think the honourable member has now completed his personal explanation on the misrepresentation. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr YOUNG —I did not make any charge against the honourable member for Boothby. I said that if he was indulging in character assassination by guilt by association he could have the same things fall on his shoulders as he places on the shoulders of other people from whom he is trying to score political points. On Nugan Hand Bank letterhead of 28 August 1973 is a letter addressed to Dear Karl- Karl F. Schuller-and signed by Frank Nugan that goes back to early 1973. Mr Schuller was the person who conducted the seminar. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think the Leader of the House is starting to debate the issue. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The Prime Minister may proceed. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, it will have been obvious that I treated with the contempt that it deserved the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). I understand that during his tirade the Leader of the Opposition had some things to say about me, one of which, of course, he was forced to withdraw. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I am just trying to settle the House down. I seem to be getting advice from all quarters. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, we can understand the Opposition's desperation. I appreciate the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was forced to withdraw one of his statements. I understand that he made some other observation about association with criminals. Those statements by this increasingly desperate and repudiated Leader of the Opposition are completely baseless. Mr Peacock —Which one? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, I have referred to one of them; I have referred to the proposition-- Mr Peacock —Which one? Mr HAWKE —I am not going to repeat it; it is recorded in Hansard. Mr Speaker, those who were listening heard what was said and it is on the record. I am not going to repeat it for this rabble. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This man comes in here, claims by way of personal explanation to explain-- Mr SPEAKER —Just be quiet a moment. Mr Peacock —where he was misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —Just be quiet a moment. When the House becomes quiet I can listen to your point of order but if you go on when I am not prepared to hear you I have no idea what you are dealing with. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, it is impossible to come in here and make a personal explanation on the basis that one has been misrepresented and not indicate to the House just where one has been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I listened to the statement made by the Prime Minister. It was quite clear that he pointed out where he had been misrepresented and he denied the accusation. Mr Peacock —I am uncertain. As I was the one who uttered the remarks I would like to know-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Peacock —Is it when I-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr Peacock —asked to-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition. I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that he has the same obligation as other members of this House to listen to what is being said. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. Mr Keating —Mr Speaker, about what? Mr Howard —Hang on, it might not be about the Treasurer this time. Mr Keating —If it is not, it will be a bloody change; that is for sure. Mr Howard —It might be about the Treasurer's tax avoiding mate. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I expect senior members of the Parliament to assist the Chair in allowing matters to proceed in an orderly manner. The Prime Minister has indicated that there was another matter he wished to correct. Mr HAWKE —No, Mr Speaker. I was speaking and a point of order was taken. I had not concluded my remarks. I sat down when the point of order was taken. Mr Speaker, I will be very brief, in conclusion. Honourable members have heard what I have had to say and I have said that those accusations are baseless. I simply indicate to the House that I will take the opportunity of reading in full what the Leader of the Opposition has said. Mr Speaker, I indicate to you that if I see then that anything further needs to be said I will seek your indulgence to make a further personal explanation. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Mr Speaker, during Question Time the Treasurer (Mr Keating ) misrepresented me, quite seriously, in two important respects. Mr Keating —That is not a personal explanation; it is argument. Mr HOWARD —Do not get too excited. The Minister should just take a little calm leave of his senses. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Treasurer that the Chair will judge whether it is misrepresentation or argument. Mr HOWARD —The Treasurer should listen to this carefully because he is pretty good at misrepresentation. The first area where the Treasurer misrepresented me was to suggest that the statement I made in the House yesterday that the Fraser Government's recoupment legislation recouped all of the illegally evaded company tax was in conflict with what Mr Special Prosecutor Gyles said. There was no conflict. The Treasurer should understand the difference between illegal evasion of tax and tax avoidance. He is, after all, responsible. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr HOWARD —That is the first point. Mr SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader is entering into debate. Mr HOWARD —But the most important area of misrepresentation, Mr Speaker, was the suggestion that in not enforcing section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act whilst I was Treasurer, I had-- Mr Keating —That is not what I said. I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the Treasurer on a point of order. Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker,-- Mr Keating —You just sit down while I am taking a point of order. Mr Speaker, any member of the Parliament is, of course, entitled to say where he has been misrepresented. I did not refer to section 260; I referred to the legislation which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition opposes in the other chamber. That is argument; it is not a personal explanation. Mr HOWARD —You know I caught you. Mr Keating —No, I do not. I will squash you like a rat. Mr HOWARD —The Treasurer is very sensitive. The truth of the matter is-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition take a seat. Mr HOWARD —May I finish? Mr SPEAKER —No, I shall call you when the House comes to order. I remind the House that, despite the opinions that so many honourable members have about interpretations, the one charged with the responsibility is the one sitting in this Chair. It is very difficult when one is receiving advice, interjections and so on from all directions. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a matter of misrepresentation. Mr HOWARD —The burden of the Treasurer's answer was that in not enforcing section 260 I was not just negligent but, in fact, Special Prosecutor Gyles's comments in favour of section 260-- Mr Keating —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. That was not what I said. Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the Treasurer has been misrepresented he can correct that later. Mr HOWARD —The burden of the comments was that we did not enforce section 260, that we were negligent and that Gyles's criticism invalidated the Senate opposition. The fact is that I had been down the section 260 track very carefully. I read to the House-this goes directly to the point of misrepresentation-from a minute. Mr West —You are debating the matter. Mr HOWARD —No; it is a matter of information. I shall read from a minute delivered to me by the Commissioner of Taxation on 11 November 1982. I know that the Treasurer does not want to hear it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition come shortly and briefly to the point. Permission to make a personal explanation is an indulgence granted by the Chair. In recent times it has become so abused that the Chair will have to give consideration to the withdrawal of that indulgence. Mr HOWARD —I shall simply read a letter of 11 November 1982 from the Taxation Commissioner, Mr O'Reilly, who is quoted on this matter with such approval by the Treasurer. The Treasurer should listen to this very carefully because it blows his argument out of the water. Under the heading 'Section 260', the letter states: I have on legal and practical grounds come to the conclusion that I should not, in reliance on section 260, seek to tax vendors in pre-tax profit strips. A view that there are reasonable prospects that section 260 would be held to apply has been put by Messrs A.M. Gleeson Q.C. and D.G. Hill, and has been supported by Mr R.V. Gyles Q.C., the newly-appointed Special Prosecutor. The Solicitor-General, Sir Maurice Byers Q.C. has, in the light of those views, advised to the effect-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I find it difficult to see how this is relevant to the matter of misrepresentation. Mr HOWARD —With respect, Mr Speaker, there are two more lines that are totally relevant. The letter continues: The Solicitor-General Sir Maurice Byers Q.C. has, in the light of those views, advised to the effect that he considers that section 260 action is not tenable. Those were the views delivered to me by the second law officer of the Commonwealth, and they totally blow the Treasurer's phoney argument out of the water. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented on the same issue. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —When the House comes to order I shall extend the Treasurer the same courtesy that I have extended to other honourable members. Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation? Mr KEATING —I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr KEATING —My point is not that the former Treasurer was not advised that section 260 could not be used, because what he says is true. What I am saying is that Mr Gyles now says-- Mr Ruddock —What you are saying is-- Mr KEATING —Oh, shut up, dummy. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Hodgman —You are getting rattled. Mr SPEAKER —I assure the honourable member for Denison that I am not getting rattled. The House is wasting its time. When the House comes to order, I shall allow the Treasurer to proceed. Mr KEATING —The point that Mr Gyles was making in his report, to which I alluded today, was that it may in the long run cost the Commonwealth many millions of dollars at current year profit strips. Undistributed profit strips are not taxed and collected. The point that I was making was that this Government chose a route other than section 260; it chose to go to the Senate with specific undistributed profits tax legislation. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) opposes that legislation. That is the point. The point is not about the validity of section 260; it is about the fact that Gyles is imploring the Parliament to collect undistributed profits tax-which could not formerly be collected under section 260-under new legislation which the Leader of the Opposition opposes. That is the point, and he well knows it. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BARRY JONES —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr BARRY JONES —In the Sydney Morning Herald this morning, under the heading ' Scientists hit out: new ideas, no risk-takers', I am quoted in an article by the author, Sue Morgan. The article states: The Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Jones, said the decision by Australian manufacturers not to take up challenges such as the CSIRO projects was 'understandable but despicable'. The word I used was 'deplorable', not 'despicable' which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as 'vile' and 'contemptible'. I have worked out the explanation. The words 'deplorable' and 'despicable' have similar outlines in Pitman's shorthand. This morning, Miss Morgan confirmed that she was a Pitman's user, agreed that I had been misreported and why, and said that a retraction would be published. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition-- Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member seek to make a personal explanation? Mr KEATING —Yes, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) made the charge today and two days ago that I sought to nobble Mr Gyles and his report. I have here a letter from the Second Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Black, who, in a note to me, said: In relation to the censure motion against the Treasurer, Mr Brazil- from the Attorney-General's Office- contacted me to say that he had spoken to the Special Prosecutor Mr Gyles who has authorised the Treasurer to make the following statement- this statement was volunteered by Mr Gyles- The Special Prosecutor had stated that no one in government sought to influence him in relation to the contents of his report. That nails-again-the lie the honourable member trafficked in today and two days ago. Mr SPEAKER —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Department of the House of Representatives for 1983-84. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of the Treasury annual report for 1983-84. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Government's response to the report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure-'The Way We P(l)ay-Commonwealth Assistance for Sport and Recreation'-together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 20 of the Special Prosecutors Act 1982, I present the annual report of the Special Prosecutor, Mr R. V. Gyles, QC, for the year 1983-84, together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report to the Attorney-General for the year ended 30 June 1984, by R. V. Gyles, QC, Special Prosecutor. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(4.30) —Mr Deputy Speaker, just before I move the adjournment of this matter, may I take the opportunity to comment on that part of the Gyles report that deals with the substance of the exchange that just took place-- Mr Young —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr HOWARD —Are you trying to stifle debate on it? Mr Young —No. Actually I am very keen to have a debate on all of these matters, but we are not going to do it now. Mr HOWARD —Ah! When are you going to do it? Mr Young —You adjourn it and we will bring it back for you the next week we come back. Mr HOWARD —I am not willing to accept the Minister's dictates as to the nature of the adjournment motion I move. If he wants to silence me on this he will have to gag me. During our exchange the Treasurer (Mr Keating) talked about-- Mr Keating —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J.B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Wells, D. McM.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh (Teller)Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele Wilson, I. B. C.Hawker, D. P. M. Charlesworth, R. I. Newman, K. E.Fry, K. L. Fife, W. C.Hayden, W. G. White, P. N. D.Bowen, Lionel Katter, R. C.Saunderson, J. Hicks, N. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 7 of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Act 1976, I present a report prepared by the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations on the responsibilities and resources of Australian local government. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PEACOCK —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr PEACOCK —I listened with care to what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in his personal explanation when he was critical of remarks made by me. I found it difficult to understand on what point it was that he was making a personal explanation, but I understand that he objected-- Mr Leo McLeay —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is claiming-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Grayndler will resume his seat. I have not had the slightest opportunity to hear what the Leader of the Opposition is on about. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will shortly come to the point. Mr PEACOCK —I will come to the point straightaway. I was unable to understand what he was protesting about in my own remarks. I gather he was complaining that I had described him as a little crook. Mr Young —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: You were not in the chair at the time, but I remind the House that when the Leader of the Opposition made that remark in his speech he was requested by Mr Speaker to withdraw it, which he did. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I fail to see where the misrepresentation has occurred. Mr PEACOCK —That is what I understood. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It has been pointed out by the Leader of the House that that is not the case. Mr PEACOCK —I would not wish to misrepresent the Prime Minister. If he is not a little crook, he is a big crook in a little frame. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw those remarks. Mr PEACOCK —Which one? That the Prime Minister is a big crook in a little frame? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will have some respect for the Chair. He will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition was asked to withdraw those remarks before, and I am asking him to withdraw them now. He will withdraw those remarks and not repeat them. Mr PEACOCK —I will not repeat them. I withdraw the words used. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will now resume his seat. Mr PEACOCK —Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to understand that I was not going to repeat those words. I wanted to make it clear that I was withdrawing them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair accepts that. Mr PEACOCK —Thank you. I was withdrawing them. He transgresses our codes for gain; that is what he does. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —I present for the information of the House a document entitled 'Program Presentation of Appropriations and Outlays- Departmental Estimates 1984-85'. In doing so, I seek leave to make a statement regarding the progress of the Government's budgetary reform measures. Leave granted. Mr DAWKINS —I thank the House. This document presents appropriation and outlay information for each department in a program format. It is intended to assist Parliament in its examination of the 1984-85 Estimates, and the general public in its understanding of government activities. The document was published for the first time last year on a trial basis. Since that time, the Government published the document 'budget reform', in which we announced a pilot study to explore implementation of program budgeting. That study is to be presented to the Government within the next few weeks. Pending the Government's consideration of program budgeting, we have decided to continue the program presentation of outlays contained in this document. The House might also be interested to learn of the progress of other aspects of reform canvassed in 'budget reform'. In the development of the 1984-85 Budget the Government, for the first time, considered simultaneously the staffing and financial resources implications of proposals which it was examining. In this way, the Government was aware of the total cost of proposals and managers were aware at a much earlier date than previously of the total staff resources which the Government was willing to commit to programs. 'Budget reforms' also foreshadowed the consolidation of departmental administrative votes to allow more effective funds and program management by departments. That reform has been implemented in the 1984-85 Budget. In an associated reform, the Government has imposed cash limits on the consolidated administrative and, where relevant, consolidated operational items of departments' votes. A modest supplementation has been included both in the Budget figuring and in the appropriation provisions so that further supplementation in these areas at Additional Estimates time would not be required for other than extraordinary reasons. The government has, for the first time, also included in the Budget figuring a provision for salary and wage rate increases of certain one line Budget dependent statutory bodies. This provision, which is not included in the estimates of appropriations, brings the treatment of these governmental type agencies, such as the National Library and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, into line with the treatment accorded to government departments since 1974-75. The provision allows such bodies to plan their annual programs and expenditures with the confidence that the Government will provide the necessary resources for future wage rate increases outside their control. Finally, the financial management improvement program to assist the efficiency and effectiveness with which departments manage the resources at their disposal is now being implemented. Departments are being encouraged to develop corporate decision-making mechanisms and processes which focus attention on their longer term goals and objectives and take greater account of resource constraints. The experience of the three departments currently implementing FMIP throughout the whole organisation, that is, Communications, Health and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, is assisting in the development of general guidelines on best practices for dissemination to all departments and authorities. The financial management improvement program is of course allied to the program budgeting study which I mentioned earlier. As I have indicated previously, the Government considers it is important that the Public Service maintains its vitality, its competence and its effectiveness. These reforms and the further studies in train attest to the seriousness of our commitment to quality in government and offer prospects for further improvement in Public Service management and accountability. Mr MOORE(Ryan) —by leave-The statement of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) is welcomed by the Opposition. It reflects some improvement in government accounts. It is an area that has been in need of reform for a long time and goes only some way towards what I would regard as more responsible management by government departments. As a Minister, I never saw the reason for the degree of accounting and budgeting that took place in those days, and the moves here to give department heads more responsibility for which they must be accountable are welcome. I looked through the accounts of the Department of Industry and Commerce and the breakdowns there. I found that the set-out there enabled me to see at a glance what was taking place in terms of expenditure in that area-an area about which I knew something. It was certainly a much easier presentation than previously. However, the management of the Public Service is a huge area. I must express concern at the obvious attempt to make the Public Service a political arm-a matter about which everybody in the House will be concerned. The Public Service is the servant of the Government and, through the Government, of the nation. It is not the servant of a political party. That is a matter about which all of us in Australia should be concerned in regard to developments in that area in recent times. Although I welcome the developments in financial presentation, I express concern at what appears to me to be a move towards a political Public Service. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) — Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's failure to implement a rational policy on the mining and export of uranium. 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 HUNT(Gwydir)(4.50) —Mr Deputy Speaker- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Child, J. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wells, D. McM.Hurford, C. J. West, S. J.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hawker, D. P. M.Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Braithwaite, R. A. Mc Arthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T. (Teller)Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr MORRISON(St George) —by leave-I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to European Parliamentary Institutions and France from 22 September to 22 October 1983. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr MORRISON —The report covers the delegation's participation in a number of the parliamentary institutions in Europe, the first being the Council of Europe, where the delegation issued a statement outlining Australian criticisms of the European Community's common agricultural policy and presented Australian views on the state and future of the steel industry. I draw the House's attention to the statements contained in the report at annexe B and annexe C. The delegation also participated in the debate of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and again the delegation was able to put an Australian perspective on the economic issues of the European sector following the statement by the Secretary-General of the OECD. I note that the speech of the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) and my speech on that subject are contained in annexe D of the report. The delegation also participated in the Strasbourg conference, and I was honoured, on behalf of the Australian Parliament, to be appointed as a rapporteur for the conference. I think this is the first time that an Australian has been given such a responsibility in the European parliamentary institutions. The paper which I prepared is contained at annexe E. The speeches of our delegates, the Deputy Speaker of the House, Mrs Child, the honourable member for Curtin, Mr Rocher, and the honourable member for Braddon, Mr Groom, are contained at annexe F. We also participated in the European Parliament. Our participation in the European Parliament is facilitated through the European Parliament's own permanent delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand. In these meetings, the delegation was able to put forward again Australia's very significant and substantial criticisms of the common agricultural policy of Europe. During our visit a draft resolution was being considered by a group within the European Parliament which would have had the effect of banning the importation into Europe of kangaroo products. The delegation was invited to address that group. As a result, the group modified its approach. At the same time, the delegation indicated the support that the Australian Government would give to assisting in providing information on kangaroo management in Australia. The delegation had to be split for participation in the North Atlantic Assembly . This is the second time that the Australian Parliament has been represented at the North Atlantic Assembly but, because of the coincidence of timing of the Strasbourg conference and the North Atlantic Assembly, we split the delegation. I am indebted to the honourable member for Grayndler, Mr Leo McLeay, and to Senator Peter Rae for their participation on the delegation's behalf at the meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly in The Hague. I was able to visit The Hague briefly during the time when the delegation had discussions with the Japanese delegation. I refer the House to the record of that meeting at annexe J . It covers the essential similarity of views of Japan and Australia in relation to strategic and security matters. Our contribution there is important in bringing a Pacific perspective to the consideration of West European security. Whilst we were at The Hague, the delegation was approached by the President and the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Assembly who extended an invitation to the Australian Parliament to become an accredited observer to the North Atlantic Assembly. In its report, the delegation has indicated that this invitation should be taken up. We have also made some recommendations relating to a more effective participation by Australia in the North Atlantic Assembly, and we trust that the Presiding Officers of this Parliament will consider those recommendations. I want to mention in particular the significance of our participation in these sorts of organisations. For instance, last Monday the Sydney Morning Herald contained a report headed, 'US would launch a first strike: Pentagon'. A Pentagon spokesman observed that: The current deterrence policy rests upon the doctrine of flexible response, which would include the use, as required, of conventional weapons, non-strategic nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear weapons. That is in terms of the flexible response. That would certainly not come as any surprise to this Parliament, because in the previous report of the delegation that visited the European parliaments, we had this to say: The Delegation noted that reservations about the feasibility of putting into effect the traditional NATO strategy of flexible response, relying heavily on early first use of nuclear weapons, are now so wide spread in both military and political circles that military planners in NATO are calling for upgrading of conventional forces. Traditionally NATO relies on the threat of the use of nuclear weapons early in conflict as a deterrent against the Soviet Union launching a conventional attack in Europe. The first step was to use theatre nuclear weapons with a so-called graduated response to strategic nuclear attack on the Soviet Union heartland. The doctrine of first use of nuclear weapons was essential to the deterrent theory. It is essential to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation concept. In that previous report the delegation concluded: Increasingly, the whole strategy is being seen as a transparent bluff. In the report before the House the delegation notes that some representatives at the meeting argued that the deployment of the Pershing and cruise missiles was of doubtful military worth and had become, instead, a test of the fidelity of the NATO member nations. These are the sorts of perspectives that we get from being actually involved in these meetings. I had an opportunity of going to the Military Committee of the North Atlantic Assembly, and in one of the papers presented this observation was made about intermediate-range nuclear forces: The political significance of INF deployment-the coupling of Western Europe to the US strategic guarantee-has always outweighed the military utility of the INF systems as the targets against which Pershing II and ground-launched cruise missiles would be aimed can be adequately covered with other nuclear systems. We have had many debates on the Pershing and cruise missiles, but it is only through active participation in organisations such as the North Atlantic Assembly that we get the stated views of those participating governments that are much more directly involved than Australia. It is because of this access to this type of information, access to the expert debates that take place in organisations such as the North Atlantic Assembly, that this Parliament should certainly respond to the invitation made on the basis of our previous participation in the North Atlantic Assembly by the Secretary-General and the President to participate more actively in the work of the Assembly. The delegation also paid an official visit to France. We appreciated the hospitality of the National Assembly and the Senate in the arrangements that they made for our visit. I direct the House's attention to those sections of the report which deal with the delegation's assessment of France's nuclear policy including nuclear tests in the South Pacific. Very briefly, the Force de Frappe, France's independent nuclear force, is regarded as synonymous with French independence. This is right across the board, across the spectrum of French political views, from the Communist Party right through to the right wing parties of the De Gaullists. There is a consensus that France has, should have and should continue to have an independent nuclear force, and that, as part of that force, the capacity to test nuclear weapons in the South Pacific is also synonymous with independence. We got very short shrift. We argued our case up and down France and in Paris with the National Assembly, with the Senate, and with the French Government. But they made it very clear that their independence is dependent upon the independent nuclear capacity and that, in order to maintain and enhance that nuclear capacity, testing is not only necessary but also desirable, and that that is the French attitude and view. We have also gone into some details of the French civil nuclear program. There are those who argue that the nuclear energy industry for power production is on the way down. That point of view is in stark contrast to the attitude taken by the French Government to the further development of nuclear energy in France. On behalf of the delegation, I should like to express our thanks for the assistance and support given by the Australian Ambassador to France, Mr Peter Curtis, and the Australian Ambassador to Belgium, Mr David Anderson, and to their staff, who gave us considerable support, particularly during the Strasbourg meetings when we were well away from an Australian mission. I also acknowledge the contribution of the delegation's secretary, Mr Diamond. In conclusion, I place on record my personal appreciation to our Madam Deputy Speaker, to the honourable members for Braddon, Curtin and Grayndler and to Senator Peter Rae for their amiable co-operation in making the delegation's mission a success. I believe that the delegation was an adornment to the international reputation of this Parliament. Mr ROCHER(Curtin) —by leave-At the outset, on my own behalf and on behalf of my colleague the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom), I congratulate the leader of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to European Parliamentary Institutions and France, the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison), who led us with distinction and great ability. Mr Leo McLeay —And style. Mr ROCHER —Yes, indeed. As the honourable member for St George pointed out, many topics were covered and a wide range of views heard and expressed over the three or four weeks we were members of the delegation and travelled together. It is not unnatural that we should have spent some time discussing common agricultural policies within the European Community. It probably came as no surprise at all, although it was I guess disappointing, that there are no solutions in sight to the problem of access for Australian agricultural products to that European market. Of course, there is limited access. We were sympathetically heard when we made our points. We did not meet with any disagreement from the people in France or others in Europe in regard to the position we wanted to put. They agreed that agriculture in some European countries is not cost efficient and in that respect compares very unfavourably with the situation in Australia. The reason for continuing with such a policy is purely political. Representatives in the various parliaments of Europe have found that, given their large rural communities-much larger than our rural community in Australia-the political necessities of life involve them in certain practices in relation to agricultural products which, although not economically cost efficient, must be maintained if the political representatives are to retain their positions. For the same reasons Europe's trading policies with the lesser developed countries will not appreciably improve in the foreseeable future. This state of affairs will be exacerbated by the ultimate, if not imminent, admission of Spain and Portugal to the European Community and the European Economic Community. Therefore, in terms of prospective trade in agricultural goods in that part of the world there was not much good news for us as representatives of Australia. However, it was enlightening for us to have the opportunity to discuss and to try to understand the positions of the various European countries, in particular France. The Strasbourg conference dealt entirely with the promotion of democracy throughout the world. It might be said by a cynic that it involved motherhood motions right, left and centre. I guess that would be one impression. I must say that I found it valuable to have reinforced and refreshed my ideas on democracy and the part it plays in the free world. Being so close to parts of the world, in particular eastern Europe, which are not blessed with the democratic institutions that we have in this country and which the rest of Europe has, it was useful to remind ourselves of the privileges we enjoy as a member country of the democratic world. The European parliamentary session was broken up into many working sessions. It enabled us to exchange views with not just Europeans but also people such as ourselves, from the four corners of the world. As guests of the Government of France and more specifically the French National Assembly and the French Senate, we were treated very kindly. We were given an itinerary which perhaps prevented some of us doing some of the things we would have liked to do. We operated very largely as a team. One of the highlights of our stay in France was a visit to Villers-Bretonneaux in the Picardy region where there is a memorial to the fallen of World War I, including Australians who gave their lives during that abominable conflict. The leader of the delegation, on behalf of all of us, laid a wreath and we were able to pay our respects. It was a very impressive and moving occasion. I might add that when driving through the Picardy-Amiens region we noticed many war graves- painted an outstanding white-in the village cemeteries. This indicated, of course, that war dead were buried all over the countryside in those regions and that graves were to be found not just at the site of the memorial in Villers- Bretonneaux. We as a nation are very favourably regarded in that part of France. While perhaps in terms of trade relationships and some other relationships we cannot be as close as we might, we cannot be of the same mind, we certainly do have a place in the hearts of the people in that part of France. It was an extremely valuable experience. It added to my understanding and, I am sure, the understanding of my colleagues on the delegation. We came away with realistic ideas of what we can expect from that part of the world. I suggest that we should maintain as far as we possibly can some sort of contact along the lines of the delegation of parliamentary representatives. Overall the visit did, I suppose, reinforce the view that many of us have long held, which is that we must look to our own region for the development of trading opportunities and commerce generally in which Australia can participate. I think that our approach must be directed to the countries of the Pacific rim, if not the Pacific basin countries. That is where our commercial and trading future lies. I congratulate the compilers of the report. I join the honourable member for St George in expressing appreciation for the work that was done by the several ambassadors and the embassy staff who helped us while we were away. I pay special tribute to the secretary to the delegation, Rob Diamond-I know my colleague the honourable member for Braddon will join me in that. Mr Groom —Godfrey and Judy Santer. Mr ROCHER —The honourable member has just interjected to say that I should make special mention of Godfrey and Judy Santer not the least because they were most entertaining and very generous in the time they made available to us. I thank the House. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert) —I present the ninth report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. I record that the Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous), is in the Parliament building. Report-by leave-adopted. Bill presented by Dr Blewett, and read a first time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(5.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. By this Bill the Government proposes to make certain amendments to the Epidemiological Studies (Confidentiality) Act 1981; the Health Insurance Act 1973; the National Health Act 1953, and the Tuberculosis Act 1948. The Epidemiological Studies (Confidentiality) Act 1981 provides for the confidentiality of information on personal affairs which is collected for those epidemiological studies prescribed under the Act. The amendments to that Act, proposed in clauses 3, 4 and 5 of this Bill, are designed to ensure that the Act provides for confidentiality in relation to information regarding the affairs of deceased persons as well as the living. The need for the amendment arose out of concerns that the references to ' population' and 'persons' in paragraph (a) of the definition of an ' epidemiological study' in sub-section 3 (1) of the Act might be construed so as to exclude the affairs of deceased persons from the scope of the Act. The proposed amendment is intended to resolve any possible doubts for the future and is not seen to effect an alteration in the law. The medicare legislation which came into effect on 1 February this year removed the Commonwealth's power to approve public hospital beds. This reflected the Government's policy that such matters, relating to the administration of public hospitals, were the responsibility of the States. However the Commonwealth, through it health insurance responsibilities, retains an interest in ensuring that fund benefits are paid in the correct circumstances. The proposed amendments remove any doubt that fund benefits are payable to private patients in both private and public hospitals. Clause 8 of the Bill will allow certificates under section 3B of the Health Insurance Act to be issued up to 14 days before they come into effect. At present they can be issued up to seven days before they come into effect. Section 3B certificates are issued by medical practitioners and state that a long stay in-patient of a hospital is in need of acute care for a certain period . This certificate entitled the long stay patient to the full level of health fund benefit, and exempts him or her from the requirement to pay a patient contribution. The amendment allows more time, in cases where section 3B certificates are referred for review by an acute care advisory committee, for the determination of whether the certificate is to be varied or revoked before it comes into effect. This will reduce the likelihood of such patients being faced with a retrospective payment to the hospital. I wish to emphasise that this legislative amendment is only one facet of a comprehensive review of the operational aspects relating to the arrangements for long stay patients in hospitals. A number of other matters are being addressed administratively, with the aim of removing many of the concerns that have been expressed. These matters include the development of uniform national guidelines on what constitutes 'acute care' for use in the context of the section 3B arrangements. In the near future these guidelines will be distributed to all doctors and should assist in achieving a greater understanding of the whole assessment and decision-making process. It is emphasised that despite the formulation of these guidelines, it will continue to remain the responsibility of individual doctors, based on their professional judgment, to assess whether patients are in need of acute care. In addition, the form of the section 3B certificate is being redesigned and, amongst other things, the revised certificate will include a statement making clear that the penalties which apply for the provision of false information, and which have been of concern to the medical profession, will not apply to the bona fide expression of medical opinion. A general streamlining of the section 3B processing procedures is also being undertaken in the interest of reducing the possibility of patients incurring financial hardship when section 3B certificates are referred for review by an acute care advisory committee. The effect of clause 9 of the Bill is to enable the Minister for Health to determine that a health service and its associated fee, which are not listed in the medical benefits schedule, shall be treated for the purpose of the health legislation as if that health service and fee were included in the schedule. Currently there is a 'pay under' scheme which ensures that Medicare benefits are paid where a medical service not listed in the schedule but regarded as a legitimate service, is carried out. The practice for many years has been to pay benefits under the nearest item in the schedule. New section 3C, which would be inserted into the principal Act by this clause, applies both to individual health services and classes of services. Determinations made under section 3C would be subject to tabling in both Houses of Parliament and scrutiny by either House. Services specified in determinations would be subject to the same legal provisions which would apply if they were in the medical benefits schedule. Modifications were made to the 'pay under' scheme from 1 November 1983. This reduced, but did not entirely remove, the need to continue to use this practice for certain categories of service. The Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) subsequently indicated that as the arrangements were not authorised by legislation, appropriate action should be taken to remedy the situation. I should point out that it takes some time to have new items introduced into the medical benefits schedule, and of course it is unacceptable to defer payment of Medicare benefits while this is taking place. In addition, it is undesirable to clutter up the schedule further by including services which are used only infrequently or are transient in nature. Taking all these factors into account, the mechanism which this clause contains is both appropriate and essential for the proper payment of Medicare benefits in those cases where a legitimate service is not covered by the medical benefits schedule. I now turn to the clauses in the Bill which provide for the nursing home benefits provisions in the National Health Act to be amended. These are clauses 11 and 12, 15 to 21 inclusive and 26. The proposed amendments will enable Commonwealth nursing home benefits to be paid for patients temporarily absent from nursing homes. It is anticipated that this will also facilitate the admission of respite care patients who will be able to take the place of patients temporarily absent. The proposed amendments will authorise one of a number of initiatives announced in the Budget to assist aged and disabled people. The Government has been concerned that these people should be helped to maintain maximum independence. The present rigidities in the nursing home benefits arrangements have inhibited this, and have led to some nursing home patients incurring severe financial burdens. The arrangements have deterred nursing home patients from leaving nursing homes for short periods, consequently restricting the beds available for respite care. I have received many representations on behalf of patients who have had to be temporarily hospitalised and who have experienced severe financial difficulties through having to pay the full nursing home fee during their absence to ensure that their bed is available upon their return to the nursing home. At present such a patient is often required to pay both the patient contribution and an amount equivalent to the Commonwealth nursing home benefit to ensure his or her bed is retained. Similar problems are experienced by patients who temporarily leave a nursing home, for example to stay with relatives. Clause 12 of the Bill provides for the proprietor and the patient, or a person acting on the patient's behalf, to enter into a common form of agreement covering the patient's temporary absence. The purpose of the agreement will be to record clearly but simply the essential obligations of the patient and the proprietor in relation to the patient's temporary absence. While clause 12 refers to some of the matters that may be covered in the agreements, it is my intention to consult with the nursing home industry and with organisations representing patients to ensure that the common form of agreement enables clear and equitable arrangements to be entered into. Where the temporary absence of a qualified nursing home patient is covered by an agreement, clause 12 also provides for Commonwealth nursing home benefits to be payable for a period or periods of temporary absence totalling up to 28 days in a year. Should the agreed periods of temporary absence exceed 28 days, the benefits will cover the first 28 days. So, during these periods of up to 28 days in each year, it is proposed that patients will be required to meet from their own resources a bed retention fee not exceeding the difference between the full fee and the Commonwealth nursing home benefit. Proprietors will be encouraged to use the beds of temporarily absent patients for the provision of short term respite care whenever practicable. Clauses 15 and 17 of the Bill provide for such respite care patients to be subject to admission procedures similar to those applying to other patients. Proprietors will only be able to admit patients approved as needing respite care in a nursing home. Provision is made, in clause 26 of the Bill, for reconsideration by the Minister and, subsequently, review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of refusals to approve the admission of persons as respite care patients. Short term respite care patients will not be charged fees greater than the difference between the full fee for the bed, less the Commonwealth nursing home benefits. The new arrangements will ensure, therefore, that neither the temporarily absent patient nor any respite care patient will suffer any disadvantage in respect of fees paid compared with other patients accommodated in the home. The discussions with the nursing home industry will include an exploration of the practical measures that can be taken to maximise the use of temporarily vacant beds for short term respite care. The Government fully recognises the sacrifices that can be involved for relatives and others involved in caring for frail aged people in the community. It knows that there are occasions when short term respite care is of vital importance to the welfare of aged an disabled people and of those caring for them. I believe that this respite care initiative has the potential to assist significantly in meeting such needs. The proposed amendments will permit comparable arrangements to apply to repatriation patients as well as to other nursing home patients, and will enable a separate common form of agreement to be developed to meet the special circumstances of those patients. It is also proposed to negotiate similar arrangements for patients accommodated in deficit financed nursing homes. This measure will not have any significant financial impact for the Government. Its full year cost to the Commonwealth in additional nursing home benefits is estimated to be less than $4m. It will, however, alleviate a source of financial hardship for a significant number of aged and disabled people and offers the promise of improving the quality of life of them and of those caring for them. The Bill provides for the arrangements to come into effect from a date to be proclaimed, giving time for their proper negotiations and development. Clause 13 of the Bill proposes to amend the National Health Act to permit the Commonwealth to fund the maintenance of privately purchased wireless hearing aids and associated equipment. Honourable members will no doubt know that the National Health Act empowers the Commonwealth to make arrangements for the supply of hearing aids, which it does through the agency of the National Acoustic Laboratories. Wireless hearing aids in particular are supplied for the teaching in educational institutions of children who are deaf or have severe hearing defects. Unfortunately the Acoustic Laboratories have been unable to keep pace with the demand for aids in recent years, and some institutions and individuals have had to purchase wireless hearing aids privately. This situation is regrettable. The Government is anxious that these institutions and individuals should not be forced to pay the cost of batteries and maintenance for which the Commonwealth would otherwise have paid had the institutions or individuals not purchased their aids privately. The proposed amendment to the Act will authorise the Commonwealth to meet the battery and maintenance costs. I should note that even when the Commonwealth is meeting these costs, there will still be some saving to the Government over the capital outlay that would be required if the privately purchased aids which become faulty were to be replaced at Commonwealth expense. I am pleased to inform honourable members, however, that negotiations are underway with private sector suppliers of wireless hearing aids to ensure that the National Acoustic Laboratories will be able more adequately to meet community demands for these devices. Clause 14 of the Bill deals with the provision of aids to sick and disabled people. As honourable members will be aware, the Commonwealth provides funds for the supply of medical and surgical aids and for other assistance such as the modification of homes to help the sick and disabled in their daily lives. Clause 14 provides for the Commonwealth to enter into arrangements with the States, the Territories and certain bodies corporate, which will avoid undue complexity in the administration of such schemes. The proposed arrangements provide for the Commonwealth, while funding the schemes, to transfer ownership of certain medical and surgical aids to the State or other body concerned. This latter provision is seen as being desirable since some aids, wheelchairs for example, are recycle- able in nature, and would be distributed only to persons in need on a loan basis. The transfer of ownership to the States of such aids will facilitate the accountability of those aids and assist considerably the administration of the schemes. I refer now to clauses 22, 23 and 24 of the Bill which relate to the Health Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund. These proposed amendments, which are of a technical nature only, would have the effect of making the Trust fund a trust account for the purposes of the Audit Act. At the time of the establishment in 1977 of its predecessor, the Hospital Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund, it was intended that the Trust fund be incorporated within the Commonwealth public account and thus be subject to the Audit Act. However, the Attorney-General's Department recently advised that the existing provisions of the National Health Act have the effect that it is not part of the Commonwealth public account. Consequently the present Health Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund also cannot legally form part of the Commonwealth public account. Notwithstanding the legal position, the transactions of the Trust Fund have been audited by the Auditor- General and the proposed amendments would enable that to continue. The proposed amendments would have no financial impact on registered health benefits organisations nor on the Commonwealth Government. I turn now to clause 25 of the Bill. This is a purely machinery change which takes account of the fact that the protection afforded to 'authorised persons' under the principal Act is adequately covered in the Crimes Act 1914, the clause removes the provisions prescribing offences for molesting, intimidating, bribing or influencing authorised officers. By the clauses 27 and 28 of the Bill, the Government proposes to amend the Tuberculosis Act 1948 to phase out the operation of tuberculosis allowances in the light of the almost total eradication of the disease in Australia. In March 1950 the then Government approved the current scheme of allowances, which came into force on 13 July 1950. The scheme was one of several measures adopted at that time to implement the nation-wide campaign against tuberculosis. The purpose of the scheme was to help prevent the spread of tuberculosis by providing financial assistance to persons and their dependants who were required to refrain from working and to undergo treatment while they were infected. When the allowances were originally introduced, they were set at levels which were generally higher than those for social security beneficiaries. Over the years the difference in money terms, about $5 per week maximum, between tuberculosis allowances and other benefits, for example, invalid pension and sickness benefit, has not changed so that the added value of the tuberculosis allowance is now relatively small. At the peak of the scheme, at 30 June 1951, allowances were being paid to 6,605 sufferers. This compares with 299 sufferers receiving the allowance at 31 December 1976 and only 150 at 31 December 1983. The Government considers that the scheme of tuberculosis allowances has achieved its aim and that there is no longer any justification for continuing to pay higher benefits to the few simply because they suffer from a particular condition, which no longer represents a serious threat to the Australian community. Accordingly, the Government has decided to treat tuberculosis as it would any other disease for social welfare purposes. The amendment of the Tuberculosis Act 1948 will remove the necessity for special handling by the Department of Social Security of tuberculosis cases. The entitlement of people currently receiving tuberculosis allowances will continue. The Bill does not effect any change in the rights of existing sufferers. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Dr Blewett, and read a first time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(5.37) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is an omnibus Bill to give effect in the main to those Budget measures for 1984-85 which require, firstly, amendments to the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954; secondly, amendments to the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970; and, thirdly, legislation to make further provision for the Anzac Hostel in Brighton, Victoria. Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 Under this Act, the Commonwealth currently pays a hostel care subsidy and a personal care subsidy to approved organisations providing hostel type accommodation and services for aged and disabled people. In the near future, a respite care bed subsidy will commence to be payable to approved organisations to assist those families and individuals who care for aged and disabled persons in their homes but who require a facility to allow short breaks from the demands of care at home. The rates of subsidy payable are $10 per week per eligible person provided with hostel care services; and $50 per week per eligible person provided with both hostel care and personal care services. The respite care bed subsidy will be $10 per week per eligible person provided with a respite care bed for a period of less than 15 days in a period of 28 days; and $50 per week per eligible person provided with a respite care bed for a period of 15 days or more in a period of 28 days. The Bill will increase these rates of subsidy from $10 to $11 per week, and from $50 to $55 per week, respectively, as from 15 January 1985, which is the first prescribed date for payment in January 1985. The new arrangements are estimated to add $2.9m to outlays in the remainder of 1984-85 and $6m in the full year 1985-86. Up to 38,000 people are estimated to benefit by receipt of services under the program. Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970 Under this Act, the Commonwealth currently pays a subsidy to approved organisations providing meals under the meals-on-wheels program. The rates of subsidy payable are $0.55 for each meal which includes a vitamin C supplement; and $0.50 for each other meal. the Bill will increase the rate of subsidy for each meal which includes a vitamin C supplement to $0.65 per meal where the approved organisation meets new conditions of service delivery as from 1 January 1985. These conditions have not yet been finally determined, but will relate to the operation and management of approved organisations concerning service delivery. An example of such a condition is that service delivery would have to be made on at least 5 days in each week. The new conditions will be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. An approved organisation which decides not to meet these new conditions would remain eligible for the current rates of subsidy. The new arrangements are estimated to add $0.75m to outlays in the remainder of 1984-85 and $1.5m in the full year 1985-86. Up to 50,000 people are estimated to benefit by receipt of services under the program. Anzac Hostel, Brighton, Victoria The Anzac Hostel at Brighton, Victoria has been held by the Repatriation Commission since World War I on a trust created at that time and subsequently varied by the Repatriation Fund (Baillieu Gift) Act 1937. A term of the trust has been that the Anzac Hostel should be used as a hostel for permanently and totally incapacitated Australian soldiers and sailors of World War I. Since the creation of the trust, the Repatriation Commission has assumed responsibility for providing medical treatment to many thousands of veterans of World War II and the later conflicts and to eligible dependants of deceased veterans. In view of the declining number of World War I veterans and the increasing number of frail aged veterans, especially of World War II, it has been decided to utilise the Anzac Hostel more effectively by enabling the Repatriation Commission to provide an expanded range of residential and day care services at the hostel for those eligible to receive repatriation treatment. It is proposed to introduce a southern Melbourne aged care service centred on the Anzac Hostel. The need to travel long distances for care is a very significant problem for aged persons. This facility will reduce that burden for many veterans and war widows. In order to be able to so utilise the Anzac Hostel, it is necessary to change the terms of the trust by varying the purposes for which the Anzac Hostel may be used by the Repatriation Commission. The revised purposes of the trust are set out in Part VI of the Bill. Other changes The Bill will also amend the Social Security Act 1947 and the Repatriation Act 1920. First, both Acts will be amended to ensure that a dependent child who is in receipt of an income security payment under the Social Security Act 1947 or the Tuberculosis Act 1948 will be disregarded in calculating the entitlement of another person under the Social Security Act 1947 or the Repatriation Act 1920. It is already the case that a dependent child in receipt of invalid pension, a rehabilitation allowance in lieu of that pension, or a supporting parent's benefit under the Social Security Act 1947 is disregarded under those Acts. This measure will therefore provide a general rule in these situations which will remove some minor anomalies. There will be no savings in 1984-85, with savings of $0.15m in 1985-86. Secondly, the Social Security Act 1947 will be amended to remedy a minor anomaly which disadvantages some people receiving family allowance. Currently, the Act requires the Department of Social Security to be satisfied within three months of the child's sixteenth birthday that a dependent child who turns 16 years of age became a student child. While there are administrative procedures designed to enable the Department to be satisfied that such a dependent child becomes a student child, there are some cases which fall through the net. The amendment will ensure that a person receiving family allowance will not lose entitlement merely because the administrative procedures do not work as intended . There are no savings in this measure, but the program will operate more effectively and efficiently. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(5.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes a number of amendments to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act . It establishes around the Bass Strait petroleum production facilities an area to be avoided by unauthorised Australian ships; it transfers from the designated authority to the joint authority the power to exercise control over rates of petroleum production; it authorises reference of proposals relating to licence work exemptions to the joint authority; and it removes a number of drafting inconsistencies. A Bill to establish the area to be avoided in Bass Strait came before the Parliament in late 1982 but lapsed with the dissolution of the Parliament in early 1983. The amendments contained in the current Bill are similar to those of that earlier Bill, with the addition of provisions to allow the declaration of a state of emergency in times of heightened terrorist threat, that, is, above the normal level. Under the provisions of the Bill, entry into the area to be avoided in Bass Strait is prohibited to Australian vessels over 200 tonnes and, in times of heightened terrorist threat, to all Australian vessels. In regard to foreign vessels, the area to be avoided was approved by the International Maritime Organisation in 1981 and advisory measures were promulgated by the IMO in October 1982. General compliance with those measures has been acheived. The proposed area to be avoided covers an area extending 50 nautical miles from the Victorian coast and embraces all the off-shore platforms and associated submarine pipelines. Complementary legislation will be introduced in Victoria to cover the area between the coast and the outer limit of the territorial sea. The outer boundary of the area is approximately five nautical miles beyond the platforms. The Bill provides that, where an unauthorised vessel enters or remains in the area, the owner and the master may be liable to a fine of up to $50,000, or five years' imprisonment, or both. Provision is made for possible defences against prosecution on the grounds of an unforeseen emergency or because of circumstances beyond the control of the person in charge. The powers of authorised persons to enforce these new provisions are set out in the Bill. They include the power to board a vessel, to order the removal of a vessel from the area and to order a disabled vessel to accept assistance. A person refusing to comply with the instructions of authorised persons acting within their powers may be fined up to $5,000. Provision is made for the issue of warrants to authorised persons and for the exercise of their powers without a warrant in emergency circumstances. The Bill also provides for all unauthorised Australian ships to be excluded from the area when a state of emergency is declared because of a terrorist or extortion threat. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), acting on the advice of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) and in consultation with Victoria's designated authority-the relevant State Minister-will be able to declare a state of emergency for up to 14 days and to extend the declaration by further periods of 14 days if necessary. The introduction of the area to be avoided is necessary to ensure the protection of one of Australia's most important resource development projects. It is also essential in order that the risk to the lives of those working on the production platforms and on ships passing through the area is minimised. The Bill also provides for the joint authority-the Commonwealth Minister and the relevant State or Northern Territory Minister-to issue directions to licensees as to the rate of recovery of petroleum from licence areas. This will remove an inconsistency in the present legislation whereby the joint authority is responsible for directing commencement of production, but the designated authority is empowered to direct licensees to increase or reduce that production . In addition, the amendments provide for the joint authority to direct the rates of recovery of petroleum from individual pools in a licence area, as well as the licence area as a whole, as provided for under the present legislation. In view of the importance to Commonwealth revenue of rates of production from off-shore petroleum fields, the amendments also specify Commonwealth revenue considerations as a reason for joint authority direction as to rates or recovery of petroleum. The Bill also provides that any proposals by the designated authority to vary work conditions in licences be made subject to examination by the joint authority at the direction of the Commonwealth Minister. This removes an inconsistency in the division of responsibilities between the joint authority and the designated authority. It is unacceptable that, while the joint authority must approve the original work conditions of a licence, and can approve or vary permit conditions, it cannot, under the Act as it stands at present, vary work conditions of a licence. Finally, the Bill removes a number of drafting inconsistencies and ambiguities, many of which were identified during the preparation of complementary State- Northern Territory legislation. A draft of this Bill was circulated to the States and the Northern Territory and to industry earlier this year. A number of comments received have been incorporated into the Bill now before the House. The provisions of the Bill have no direct financial impact. The amendments proposed in this Bill are essential to the continued effective administration of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(5.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill implements measures announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech to strengthen existing mechanisms for the collection of tax, to increase the levels of penalty for breaches of the taxation laws and to modernise provisions for the prosecution of such breaches. The measures in the Bill demonstrate in a tangible way the Government's determination not to let up on those members of the community who could cheat on their fellows, whether by outright tax evasion, participation in artificial avoidance schemes or the use of delaying tactics to postpone tax collections. The Bill arises from a comprehensive review of the penalty, offences and collection provisions of the various taxation laws, and it will be evident to honourable members that the reforms it contains have been painstakingly developed over a considerable period . Three broad kinds of improvements to the taxation laws are being implemented. The first relates to existing offence and prosecution provisions, the second to penalty taxes, and the third to the procedures for collection and recovery of taxes. Offence and Prosecution Provisions It goes without saying that while there is a high degree of voluntary compliance with the taxation laws, successful enforcement of those laws depends on adequate sanctions being available for any breaches. Most of the existing penalties are sadly out of date. The maximum penalty, for example, for failure to lodge an income tax return has stood at $200 since 1936. That deficiency is being rectified in this Bill. In most cases there is to be a 10-fold increase in the maximum monetary penalty for a taxation offence and, where offences carry a term of imprisonment, that term is also being increased. To deal more appropriately with habitual taxation offenders, a tiered penalty structure will operate for second and subsequent offences and will include a liability to imprisonment. The tiered penalty structure will apply to existing offences, such as failure to lodge a return or information or refusing to give evidence when attending before the Commissioner of Taxation, and also to a new group of offences to deal with tax evasion practices in a more complete and certain way than the existing law seeks to do. Under the new rules, it will be an offence to make false or misleading statements or to keep accounting and other business records that do not correctly record and explain the matters contained in the record. For such an offence, the maximum penalty for a first offence will be $2,000. Yet higher penalties will be imposed where a person recklessly or knowingly makes a false or misleading statement or keeps records incorrectly. For those kinds of offences, first offenders will face maximum penalties of $3,000 and second and subsequent offenders penalties of $5,000 or 12 months imprisonment, or both. It will be an express offence to keep records incorrectly or conceal them with the intention of deceiving or misleading the Commissioner of Taxation in the administration of the taxation laws. Falsifying or concealing the identity, address, place of residence or business of a person with the intention of deceiving, hindering, obstructing or defeating the purposes of a taxation law is also to be proscribed. These offences will be punishable by a fine of $5,000 or 12 months imprisonment or both for first offenders and a fine of $10,000 or two years for second and subsequent offenders. An important complementary measure to the new offences and penalties will empower courts to order persons convicted of tax evasion offences to pay to the Commissioner an amount up to double or treble-according to the nature of the offence-the amount of tax sought to be avoided through the act that constitutes the offence. Where a tax agent is convicted of an offence of knowingly making a false statement or failing to keep proper records or of falsifying or concealing the identity of a person with the intention of deceiving or misleading the Commissioner, the registration of the tax agent will be suspended for a minimum of three months. To give further impetus to the new penalties, and speed up the prosecution process, the Commissioner of Taxation will be able to institute prosecutions in courts of summary jurisdiction for taxation offences carrying terms of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months and for all offences carrying only a pecuniary penalty. That will enable the majority of taxation offences to be instituted in courts of summary jurisdiction. I now turn to measures that will directly affect companies in breach of taxation laws. Existing provisions that specify a fine or term of imprisonment for breaches of a taxation law apply unevenly as between individuals and corporations. To bring the deterrent effect of those penalties closer together, the maximum monetary penalty to be imposed on companies is to be five times that applicable to an individual for offences which also carry a term of imprisonment . So that persons responsible for breaches of the taxation laws by companies are appropriately dealt with, a director, officer or other person who is concerned in, or takes part in, the management of a company will be dealt with as having committed any taxation offence committed by the company, and be punishable accordingly. This measure is modelled closely on a similar provision in the companies code, but a person able to show that he or she did not aid or abet in the act or omission of the company that constituted the offence and was not, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in that act or omission will not face conviction . Some may baulk at this measure but it is important to bear in mind that, before any conviction may be recorded against a person, it will be necessary to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the offence was committed by the company concerned. The only way in which a company can commit an offence is through the actions of its officers or those who control it. In tax matters up to now, such individuals have been able to escape responsibility for their actions or omissions by shielding behind the corporate veil, with the result that prosecutions against corporations have often proven fruitless-usually because there are little or no funds left in the company. In many such cases, the persons who would suffer if a fine was imposed on the company are innocent creditors of the company. The new measure is directed against those who are fully responsible for breaches of the taxation laws by a company. Directors and company officers who act honestly and with reasonable competence in their management of a company's affairs have nothing to fear from this measure. All taxation offences committed by companies will be capable of being instituted in a court of summary jurisdiction, but where the maximum penalty for an offence exceeds $25,000, the company being prosecuted may elect to have the matter tried in a supreme court. A similar choice will be available to an individual who is prosecuted for an offence carrying a penalty of more than $5,000. The new offence and prosecution provisions are being enacted in the Taxation Administration Act 1953 so as to provide a uniform code for offences against the various taxation laws. Penalty Tax Provisions A major reform is implemented in the revised penalty tax provisions. Under the existing income tax law, a taxpayer who fails to furnish a return or information when required to do so is liable to statutory additional tax equal to the tax assessable. On the other hand, a penalty of double the tax sought to be avoided may be imposed where assessable income is omitted from a return, a deduction or rebate is falsely claimed, or where tax is sought to be avoided by means of a tax avoidance scheme to which the general anti-tax avoidance provisions of the law apply. Also at present additional tax of only 10 per cent per annum is imposed on tax avoided through international transfer pricing arrangements. The penalty in each of those instances will, under the new measures, be standardised at double the tax sought to be avoided, with a minimum penalty of $20. To remedy an anomaly, an equivalent penalty will be extended to cover attempted avoidance of income tax through participation in blatant tax avoidance schemes in respect of which there is specific anti-avoidance legislation. Where tax is avoided by means of international profit shifting, but it is clear that avoidance was not the sole or dominant purpose of the particular arrangement, the penalty will be 25 per cent per annum of the amount sought to be avoided. Apart from the standardisation of maximum statutory penalties, the new provisions will enable penalties to be imposed in relation to various acts or omissions that, while having an intended effect of avoiding tax, are not presently penalisable. Such activities include the misdescription of expenditure so as to maximise a tax deduction, the claiming of a share of a partnership loss computed on the basis of misleading information in a partnership return and the use of objection procedures to claim a deduction under a tax avoidance scheme where the claim would have been subject to penalty if it had been made at the time of lodgment of the relevant tax return. Several other measures will streamline the penalty tax provisions. One will permit the Commission of Taxation to sue in a court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of unpaid penalty taxes, including late payment penalty, imposed under the various taxation laws. A second will ensure that penalty tax continues to accrue in respect of unpaid tax, notwithstanding that judgment for payment of the unpaid tax has been given or entered in a court. Collection and Recovery Procedure Improvements The third major set of measures contained in the Bill is designed to bring about improvements to the procedures for collection and recovery of taxes. Provisions by which the Commissioner of Taxation can recover income tax due from persons who owe money to a tax debtor are being extended to apply to amounts payable to the Commissioner in respect of pay as you earn deductions or deductions made under the prescribed payments system. As well, a defect in those provisions, and equivalent provisions in the Australian Capital Territory payroll tax, sales tax, Australian Capital Territory stamp duty or tax, and wool tax laws is being remedied so that money held in a form of deposit in a building society that in strict legal terms represents share capital of the society may be called on to meet taxation debts. That will place such assets on the same footing as investments in financial institutions generally. In other words, this measure, is not discriminating against building societies in any way. It is, as I just said, putting those building societies on the same footing as investments in financial institutions generally. Measures are being enacted to counter a practice by which some companies have been able to prevent company tax instalment notices being sent to them by routinely and falsely estimating their incomes below $1,000. Such actions will attract statutory penalty of 20 per cent per annum. Under the existing provisions, statutory additional taxes are imposed for certain breaches of requirements under the prescribed payments system. Equivalent penalties are to be enacted for breaches of the PAYE system, and they will apply where an employer fails to make appropriate deductions of tax from salary or wage, fails to forward deducted amounts or fails to affix tax stamps. Further rationalisation of rates of penalty tax is being made in relation to provisional tax estimates and mining withholding tax deductions. The rate of additional tax for a significant underestimate of income for the purpose of reducing a provisional tax liability will increase from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. A corresponding increase will be made to the penalty for failure to deduct mining withholding tax from a payment for the use of Aboriginal land for mining or mineral prospecting purposes. The Commissioner of Taxation is to be authorised to prevent persons fleeing Australia to escape payment of tax in limited circumstances. The Commissioner will be able to serve a departure prohibition order on a person if he believes on reasonable grounds that there is a likelihood of that person departing Australia without discharging an outstanding tax liability or making satisfactory arrangements for it to be discharged. It will be an offence punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 or 12 months imprisonment for a person on whom a notice has been served to ignore the notice unless departure is authorised by the Commissioner. A departure authorisation certificate will enable such a person to leave Australia temporarily, if the Commissioner is satisfied either that the person will return and the tax liability is likely to be discharged, or that temporary departure should be allowed on humanitarian or general policy grounds. A departure prohibition order is revocable when the person's tax liabilities are discharged and the Commissioner is satisfied that any liabilities arising out of completed transactions will also be discharged or would be irrecoverable. The aid of the Australian Customs Service and the Australian Federal Police and, in appropriate cases, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, will be invoked in detecting and preventing the unauthorised departure from Australia by a person subject to an order. An appeal will lie against the making of a departure prohibition order, and against a decision by the Commissioner not to revoke an order or to refuse to issue a departure authorisation. Other Amendments Some further measures are being implemented in tandem with the improvements to the penalties, offences and collection provisions. The Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Act 1983 is being amended so that the Commissioner of Taxation will pay interest on certain refunds of sales tax, Australian Capital Territory stamp duty or tax, estate duty, gift duty, Australian Capital Territory payroll tax, tobacco charges and wool tax that are made following the resolution of a dispute in favour of the taxpayer. Interest is to be payable in respect of those taxes which are, under other provisions of the Bill, exposed to penalty tax of 20 per cent per annum if they are not paid by the dute date for payment. The measures are consistent with those applicable in relation to income tax refunds. The opportunity is being taken also to enunciate in the income tax law the principle that any pecuniary penalty, additional tax or other amount imposed on a person for failure to comply with a law is not an allowable deduction. Finally, the Bill will enable applications for tax clearance certificates required for the purposes of the revised tax screening arrangements announced on 19 June 1984 to be made under and considered in accordance with the established legislative basis contained in the Taxation Administration Act 1953. Explanations designed to give a broad guide to the provisions of the Bill are contained in the memorandum being circulated to honourable members. A technical explanation of each provision of the Bill will be made available to honourable members shortly. A few days ago the Treasurer announced those provisions in general. They have received a great deal of interest from the community. They show the Government's desire to stamp out taxation avoidance by every means. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate on motion by (Mr Shipton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(6.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend the income tax law in various respects, primarily to give effect to the Government's Budget proposals in the business and personal tax area. I will briefly address each of the main provisions of the Bill. Transfer of Loss within Company Groups One of the important initiatives announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech on 21 August 1984 to stimulate business activity concerns the taxation treatment of losses within a company group. To give effect to this measure, the income tax law is to be amended to allow a resident company which incurs a loss in the 1984-85 income year, or a later income year, to transfer the right to an allowable deduction in respect of the loss to another resident company in the same company group. The mechanism by which this will be achieved will be the giving by the respective companies of a formal notice to the Commissioner of Taxation of the amount of the loss incurred in a year which is desired to be transferred between them. The system will be a straightforward one. A loss available for transfer by a company will be determined in accordance with established income tax principles; that is, the available loss will be in excess of allowable deductions-other than carry-forward losses-over the assessable income and any exempt income of the company. Subject to existing anti-avoidance rules in this area, the right to an allowable deduction for a loss incurred by one company in an income year may be transferred to another company for deduction in that year where there is 100 per cent common ownership between the transferor and transferee companies in that year. Similarly the right to an allowable deduction for a company loss may be transferred in an income year after the year in which the loss was incurred if the 100 per cent common ownership test is met by the transferor and transferee companies in the loss year, the transferer year and any intervening period. Subject to these basic rules, a loss of one company in a group will be able to be transferred to other members of the company group in any of the seven years succeeding the year of loss. Losses incurred in carrying on a business of primary production will be available for transfer without limit as to time. The amount of the loss which may be transferred to a company in any year will be limited to the total of the net exempt income and taxable income of the transferee company. I note that this change in the taxation treatment of company groups will not affect revenue collections in the current year. From an initial estimated revenue cost of up to $200m in the 1985-86 financial year, the cost is expected to decrease over time to an eventual ongoing full-year cost estimated at about $ 50m. Capital Expenditure on Non-Residential Income-Producing Building The annual deduction allowable in respect of non-residential income-producing buildings, including short term traveller accommodation, is to increase from 2.5 percent to 4 per cent of the cost of construction. Like other Budget initiatives in the area of business taxation, this measure will encourage greater investment by the business sector. This measure is very good. It particularly helps, of course, the construction industry, in which-with my other hat on-I am especially interested. In particular, it will provide a significant boost to the construction industry. The amendment will apply to buildings or extensions, alterations or improvements to buildings that commence to be constructed after 21 August 1984. It is estimated that the increase in the annual deduction will cost $5m in 1985 -86, with the cost to revenue growing each year over a number of decades. Investment Allowance Under the existing law, the 18 per cent investment allowance would last apply to eligible capital expenditure incurred under a contract entered into before 1 July 1985, provided the subject property is used or installed ready for use before 1 July 1986. That latter cut-off date is being extended by one year to 1 July 1987. While the extension will be of particular assistance to firms undertaking large projects with lengthy lead times it will not be restricted to such projects. This limited extension to the investment allowance concession will have no cost in the current financial year, but in total it is estimated to cost in the vicinity of $70m to $100m, of which about 40 per cent should occur in 1987-88. Mineral Exploration and Prospecting Expenditure Expenditure incurred on exploration and prospecting on a mining tenement in Australia for minerals other than gold or petroleum is presently deductible only from a taxpayer's mining income and associated income. This Bill changes that because it will give effect to the Government's decision that such expenditure, where incurred after 21 August 1984, is to be deductible from income derived from any source. This measure, which will be of considerable assistance to the mining industry, is estimated to cost $8m in 1985-86 and $10m in 1986-87. Zone Rebates These changes are particularly attractive in northern Australia. Amendments proposed by this Bill will increase by 25 per cent the basic component of the rebates available to taxpayers in both zones A and B, and in the special areas of those zones. The rebate for zone A will be increased from $216 to $270, for zone B from $36 to $45 and for the special areas from $750 to $938. They are particularly pleased about this change in Weipa. The basic component of the rebates available to taxpayers serving outside Australia with a United Nations armed force or with an Australian defence force in a designated overseas area- which since their inception have been set at levels corresponding with the prevailing zone A rebate-also will be increased by 25 per cent from $216 to $270 . Because these increases are to apply from 1 November 1984, the basic rebate in 1984-85 for zone A and for overseas forces will be $252, for zone B it will be $ 42 and for the special areas of zones A and B, $875. A further measure announced in the Budget which this Bill will implement is the extension with effect from 1 July 1984 of eligibility for the special basic zone rebate to people in or near urban centres the populations of which have fallen below 2,500 since 1976. Those in or near urban centres where populations have increased marginally beyond 2,500 since 1976 will not lose their entitlement to rebate. The cost to the revenue of these changes will be $5m in 1984-85 and $11m in a full year. Dependent Spouse Rebate The Bill will also implement the Budget proposals that, with effect from 1 July 1984, entitlement to the income tax rebate for a dependent spouse will be extended to persons living in a de facto relationship. For these purposes a de facto relationship is to be defined as a man and a woman living together as husband and wife on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to each other. Recognition of a de facto relationship will benefit couples who, for some time, have been treated for social security purposes on the same basis as those legally married. Until now people in such circumstances have not been entitled to a rebate for a de facto spouse and have therefore been required to pay more tax than a legally married taxpayer in comparable circumstances. Under the proposed amendments a housekeeper rebate will not be available for a de facto spouse nor will a taxpayer with a de facto spouse be entitled to a rebate for a daughter-housekeeper. Recognition of de facto relationships will flow through to the variable component of zone and overseas forces rebates that take account of dependants. A taxpayer who contributes to the maintenance of the parent of his or her de facto spouse will similarly become eligible for the dependent parent rebate. Finally, and subject to the threshold of $2,000 which applies, eligibility for the general concessional expenditure rebate will be extended to such expenditure incurred by a taxpayer in respect of his or her de facto spouse. These changes will involve a cost to revenue of $2m in 1984-85 and $7m in a full year. Rebate for Pensioners As announced in the Budget Speech, the taxable income level at which the $250 tax rebate for pensioners begins to shade-out is to be increased to reflect the effect of the new personal income tax rate scale to apply from 1 November 1984. The taxable income level at or below which the maximum rebate of $250 is available will be increased from $5,429 to $5,533 for the 1984-85 year and to $5 ,595 for subsequent years. The rebate will shade out above these income levels, resulting in some rebate being available until taxable income exceeds $7,532 in 1984-85 and $7,594 in subsequent years. Social Security Beneficiary Rebates A measure implemented by this Bill to assist low income earners is the introduction of special taxation rebates for unemployment, sickness and special benefit recipients. The rebates will ensure that persons wholly or mainly dependent on social security benefits do not have to pay tax. The maximum rebates of $50 for single beneficiaries and $75 for married beneficiaries will mean that in 1984-85 no tax will be payable on taxable incomes up to $4,783 for single beneficiaries and $7,989 for married beneficiaries. The rebate will shade out above these income levels, resulting in some rebate being available until the 1984-85 taxable income exceeds $5,182 for a single beneficiary and $8,588 for a married beneficiary. Provisional Tax As provisional tax complements the pay as you earn system and is designed to collect tax on income other than salary or wage income within the year in which the income is derived, it is generally accepted that the amount of provisional tax charged should approximate as closely as practicable the amount of tax actually imposed for the year. Incomes for 1984-85 are expected to be higher than for 1983-84 and, due to the changes to the personal income tax rate scale applying from 1 November 1984, effective rates of tax for 1984-85 will be lower than for last year. Accordingly, as in past years, it is proposed to vary the basis of calculating provisional tax for 1984-85 to be notified in assessment notices to issue this year. This Bill thus provides for 1984-85 provisional tax to be calculated on the basis of 1983-84 taxable income increased by 10 per cent and by applying the lower rates of tax to apply for 1984-85. Also reflected in the provisional tax calculation will be the full year Medicare levy rate of one per cent. The increased low income thresholds and ceiling to apply for levy purposes in 1984- 85 will be taken into account. Generally, rebates will be allowed in the provisional tax calculation at the levels allowed in 1983-84 assessments. Taxpayers will continue to have the right to 'self-assess' and have the provisional tax for 1984-85 recalculated on the basis of their own estimates in appropriate circumstances. Deduction of Certain Expenditure on Fences The scheduled termination of the immediate deduction for expenditure incurred on fencing to help eradicate bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis in livestock will be extended by two years, to 30 June 1986. The proposed extension of this concession will further assist primary producers in those areas, particularly the remote regions of northern Australia, which have the most difficult and continuing eradication problems. The revenue cost of extending the concession is estimated to be $0.1m in 1984-85 and $0.5m in each of 1985-86 and 1986-87. Gifts The Bill will also extend the gift provisions of the income tax law to give effect to proposals announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the Budget Speech . One extension will authorise deductions for gifts made after 20 March 1984 to the Work Skill Australia Foundation. Another will authorise deductions for gifts made after 21 August 1984 to the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia. A further extension will ease, in two respects, the requirement that a donor of property must have purchased the property within the 12 months preceding the making of the gift. The first of these concerns gifts to National Trust bodies of property that is listed in the register of the National Estate. Because of the timing and manner of its acquisition property of this kind would generally be precluded from deduction. The Government recognises the great importance of the work of the National Trust in preserving properties of historical and heritage significance and this measure will assist the Trust in carrying out its valuable work. The second change concerns gifts of trading stock made to an authorised fund, authority or institution. Under the present law, gifts of trading stock that is not purchased within 12 months of the making of the gift are not deductible but the value of the trading stock is, under ordinary assessment rules, included in the assessable income of the donor. In contrast, had such a donor first sold the trading stock and then donated the proceeds, the proceeds would be taxable but the donor would be entitled to a deduction for the gifts. The amendment will ensure that the income tax law applies neutrally as between donors of trading stock and donors of the proceeds of a sale of trading stock. This further extension will apply to gifts made after 21 August 1984. Australian Trading Ships As announced by my colleague the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) on 2 July 1984, the Government has decided to amend the provisions of the income tax law that authorise special concessions for eligible Australian trading ships. Honourable members will recall that these concessions were introduced earlier this year in order to provide greater incentives for the Australian shipping industry. These concessions are intended to promote greater efficiency in the manning of Australian ships. The amendments will modify the requirements that are imposed upon the Secretary to the Department of Transport in determining the maximum complement of officers and crew which, in his opinion, is appropriate for the safe and efficient manning of ships eligible for the tax concessions. Primarily, the amendments are to remove any suggestion that industrial relations considerations are a dominant or overriding factor to be taken into account when determining manning levels. They will make clear that industrial relations considerations, where relevant, are but one of the factors to be considered. Substitution of Semi-Government Securities On 7 August 1984 the Treasurer announced the intention to amend the law to remove unwarranted tax effects where securities are issued by State central borrowing authorities in substitutions, on a matched term basis, for semi- government securities previously on issue. The Bill will do this. Since that time, it has come to the Government's attention that at least one State has in existence a central borrowing authority which is similarly empowered to consolidate the borrowings of local government bodies. Some other States are expected to follow this lead. Accordingly, the amendments will extend also to substitutions of local government securities. Under the present law such a substitution may be treated as a realisation of the original securities at their market price on the day of substitution and an acquisition of the replacement securities at the same price on that day. Dealers would stand to be taxed on any gains and could deduct any losses on the realisation of the securities being replaced although no effective change of investment occurs. The Bill will ensure that tax effects of this kind do not arise as an incidence of such substitutions. Any new securities received as a consequence of a substitution by a central borrowing authority, if on a matched term basis, will be treated for the purposes of the income tax law as if they were the original securities, and as having been purchased on the same day and at the same cost as the original securities. The amendments will apply to substitutions that occur on or after 8 August 1984. Detailed explanations of the measures proposed in this Bill are contained in a memorandum that is to be circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I crave the indulgence of the House to add to an answer which I gave during Question Time today. I have advised the Opposition that I intend to add to the answer. Mr Shipton —I have no objection, on the basis that the Opposition has been informed. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I grant indulgence to the Prime Minister to add to the answer. Mr HAWKE —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am indebted to the honourable member for Higgins. During Question Time today I was asked a question concerning Mr Peter Barron and a visit to the Age. The House will recall that I gave a very specific answer to that question. I want now to add to that answer by indicating that the Editor of the Age, as I understand, will be releasing this statement, and may already have done so, which I now read to the House in addition to the answer I gave. I ask particularly that members of the Opposition present, particularly the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), pay very clear attention to this statement by the Editor of the Age. It is in these terms: Mr Peter Barron, Principal Adviser to the Prime Minister, came to see me last Thursday at his request. He did not lobby me about anything. He did not mention a High Court Judge or Ms Junie Morosi or anything to do with a safe deposit box in a Swiss bank or any other bank. He did not ask me to suppress any story or to publish any story. In fact, he did not ask me to do anything and he certainly did not threaten me. I do not know Mr Steele Hall and to the best of my recollection I have never spoken to him, certainly not about any matter relating to a High Court Judge or Ms Morosi. One could not have a clearer or more unequivocal statement from the Editor of the Age in respect of a totally unfounded and scurrilous imputation by the honourable member for Boothby. I conclude my addition to my answer by asking the Opposition-and I am pleased to see the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in his place-to take steps to ensure that these totally unfounded insinuations and allegations are brought to a halt. It is not merely that it does no credit to the Opposition because that is its concern. Opposition members have to deal with their stature and how they will be judged in the public mind. But what is clearly established now by this unequivocal statement from the Editor of the Age is that the scurrilous innuendo involved in the question by the honourable member for Boothby is totally without foundation. It does the honourable member for Boothby no credit. One must presume that he speaks for the Opposition when he raises these matters. Therefore, it does no credit to the Opposition. More than that, the question of the stature of the Opposition is a matter for honourable members opposite, but the stature of this Parliament is a matter of concern to all of us. It does this Parliament no credit at all that we should have a responsible-or an 'allegedly' responsible-leading member of the Opposition getting up in this place with these sorts of innuendos. It is in line with the behaviour that we have witnessed in this House this day out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). In no way could one have a more specific, unequivocal repudiation of the gutter tactics of the Opposition through the mouth of the honourable member for Boothby. I conclude by expressing the hope that the honourable member for Boothby, and through him the Leader of the Opposition, will now have the decency, having had that scurrilous, baseless innuendo and implication completely destroyed by the statement of the Editor of the Age-one expresses the hope that there may be a skerrick of decency left there-to take this opportunity, which I am sure I can provide now, to make a statement in response to what I have had to say. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, for Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(8.01) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend the taxation law in relation to Australia's international taxation agreements in several respects. First, it will make clear Australia's right to tax distributions by Australian business trusts to residents of countries with which Australia has concluded a comprehensive taxation agreement. The Government's intention to clarify the operation of our taxation agreements in this area was announced on 19 August 1984. Secondly, it will give the force of law in Australia to a protocol signed on 20 March 1984 to amend the existing taxation agreement with Belgium, and to a comprehensive taxation agreement with Malta that was signed on 9 May 1984. Details of the protocol and the agreement were announced when each was signed, and copies of both were made available to the public at that time. The Bill will also make minor technical changes to the law. I turn now to detailed comment on the main features of the Bill. Foreign Beneficiaries This measure is in response to a technical argument to the effect that Australia would be unable to tax distributions of business profits derived in Australia by a trust where those distributions are made to a beneficiary, or a unit holder in the case of a unit trust, being an enterprise resident in an agreement partner country. It is claimed that, since the trust does not represent a permanent establishment of the beneficiary in Australia, the business profits article in our taxation agreements would operate to shield the beneficiary from a liability to tax in this country. The Commissioner of Taxation has advised the proponents of that argument that he does not accept their view and would contest any such cases coming to his attention. However, if a court were to uphold the argument, Australia's taxation agreements would have a completely unintended effect that could lead to substantial revenue losses. Against this background the Government decided that, to guard against potential revenue losses, legislative action consistent with Australia's domestic tax policy and with what was clearly intended when our taxation agreements were negotiated was needed to put beyond doubt Australia's right to tax distributions of the business profits in question. To that end, the provisions of this Bill will amend the present Australian domestic law so that a beneficiary or unit holder resident in a taxation agreement partner country who is entitled to a share of trust income derived from business operations carried on in Australia, will be deemed to be carrying on the business of the trustee through a permanent establishment situated in Australia. This will ensure that, in accordance with the rules contained in the business profits article of our various taxation agreements, the non-resident will be subject to Australian income tax on that share of business income. This clarifying measure will apply to distributions of business profits to which a beneficiary overseas became entitled after 19 August 1984, the day on which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced-after all of our agreement partners had been informed-the Government's intention to legislate in the manner outlined. The Belgium Protocol The protocol with Belgium will amend the existing agreement with that country to take account of three developments in the taxation field in Australia since the agreement was signed in 1977. The first two amendments will fully preserve Australia's right to apply its revised transfer pricing provisions to our own resident enterprises, and specifically recognise the branch profits tax provided for in our domestic law. The third change is necessary to overcome certain technical deficiencies in the definition of the term 'royalties' contained in the existing agreement. That definition applies to payments for the right to use property, but does not cover amounts that, instead of being paid, are merely credited. A further deficiency in the definition occurs in relation to arrangements under which, instead of agreeing in the normal way to a formal grant of the exclusive right to use industrial property, the parties agree that the owner receive consideration for not granting the rights to anyone else. The new definition of the term 'royalties' to be inserted in the existing agreement by the amending protocol will rectify these shortcomings. These changes will bring the agreement with Belgium into line with Australia's other recently negotiated agreements and with Australia's current tax treaty practice. The Maltese Agreement I now turn to the comprehensive agreement that deals with all forms of income flowing between Australia and Malta. In general, comprehensive taxation agreements have two primary objects-the elimination of international double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion. The first of these objects is achieved by the contracting countries agreeing to allocate taxing rights between them. There are various ways by which this is done, depending upon the nature of the income. For example, some classes of income will be taxed only in the country or residence while others will be taxed only in the country of source. A third category is comprised of income which may be taken in both countries, with the country of source generally agreeing to limit its tax, and the country of residence of the taxpayer agreeing to allow a credit against its tax on such income for the tax paid in the other country. The agreement with Malta accords in all essential respects with the position that Australian governments have taken over the years in relation to comprehensive taxation agreements. It provides for the country of source to limit its tax on dividends. For its part, Australia will reduce the rate of withholding tax on dividends flowing to Malta from the normal 30 per cent rate to the 15 per cent rate specified in the agreement. In the case of Malta, the agreement provides that the Maltese tax payable by Australian residents on the gross amount of the dividends received from a Maltese company is not to exceed the company tax chargeable on the profits out of which the dividends are paid. This reflects the Maltese system of taxing company profits and dividends whereby the income tax on company profits distributed as dividends is treated, in effect , as tax paid by shareholders on the dividends. The agreement also provides for the country of source to limit its tax on the gross amount of interest and royalties flowing to residents of the other countries. The limit is 15 per cent for interest and 10 per cent for royalties. As the rate of withholding tax on interest under Australia's domestic law is 10 per cent, this will not be affected by the limit on the source country tax provided for in the agreement. In Australia, royalties paid to non-residents are taxed by the ordinary assessment basis on the net amount after deduction of expenses and, accordingly, the limit specified by the agreement by reference to gross royalties will not affect the amount of Australian tax on royalties unless the tax which would otherwise be assessed on the net royalties is greater than 10 per cent of the gross amount of the royalties paid to Maltese residents. Malta may, however, in some cases, in accordance with its industry incentive legislation, wholly or partially exempt from Maltese tax certain dividend, interest and royalty payments made to Australian residents. If nothing were done to avoid the situation, the tax so forgone by Malta would simply result in a corresponding reduction in the credit to be allowed by Australia against its tax on the relevant dividend, interest and royalty payments. In other words, the Australian revenue would pick up the tax forgone by Malta, thus nullifying the incentive. To avoid that result, provision is made in the agreement for Australia, as a ' tax sharing' measure, to allow a credit against its tax for tax forgone by Malta under agreed Maltese incentive legislation, as if notional tax equal to 15 per cent of the gross dividend income and 10 per cent of the gross interest and royalty income had been paid to Malta. The agreement contains measures for the formal relief of double taxation of income that may be taxed in both countries, with the country of residence of the taxpayer affording the necessary relief by the allowance of a credit against its tax for tax paid to the country of source. So far as Australian residents in receipt of income from sources in Malta are concerned, income in respect of which a limit is imposed by the agreement on Maltese tax-dividends, interest and royalties-will generally be taxed here with credit being allowed for the Maltese tax. However, because of the general rebate on inter-company distributions, there is effectively no tax on dividends received from foreign sources by Australian resident companies. The Bill does not disturb the position that other income that is taxed in the country of source is exempt from Australian tax. So far as the object of preventing fiscal evasion is concerned, provision is made in the agreement for the exchange of information and for consultation between the tax administrations of the two countries. Apart from the provisions I have mentioned, the agreement also contains usual provisions of a kind common to taxation agreements relating to the taxation of business profits, professional services, employees, public entertainers, students, pensioners and so on. The protocol and agreement contained in this bill cannot enter into force until all necessary constitutional processes are completed both by Australia and the other partner country. For Australia, this Bill will, when assented to, complete the processes required of us. Neither the Maltese agreement nor the Belgium protocol is expected to have any significant net effect on revenue. A memorandum containing more detailed explanations of technical aspects of the Bill and of the protocol and agreement is being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Beazley, for Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(8.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The three main purposes of the Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1984 are to improve the Commonwealth's ability to collect air navigation charges, to place payment and penalty provisions on a more commercial basis and to pave the way for the introduction of a separate airport and airway charging arrangement to replace the existing air navigation charges. The Bill also makes some machinery amendments to the Air Navigation (Charges) Act. At present the Commonwealth's powers to recover debts for air navigation charges are limited to the imposition of penalty charges and normal debt recovery action through the courts. These powers have proved insufficient particularly with respect to certain general aviation operators. Over the two years to 30 June 1984, air navigation charges from the general aviation sector outstanding for more than 28 days increased from about $3.5m to about $5m. While the majority of overdue payments cannot be classified as bad debts, they nevertheless represent a significant cost to Commonwealth revenue. As well as depriving the Commonwealth of revenue, operators with outstanding air navigation charges reflect poorly on the industry and adversely affect its overall cost recovery results. Moreover, we cannot allow a situation to continue in which often unscrupulous operators are, through such devices as straw companies, gaining an unfair commercial advantage over the great majority of operators who pay their air navigation charges promptly. While my Department has actively tried to assist operators facing short term financial difficulties by encouraging them to make arrangements to pay by instalment, many problems have been encountered in dealing with recalcitrant debtors and straw companies. It gives me no pleasure to introduce a Bill which provides for more stringent means to collect air navigation charges and I do so only after considerable consultation with the aviation industry through the Aviation Industry Advisory Council. Council recognises the seriousness of the situation and the need for the Commonwealth to take strong action. Indeed, some industry counsellors believe the Commonwealth has been too lenient in the past in its efforts to collect air navigation charges. I endorse the tenor of this view but the fact is that the Commonwealth has not had the necessary tools to take a firmer stance. In these circumstances the Government must be able to take effective steps to recover and secure moneys owed both under the present charging arrangements and any future charging regime. We have given careful consideration to alternative courses of action to solve the problem, including a suggestion made by industry representatives that operators should have their aircraft deregistered as soon as charges become outstanding. I should like briefly to refer to this proposal which at first glance appears to be a simple and attractive solution akin to the approach adopted by motor vehicle registration authorities. On closer examination this is far from the case. In fact, I am advised that the Government could pursue this course only where there was a question of safety involved. In any event deregistration, of itself, would not place the Commonwealth in any better position to recover overdue charges in particular where aircraft are operated by straw companies or where an operator goes into liquidation since the Commonwealth would not rank as a secured creditor. For these reasons this proposal was not pursued. As an alternative the Government has decided to put in place a debt recovery process based on the creation of a statutory lien over aircraft in respect of which charges are overdue. This process will be exercised on a discretionary basis consistent with the circumstances of the debt. Use of the process will provide the Commonwealth with security and will also enable a graduated approach to be taken. I would like to elaborate on the way in which the lien arrangement will operate. When charges have been outstanding for more than 28 days there will be a power to impose on the aircraft a statutory lien which will vest a right over the aircraft in favour of the Commonwealth. Nothing more is involved at this stage. The Commonwealth will, of course, continue to take such steps as it can to encourage payment of outstanding amounts including payment by instalment. Where all efforts to make satisfactory arrangements to recover outstanding charges have been unsuccessful and the lien has been in force for at least six months, the Bill establishes the right to deregister the aircraft by virtue of the claim which the Commonwealth has established through the lien. This will have the effect of prohibiting the aircraft from being flown and using Commonwealth facilities and services. The aircraft could not then be reregistered until the charges have been paid in full. The Government intends that the decision to deregister be reviewable in accordance with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. Where the lien has been in force for at least nine months the Bill provides for the Commonwealth to seize and/or sell the aircraft concerned. The power to sell is clearly a last resort and it is my hope that it will not prove necessary to use it. The Commonwealth has no wish to ground or to sell aircraft and the measures that I have outlined will have no effect on the great majority of operators in the aviation industry who conscientiously pay their air navigation charges. However, the measures are aimed at those who choose not to meet their financial obligations yet still expect to use Commonwealth aviation facilities and services. I have no doubt as to how such a situation would be handled in the business world. I would like to emphasise that at each critical point in the graduated process which I have outlined, it is necessary for me or the Secretary to my Department or an officer authorised by the Secretary, to exercise a discretion having regard to the particular circumstances of individual debtors. No step in the process is automatic. As I have already mentioned, the decision to deregister an aircraft will be reviewable under the terms of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. As part of this process the Bill provides that in the first instance such decisions may be reviewed by the Secretary to my Department. I believe the Commonwealth has adopted a balanced approach which provides an effective debt recovery procedure and a capacity to accommodate genuine difficulties faced by individual operators. It will also continue to be an effective debt recovery measure when the Government moves to the system of separate airport and airway charges later in 1985. The statutory lien provisions of this Bill are to come into operation by proclamation and I do not expect this to be possible before the end of March 1985. There will therefore be ample opportunity for those with outstanding charges to meet their obligations before these provisions come into operation. Even then, the Bill provides that the age of outstanding debts prior to the date of proclamation will be disregarded for the purpose of applying the lien provisions which, I would repeat, is a discretionary process which will take into account all the relevant circumstances of the debt. It will of course be essential to have further detailed discussions with industry before the administrative arrangements are finalised and these provisions are proclaimed. In the coming months my Department will be conducting discussions in each State with industry groups and other interested parties-for example, representatives of the finance sector-to ensure the measures are given the widest possible coverage and to ensure that their views are taken into account. Turning to other aspects of the Bill, it increases the rate of penalty interest charged on unpaid amounts from one per cent to a more realistic 1.5 per cent per month compounded and also reduces the period of grace for payment before a penalty charge is imposed from 45 days to 28 days to bring the payment provision more into line with normal commercial practice. These measures will be effective from 1 January 1985. A further administrative matter is the introduction of new route and zone factors necessary to calculate charges for airline operations on routes on which services have recently been commenced. These measures will also apply from 1 January 1985. On top of this, it is proposed to allow the remission of penalty interest. The inability to do this as the Act currently stands has frequently added to administrative complexity. It is proposed that this apply from the date of royal assent to this Bill. On 26 August 1984, I announced that my Department would commence preparations for the introduction of separate charges for airport and airway facilities. The Government's in-principle decision to introduce separate charges was announced previously. There is a series of interrelated administrative and policy changes in prospect which will, over the next 12 months or so, result in a complete review of cost recovery arrangements. In addition to the introduction of separate charges for airport and airway facilities and action to reduce late and non-payment of air navigation charges, cost recovery arrangements are currently being examined by the Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery chaired by Mr Henry Bosch. Together these measures will result in a more effective and equitable cost recovery policy and will pave the way for the introduction of the National Airports Authority. The introduction of separate airport and airway charges, for which this Bill provides the machinery, will involve charges related to the use made by operators of broad categories of airport and airway facilities and services. These charges will replace the existing single charge for the use of airport and airway facilities. Their precise form will, of course, be subject to detailed discussion with the aviation industry and can only be finalised after the Government has considered the findings of the Bosch inquiry which is due to report by the end of October. Once determined, the schedules of charges will be detailed in regulations, rather than in the Act as at present, thus greatly simplifying the procedures for revising the charges in future. The principal purpose of introducing separate charges is to enable charges to more closely reflect the cost and use made of major airport and airway facilities in the various phases of a flight. Their introduction will, consequently, permit a more commercial approach to aviation investment decisions by enabling the identification of revenue associated with a particular facility or group of facilities and comparison with the capital and operating costs associated with such facilities. This action is of course a necessary prerequisite to the establishment of the National Airports Authority. The new charging arrangements are expected to be effective on a date to be proclaimed next financial year. Before this occurs there will of course be further extensive consultation with industry and other interested bodies. The cost of administering the statutory lien arrangements will be absorbed within existing appropriations and it is estimated that there will be a once only increase in revenue of around $7.5m in 1984-85 arising from the introduction of the statutory lien and changes to the payment and penalty provisions. The new charging arrangements address the form rather than the level of changes and will not, of themselves, have any impact on Commonwealth revenues. It is estimated that the annual costs of administering the new separate airport and airway charging arrangements will be $1m, some $400,000 more than the present arrangement. Computer hardware, software, and system development costs are estimated at $1m in 1984-85 and due to the need to operate both new and old charging systems for a three-month introductory period additional operating costs of approximately $300,000 will be incurred in 1984-85. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Beazley, for Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(8.27) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Air Navigation Act so as to broaden the Government's power to cancel or suspend the international airline licences of foreign airlines operating to Australia. The proposed amendments have no financial impact. The Air Navigation Act currently limits the power to suspend or cancel a licence of a foreign operator to a situation where an airline has actually failed to comply with a provision of the Act or the regulations, or fails to conform to or comply with the terms or conditions of agreements or arrangements entered into with overseas countries. Firstly, this Bill will provide wider power to suspend or cancel international airline licences on safety grounds, which as I have indicated is currently limited to an actual breach of the Act or regulations. The Act does not presently provide for a situation where information to hand indicates that there is likely to be a breach of the Act or regulations which is going to affect safety. In the interest of preserving air safety in Australia the Government should have the power to act before the breach occurs. Another situation which can prejudice air safety is where an overseas aeronautical authority does not make adequate provision to ensure that its airline or aircraft substantially comply with the standards, practices and procedures set out in the Chicago Convention and its annexes. This situation could arise as a result of a failure to set appropriate standards or a failure to carry out adequate surveillance to ensure that an airline is complying with appropriate standards. As members will appreciate Australia is dependent to a large degree on the role of relevant overseas authorities to ensure that their aircraft operate safely into and out of Australia. Secondly, the Bill provides for an amendment to the Air Navigation Act so as to enable the cancellation or suspension of a licence of a foreign carrier where this is considered necessary or desirable to preserve or promote fair competition in international air transport services. At the moment the Government does not have the capability to cancel or suspend a licence where an overseas government decides to withdraw the licence of or reduce the activity of an Australian carrier. If these circumstances eventuated it would be important to be able to respond to this situation. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) 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)(8.29) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984 which is now before the House proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. The Bill contains six schedules and is necessary to enact tariff changes which have been introduced into the Parliament in the 1984 autumn and Budget sittings by Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 5-10 (1984). The Bill also contains two amendments to sections of the Customs Tariff Act 1982 which have not previously been introduced into the Parliament. Some of the changes contained in the Bill relate to Budget decisions to alter the Customs tariff rates applying to certain beer, manufactured tobacco and aviation fuels. These changes are complementary to changes proposed to the Excise Tariff Act 1921. The relevant Customs tariff rates are varied by the same monetary amounts as the respective rates in the Excise Tariff Act. These changes were introduced by Customs Tariff Proposal No. 10 (1984) on Budget night. A number of amendments contained in the Bill arise from Government decisions on the following Industries Assistance Commission's reports: (1) Computer hardware and software; typewriters, calculating and other office machines; parts and accessories; recording media; and (2) Electric motors-interim report. Details of the tariff changes associated with these two reports are contained in the introduction speeches and summaries of alterations for Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 8 and 9 (1984) which were introduced into the House on 21 August 1984. Honourable members will also recall that details of other tariff changes contained in the Bill were outlined to the House at the time of introduction of Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 5 to 7 (1984), which were introduced on 5 April, 29 May and 21 August respectively. These changes relate, in the main, to implementation of government decisions in respect of: (1) The interim tariff arrangements for the period 30 May to 31 December 1984 decided upon by the Government in the context of its motor vehicle industry assistance package; (2) The concessional and preferential tariff arrangements to apply to certain goods or to imports from certain countries and places; (3) The restoration of the level of assistance intended for certain locally manufactured goods following rulings handed down by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or a court; (4) A number of technical or administrative amendments to reflect correctly the intention, scope or wording of various provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, and (5) The further simplification of the Customs Tariff Act. The Bill also contains two changes to sections of the Customs Tariff Act which have not previously been introduced into the Parliament. The first of these changes relates to an amendment to sub-section 13 (4) to ensure that reference to phasing rates of duty in relation to paragraph (a) of that sub-section is made only in respect of tariff classifications in Schedule 3 to the Act. This change merely corrects a drafting oversight in the Act. Secondly, the Bill includes amendments to sub-sections 26A (2) and 26A (3) of the Customs Tariff Act. These amendments are technical in nature and are made in order to clarify, for the purposes of the indexation of certain amounts of Customs duty, that substitution of amounts of Customs duty shall occur on a particular day. The changes in the Bill which emanate from the Government's Budget decisions are complementary to changes made in a budgetary context in respect of the Excise Tariff Act. The combined financial impact of these measures is contained in statement No. 4 of Budget Paper No. 1. In regard to the decision on the Industries Assistance Commission report on computer hardware, et cetera, it is not possible to provide meaningful estimates of the Customs revenue forgone. Rapid changes in the nature of products, demand and sourcing for many of the goods covered by the decision create difficulties in predicting the composition and level of imports and thereby calculating duty collection changes. A particular complication with the computer decision involved the removal of duties on computer software. It is not possible to determine the proportion of imports that were previously attracting duties. It is also not possible to determine with any degree of accuracy the financial impact of the Customs duty change in the decision on the IAC interim report on electric motors. Other amendments contained in the Bill are not expected to have a significant financial impact. There are no additional significant administrative costs associated with the Bill. A summary of amendments for each Schedule of the Bill has been prepared and copies are available from the Tables Office. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) 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)(8.33) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to amend the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act 1975 to provide an exemption from the payment of the export duty under that Act on high quality coking coal produced from certain open-cut mines if specified quantities of underground coal from those mines is included in production for export. The Government's decision to exempt this coal from the $3.50 per tonne export duty on and from 28 May 1984 was announced by the Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh) on 29 May 1984. The Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act was introduced in 1975 because the government of the day wished to channel to the community a proportion of the windfall profits then being made by the coal export producers. The duty arrangements have been varied on a number of occasions to the extent that the only coal now dutiable is high quality coking coal mined from depths no greater than 60 metres in open-cut mines in production before 1 July 1980. In practice duty is currently paid only on production from eight mines in Queensland. The Government considers that the most desirable course is to incorporate the coal export duty into a Commonwealth-State resource rent tax package. However, we recognise that this may not be practicable in the immediate future. In an international market characterised by a substantial over-supply of coking coal, the intense competition for available markets will continue for some time to come. Producers have been forced to accept price reductions and a substantial upturn is unlikely in the immediate future. Against this background, in 1983 the Government received representations from CSR Ltd and Thiess Dampier Mitsui for relief from the export duty on production from the Moura and South Blackwater mines located in the Bowen Basin in Queensland. Both mines must blend significant quantities of higher quality coal from their undergound operations with coal from their open-cuts in order to obtain product of a quality suitable to meet export contract specifications. The addition of higher cost underground product to their open-cut coal increased costs to the point where the imposition of the export duty on the open-cut coal in the exported product was having a significant impact on the rate of return to the producers. In order to assist the viability of these operations, the Government has decided to exempt from duty open-cut production in the situation where mines are , and have been, dependent on significant underground operations to maintain coal quality. The Government considers that the maintenance of underground operations in the Bowen Basin will retain skills which will ultimately be of benefit to the industry as a whole in that region. It also demonstrates the Government's concern to assist employment security in the industry in the present difficult international marketing environment. Financial Impact Statement It is estimated that this exemption will mean an annual loss to the revenue of less than $10m. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) 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)(8.37) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to incorporate into that Act the excise alterations introduced during the winter recess and tabled in the Parliament on 21 August 1984 and the excise alterations emanating from the 1984- 85 Budget. On 18 April this year new taxation initiatives were announced to apply to the petroleum sector from 1 July 1984. One of the initiatives was the introduction of an excise on crude oil produced from areas discovered after 17 September 1975, called 'new oil'. By way of background I should mention that the taxation arrangements on crude oil produced from areas discovered on or before 17 September 1975, called 'old oil', were modified from 1 July 1983 to correct a number of anomalies. The excise scale was restructured so that increased production from each prescribed production area, as defined in the excise by-laws, attracted progressively higher rates of excise. In formulating the policy on 'new oil' the Government had to find a reasonable balance between the interests of the community as a whole and those of the oil exploration companies who must be adequately rewarded if they are to continue in the high risk activity of oil exploration. Several generous concessions have therefore been made in the 'new oil' excise scale compared to the scale applicable to 'old oil'. There is an annual excise free allowance of 500 megalitres, approximately 3.1 million barrels, exempting the majority of on-shore fields from any levy at all. Also, the 'new oil' excise scale imposes excise rates far below those imposed on 'old oil'. The rate on ' new oil' at the beginning of the 'new oil' scale is 10 per cent compared to 80 per cent for the same level of 'old oil' production, while the top rate is 35 per cent for 'new oil' compared to 87 per cent for 'old oil'. The excise payments for all prescribed production areas in relation to 'old' and 'new' oil are determined by applying the excise scale to the ruling government determined import parity price for Bass Strait crude oil. The modest rates for 'new oil', which are set out in clause 7 of the Bill, reflect the Government's desire to encourage and maintain exploration and development incentives in the oil industry. Clause 4 of the Bill proposes to clarify the procedure for imposition of duty on 'new' and 'old' oil. The practice has been to back-allocate elements in a crude oil mixture through a mass balance procedure to the production areas from where they were derived. Excise duty is then determined for each production area by applying the excise scale accordingly. Legal advice has been given that the current legislation might not extend to the 'back allocation' of all elements in a crude oil mixture . This method of imposing duty on crude oil production accords with the Government's intention when the modified arrangements were introduced from 1 July 1983. For this reason the provisions of clause 4 are proposed to operate retrospectively from that date. The retrospective operation of this provision will not impose any additional liabilities upon producers. In keeping with previous practice, on 27 June 1984 the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) announced a revision in the excise rate applying to naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas-LPG-from 1 July 1984. As in past determinations, the excise rate has been calculated using a weighted export and domestic LPG price over the preceding six months. The reduction in the excise rate by $12.27 per kilolitre to $36.96 per kilolitre as contained in clause 9 of the Bill, reflects the current soft state of the world export market for LPG. The provisions in clause 8 of the Bill remove the excise on grape spirit for fortifying wine with effect from 8 p.m. standard time on 22 June 1984 as announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on the same date. Re-introduction of the duty on this spirit at a rate of $2.61 per litre was announced in the 1983-84 Budget. The rate was subsequently reduced to $1.50 per litre with effect from 23 August 1983. The Treasurer, in his speech on the 1984-85 Budget, announced that, with the introduction of the general sales tax on wine and alcoholic cider and to avoid double taxation on fortified wines, excise paid in 1983-84 on fortifying spirit will be refunded in full. Necessary amendments have been made to the Excise Regulations to allow the refunds to be paid and persons who believe they are entitled to a refund should submit their applications to the Collector of Customs in their State as soon as possible and no later than 30 June 1985. With effect from 18 July 1984 the number of decimal places in the excise rate for beer was increased from two to five. This change, which is set out in clause 10 of the Bill, follows representations by the brewing industry that the excise duty rate on beer had suffered repeated roundings upward as a result of the application of indexation. The Government believes that the increase in the number of decimal places will alleviate this problem. The other provision in clause 10 of the Bill omits on and from 18 July 1984, the requirement that Australian gin must be made only from grape, grain or fruit spirit. A similar provision relating to imported gin was removed from 1 January 1983. The removal of this requirement is consequential upon a review of wines and spirits legislation, conducted by the National Health and Medical Research Council in conjunction with Commonwealth Government departments. That review identified that this imposition is outdated and results in unnecessary costs on the industry. I now turn to the excise alterations emanating from the 1984-85 Budget. The provisions of clause 11 of the Bill operate at 8 p.m. on Budget night and alter, as a consequence of the new taxing arrangements for beer, the definition of beer in the Excise Tariff Act and introduce new excise rates which vary according to the alcoholic strength of beer. The other changes in this clause increase the excise duties on tobacco, aviation gasoline and aviation kerosene. The increase in the tobacco excise represents a further step towards aligning the excise on that product with that applying to cigarettes and cigars. Increases in the excise of the fuels are made as a cost recovery measure. Finally, the provisions of clause 5 of the Bill modify, as announced by the Treasurer on Budget night, the arrangements for six-monthly indexation of excise duty rates, except for crude oil and LPG, so that consumer price index decreases are taken into account in a similar manner to the treatment of pensions and benefits under the Social Security Act. Financial Impact Statement In 1984-85 the introduction of the excise on 'new oil' is expected to yield about $317m in revenue and the lower LPG excise is expected to reduce Commonwealth revenue from LPG excise by approximately $24m to about $70m. Refunds of excise on fortifying spirit between 21 August 1983 and 22 June 1984 are expected to amount to $5m. The reduction in the excise on low alcohol beers is expected to reduce Commonwealth revenue on beer by approximately $10m in 1984 -85 and $12m in a full year. Increases in the excise on tobacco, aviation gasoline and aviation kerosene are expected to yield about $7m in revenue in 1984-85 and $8m in a full year. The modification of the indexation arrangements, in line with pensions and benefits, is expected to result in a decrease in excise revenue of approximately $4m in 1984-85. However, it is important that I mention that the nature of the last measure is such that a reliable estimate cannot be provided. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(8.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill continues the practice of introducing an omnibus Bill into each sitting of the Parliament to make a large number of non-contentious amendments. Not every amendment being proposed by this Bill requires detailed reasons for the change; this will be self-evident from the provision itself, or the detailed explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill. I propose to confine my comments to addressing the more substantial changes to some of the various Acts which are amended by this Bill. Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 Amendments to this Act permit the non- Aboriginal spouse of an Aboriginal to become a full member of an Aboriginal corporation; remove from the Act all restriction on the capacity of an Aboriginal corporation to dispose of real or personal property; and permit the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations some discretion in the type of financial reports he may accept as satisfying the annual financial reporting responsibilities of Aboriginal Corporations. Archives Act 1983 The proposed amendment to section 71 of the Act will enable the Australian Archives to levy charges for services provided in relation to records of certain Commonwealth institutions held by the Archives in accordance with established policy that such organisation should be provided services on a cost recovery basis. Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972 The amendments, consequential upon the Government's Public Service reforms, remove the involvement of the Public Service Board in the creation, abolition, relocation or reclassification of offices in the Commonwealth Teaching Service which become the responsibility of the Commonwealth Teaching Service itself. Copyright Act 1968 The amendments of the Copyright Act 1968 make a number of minor adjustments to the provisions introduced by the Copyright Amendment Act 1980. The 1980 Act followed the recommendations of the Copyright Law Committee on Reprographic Reproduction-the 'Franki' Committee. Meetings convened by the Attorney-General's Department with representatives of copyright owners organisations, educational institutions and libraries monitored the operation of the 1980 amendments and identified certain defects in the provisions dealing with photocopying by libraries and educational institutions. None of the proposed amendments makes a fundamental change to the scheme of the 1980 Act. Customs Act 1901 The amendment of this Act extends its regulation making power to include the amount of any remission, rebate or refund of Customs duty. Excise Act 1901 The amendment of this Act extends the regulation making power to include the amount of any remission, rebate or refund of duty. Another amendment authorises goods to be moved, altered or interfered with, prior to entry for home consumption, if the goods are used in the manufacture of other excisable goods. Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984 The proposed amendments require the Merit Protection and Review Agency to notify Parliament of certain extensions to its jurisdiction and to include in its annual report a list of all bodies over which it has jurisdiction. National Crime Authority Act 1984 The amendments to this Act fall into two main categories: First, fine-tuning adjustments following the very large number of amendments to the Bill passed in the Senate, particularly the amendment removing the requirement for the Inter- Governmental Committee's approval of the Commonwealth reference to the Authority . Secondly, the amendments complement the 'underpinning' State legislation. Amendments included in this latter group: Give limited jurisdiction to a State Supreme Court to hear appeals where the Authority is acting only under a reference from the State; prevent 'double jeopardy', that is, prevent a person being punished twice for the same matter, under both Commonwealth and State Acts ; and make it clear that a State law may confer powers, functions or duties on the Federal Court of Australia where these are also conferred by the Commonwealth Act. Overseas Telecommunication Act 1946 The Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946 is being amended in order to provide for an increase in the number of Commissioners from five to seven and an increase in the term of appointment from three years to five years. The Commission is also being restructured to include as members of departmental officer, a Commissioner to represent officers and employees of the Commission, and the Managing Director. The Act has been redrafted in relation to the rights and obligations of the Commissioners; this brings the Commission into line with the precedents set by the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission. Patents Act 1952 The proposed amendments of the Patents Act 1952 provide for the preparation of abstracts of specifications and creates a simplified means of recognising amendments made to the text of the Patent Co-operation Treaty and Regulations. Further amendments provide for the Act to recognise certain changes which may be made to international applications lodged under the provisions of the Patent Co- operation Treaty. Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 The Act provides that proceedings for the prosecution of a person may be instituted only with the consent in writing of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The proposed amendment enables the director of Public Prosecutions to delegate his power of consent. Public Service Act 1922 The various amendments proposed extend the period for which a person may act as a secretary to a department to 12 months; ensure the power to select officers for the temporary performance of the duties of another office; extend the penalties for the offence of personation at examinations and tests; repeal redundant section 95 of the Act; and amend the definition of 'Commonwealth authority' to reflect changes in the companies legislation. Public Service Reform Act 1984 Amendments proposed put beyond doubt a provision that parttime offices may not be implemented without the consent of the officer holding the office and amend a definition of 'promotion' to include certain movements between offices which have not been provided for. Trade Practices Act 1974 A new section 65A is to be inserted in the Trade Practices Act 1974 to clarify the application of certain of the consumer protection provisions of that Act to the media and other persons who carry on business of providing information. Recent decisions of the Federal Court have suggested that a newspaper publisher may be taken to have engaged in conduct that is misleading or deceptive for the purposes of section 52 of the Trade Practices Act if the newspaper contains inaccurate information. The Government recognises the need to maintain a vigorous, free Press, as well as an effective and enforceable Trade Practices Act. In doing so, the Government recognises that, whilst the problem may have been highlighted by a defamation action, similar considerations apply in respect of actions for negligent mis- statement and actions for injurious falsehood. The Government also recognises that the difficulties in this area are experienced not only by the main newspaper, magazine and television publishers, but also by a wide range of other people who provide information. New section 65A will operate to exempt the media and other persons who engage in businesses of providing information from the operation of those provisions of Division 1 of Part V of the Trade Practices Act which could inhibit activities relating to the provision of news and other information. The exemption is not available, however, in respect of publication of information relating to goods, services or land of a kind supplied by the information relating to goods, services or land where the publication is made pursuant to a contract, arrangement or understanding with a person who supplies goods, services or land of that kind or with a body corporate related to a body corporate that supplies such goods, services or land. These provisions ensure that information providers are not exempt from the consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act in respect of the provision of information where they have what might be regarded as a commercial interest in the content of the information. In such cases, information providers must take the same responsibility for the accuracy of information as any other person who publishes information in trade or commerce. This can occur, for example, where a newspaper has agreed to publish a 'news' item about a product in exchange for the product supplier taking out paid advertising in that publication. The insertion of a new section 79A is to correct a major gap between the imposition and endorsement of a criminal sanctions of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Following the decision of the High Court of Australia in March 1984 in Thomas v Ducret, 1984 ATPR 40-445 the criminal provisions of the Act are, in certain circumstances, unenforceable against individuals because they depend upon the existence of applicable State and Territory legislation. The amendment will provide a uniform system of enforcement of fines imposed under the Act. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at a later hour this day. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at a later hour this day. [COGNATE BILLS: BOUNTY (TRACTOR CABS) AMENDMENT BILL BOUNTY (COMPUTERS) BILL 1984 AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT BOUNTY AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1984 BOUNTY (ELECTRIC MOTORS) BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill the Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Amendment Bill 1984, the Bounty (Computers) Bill 1984, the Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 and the Bounty (Electric Motors) Bill 1984, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the five measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(9.00) —I notice the House is filling up for another robust debate on bounty and tariff affairs so I will rapidly come to the point. The Opposition will move an amendment to the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill 1984 and to the Bounty (Electric Motors) Bill at the Committee stage of the debate. The Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill brings into focus the Australian agricultural scene in which tractor manufacturers in Australia have been subject to very extensive import penetration in the last few years, so much so that the stock on hand held by the Australian manufacturer and those who are import orientated has reached very extensive levels. This matter has been referred to the Industries Assistance Commission which has come up with a recommendation. Clearly the Government has decided to extend the temporary bounty until such time as the IAC's final report is received at the end of the year. By doing this the Government has shown that it does not agree with the short term report of the IAC. However, the Government has taken note of the market conditions and the electoral climate. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would recognise, of course, that the predominant manufacturer and assembler of tractors in Australia, Chamberlain John Deere Pty Ltd, is based in Western Australia. There are problems in the game insofar as fully made up tractors which come to Australia, because of the arrangements under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, are not subject to the overall 2 per cent tariff charge. However, the parts that are used in the manufacture or assembly in Australia are subject to the 2 per cent charge. That charge can be picked up by the importers and is something to which, I think, we ought to address ourselves. I know other speakers here tonight, such as the honourable member for Wannon ( Mr Hawker) and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) who claim special interest in this matter, have made representations. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) has a long history of agricultural association and knows which end of the tractor starts. These honourable members have drawn to my attention the problems of overstocking and the 2 per cent charge. I do not think there is anyone in the House tonight-the House is so well attended-who would not be aware of the problems of International Harvester Australia Ltd and Massey- Ferguson (Australia) Ltd. There are also some problems with imports from Russia. This has caused an enormous amount of comment in the agricultural sector. There are lots of users of tractors throughout Australia who have been concerned about the general product and the consistency of its supply. Because of that members of the Opposition have taken a special interest in this matter and will be moving an amendment to this Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would readily recognise a number of Bills are associated with this measure. The first one is the Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Amendment Bill. The honourable member for Wannon has a particular interest in this legislation because the principal Australian producer of cabs for tractors is located at Ararat which, at the moment, is part of his electorate. As a matter of history the tractors that were originally brought to Australia had none of the sophisticated comfort that is now associated with them. It was the innovation of the manufacturer in the honourable member's electorate which brought about cabs which were airconditioned and had the best communications systems in the world. Mr Hawker —The best in the world. Mr MOORE —They are the best in Australia; the best in the world. Now the rest of the world has adopted the manufacturer's concern and most tractors which come to Australia these days come with a cab. Thus import penetration in the honourable member's electorate has been quite strong. No matter what the bounty paid here I strongly suspect that A. F. Gason Pty Ltd will have a substantial problem in a market which is heavily oversupplied with imports and meets intensive competition from that source. The Bounty (Computers) Bill is designed to replace the existing bounty with a new bounty. It repeals the existing situation and replaces it with a bounty which is more wide-ranging. The Opposition does not oppose that approach at all. However, the Bill gives a 25 per cent value added bounty to the computer industry in Australia. This bounty in the hardware area to which it did not apply before now applies particularly to the use of computers within equipment. That enables the development of microchips and microcircuits which are very important in relation to development in this area and adds to the software which is associated with the development of hardware in Australia. David Hartley Computer Australia Pty Ltd is situated in my electorate. It was one of the first computer groups in Australia to develop very successfully software and programming. In the last couple of years it has applied itself to the production of computer hardware. It is an enormously competitive area. I know it competes not only in Australia but also internationally. As a result the Opposition in no way opposes this proposition. I understand that industry regards it as a very useful addition. Finally, I turn to the Bounty (Electric Motors) Bill which is the result of an interim report from the IAC which has been released while we await its final report and from that a final determination from the Government. One of the developing trends had been that industries which had immediate problems were referred to the Temporary Assistance Authority. Now, increasingly, the Government is seeking reports from the IAC on a short term or interim basis while it awaits the outcome of a long term report. In this case the Government has brought up a package which gives $14 per unit and imposes a 5 per cent tariff. In Australia electric motor production is broken up between the integral motors and the fractional motors. There has been intensive competition in the two areas, particularly the integral motor area. I am sure that the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) would know that the integral motor has a power of one horse power or more whereas the fractional motor has a power of less than one horse power. Competition has not been as great with the fractional motor. The manufacturers of integral motors-principally ASEA, which is based in Melbourne but is a wholly owned Swedish company-have drawn particular assistance. They have made a pretty substantial contribution to the electric motor industry in Australia. There are a number of other producers, including Betts, Brooks, Campbell and Johnson, CMG, Websters and Simpsons. Simpsons would, of course, be recognised as a company that uses those motors in its domestic products within Australia. The position of the fractional motors is unchanged. The principal Australian producer of those motors is Betts. The fractional motor industry has not suffered the degree of competition experienced by the integral motor industry. Those types of electrical motors are alternating current motors, three-phase and , as the honourable member for Wannon would know, they have a squirrel cage. I know of the interest people have in this matter. The Opposition will not oppose that Bill. The outcome of my review is that I shall now move an amendment with respect to the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill. The Opposition will later move in Committee an amendment to the Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Amendment Bill. I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that, in the interests of equity and of economic efficiency- (1) existing anomalies in relation to duties on diesel engines for tractors and to the application of the bounty for Australian manufactured, or substantially manufactured, agricultural wheeled tractors should be resolved by the removal of the 2% duty on diesel engines imported for incorporation in Australian manufactured, or substantially manufactured, tractors, until such time as Australia's commitments under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade no longer require the imposition of duty on the importation into Australia of diesel engines already installed in completely built up tractors, and that thereafter the matter should be re-considered, and (2) until such time as the Government makes a final decision on the long term future arrangements for the agricultural wheeled tractor industry in Australia, the existing bounty should be extended to all agricultural wheeled tractors manufactured, or substantially manufactured, in Australia'. Mr Hawker —I second the amendment. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(9.12) —Tonight we are dealing in a cognate debate with five separate pieces of legislation. The Bills have been linked because they are generally involved in bounty procedures and other forms of industry assistance. Some aspects about tonight's legislation are quite pioneering. It is important that the House recognises the significance of the legislation before us. I think the legislation warrants much more comment than has been given to it so far. The fact is that, since the 1950s, when we established our import replacement policy in a world consisting of a large number of closed economies, import replacement was perhaps a viable option for Australia. Certainly it did not last very long as a viable option and, for the past 15 or so years, we have not shown the capacity to adapt and adjust to the rest of the world. That means that we have a system of industry encouragement and development incentives which do not relate because they apply to a very small market and volume and automatically induce high costs of production. As a part of that high-cost production, because of the imposition of tariffs, particularly on components, we have also high-cost exports. That means that not only are we not efficient in terms of internal costs but also we find it difficult to sell outside Australia the products that we manufacture. Tonight we are seeing perhaps one more nail in the coffin of import replacements. The sooner this country moves away from that concept into a concept of industry development and product development the better. It is important that we understand that aspect a bit more because during the past 18 months there has been a number of activities in that area. On coming to government in March 1983 we discovered that Australian industry was experiencing a major decline with no sign of any change. The clear conclusion was that, unless there were significant changes of policy and direction, our manufacturing industries would disappear almost completely. Since then, there has been a number of actions which are important and relevant . Perhaps the first was the steel plan which introduced bounties for that industry. That plan is now seen to be working effectively, sustaining the industry so that the prospects for its recovery, and perhaps even growth, are the healthiest they have been for some years. There has also been a significant improvement in the quality of steel in Australia. I suggest that the auto industry has done something similar in the sense of trying to encourage a more efficient, effective industry, which may be able, once again, to look towards exporting products made by Australians. At the same time, and almost in parallel, we are working in another area with the Australian Industry Development Corporation, which has had a fairly massive increase in its borrowing capacity and its funding, in an attempt to encourage and direct the Corporation to work with Australian industry in product development and establishing and re-establishing industries that were previously either dormant or not very effective. Last year the venture capital decisions, and the subsequent legislation to encourage the creation of a venture capital market in Australia, formed an important part of the industrial background. There has, in fact, been a number of different initiatives, all aimed at a similar objective; that is, to bring Australia back into the world manufacturing scene, a scene from which we have increasingly been missing in recent years. Two key Bills in this package of Bills-the Bounty (Computers) Bill and the Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Amendment Bill (No. 2)-impose a bounty on computers, as was indicated by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). However, these Bills do something remarkably different as well. Because of the import replacement mentality, we saw the bounty as a thing only for Australia. In other words, if a thing is made and sold in Australia, the bounty is applicable, if it is sold overseas, it is not, thereby making a lower cost product for Australia and, automatically, a higher cost product to sell on the overseas market. For the first time there has been a massive breakthrough in that thinking. The bounty we are speaking of now is applicable overseas as well. The bounty is applicable also to components and assemblies. At the same time, by Australia not applying tariffs to imported components the hardware side of the Australian computer industry can import some key components, design and manufacture others, assemble the components and export the finished product, receiving the bounty on all of the Australian costs. That measure will start to put Australia back into competition in an industry that has an enormous future. To think of it another way, the bounty must be seen as a production incentive. We are trying to get people to generate production in areas where growth is possible. The hardware industry is certainly one in which there is a capacity for enormous growth. However, the possibilities for growth do not lie solely in the Australian market. Therefore, if we are serious about the industry we must give it the capacity to reflect that growth on the world markets. I do not doubt that within the next two or three years-certainly within five years-we shall start to see many more Australian computer hardware components sold and used overseas. That could happen with the personal computer of IBM, control equipment for hydraulics and a whole range of other areas. The fact is that this legislation will, for the first time, give our companies a chance to be involved in exporting high-skilled Australian labour, high-skilled Australian production and high-skilled Australian design. The historical separation of hard and soft computer products is now being broken. Computer hardware production was always seen as something we should support; computer software production, which is much more labour intensive, was not seen to be something that we should support. This legislation makes both hardware and software products to which a bounty applies. I think the bounty also applies to exports. The computer software industry now has a major challenge before it. It has now been given the potential, the incentives and the assistance to get out into the world market and show that Australians can do those things. I have no doubt about that capacity. In recent days there has been a great deal of conjecture about the level of funding from this Government for research and technology. It has been suggested- and it is a remarkably obscure argument-that somehow research is a thing in isolation, something separate. The fact is that in Australia the research industry is inadequate, not because there are insufficient funds but because there is an insufficient base to research into. We design products which we cannot manufacture, produce, use or export. The last one and a half years have seen from this Government the greatest injection of incentives into design, research and development in Australia's history. I have mentioned already the AIDC report and I mention the report of the Espie High Technology and Financing Committee. In this legislation we are looking at expected expenditure of $7m in that area alone in the next couple of years. If successful, that figure will get much greater, because that investment by the Australian Government and the Australian people is investment in design and research in the real world, in real products and in a real industrial marketplace and will generate private investment. That is what it should be about. This quarantining of research into some obscure, separate exercise has been a disaster for this country. Certainly our Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) and our Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button), by their linkage on the communications inquiry, on the AIDC and on the Espie venture capital area, have shown that we understand that to get Australia's brainpower in research working we have to have a market for it to work into. What we are doing here is saying that we must create that market. This legislation will go an enormous distance towards generating a homegrown, strong and competitive computer hardware and software market at a variety of levels. That market capacity will then be the object and the generator of Australian research and design. When we talk about our commitment, we should ensure that we are not committed to pie in the sky, to fantasies or to fairyland stuff but are committed to getting Australians making things and doing things. We want research that produces results. I suggest that this one piece of legislation will do more than was done by the previous Government in its last two or three years. In three or four years time I might ask honourable members opposite, who will still be opposite, to recall those words and to see what has flowed from this piece of legislation. I commend the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Cabinet. The export bounty on hardware and software is a major breakthrough of enormous importance. I recognise that. The computer industry recognises it. I do not think the Opposition has yet, but I am sure that it will and in the months and years ahead will see this piece of legislation as a major departure point. I would like to make sure that that is marked and noted because it will be referred to again in the months and years ahead. I commend the legislation to the House. I had great pride in taking part in the debate on it. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(9.24) —I second the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) to the motion for the second reading of the Bounty ( Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill. I begin by saying how much I support the concept of a bounty. One of the great problems in Australia over the past few decades has been the excessive use of tariffs. Tariffs unfortunately are a hidden tax borne mostly by exporters. If the real cost of tariffs was made more public and the general population became more aware of it, I think there would be a lot closer scrutiny of the way tariffs have been handed out fairly indiscriminately in the past few decades. A bounty has the advantage that it is scrutinised very closely. It has to come each year through the Budget Papers, which gives everyone a chance to see how much assistance an industry is getting. Having said that, I am not denying that these industries are deserving of the bounties. I think it important that, when an industry deserves a bounty, a government is prepared to give it one. I also acknowledge that the importance of giving a bounty is that it is not a right but something that is in place hopefully for a relatively short but known period and, if it is going to be taken off, it will be phased out over an amount of time sufficient for those involved not to be harmed by its removal. The Bills in this package that I want to mention are the Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Amendment Bill and the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill. As the honourable member for Ryan has already mentioned, the only manufacturer of tractor cabs in Australia is in my electorate at Ararat, namely, A. F. Gason Pty Ltd. As I stated in this chamber on 12 October last year, this manufacturer has built a very enviable record. It has set about building quality cabs which will stand up anywhere in the world as excellent value for money and excellent quality. Gasons also have excellent backup. It is an example of a decentralised industry that has succeeded, or has done so until recently. Unfortunately the drought made life fairly difficult for the firm and, partly as a result of that and partly as a result of problems I will come to in a minute, it has become more diversified and has moved into other areas of agricultural equipment manufacture and assembly. The real problem Gasons is facing is that most tractors imported into Australia now come in with a cab. There is an import duty on cabs but not on cabs that come in on tractors. The problem that Gasons is now facing is that most tractors coming in have these cabs and are being imported not because they are better or necessarily cheaper but in many cases because the manufacturers overseas have felt the downturn in manufacture and sales and have set about employing their staff, quite understandably, on manufacturing cabs. The market is shrinking, and that is not because of Gasons quality or competitiveness. In passing I might just mention some of the cost disadvantages that Gasons face compared with, say, its United States of America counterpart in the manufacture of tractor cabs. These figures are quite interesting. Gasons found that glass in Australia is 94 per cent more expensive than in the United States. It found that steel in Australia is nearly 40 per cent more expensive than steel in the United States. It found that paint is a massive 137 per cent more expensive. One can see that some of the basic materials used in the manufacture of a tractor cab in Australia are considerably more expensive than in the United States. One of the difficulties facing the Australian manufacturer is the high cost of materials. A further difficulty is the very limited opportunities for export. One of the few potential markets is New Zealand, but I understand from the manufacturer that there are import restrictions. This is one point that I hope the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown), who is sitting opposite, might look into, because if there is a chance for export there I think we should try to capitalise on it. Getting back to the Bill, I support the extension of the bounty to tractor cabs and point out again to the House that this is a clear case of an efficient manufacturer which can produce a competitive product but which unfortunately has found that it is not a question of price of quality but the question of a shrinking market. Furthermore, I think that if the industry is to survive in any form this assistance will have to be continued for some time. The Industries Assistance Commission has recognised this in its report dated 18 June 1984 on agricultural wheeled tractors and certain parts. The Government has introduced this bounty amendment Bill for tractor cabs as an interim measure, pending its final decision on the IAC hearing. It might also be noted in passing that at the IAC hearing Gasons submitted that it supports a manufacturing staff of 195 people and that the flow-on would create a further 350 jobs, which in a town like Ararat is extremely important. I support the Bill on tractor cab bounties and urge the Government to reach a decision to accept the IAC report as soon as it reasonably can. I turn to the amendment to the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill. In supporting the amendment-I am sure the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) is about to do the same-I would like to touch briefly on the problems of manufacturers of large tractors. In my electorate, at Hamilton we have Waltanna, which has built up an enviable record in the building of large tractors, virtually a custom job each time. That company has been reasonably successful but, in common with other small manufacturers of large tractors, it is at a twofold disadvantage and has trouble in remaining viable. Firstly, it faces imports of tractors such as Steiger and Versatile-I am referring to the large tractors of 200 kilowatt and upwards-that attract no duty, except in regard to tyres, radios and air-conditioning. The second problem that faces manufacturers of large tractors and not so large tractors is a 2 per cent import duty on engines, transmissions and axle housings . Furthermore, there are higher duties of 5 per cent to 10 per cent on other fabricated parts such as steel plates. I remind the House that this compares with imported large tractors which bear no duty whatever. Another problem faced by the tractor manufacturers in this country is that, although the bounty is on a sliding scale up to 150 kilowatts, after that there is a flat rate per unit. In other words, the dollar amount for a bounty for a tractor of 150 kilowatts is the same as that for a 300-kilowatt tractor. Manufacturers of larger tractors are not given full consideration for the additional cost of building the tractor . As a result a large part of the bounty goes to counter the tariff on the higher value of the components used in these tractors, such as engines. It is simply a case of taking it out of one pocket and putting it into the other. If I may return to Waltanna, that company at present employs 15 people but, given the right climate and the right encouragement, it has potential to expand. I support the extension of the bounty, but go further and support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ryan. The amendment mainly seeks to remove existing anomalies relating to duties on diesel engines on tractors and to the application of the bounty to substantially Australian manufactured agricultural, wheeled tractors. The problem that must be resolved relates to the 2 per cent duty on these engines and the amendment seeks to examine this whole area to see what can be resolved. I call on the Government to take all necessary steps to compensate these manufacturers fully for the duty on imported parts or, failing that, the Government should consider removing the duty because as I have said, it is taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other. Accordingly I call on the Government to accept this reasonable amendment and to examine ways of assisting these industries which are employing people in Australia. These industries which started off in the last couple of decades have proved they can succeed and be competitive. I commend the amendment. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(9.35) —I support the five Bills now before the House, and I particularly address my comments in the first instance to the Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Bounty (Computers) Bill. Before I address any specific remarks to those Bills, I would like to provide a little relevant background material to the development of the computer industry in Australia. The industry was developed here shortly after the Second World War and its evolution has been characterised by a rapid technological change and the development of new products. In slightly more than 30 years the industry has progressed through four computer generations, and large scale research and development is now being carried out on fifth generation systems. The industry was initially established to service the demands of government and other public sector institutions. However, advances in technology and new developments in hardware and software have led to the increasing use of computers in the private sector. More recently advances in microelectronics have been led to products being developed for the personal computer market. In a global sense the influence of governments on the development of the computer industry has been significant. This influence has been exercised both through acquisition policies involving massive purchases of equipment and through the administrative and legal framework generally. For example, in the United States of America, the Federal Government is by far the largest buyer of computers and the only customer possessing sufficient market power to force substantial changes in contract terms or conduct patterns. Governments also usually provide research and development funds in the computer field as well as generally serving as the primary market for the largest class of computers and those embodying the most advanced concepts. Fundamental to the role of the computer industry is the crucial part played by microelectronic componentry. Over the last three decades the world electronics industry has been revolutionised by these advances in componentry. The most important of these has been in the field of microelectronics. Although the first microelectronic components were not developed until the late 1950s, the foundations of these developments were laid in 1947 when the first solid state electronic device, the transistor, was developed as a replacement for the vacuum tube valve. The fragile construction of valves, their considerable power consumption and heat radiation, as well as their overall unreliability, had until then constrained the types of applications to which electronics could be applied. For example, the development of the newly emerging computer industry was particularly constrained by the inadequacies of valve technology. Transistors, of course, were much smaller than valves, they worked faster, had fewer failures and emitted so little heat that they could be packed closely together. They also required little power and, most importantly, they could be produced relatively cheaply. Transistor technology thus facilitated the application of electronics to a much wider range of products as well as improving existing products, for instance, transistor radios and portable television receivers. The disadvantage of transistors in complex applications, especially computers, was that many thousands of discrete devices had to be interconnected with wires. The development of printed circuit boards alleviated this problem to some degree , but the multitude of necessary interconnections reduced the reliability of the end product. This problem was overcome in the late 1950s with the introduction of integrated circuits printed on small chips of silicon. It became possible to etch and interconnect a number of transistors on a single multiwafer chip. With improvements to miniaturisation techniques, low cost, highly reliable integrated circuits were produced containing thousands of transistors and capable of performing exceedingly complex functions. However, these were generally task specific so that their application tended to be limited to areas where large production runs could be achieved; a good example, being calculators. In the early 1970s, the versatility of these chips was improved dramatically by the production of the entire central processing unit of a computer on a single chip. Unlike earlier microelectronic components, these microprocessor chips could be programmed by the user to perform a variety of information processing, communication and process control tasks. This development facilitated the exploitation of economies of scale associated with integrated circuit technology and thereby dramatically reduced unit production costs. The recent Industries Assistance Commission report on this industry noted that successive component developments have been used to categorise computer development into a number of generations. The report describes the first generation as vacuum tubes, the second as transistors, the third as integrated circuits and the fourth as large scale integration. However, as the report notes, it is somewhat misleading to talk of discrete generations because cost to performance ratios have steadily declined over time and there have been no distinct points between those four stages. The advent of the modern computer and its attendant innovations in the field of electronics have meant that an increasingly broad range of functions involving the processing, storage and retrieval of information can be carried out automatically. As a result, computers, often in the form of microprocessors, are being incorporated into an even greater range of office and manufacturing equipment. It is in that sense that I refer particularly to the Bills relating to computers. It was on 7 February this year that the Industries Assistance Commission reported on the computer hardware, software and related goods industries. The basic thrust of a very lengthy IAC report was that it recommended bounty on a fairly narrow range of computer hardware. It was the view of the Government, however, that it should introduce bounty on a wide range of computer hardware sub-assemblies and electronic microcircuits. The Bills before the House give effect to that decision. In terms of the Australian context specifically and the consequences of this Bill, there were a large number-approximately 50-of small and innovative companies producing computer hardware in Australia. There are, of course, some larger Australian companies as well. To name just a few, some of those are Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Ltd, Hartley David Computer Australasia Pty Ltd, Applied Technology Pty Ltd and Time Office Computers Pty Ltd. In addition, a number of multinational companies, such as IBM Australia Ltd with its personal computers at Wangaratta, Wang Computer Pty Ltd and Raytheon International Data Systems, produce computer hardware. There is also a rapidly growing number of companies producing computer based equipment to control other equipment or for inclusion in other equipment. Very pertinent examples in that area are the Johns Perry organisation, which produces computers to control lifts , and Australian N.C. Automation Pty Ltd, which produces computers for controlling machine and numerical control tools. All of those firms that I have described will benefit from the Bills before the House. Other areas which will benefit from the new arrangements include producers of electronic microcircuits such as AWA and the Philips company, producers of hybrid circuits such as Hybrid Electronics Australia Pty Ltd, Plessy and Philips ; and producers of computer sub-assemblies, of which there are many. I think it is fair to say that the new arrangements incorporated in these Bills, including some tariff reductions in some areas, have been well received by the industry. I certainly commend the two computer Bills to the House. I wish to make some very brief comments on the other legislation before the House. The Bounty (Electronic Motors) Bill 1984 gives effect to the Government's decision which we announced on 17 July 1984, to provide bounty assistance to the industry in Australia which produces a range of integral electric motors. The IAC is inquiring at the moment into the question of long term assistance for the industry which produces electric motors. Its final report, I understand, is due by April 1985. The IAC, in its interim report of 16 April 1984, recommended that no additional assistance be provided to the industry pending receipt of that longer term report. The Government agreed that no interim assistance was necessary for some of the smaller fractional motors but was of the view that without interim assistance, the major producers of integral motors-those with a power rating of 0.746 kilowatts and above-might cease production altogether before completion of the IAC long term inquiry. That would clearly be an unsatisfactory state of affairs and, accordingly, Cabinet decided on an assistance package of a short term bounty and tariff increase on a range of integral electric motors. The tariff duty on those motors, particularly that falling within tariff item 85.01.2, has been increased from 25 per cent to 30 per cent. That increase has applied from 18 July 1984. In terms of bounty, a specific bounty of $14 per motor will be payable on the production in Australia of those electric motors, subject to a number of provisions. Those bounty arrangements will remain in effect until the Government 's decision in respect of the IAC report on longer term assistance is announced. It should be said by way of general comment that the package in terms of electric motors should enable local production levels of integral motors to be maintained until the final IAC report is considered. The package that we have announced is primarily aimed at assisting the local industry but certainly recognises the requirement for fiscal restraint by the Government and the desirability of minimising any resultant cost pressures on users of electric motors. I must say that I found the contributions of the two previous speakers relating to the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill and the Bounty ( Tractor Cabs) Amendment Bill of some interest. I was interested in the comments of the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) in respect of A.F. Gason Pty Ltd , manufacturers of tractor cabs in Ararat. The IAC submitted its interim report on this industry on 16 February 1984 and recommended that temporary assistance should not be extended. However, the Government, after taking all circumstances into account, decided in June of this year to extend temporary assistance, accorded to the local production of tractors and cabs, until December of this year or until the Government's decision on the IAC report on long term assistance is announced. The temporary assistance that we have announced, combined with the current long term assistance, gives tractor production an effective rate of assistance of around 20 to 25 per cent. Removal of temporary assistance would reduce that effective rate to about 10 per cent, which is a very low rate of assistance compared with the average for manufacturing industry of about 25 per cent. The IAC's final report on long term assistance arrangements was submitted on 18 June 1984 and the Government is in the process of considering that report. The Bills before the House are eminently sensible Bills. I believe that they are well supported. They are certainly eminently reasonable and very responsible Bills in terms of the commitment of the Australian Government to the development of Australian industry. These Bills give effect to that commitment in a wide range of industries including the higher technology industries of computing and data processing and our other industries of electric motors and tractors and tractor cabs. I commend the Bills to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tuckey) adjourned. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby) —by leave-I note the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about the non-publication of a story in the Age. I also note the statement of the Prime Minister that Mr Burns had informed him that Mr Barron, Mr Hawke's principal adviser, did not on his visit ask Mr Burns to do anything. I accept the statement that Mr Barron did not visit the Age to influence its attitude on the matter to which I referred. However, the information put to the Opposition in regard to the story was corroborated from separate sources and for that reason the Government was tested on the issue at Question Time. The matter of the Swiss bank account is still of very great interest to the Opposition. Any information which may be published about it or any disclosure by the Prime Minister about it in the future will be studied with interest. [COGNATE BILLS: BOUNTY (TRACTOR CABS) AMENDMENT BILL BOUNTY (COMPUTERS) BILL 1984 AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT BOUNTY AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1984 BOUNTY (ELECTRIC MOTORS) BILL 1984] Debate resumed. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(9.50) —In this cognate debate the Bill to which I am most interested in referring is the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill 1984. I wish to comment, firstly, on the circumstances that apply. The original Act giving a bounty for tractors is dated 1966. For many years the bounty paid to tractor manufacturers was fairly static. In recent times the Act was extended . At that time the bounty assistance was doubled. From my reading of the original Act, as amended, that meant that a tractor of 150 kilowatts or over which previously attracted $3,480 would now attract $6,960. In this day and age that is not a very large sum when one considers that a tractor of that power rating would cost about $70,000. My great concern is that within the Australian manufacturing sector there are manufactured a number of tractors that are much more powerful than tractors of 150 kilowatts. In fact, that is a veritable toy in this age of dry land farming. We hear daily of the cost pressures that have been applied to the farming industry. Of course, these are cost pressures and downwards price pressures as well. Consequently, farmers have had to look to bigger and bigger equipment so that they are able to operate their farms practically as individuals. Thereby hangs another tale. I think of my early years in the 1950s and some of the farming areas that are now parts of my electorate. The amount of farm labour that visited my hotel at night time was substantial. Today those people are missing. They have been replaced by big machinery. Of course, the union people who created that situation still do not seem to know why. Nevertheless, the difficulty that I have confronted is that within my electorate, as the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) in his electorate, are manufactured these very large tractors. They are tractors which range in horsepower, using the old terminology, from 200 to 525 horsepower. These are the type that are very much in demand. I am speaking of tractors whose prices range from $100,000 to $250,000. Many of these tractors, firstly, are not receiving the benefit of this legislation or the amendment which proposes to extend the bounty until the end of the year. The reason they are not is that section 6 (4) of the Act states: Where the factory cost of the materials and parts of a tractor that were wholly produced or manufactured in Australia is less than fifty-five per centum of the factory cost of the tractors, no bounty is payable. That means that one has to have a 55 per cent Australian content. However, under section 6 (7) one finds that pneumatic tyres or tubes, air conditioning equipment, radio equipment, sound reproducing equipment or sound recording equipment or winches are to be excluded-irrespective, I presume, of where they are manufactured. Most of the tyres that are fitted now to our large tractors are manufactured in Australia. So one can see the great difficulty of a manufacturer in achieving a 55 per cent Australian content if he has to exclude those factors. The companies of which I am aware were never in the first place able to attract a bounty because they could not achieve a 55 per cent local content; but, secondly, they were grossly disadvantaged in terms of their competitors. Under the trade arrangements that Australia has made from time to time all fully built up tractors entering Australia do so incurring no duty whatsoever, I emphasise that, because often it is said of things coming into Australia that they attract no tariff. Nor do they attract a tariff; but they attract what was originally introduced, the 2 per cent tariff, which was introduced more as a revenue measure than as a protection measure. But fully built up tractors entering Australia do not attract that 2 per cent tariff. The particular tractors about which I am talking are manufactured in Merredin, within my electorate. They are manufactured, strangely enough, by two manufacturers. One is known as Farmers Tractors Australia Pty Ltd, which produces the Phoenix tractor, and the other is a firm called Don Zanetic and Company, which used to manufacture a tractor known as the Acre-Master but today, as I understand it, sub-contracts and manufactures these large tractors for International Harvester. The problem is that these firms, as I say, attract no bounty whatsoever because at this stage they are unable to meet the 55 per cent local input. But they are obliged to pay the 2 per cent revenue duty on all the components that they import to put in that tractor. The type of components that naturally come to mind are the engines, transmissions, gearboxes and drive axles. Therefore, their competitors, for instance, Steiger tractors, are coming into the country from America with no duty whatsoever. The local manufacturer has a 2 per cent duty applied to his imported components irrespective of the fact that by comparison he is putting a substantial Australian content into his product. In the type of tractor that I have mentioned the cost burden is between $800 and $1,000 per tractor, depending on its size. That seems to be the height of the ridiculous. It is not something that has just appeared on the scene. One of my many files is about three-quarters of an inch thick and contains letters that I wrote to Ministers of the previous Government begging them to do something about it. The previous Minister responsible for Customs and excise and such matters, the present Leader of the Opposition, Mr Andrew Peacock, was eventually getting something done. He had seen these tractors manufactured and was doing something about it. But he was confronted with considerable difficulties, particularly with his Department which, to my mind, always saw the problem as too hard. Maybe it is too hard to create a situation in which one has to say, 'That engine can come in free because it is going into a tractor, and that one cannot do so'. Then, of course, does the engine come in for a tractor and end up in a truck, or something like that? I can see those difficulties. However, under the bounty arrangements and with these amendments to the legislation, clearly, by an increase in the size of the bounty, it would be a simple matter to overcome these difficulties. In other words, one takes the money on the engines as they come in and gives it back to the tractor manufacturer at the time of the completion of his product. People may ask why we should worry about this sector of the tractor market. Strangely enough, it is probably that sector of manufacturing industry most likely to succeed. The simple evidence for that is that it is succeeding already . It is managing to meet foreign competition, in both price and quality. In regard to quality, the four Australian tractor manufacturers are all companies which are generally very close to the Australian agricultural industry. They know what is wanted and they have a great deal of experience. The company that makes the Phoenix tractor-I have here a photograph of one on a brochure-is called Farmers Tractors Australia Pty Ltd. There is a very good reason for that. Fifty per cent of it is owned by Farmtrac Pty Ltd. That company happens to comprise 70 farmer shareholders, previous clients of the gentleman Mr Laurie Phillips who manufactures these tractors. Quite clearly those gentlemen, who also participate in the board of directors, have a very good knowledge of the type of equipment that is needed. So, firstly, we have an industry in the local scene that meets all the requirements of local farmers. I add that at one stage the Merredin tractor industry was selling more tractors in Queensland than in Western Australia. We have an industry that can survive in the tough international market. Surely that industry does not want to carry the burden of a government tax of $1,000 when its overseas competitors do not have to pay such a tax. Generally, however, that company has managed to compete. One of the reasons for this is that Steiger Tractor company, well known for tractor exports to Australia, has an international throughput of only about 2,000 tractors a year. These very large tractors are not mass-produced, unlike the tractors we are setting out to protect most here; that is, the tractors made by Chamberlain John Deere Pty Ltd in Western Australia. It is subject to intense competition from overseas companies because it produces high volume demand tractors, in an international sense. Of course, there are huge companies around the world able to mass produce such tractors and to be very competitive. We are looking at an industry that warrants support. In fact, it is clear from the report of the Industries Assistance Commission that the IAC agrees with that . I am hopeful that by the time this amendment to the Act expires in December the Government will have taken the advice of the IAC. To my mind the IAC put forward a very sensible proposition when it stated: It is proposed, therefore, that assistance should continue to be provided by a bounty. Several problems with the present bounty scheme were identified, however , and a bounty based on 20 per cent of domestic value added is proposed to overcome most of these. This would provide assistance at the level of 15 to 20 per cent in effective rate terms . . . I hope that the Minister will read that to mean, as I do, that a manufacturer would get a 20 per cent bounty on the local content of its tractor-there would be no minimum. I think that is sensible. None of these manufacturers are interested in buying from overseas what they can get locally. I am well aware that the fern extractor, for instance, is soon to have an Australian-made radiator. Currently it uses an imported radiator, but local manufacturers are now coming into the market. That company has talked with the Chamberlain company to see whether it can make axle components. It understands that Chamberlains can . Mr Phillips has told me that when he can get an axle made to his own design it will be a substantially better one because it will better meet the actual specifications needed for that tractor. These companies are anxious to improve their local content component. Of course, as they do, under the proposition put by the IAC, they will attract a larger bounty. That is so much better than the relative lump sum arrangement existing in the present Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act, which entirely ignores the progressive value of tractors that exceed 150 kilowatts. As I said, those tractors are veritable toys in the market today. To me it is most important that the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) and the Government firstly consider the amendment moved by the Opposition which suggests a mechanism to do something about the disadvantage that these tractor manufacturers suffer now. However, that would be only in the short term. Clearly, if the Government accepts the excellent recommendation of the IAC that problem will be overcome. I am extremely hopeful that that will be so. The honourable member for Wannon when talking about tractor cabs indicated some of the problems for local manufacturers. I think that is something we have to recognise when we talk about the cost of inputs for local manufacturers. At the Dowerin Field Day-one of the biggest field days in Australia-the other day a manufacturer informed me of his situation. Australia design capacity and technology had produced excellent equipment in the ploughing area, in particular blade ploughs. So good were these ploughs that a Canadian manufacturer came over and sought licence to manufacture this equipment in Canada. That was given and at one stage the Western Australia manufacturer had to turn to that Canadian manufacturer for stock because he had more orders than he could fill. The Canadian fellow sent him out a couple of his ploughs, built under licence in Canada. When the Australian manufacturer got the bill they were 30 per cent cheaper than he could make them himself. Honourable members can imagine the temptation to that man to sack all his Australian workers, sit down and import Canadian duty free equipment and take the 30 per cent. However, he is not that type of bloke. He had no intention of doing that. Nevertheless, he was smart enough to ask the Canadians to send out one of their senior people to find out why they could make them so much cheaper, and they did. They went through the manufacturing process here bit by bit. It is interesting to note that labour was not the problem. His labour costs were competitive. When they had gone through it all they found that the entire extra cost was tied up in steel-the input. Of course, we are well aware of what is going on in the steel industry at the moment and how the Government is trying to save the industry with taxpayers' money. The reality of the situation is that we had a tractor industry built up to a point where overseas people had come knocking on our door for our technology. Yet that industry is being destroyed by the cost of steel. Clearly, companies such as Broken Hill Proprietory Co. Ltd have to get their act into gear if this is what they are doing to our manufacturers. There are thousands of opportunities such as that one around the world. I put it to honourable members again that this very large equipment, be it ploughs or tractors, are things Australia can use its well paid work force on because, although the manufacturing process is labour-intensive, there will never be mass production. We should encourage such manufacturers. However, it is no good going along and saying: 'BHP steel is too dear and this is too dear, here is some taxpayers' money'. We have to put pressure on the producers of the raw materials, if you like, to enable our manufacturers to be on the ball. I put to honourable members that it is not just a case of international competition. If and when we open wide the steel markets of Australia BHP, producing the amount of steel it does, would be the price-setter. Not one company that imported Korean steel or any other raw material would halve the price of BHP steel. Nobody is that silly. If a manufacturer can buy the steel for one-third of BHP's price it will sell it for 95 per cent of BHP's price because that is all that is needed to get the sales. That is the other issue we have to consider in terms of Australian manufacturers. The matter is serious. I am sure the Minister is aware of this small problem which is attacking the tractor manufacturers in Victoria, at Waltanna, Baldwins in New South Wales, Farmers Tractors in Merredin and Mr Don Zanetic's products too. In fact the Farmers Tractor company employs 18 men in the workshop and five in administration. That is only 23 people at this stage, but Mr Zanetic across the road from that company would employ a similar number. The industry in Merredin has always employed about 50 people. That is not a lot of people but it involves a lot of families and it is a lot of people in a small town like Merredin. These are people in work and people minding their own business. They are doing all the right sorts of things for Australia. I tell the Minister that if he would like to go back through the files he will see some of the letters I wrote to previous Ministers. I was highly critical of them for not being able to resolve this simple problem. The Minister daily presents himself to us as a man of great ability. He has certainly proved that in his private business interests. I hope he can demonstrate to us within a week or so that he has tackled this little problem and, in fact, there is a mechanism -be it a special refund of bounty or a by-law arrangement-that allows these Australian manufacturers to compete internationally on an equal footing with their competitors. These tractor manufacturers are not even asking for special help, although they would like to have it. They are just asking not to have to pay $1,000 in duty which the importers to Australia do not have to pay. This is the situation we have to look at. I add in my last few moments that Farmers Tractors have suggested that the Steiger tractor arriving here is being dumped. In fact, Farmers suggest that at the moment tractor dealers are getting an extra discount of $29,500 a tractor. It is pretty hard for the local boys to compete with that type of discounting. However, there might be a warning there for potential tractor purchasers. I have been told that the reason for that dumping is that in Canada Steiger's have produced a bomb, that that company has put an unsuitable motor in the tractor and it is giving the farmers over there a lot of trouble. The farmers over there will not buy the tractors and they are being sent out to Australia at a massive discount. As anybody who has had anything to do with engines and machinery would know, $29,000 is no discount for a machine that will give a lot of trouble. A person could spend that in a year, particularly in down time. Today's farming technique is all about getting the crop in in the shortest possible time. A broken down tractor is no good when a farmer has to put a crop in. So there is a good reason to buy Australian. We have very good equipment and all Australian companies need is a little bit of help. I am hoping that that will occur in the short term and in the long term with the acceptance of the Industries Assistance Commission recommendations to government. Mr CHYNOWETH(Flinders)(10.11) —I wish to speak to the Bounty (Computers) Bill 1984 during this cognate debate, but before I do I mention to the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) that within the electorate of Flinders we have the steelworks of John Lysaght. I am quite certain that it does not charge too much for its steel. It is very conscious of its prices and it does an excellent job. The people there work very hard to keep the costs down for all Australians. The bounty offered to Australian manufacturers of computer equipment has been welcomed overwhelmingly by the computer industry. It is what it has been wanting for many years. Praise of the Government's policy fills all the industry magazines. Having worked in the industry since its commercial inception in Australia, and having designed and manufactured computer room equipment, I am extremely aware of the great new opportunities and the potential which this bounty will offer to all Australian manufacturers. The bounty of 25 per cent will certainly stimulate the computer manufacturing industry and the peripheral industries. This will undoubtedly lead to more competitiveness within the industry, more employment opportunities and, therefore, a genuine stimulus to the community and the economy. The bounty will be paid on all computer production for domestic and export sale . I believe that the number of computers and related equipment produced in Australia at this very moment runs into thousands. We have within Australia a large number of scientists and engineers with skills which could enable our country to lead the world in many areas of computing. The bounty will expand the opportunity for them to put their considerable skills to work. We should not only be looking at our own market but also following the example of a few Australian companies and moving out to the huge market of the rest of the world. The bounty will assist those companies prepared to do so. The bounty is directed to private industry and will undoubtedly go to many small businesses. I am sure that the bounty will please that area of the industry which employs a major part of the work force. Small businesses are able to adapt to change very rapidly. They are usually the most innovative and the most progressive. I urge those who have had thoughts of moving into the computer industry to do so now. In the electorate of Flinders we have many high technology firms. I know that they will be extremely pleased. I have had representations from many for assistance. I am proud to belong to a government that is committed to assisting them. In and around the Frankston and Mornington area high technology firms are being established very rapidly. I have been advocating for many months now that this area is the correct part of Victoria in which to establish a high technology industry. I am sure that it will happen in the very near future. The rate of advance within the computer industry is still increasing exponentially and will continue to do so. Unless our Australian industry is involved in this explosion of growth we will be rapidly left behind. Therefore, the nation will be reliant on imported technology. I have stated before that, if we do not develop our own high technology industries, we will be a technological backwater. The bounty provides an opportunity for the Australian computer industry to participate in this growth. A provision in the Bill is that the bounty is not payable to equipment which is not of good merchantable quality. This is a most important clause. What it does is prevent inferior manufactured goods from obtaining the bounty. It creates a standard of excellence which must be obtained. Australia already has a good name in manufactured products and this must be protected. It will also prevent the scheme from being abused by manufacturers who sell equipment not up to accepted standards. It is a provision which will enhance the reputation of Australian goods and provide the world with quality goods. The Hawke Labor Government has moved quickly to ensure that government bodies are aware that they should purchase Australian-designed and manufactured computer equipment where it is compatible with overseas equipment. We have given the off-set program close scrutiny. I am certain that those who have off-set obligations under their schemes will be instructed to fulfil them. In my years as an electronic technician I serviced much office equipment in many large American firms that established their offices in Australia. They all insisted on installing American-made office equipment. I trust that private industry will also make a conscious effort to buy quality Australian-made computer equipment and, therefore, provide the initial stimulus and assistance a new industry requires. All these actions will, in the future, increase the market for our own computer industry. The Labor Government is creating the opportunities; we are supplying the incentives. It is now up to the industry to act quickly to use these excellent conditions which we have created to build for this nation an industry whose expansion is limited only by our imagination. I commend the Bills to the House. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.17) — Like the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris), the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) and the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Chynoweth) I wish to direct my remarks to the Bounty ( Computers) Bill 1984 and to state that the Opposition welcomes this Bill, subject to the amendments as to search and entry warrant provisions to be moved by my colleague the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). After all, the computer industry, in all its parts and associated activities, will be the world 's largest and most pervasive industry. So it is important that we really get into it; that Australia makes the fullest use of modern, high, new-call it what you will-technology. But at the same time, Australia should have some production facilities in the industry on the ground affording a measure of independence in the control of information technology and providing jobs in manufacture in Australia. To make full use of it it is essential, first, that Australia have access to modern technology at or near world prices while, as I said, we encourage, in appropriate areas, actual production facilities in Australia. These objectives are met by this Bill and associated measures. The tariffs in this area which applied up until 6 July last, ranging from 5 to 24 per cent, have been taken off , apart from the one on visual display units which will be phased down more gradually. Only the basic 2 per cent revenue duty remains. So users have access to world-wide high technology products at world prices to encourage the most sophisticated use of modern technology, while at the same time domestic Australian producers and manufacturers competing against these lower priced end products will themselves be assisted, firstly, by being able to import components at tariff free prices and, secondly, by receiving the bounty assistance under the Bill now before the House, at a level of 25 per cent of the value added in Australia. So the abolition of the tariffs on these products and the substitution of this bounty represent a substantial and felicitous freeing- up of this market. I might add that the bounty applies to the design and development of computer systems and software; it is payable in respect of such expenditure. That is very much as it should be because really you are only in an industry to the extent of 'tin-bending' unless you are actually involved at least to some extent in the development of the technology. I would like to assert, as the honourable members to whom I have referred have asserted, the conviction of the Opposition that indigenous Australian companies can find a place in this industry, notwithstanding the league of very large overseas manufacturers based on very large research and development programs that the Australian companies are up against. The technological potential is certainly there. It involves access at world prices to basic building blocks and the ingenuity, the design capacity to develop from them a superior product. Marketing, in competition with the overseas majors, is the really difficult thing. There can be no doubt that the sorts of measures we are discussing tonight can be supplemented by government purchasing procedures. I am not referring just to preference but to information and access, forward knowledge of requirements and measures like that. As I said, the Opposition supports these measures. We learned in the Budget Papers that the additional cost in 1984-85 is some $7.7m compared with last year . I will not give the percentage because it is a rather different procedure. It is not strictly comparable. I notice on the same list that there is a lift in the subsidy to the steel industry from $10.9m to $52m which I think in this grand year of demonstrating what 'initiative, hard work and concensus can achieve' is perhaps somewhat questionable. I can support the $7.7m-I have some doubts about the extra $40m to the steel industry, notwithstanding the comments of my colleague. What I want to contrast is this increase of expenditure, this $ 7.7m before us-dare I classify the extra $40m to the steel industry in this way; I am not sure-to foster technology development and new high technology industry, which as I say I support, with the deplorable miserliness in respect of science and scientific research. As the House is by now well aware, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia's premier scientific research organisation, is bleeding because of a shortfall in its allocation of the order of $9m. We have just been talking about an increase in these subsidies of nearly $50m. The Australian research grants-- Mr Brumby —What has this to do with the Bills? Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It is very relevant to the Bills, as the honourable member will see in a moment. The Australian research grants scheme, Australia's key research funding program-especially in regard to the universities-received an increase in its funds of a lousy $1.5m which results in only two out of ten worthy, world standard, new proposals on research being funded. Some 140 of the 1,037 projects previously approved have to be axed and some 732 worthy projects by world standards cannot be funded at all. So we have a situation where the careers of many dedicated scientific researchers have been set back in a way that really hurts. I strongly support measures-the management and investment companies legislation last year and the freeing-up of the computer market associated with the Bills now before the House-to encourage actual advanced technology industry growth. I support measures to encourage technology development which is the next stage on from scientific research to the translation of scientific research and innovative ideas into new technology, new factories and jobs for Australians. The two interact-the market induced technology based industry growth drives the technology development, and that nourishes the growth of industry. The point I want to make is this: So far as stimulation of technology development and advanced technology industry growth involves government funding-this is pre- eminently a matter for the private sector-but so far as it does involve Government funding, that funding must be additional to, not at the cost of, mainstream basic scientific research which, as is universally recognised, is predominantly a government responsibility. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has many times commented-he did so again yesterday in a vain attempt to excuse the Government's outrageous treatment of scientific research in this Budget-that the balance between government and private sector funding of science and technology is all wrong in this country. The ratio is 80:20; government 80 and the private sector 20. It is more like 50:50 in other leading Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development countries such as Germany, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands. In Sweden it is 40 government and private 60. I would agree that the ratio is wrong. However the point at issue is not the government funding of basic research and long term high risk applied research; what we spend in the government sector in that regard, which has been unhappily cut this year, is broadly comparable as a percentage of gross domestic product to what the other countries I have referred to spend; that is, the spending on basic research and long term applied research is broadly comparable. There is no question of reducing that. The shortsighted, unacceptable and positively outrageous treatment of science in the Budget is to be totally condemned. But we do still then have the problem of getting the private sector research and development up to speed, to something like it is overseas. No one suggests that will be easy. It is a question of direct incentives such as Australian industrial research and development incentives scheme-AIRDIS- grants; the attempt to seed the development of a venture capital market through the management and investment companies scheme, and arrangements such as this freeing-up of the computer market that we are talking about here tonight. Additionally the Opposition has proposed an incentive in the form of a 50 per cent write-off premium for tax purposes in respect of private sector research and development expenditure. I commend that proposal to the Government. What I would then emphasise most strongly-I will conclude on this-is that these more direct measures in themselves are not enough; rather what is even more important is the fostering of the right attitudes and a favourable overall climate for innovation, risk taking and investment. The fundamental thing is getting the macro-economic settings of the economy right-cost levels contained, productivity and profitability up, and inflation and interest rates down. We must get that macro-economic setting right and address other rigidities in the Australian economy, especially in the wages and industrial relations area. Recently I did address the House briefly suggesting that it is very instructive in this context to reflect on the long view contained in a study in a recent issue of the journal The Economist which looked at the last 10 years in the United States and the United Kingdom. In the United States over that period there was an increase of some 16 per cent in employment; along with that went an 11 per cent reduction in real hourly earnings. The economy was flexible enough to take that 11 per cent reduction in real hourly earnings on board in a context where rising oil prices and other factors affect the situation. In the United Kingdom where real hourly earnings were up by 10 per cent over that period, employment-the total of jobs-actually decreased by 7 per cent. With some growth in the working population that leads to the horrendous unemployment figures in that country; whereas in the United States, with that growth of jobs fostered by technology and the flexibility of the economy, the unemployment rate is relatively low. In conclusion, I stress that these other measures we have talked about are important but, basically, we must get this overall climate right. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.30) —in reply-In closing the debate on the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill 1984, the Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Amendment Bill 1984, the Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Amendment Bill 1984 and the Bounty (Electric Motors) Bill 1984-the Bounty (Computers) Bill 1984 is apparently to be considered in Committee-I make a few observations. It seems to me to be a pity that a debate of this type takes place at 10.30 on Thursday night and obviously is not attracting much of a listening audience. The thoughtful contributions that came from both sides of the House on these Bills lead me to believe that there is a capacity in this House for a bipartisan approach to some matters, particularly, the restructuring of Australian industry . It was interesting to note the number of laudatory comments that came from the Opposition with regard to some of the moves that will be made with regard to industry and particularly high tech industry by the Bills that are before the House. I noted with interest some of the challenging comments made by the last speaker, the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), and also the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). I will certainly pass those on to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) seeking a very quick response. The comments from the Government side, from the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris), the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) and the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Chynoweth) who always seem to speak on these types of Bills, I found quite encouraging. They indicated their interest in the restructuring of industry in Australia, the move to lessen protection to make our international competitiveness greater and at least to make an effort to see that Australia's capacity in many of these areas, particularly the high tech area, is taken to its full advantage. I commend everybody who took part in the debate for their thoughtful contributions. With regard to the first amendment moved with respect to the Bounty ( Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill 1984, I think the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), knew when he moved it that it does not contain a great deal of substance. In fact he recognises that the assistance, the bounties that are being applied to the agricultural tractor industry, is only a continuation of the temporary assistance. That assistance will expire at the end of December. By then the Government should have made a full response to the Industries Assistance Commission report on this industry which is now in the Minister's hands. I presume he will accept that this is only a continuation of temporary assistance and will phase it out when the Government makes its decision on long term assistance to this industry. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 22 August, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 September, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.35) —by leave-On behalf of the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), I move: (1) Clause 24, page 19, line 21, after 'reasonable times' insert ', with the consent of the occupier or in pursuance of a warrant issued under sub-section ( 1B)'. (2) Clause 24, page 19, after sub-clause (1) insert the following sub-clauses: '(1A) An authorized officer may make application to a Justice for a warrant authorizing the authorized officer to enter the premises to which the application relates. '(1B) If, on an application under sub-section (1A), the Justice is satisfied, by information on oath or affirmation, that it is reasonably necessary that the authorized officer should have access to the premises to which the application relates, the Justice may grant a warrant authorizing the authorized officer to enter the premises for the purpose of exercising the functions of an authorized officer under this section. '(1C) A warrant granted under sub-section (1B) shall include- (a) a statement of the purpose for which the warrant is issued; (b) a description of the kind of things authorized to be inspected or copied or from which extracts may be taken; and (c) a date, not being later than one month after the date of issue of the warrant, upon which the warrant ceases to have effect'. These amendments reflect the view of the Opposition that in this context the capacity of officers to enter premises should be only with the consent of the occupier or pursuant to a warrant issued as proposed in these amendments. I think the honourable member for Ryan spoke to these amendments in his opening address. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.37) —These amendments are not unusual. They usually appear every time there is a bounty Bill. The provisions to which the amendments refer are not new to bounty legislation. They are consistent with the powers that have been provided by governments of all political persuasion to make sure that taxpayers are fully protected by appropriate compliance audits. These powers have, in fact, been considered on a number of occasions by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. They have always acknowledged the view that where taxpayers' money is expended on a bounty, it is reasonable to expect that the government or the department has the right to enter premises without a warrant to make sure that the bounty funds are, in fact, being expended properly . It is held by some people to be an imposition on civil liberties but, as I said earlier, it has been accepted by governments of all persuasions that it is a reasonable power for the bounty Bills to have embedded within them. Once again, the Government will not be accepting these amendments. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 September, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 September, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Debate resumed from 7 September, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.43) —The Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 provides that delegates of the Repatriation Commission will have the same powers as the present repatriation boards. Claimants for disability pensions will be entitled to written reasons for all determinations made in respect of disability pension entitlements or assessments. At present primary decisions concerning such pension claims are made by three-member repatriation boards. In the view of the Administrative Review Council the involvement of multi-member independent boards at the primary stage is an unnecessary expenditure of resources. Single decision makers can deal with more cases more quickly. This will accord with modern administrative practice whereby initial decisions are made by a single person under delegation. To ensure that delegates have all the available relevant evidence before them, they are empowered to seek additional information by informal interview with the claimant or applicant. Claimants may also request a member to discuss any aspect of the pension claim. Veterans or dependants living in remote areas will be able to make telephone calls at the cost of a local call to discuss the claim with the delegate. Clause 10 of the Bill provides that claims for pensions be made on an approved form and provides administration procedures for dealing with a claim that may not have been made in the approved manner. Sub-section (3) of the new section 25 enables the Commission to determine that where a disability is accepted, but no pension is granted because the degree of incapacity is negligible, the disability without pension can be accepted to enable only medical treatment, for example, ointment, to be provided. New section 29A is designed to have claims determined at first instance wherever possible. This new section is not designed to place an onus on the claimant to seek evidence to substantiate a claim. It allows the Commission to defer consideration of the claim where the delegate is of the opinion that relevant evidence has not been put before him. A claim will lapse if the information is not made available within six months of the notice of deferral. New section 29B contains provisions in respect of informal interviews between the delegate and the claimant. It is noted that there is nothing in the legislation to prevent a spouse or a friend attending an interview with the claimant. This matter has been raised in discussions with ex-service organisations. Claimants will now be encouraged to bring a spouse or friend with them when they attend for an interview. New section 31 provides that the Commission may of its own volition review its own delegates' decisions. Repatriation boards are required to give written reasons to justify a decision on a claim or application for a disability pension. New section 47A will require a delegate also to give written reasons. A new provision enables the delegate when giving written reasons to omit reference to sensitive material. This is not intended as a device to withhold information generally. It is designed to protect the veteran or widow where sensitive details about a veteran have not been disclosed previously. For example, a widow may not be aware that her husband contracted venereal disease on service, or a veteran may not have been told of the exact nature or extent of a medical condition, such as terminal disease. In essence the provision is an attempt to handle the requirements of the administrative law with compassion in special cases. Service pensions are payable to veterans who served in a theatre of war and who have reached the age of 60 years for males and 55 years for females or who are permanently unemployable. Service pensions are subject to similar income tests to age and invalid pensions. Disability pensions are not regarded as income for the purpose of the income test in respect of service pensions. New section 90 requires the secretary to investigate all matters to which a claim for a service pension relates. For example, obtaining service records for theatre of war particulars, where there are claims by allied veterans the Department of Veterans' Affairs would seek to confirm theatre of war service from reputable overseas sources. Difficulties have been experienced by claimants from Iron Curtain countries in obtaining service records for theatre of war particulars to enable their claims to be accepted. At present the commission delegate does not give formal written reasons on claims for service pension. New section 90D provides for written reasons for decision to be given to service pension reviews but not initial claims. Requiring a delegate to give a formal set of reasons will slow down the process of decision making in the first instance. The Administrative Review Council recommended that a statutory intermediate review body to be known as the Veterans' Review Board be established to review, on the merits of the case, primary decisions made by delegates of the Repatriation Commission on claims for disability pensions. Proceedings before the Veterans Review Board will be a hearing de novo, that is, a complete rehearing of the claim. The Veterans' Review Board will consist of a principal member, senior members and members appointed on either a full time or part time basis. In special circumstances and subject to prior approval of the Minister, the principal member of the Board will be empowered to constitute the Veterans Review Board by a senior member or member sitting alone. This will be particularly useful if workloads cause unnecessary delays in the disposal of cases. Where the Repatriation Commission has rejected a claim for a disability pension , a claimant will have 12 months in which to lodge an application for review of that decision. Where an application for an increase in the rate of disability pension has been refused, the time limit in which to lodge an application for a review of that decision will be three months, the same period as in the present legislation. These time limits are designed to assist the speedy disposition of claims and are usual in most other jurisdictions established in respect of appeal processes. Although many cases will be resolved at the Veterans' Review Board by a relatively expeditious, economical and informal means of review, it is considered necessary to provide a final review tribunal on the merits which will provide an opportunity, not only for individual cases to be considered in greater depth but also for consideration to be given for development, and enunciation of principles of general application, for the future guidance of primary decision makers, and the Veterans Review Board. This Bill therefore confers full jurisdiction for repatriation pension matters on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. However, there are special factors in the repatriation system which have prompted the Government to propose that a special repatriation division be established within the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Accordingly the Government will seek to appoint to this division members with special expertise and experience relevant to veteran service conditions and post-service situations. The Hawke Government, an authentic Australian Government, has undertaken to consult with veterans organisations in making these appointments. The right of appeal to the Federal Court of Australia on questions of law remains on a similar basis to that provided for in the present legislation. Ex-service organisations have indicated that they strongly favour the retention of this right of appeal to the Federal Court of Australia. With respect to service pension determinations, primary decisions will now be subject to review by a senior delegate of the Repatriation Commission upon request from a dissatisfied claimant. At present, there is not any right to external review on service pension claims except in respect of a question of whether a claimant for service pension is permanently unemployable. Ex-service organisations will welcome the provision in the Bill which provides a right of review from a primary decision of the Repatriation Commission to the Veterans Review Board and a further right of review from the Veterans Review Board to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The estimated cost of disability service pensions for 1983-84 is $2,017m. Once the determining system is fully operational, it is expected that savings in administrative expenditure will be achieved. Improved decision making at the primary level, based on better investigative processes and precedents flowing from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, should result in a reduction in the number of appeals. This legislation represents further evidence of the attempt by the Hawke Government to deal with the delays and other problems in the present systems in a practical and methodical way. The Hawke Government has reacted positively and expeditiously to implement the reforms to the determining system suggested by expert bodies. The Bill sets the operative date as 1 January 1985. There is a host of administrative and staffing matters to be put in train before that date. The legislation should be passed in the shortest possible time to allow the successful implementation of the new system from the beginning of next year. The honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) has drawn my attention to a number of concerns about various provisions of this Bill expressed by the honorary secretary of the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council, Mr Peter Alexander, and by Dr Ian Duncan, a former prisoner of war. I have given these matters consideration, and a letter dated 6 September 1984 from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) satisfactorily answers these concerns. I congratulate the Minister for Veterans' Affairs on his efforts to assist the veteran community. This legislation is aimed at just that. It introduces a revised processing system for pension claims. It replaces the present system which has proved too slow and cumbersome to deal effectively with the needs of veterans in the mid-1980s. I understand that there is very wide-ranging support in the veteran community to rid the repatriation system of unnecessary delays in deciding pension claims. This legislation will go a long way towards achieving this aim. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(10.52) —I rise to speak in support of the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. This Bill incorporates changes to the determining provisions of the repatriation benefits as paid to returned servicemen and women . I believe that Australia owes those brave men and women a great debt. Unfortunately, their contribution to this country is underestimated by many members of the Government. There is a backlog of some 25,000 to 30,000 claims, which is an embarrassment to all those people who have anything to do with the circumstances of many of the returned servicemen living in our community. I believe that many people do not realise the significance of repatriation in the Australian community. Some 600,000 people are directly affected by this legislation and, if one counts their families, the number is increased to some three million. Apparently, there are some 200,000 war widows. Those war widows will be of continuing importance in the Australian community until the year 2000. I am told that the number of war widows will still be at the level of 200,000 in the year 2000. The provisions of this Bill are based on the recommendations of the report of the Administrative Review Council and Mr Justice Toose's report of the Independent Inquiry into the Repatriation System, conducted in 1975. I am pleased that the Government has continued the initiative of the previous coalition Government in this area. The Bill aims at achieving a more effective and efficient system of claim determination and has the general support of the Returned Services League's national executive, Legacy, the War Widows Guild and many other returned servicemen and women's organisations. The Bill represents an attempt to find a solution to a very difficult and important administrative problem. I believe that it has been received in both this House and another place with a spirit of co-operation and good will. I sincerely hope that the provisions incorporated in this Bill will lead to an alleviation of the problems faced by many returned servicemen and women. If, however, the proposals incorporated in the Bill are not successful, I hope that the Government will act speedily to review the system again. I should like briefly to review the provisions of this legislation and to examine its intent and mechanics. As I have indicated, the legislation obviously seeks to implement Government decisions on the repatriation determination system . It is important to remember in the first place that we are talking about the determining system and not entitlements legislation which is not yet available. When the entitlements legislation is available it will cover a much wider spectrum of circumstances and will be much more complex. As I have said, this Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill very significantly follows the decisions of report No. 20 of the Administrative Review Council which has been overviewed by the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review, created by Senator Messner for the specific purpose of looking across the whole spectrum of repatriation legislation with a view to bringing it together, consolidating it, simplifying it and matching it with 1984, since its birth was in 1920, almost 70 years ago. The legislation seeks to introduce a more logical process of applications and reviews aimed at overcoming the enormous backlog to which I have already referred. One of the most significant requirements, expressed clearly in this legislation, is that there should be as much information as possible at the initial determining stage. This will enable the initial determination to be arrived at with full knowledge of the full facts . That alone should significantly reduce the number of appeals and reviews of recent times. Unacceptable delay might indeed be removed completely. The legislation before us amends a number of Acts: The Repatriation Act 1920, the Interim Forces Benefits Act 1947, the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956, the Repatriation (Special Overseas Services) Act 1962 and the Seamen's War Pension and Allowances Act 1940. The Council identified as a significant deficiency the fact that primary decisions were being made on incomplete evidence. This legislation seeks to overcome that problem. Primary investigation will take the place of the maximum possible evidence available. The other matter to which I wish to refer concerns the inadequacy of reasons for decisions. That too is an enormously important matter with which we have to come to grips. Indeed, if proper explanations are made available in written form, quite a few of the reviews that have been made and the claims that have followed and which have helped to delay and clutter up the system will be avoided. That is the purpose of that reference. Briefly, the purpose of the Bill is to abolish the three-member repatriation boards which are the first level of inquiry at the moment. They will be replaced ultimately by some 75 single delegate inquiries. Quite clearly, if this can work on a proper and full evidence basis it will speed up the whole process very significantly. These single member inquiries will be looking at both disability and service pension areas and claims for increases in disability pensions. The Veterans' Review Board will be established as the area of intermediate review for disability pensions at this stage and whilst in the past there has not been an intermediate review for service pensions they will be reviewed by single delegates, senior delegates as individuals, in the future. It is hoped that that too will be a step in the right direction. The Repatriation Review Tribunal will be abolished and in its place a special repatriation division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will be established , in the formation of which there will be consultation in considerable depth with ex-service organisations. Of course, a service member will be present on the Tribunal. That is the structural change. Very briefly, it envisages 75 single member primary investigatory boards. It envisages a veterans' review board at the second level and a repatriation division of the AAT at the third and final level on the merits with the existing capacity to extend on matters of law to the Federal Court of Australia and, if necessary, beyond. The repatriation system in Australia is over 70 years old. It has been reviewed on only a number of occasions but there has been virtually no overall legislation in all the years that have transpired since it grew out of the War Pensions Act of 1914 and the Repatriation Act of 1917 into the Australian Soldiers' Repatriation Act of 1920. In 1943, there was a joint parliamentary committee related to certain aspects of the legislation. In 1973 the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare was established and in June 1975 there was an independent inquiry into repatriation by Mr Justice Toose. But as I have said, there has been no overall legislation following these inquiries, although a number of Mr Justice Toose's recommendations are incorporated in the proposed legislation which is before us today. It is important to remember that it seeks to establish a new and quicker system of determining disability pensions and service pensions. It is an area in which it is necessary for speed to be established because of the massive backlog to which I have previously referred. I sincerely hope that this Bill will implement changes which will be of benefit to all the returned service men and women in Australia today. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Cohen) read a third time. House adjourned at 11.01 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Coleman to move- That this House- (1) notes- (a) the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs' insulting of a respected philosopher at the University of Sydney, Professor D. C. Stove, in the Senate on 12 September 1984, and (b) the Minister's gross distortion of his views on the harmful effects of feminism on staff appointments in Australian universities, as stated in his article ''The Feminists and the Universities'' in the September 1984 issue of Quadrant, and (2) calls on the Minister to apologise to the University of Sydney and to Professor Stove. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 13 September 1984: Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 225. Air Force Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 226. Defence Act- Determinations-1984- No. 39-Bindoon Allowance. No. 40-Recreation Leave and Long Service Leave. No. 42-Entertainment Allowance. No. 43-Insurance on Removal Overseas. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 227. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). National Measurement Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, Nos. 231, 232. Naval Defence Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 228. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 229. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances-1984- No. 49-Agents (Amendment). No. 50-Mental Health (Amendment). Trade Practices Act-Regulation-Statutory rules 1984, No. 230. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1527) Mr Simmons asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) Can the Minister indicate how many Army personnel were involved in mustard gas experimentation at Proserpine, Qld during World War II. (2) Has there been any evidence to suggest subsequent medical problems arising from such experimentation; if so, what are the details. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in consultation with the Minister for Defence in relation to part (1), has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Reports of chemical warfare tests and experiments carried out in the period 1943-1945, under the direction of the Commanding Officer of the Australian Chemical Warfare Research and Experimental Section, show that a total of 387 volunteers were exposed to gas or liquid contaminants; 341 of the volunteers were members of the Army and the remainder, 46, were RAAF personnel. The personnel data were compiled from individual trial reports. In some reports , surnames only were recorded. As a result, in some instances, it has not been possible to establish whether several persons of the same name were involved once each or whether a lesser number participated on more than one occasion. For this reason, the accuracy of the total cannot be guaranteed. A number of these volunteers used ointments or wore impregnated clothing intended to protect against the effects of gas and liquid contaminants. Other volunteers were not exposed to hazardous chemicals, but were used as controls or in tests of respirator endurance. (2) The Department of Veteran's Affairs has been able to identify 137 claims for Repatriation disability pension which have been lodged on the basis of involvement in gas experiments on service. Of this number, 24 claims were accepted by determining authorities as related to mustard gas exposure. Of these, 10 claims were accepted in which veterans' incapacities correlated with known effects of mustard gas exposure: Burns to scrotum 2 Bronchial asthma with chronic obstructive airways disease 2 Chronic bronchitis 3 Bronchitis, carcinoma of larynx, death 1 Carcinoma of lung 2 In 14 cases the determining authorities appear to have accepted claims on the basis that, while the relationship between the incapacity and exposure to contaminants was not apparent, the beneficial standard of proof provisions of the Repatriation Act required that the claims be accepted. (Question No. 1620) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) How many places are included in the World Heritage List. (2) How many of these are situated in (a) Australia, (b) Canada, (c) France, (d ) the Federal Republic of Germany, (e) the Democratic Republic of Germany, (f) Italy, (g) the United States of America, (h) the United Soviet Socialist Republic and (i) Yugoslavia. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 165. (2) (a) Australia-5: Kakadu National park, The Great Barrier Reef, Willandra Lakes Region, Western Tasmania Wilderness National Parks, Lord Howe Island Group . (b) Canada-8: Anthony Island, Head-Smashed-in Bison Jump; L'Anse aux Meadows National Historic Park, Nahanni National Park, Dinosaur Provincial Park, Burgess Shale Site, Wood Buffalo National Park, Klaune National Park/Wrangell-St Elias National Monument (Canada and United States of America). (c) France-15: Mount St Michel and its Bay, Chartres Cathedral, Palace and Park of Versailles, Vezelay, Church and Hill, Decorated Grottos of the Vezers Valley, Palace and Park of Fountainbleau, Chateau and Estate of Chambord, Amiens Cathedral, The Roman Theatre and its surroundings and the 'Trimumphal Arch' of Orange, Roman and Romanesque Monuments of Arles, Cistercian Abbey of Fonenay, The Royal Saltworks of Arc et Senans, Place Stanislas, Place de la Carriers and Place d'Alliance, Nancy, Cape Girolata, Cape Porto and Scandola Nature Reserve ( Corsica), Church of Saint-Savin-Sur-Gartempo. (d) Federal Republic of Germany-4: Aachen Cathedral, Speyer Cathedral, Wurzburg Residence with the Court Gardens and Residence Square, The Pilgrimage Church of Wies (f) Italy-4: Rock drawings in Valcamonica, The Historic Centre of Rome, The Church and Dominican Convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie with 'The Last Supper' by Leonardo da Vinci, The Historic Centre of Florence. (g) the USA-11: Mesa Verde National Park, Yellowstone National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, Everglades National Park, Independence Hall, Redwood National Park, Mammoth Cave National Park, Olympic National Park, Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, La Fortaleza and San Juan Historic Site (Puerto Rico) (i) Yugoslavia-7: Old City of Dubrovnik, Stari Ras and Sopocani, Historical Complex of Split with the Palace of Diocletian, Plitvice Lakes National Park, The Ohrid region with its cultural and historical aspects and its natural environment, Natural and Culturo-Historical Region of Kotor, Durmitor National Park. The Democratic Republic of Germany and the USSR are not parties to the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. (Question No. 1631) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) how many houses held, for any purpose, by the Minister's Department or any agency or statutory authority responsible to the Minister in the Australian Capital Territory were vacant on 18 June 1984. (2) Does the Minister's Department control any other premises in the Australian Capital Territory which are presently unused which could be occupied for residential purposes; if so, (a) where are these premises, (b) what are their previous uses and (c) are there any plans for their future use. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question. (1) Nil. (2) No. (Question No. 1647) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 31 August 1984: (1) How many houses held, for any purpose, by the Minister's Department or any agency or statutory authority responsible to the Minister in the Australian Capital Territory were vacant on 18 June 1984. (2) Does the Minister's Department control any other premises in the Australian Capital Territory which are presently unused which could be occupied for residential purposes; if so, (a) where are these premises, (b) what were their previous uses and (c) are there any plans for their future use. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) None. (2) No. (Question No. 1650) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 21 August 1984: (1) How many houses held, for any purpose, by the Minister's Department or any agency or statutory authority responsible to the Minister in the Australian Capital Territory were vacant on 18 June 1984. (2) Does the Minister's Department control any other premises in the Australian Capital Territory which are presently unused which could be occupied for residential purposes; if so, (a) where are these premises, (b) what were their previous uses and (c) are there any plans for their future use. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised that information regarding vacant houses as at 18 June 1984 is not readily available. However, the following table was compiled using information available as at the 30 June 1984: Family Batchelor Vacancy reason House flat flat Total Under maintenance 36 25 *21 82 Pending allocation 16 3 . . 19 To be demolished 2 . . . . 2 Being upgraded 4 3 . . 7 Total 58 31 *21 110 * Includes one Aged Person Unit. In addition to the table, tenants were being sought, via the media, for a vacant farm building held by my Department. (2) No. (Question No. 1710) Mr Peacock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 September 1984: (1) How many requests under the Freedom of Information Act were received by his Department between 1 July 1983 and 30 June 1984. (2) How many decisions on these requests have been made in (a) less than 30 days, (b) between 30 and 45 days, (c) between 45 and 60 days, (d) on the 60th day and (e) after 60 days. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 34. Four of the requests however were subsequently withdrawn by applicants before a decision was made. (2) (a) 4; (b) 5; (c) 15; (d) 2; (e) 4.