Tuesday, 2 October 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a request from Mr Justice Stewart, Commissioner of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group, in which he seeks permission of the House for the Royal Commission to have possession of the telex tabled in the House on 12 September 1984 by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). In doing so Mr Justice Stewart has stressed the seriousness attaching to the alleged leaking of the document and has indicated that possession of it is desired for the purposes of the Commission's inquiries in relation to its unauthorised release. On receipt of Mr Justice Stewart's request, I advised the honourable member for Boothby, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and informed them that I intended to bring the matter to the attention of the House. On previous occasions the House has agreed to the use of its records in proceedings before other tribunals. This request is similar in nature to that on 25 March 1982 when the House granted leave for the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking to be provided with copies of, and to adduce, any documents presented in the House concerning matters that may be relevant to the inquiry. I bring Mr Justice Stewart's request to the attention of the House so that it may take any action it considers appropriate. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That this House requests Mr Speaker to table a copy of the correspondence relating to the request by Mr Justice Stewart of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the activities of the Nugan Hand Group for a copy of the telex tabled in the House on 12 September 1984 by the honourable member for Boothby. Mr SPEAKER —As requested by the House, I now table a copy of the correspondence relating to the request by Mr Justice Stewart of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group for a copy of the telex tabled in the House on 12 September 1984 by the honourable member for Boothby. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(2.04) —by leave-I move: That this House grants leave for the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the activities of the Nugan Hand Group to be provided with a copy of the telex tabled in the House on 12 September 1984 by the honourable member for Boothby. Because there has been some confusion over the years, I think it would be opportune for me to draw attention to the facts concerning the provision of property of this Parliament to the courts or to royal commissions. I shall refer very quickly to instances when previous governments and, indeed, this Government have dealt with requests similar to the one under discussion today. I refer, of course, to 25 March 1982 when the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, sought the tabling of documents relating to the Nugan Hand organisation and associated matters. The then Leader of the House, Mr Sinclair, on behalf of the Government, moved: That this House grants leave for the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking to be provided with copies of, and to adduce, any documents presented in the House concerning matters that may be relevant to the Inquiry. I think we have a similar case today. I am citing these previous examples because I think anyone wanting a quick reference in the future will be able to see them all in the one day's proceedings. On another occasion, 4 June 1976, in relation to documents relevant to court proceedings, the then Leader of the House, again Mr Sinclair, moved: That, in response to the petition of Danny Sankey presented to the House on 25 February 1976, this House grants leave- 1. to the Petitioner and his legal representatives to inspect the documents tabled in this House during the course of its proceedings which took place between 2.55 p.m. and 10.09 p.m. on 9 July 1975. 2. to the Petitioner and his legal representatives to issue and serve a subpoena for the production of the said documents in the proceedings commenced by the Petitioner in the Queanbeyan Court on or about 20 November 1975, and 3. to an appropriate officer of the House to attend at the hearings of the said proceedings and to produce the said documents. This, of course, is in accordance with what we are doing today. The Hansard was required for court proceedings. On 30 August 1979 leave of the House was sought for the production of documents and attendance of officers at court proceedings. Mr Sinclair, as Leader of the House, sought leave of the House to move a motion granting leave for the production and adduction as evidence of certain documents and the attendance of an appropriate officer of the House for court proceedings. There was some debate about this matter because the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) was opposed to this course of action. Eventually there was agreement as to what material would be sent to the court and about the officer appearing before it. On 30 August 1979 Mr Sinclair raised a matter of privilege in accordance with Standing order 95. Following discussion in the House, he moved: That the petition of John Fairfax and Sons Limited presented to the House on 28 August 1979 be referred to the Committee of Privileges for consideration and advice as to whether the petition in whole or in part or any matter raised by it can be acceded to without derogation of the privileges of the Parliament or the Members of the Parliament and if so, the form in which it might be so acceded to . In some cases these matters have gone via the Privileges Committee. On 18 March 1982 the then Leader of the House, Mr Sinclair, in regard to access to House records, moved: That this House grants leave for the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking to adduce the official records of the proceedings in the House in which references were made to matters relevant to the inquiry, namely, parliamentary debates, House of Representatives for- (a) 11 March 1982, pages 890 to 891, 893 to 894, 921 to 927 inclusive; (b) 16 March 1982, pages 959, 960, 967 to 976 inclusive and pages 976 to 988 inclusive; and (c) 18 March 1982. This series of examples is evidence of the fact that what we are doing today is not peculiar to the way in which the Parliament has acted previously. Finally, on 6 May 1982, in regard to records of the Parliament, Mr Sinclair moved: That, in response to the petition of MacPhillamy Cummins and Gibson presented to the House on 5 May 1982, this House grants leave- (1) to the Petitioner and to Mr Christopher John Hurford to issue and serve subpoenae for the production of the relevant official records of the proceedings of the House as described in the Second Schedule of the petition, and of relevant documents tabled in the House as described in the Third Schedule of the petition; (2) to the Petitioner and to Mr Christopher John Hurford to adduce the said official records of the proceedings as evidence of what was in fact said, and of the presentation of the said documents, in the House; (3) to the Petitioner and to Mr Christopher John Hurford to interview and obtain proofs of the evidence from the relevant officers of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff, and (4) to an appropriate officer or officers of the House to attend in Court and to produce the said official records of proceedings and to give evidence in relation to the recording of proceedings of the tabling of documents provided that such officer or officers shall not be required to attend at any time which would prevent the performance of their duties in the Parliament. In directing the attention of the House to those previous decisions by the House I suggest that what we have done today draws this matter into line with those previous decisions. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(2.11) —I would like to speak briefly to this motion. Mr Speaker, I do so by reading from a letter which I sent to you today. I am not sure whether you have had time to read that letter yet. It reads: Dear Mr Speaker, I acknowledge your letters of 17th September and 25th September 1984 which outline part of the matters which Mr Justice Stewart raised with you in relation to my tabling of a document on the 12th September 1984. I note your response to Mr Justice Stewart in which you set out my position in relation to the privilege of the House. I have no objection to the House making the document available to the Royal Commissioner and will support such a proposal adopted in the terms you have outlined. Mr Speaker, in referring to the terms you have outlined, I would like particularly to quote from your letter to me, if I may. You referred to the availability of the document in these terms: However, in granting such approval the Speaker has always ensured that the matter did not involve any question of privilege, especially that of a Member, and he has also drawn attention to the provisions of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —I shall convey to Mr Justice Stewart the terms of the resolution agreed to by the House and provide him with a copy of the telex tabled in the House on 12 September 1984 by the honourable member for Boothby. In doing so I shall also draw his attention to the provisions of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights as applied by section 49 of the Constitution for the purpose of ensuring that proper regard is had to the privileges of members of this House. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —by leave-Three weeks ago the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) asked of me in the House a question which had monstrous implications and was vile in its innuendo. Its only effect could have been to smear me. The question implied that I would consider receiving an unspecified offer from the Nugan Hand Bank-an offer that could only have carried an implication of money from one of the most notorious organisations in the country. Mr Speaker, in the papers which you have just presented, which I have just had a chance to see, Mr Justice Stewart indicates that there are attachments. I think the House should be aware of the attachments. I will read from some of them. One attachment states: At the seminar Investing in Australia, organised by the Australian Overseas Chinese Club on September 21 at the Hong Kong Convention Centre I am able to be one of the speakers. Proposed title of my address is . . . It turns out, when looking at these telexes which are attached, including one telex to me, that the offer that I was to receive was an offer to speak at a seminar in Hong Kong. It was not an offer of any other proportions. It is further stated: By the way, Billy McMahon has been officially invited. He has not yet answered. It continues: Please advise me as soon as possible-- Mr Peacock —Ha, ha! Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition might well laugh. He has no respect for anybody's reputation. The attachment continues: Please advise me as soon as possible of the situation re proposal have Nigel Bowen visit Hong Kong on September 21 as a guest of the sponsors of the Australian Overseas Chinese Club for the seminar on Investment in Australia. It mentions also the telex, a copy of which the honourable member for Boothby had last week, which states: Organisers advise that Labor members might be too controversial and Liberal members may take too long to obtain an answer on whether they would accept . . . have been requested last year regarding former Premiers, i.e., Gorton, McMahon, Sir Robert Askin and former Premiers as first choices, former immigration Minister also good. Obviously present one would be best in view of self-owned problem. Being a holiday in Hong Kong, please treat this as urgent. Many thanks. It continues: We are sorry we cannot contact Mr McMahon. We do not have an address for him. What this reveals is that the offer I am supposed to have received, or supposed to have had proposed to me, was an offer to speak to a seminar in Hong Kong about investing in Australia. One would have to take the view that the honourable member for Boothby knew that that was the context in which the telex that came into his possession was available to him. His attack is revealed for what it is-a smear of the worst proportions, the lowest form of political attack , a smear on an honest opponent who was in a position where he could not defend himself, as I was unable to do when I was asked the question a week ago because I had no knowledge of it. Let me make this clear: The most damning thing about this is that there was never any offer with the implication of money. That is revealed by Mr Justice Stewart. The other damning factor is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), as accomplices and in conspiracy with the honourable member for Boothby, sat on the Opposition tactics committee and would have planned this question knowing the context of these telexes and knowing that this was all an offer in Hong Kong. Honourable members will recall that there was never a second reference to it. We never heard any more about it. It was a one-throw smear. The Opposition knew that this smear had only one throw in it and that it could never be followed up because to follow it up would reveal it for what it was-simply an attack to discredit me on the basis of receiving an offer, presumably for money, from an outfit like the Nugan Hand organisation. That is the basis of the attack upon me. That is the basis of the question. I am not at all surprised that the honourable member for Boothby, who has no obvious morality, who has been in every party in the Parliament-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think the Treasurer should withdraw that description. Mr KEATING —I withdraw, Mr Speaker. He knew when he asked the question that he was maligning me in a serious way. This was attended to substantially in the newspapers. It was part of an organised campaign of vilification not only against me, but also against other members of the Government. In the preceding two weeks, three smears were made against me. The first was that I sought to terminate the inquiries of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union with an intervention in Cabinet. I did not make such an intervention, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made it clear in the Caucus that at no stage did I ever make such an intervention. The second was that I attempted to nobble and suppress the Gyles report; but then I published to the House the indications Mr Gyles volunteered that no pressure was ever exercised on the Government, despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition attempted, by a manufactured smear and charge, to say that I sought to suppress his report. The third element in the two weeks of smears was that I was associated with the Nugan Hand organisation. All three smears had no basis. I made no such intervention in the Cabinet about Costigan and, to my knowledge, neither did anybody else. That smear made the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald. It led the Australian Broadcasting Corporation news. That is the sort of cover that these smears were given in the last couple of weeks of the last sitting. The second smear was that I sought to suppress the Gyles report. In fact, the Gyles report was a damning, stinging indictment of the former Government. I at no stage approached Mr Gyles and he said so. He volunteered it to the Attorney-General's Department, which passed it on to the Commissioner of Taxation, who passed it on to me, and I passed it on to the Parliament. The third smear was that I was supposed to have received an offer from the Nugan Hand Bank on the basis that in some way I would consider a financial arrangement with it. In fact it has now been revealed that it was an offer to have a trip to Hong Kong. That is the basis of the matter. I have had no apology on any count-not on the first count; not on the second count, after Gyles revealed that no pressure had been put on him; and no doubt I will receive no apology on this either. We have had a whole series of smears, which have been raised by members of the Opposition because they have no policies and no approach to the Australian community or the Australian economy or any other feature of government responsibilities. The last smear concerning the Nugan Hand organisation also received a tremendous run in the Press. We are seeing in Australia in 1984 what we saw in the United States in the 1950s, that is, all smears have the same basic feature- an allegation linked with associations which are then trafficked in the Press, as indeed they were trafficked in the Press of the United States in the 1950s. I make it quite clear that I have no knowledge whatsoever of any approach from the Nugan Hand organisation, as I said a couple of weeks ago in the House. This campaign of vilification is not the worst of the smears and the vilifications. There is also the charge against Peter Barron that he tried to suppress a report in the Age relating to material between a High Court judge and Miss Junie Morosi . We saw the outrageous charge, again from that highly principled honourable member for Boothby, that there was evidence, corroborated twice, that Peter Barron put pressure on the Editor of the Age newspaper and sought to have him suppress that report. Let me read how that smear was dealt with by Mr Creighton Burns, the Editor of the Age. He said: 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. It becomes obvious that that particular charge, that particular smear, also fell to the ground. But did we hear from the honourable member for Boothby? Did he have the decency to recant? Did he have the decency to withdraw it? No. He came back into the House that evening and repeated it by saying that it was corroborated by two separate sources. The only two people there were Mr Barron and the Editor of the Age. Yet the honourable member said that it was corroborated by two sources; and that was repeated by the Leader of the Opposition on the same night on the Nationwide program. He was not recanting either. After Mr Creighton Burns had denied the story, the Leader of the Opposition, in true character, went on to say that it had been corroborated by two sources. Of course, reputations do not matter to the Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts. The most vile of all the slurs and innuendoes were those projected to the Prime Minister, those thrown at the Prime Minister, that he was 'a perverter of the law and one who associates with criminals and takes his orders from those who direct criminals'. The Leader of the Opposition will stop at nothing. Three charges against me fall to the ground absolutely-no withdrawals, no apologies. The charge by the honourable member for Boothby against Peter Barron of the Prime Minister's staff also falls as malicious and without any evidence. The most vicious attack is that on the Prime Minister-that the Prime Minister of this country would allow himself to be directed by criminals. Nobody who has ever sat in this Parliament has heard a graver charge than that the Prime Minister of this country is directed by criminals. I have sat here for 15 years. I have never heard a graver charge than that, and I am sure that nobody in parliaments would ever have heard a graver charge than that the Prime Minister was directed by criminals. Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr KEATING —This was not simply a charge-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the honourable member for Moreton on a point of order. Mr Donald Cameron —He has another ream of notes there, and I am just wondering how long we are going to have to put up with this. Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I assure the House that I can answer that without any assistance from honourable members on my right. The honourable member for Moreton needs to be reminded that the Treasurer is speaking by leave. Mr KEATING —The charge against the Prime Minister was not a charge made only in the heat of battle, although things are said in this Parliament in the heat of battle which are often regretted later. The fact is that it was repeated in the calm and cool of a television interview on Nationwide. I sat in the same studio not 15 feet from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Howard —You weren't very calm. Mr KEATING —I wiped out the honourable member though; I fixed him up. Let me make this fact clear: It was repeated in the calm of a television interview three hours after it was said in the House. Let me quote Nationwide. Richard Carleton asked Mr Peacock: 'Can you name one criminal that Mr Hawke is associated with?'. Mr Peacock answered: 'Yes, I can'. He nods again, approving. He said: 'Yes, I can, but for your protection as well as mine here I would rather not, but I can do that'. In other words, his only quibble is the question of privilege and the protection of the publishers, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. He said: 'Yes, I can'. That is the gravity of his charge. It was not made in the heat of some debate. He slunk away with his tail between his legs. The next day the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party of Australia put their heads into a cabal with him and then he said: 'Look, Keating said this a couple of years ago and somebody else said this a couple of years ago and therefore I am exonerated'. The Leader of the Opposition said this in the calm of a television interview. It was a calculated, cool attack upon the Prime Minister of this country alleging that he consorts with, is directed by and is associated with criminals. The Leader of the Opposition now has his chance. The Parliament is back in session. He has the privilege accorded to a member of the House of Representatives. He does not have to worry about a defamation published by the ABC. He does not have to worry about the proprieties and therefore the problems of the law of defamation. He said that he could name one criminal that Mr Hawke is associated with but he would rather not say it on Nationwide. He said: 'I know of associations which Mr Hawke has had'. This is the chance for him in this session to substantiate his monstrous allegation, an allegation which demands only two courses of action-complete and utter retraction or total substantiation . The only courses available to the Leader of the Opposition are total retraction or complete substantiation. Mr Speaker, what we are seeing in this country and what was revealed by your intervention this afternoon is the politics of desperation by the Opposition. It is a party with no policies and no ideas. I have just come back from the United States of America. The Opposition is a joke in the investment community of that country. Everywhere I went, I was asked: 'How come they messed up a country like yours? How come they could not make a country so endowed as it was run? How come Peacock has degenerated into being a smear merchant without ideas? We thought he had promise as Foreign Minister'. This is the way in which the Opposition is viewed abroad. It has no ideas about the economy, about social policy. The Leader of the Opposition has gone for the smear and the vile charges. Let me conclude on the following points: The three charges against me-that I tried to terminate Costigan, that I suppressed Gyles and that I had financial associations or potential financial associations with the Nugan Hand Bank-are false and vile insinuations. The charge against Peter Barron was totally without foundation and was denied by the Editor of the Age without a retraction or any decency by the Opposition. But, of course, the final, the most vile and the most monstrous of the insinuations is that the Prime Minister consorted with, was directed by and was associated with criminals. This country sits and waits in judgment on the Leader of the Opposition. He must either retreat like a man or substantiate the vile charges he has made under the protection of privilege. He has been running away from his charges, his own actions, for a fortnight. This is the Leader of the Opposition's chance to put up or shut up, to stand up and say who the criminals are that the Prime Minister is associated with, to tell us how he has been directed by criminals, to tell us about Mr Peter Barron and to tell us about others. He should stand up and deliver. This is his chance to stand up and say his piece. He should either put up or shut up. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition making a statement to the House and speaking for a period not exceeding 30 minutes. Mr SPEAKER —The question is that the motion be agreed to. All those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no- Mr Sinclair-No. Mr Hawke-Your coach said no. Oh, what a team. Mr SPEAKER —I think the ayes-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I will put the question again. All those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.31) —I will take the opportunity in the time that has been given to me today to move a censure motion against the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I move: That this House censures the Prime Minister for- (1) His systematic and deliberate actions to force the Costigan Royal Commission to cease investigations into major crimes, despite requests from Commissioner Costigan and the Victorian Premier; (2) His systematic and deliberate refusal to support a strong National Crime Authority despite widespread evidence that this would weaken the fight against organised crime; (3) His continued refusal to answer questions on his systematic and deliberate attempts to weaken investigation into organised crime, and (4) His continued refusal to institute an effective investigation into the whole substance of the Age tapes. I am pleased that time has been made available to me in order that I may move this motion. I am more than pleased that it has happened while the Prime Minister is in the Parliament because week after week, whenever accusations are made against this man, he scuttles from the Parliament as fast as he can. I am not going to wait until later when I could move this motion and make a separate speech because on that occasion, once again, I am sure this creature would scuttle from the House again. As he has given me the time to speak I assume that on one occasion he will wait. Time and again the Opposition here and elsewhere has made accusations against this Government and, indeed, against its cohorts in New South Wales. Time and again criticism was made against Humphreys. What happened to him? He was convicted. Allegations were made against Farquhar and there were denials. What happened to him? He was charged. Allegations against Jackson were made here. What happened to him? First of all there were denials but he resigned and was charged. What happened to Foord? He was stood down. There were police scandals about Allen and Wood. There are now serious allegations about police involvement in the heroin trade. That is the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party on which allegation after allegation has been made and that is the power base of this man who currently occupies the position of Prime Minister. Over two weeks ago we raised in this House serious allegations that this Prime Minister was indulging in a deliberate and systematic weakening of the fight against sophisticated and organised crime in this country. The fact is that the Prime Minister has not made any serious attempt to answer these detailed allegations. Just as with the allegations to which I have referred-time and again they were denied, and then time and again action was taken against people-the same pattern is emerging with this man; except that the denials are not always too forthright and unequivocal. They are obscured by a variety of means. For the past 10 days this man has engaged in a deliberate campaign to obscure and to confuse the debate about organised crime and the debate about the central issues behind it. Despite the Prime Minister's tactics, the essential facts will not evaporate in a mist of pleas or of sentiment or emotion. The charges are still before him. It is not just that the Prime Minister is weak on crime; that is obvious enough. We are alleging that this Prime Minister is involved in a deliberate and systematic weakening of the fight against organised crime, which has had the effect of curtailing and weakening the investigation of serious crimes, to Australia's obvious detriment. This is not just a fight between two political parties or two major participants in that political debate; this is a debate about the increasing strength of organised crime in this community and the fact that the Prime Minister is refusing to allow the matter to be investigated in full, and he does not even debate it in this Parliament. In something as important as the fight against organised crime and corruption, neither rhetoric nor emotion can ever be a substitute for the facts, the deeds and the actions. Mr Barry Jones —Where are the facts? Why not give us some? Mr PEACOCK —What can be the Prime Minister's reasons for doing what he has done? Let us examine what could be the reasons for this Prime Minister doing what he has done. Mr Barry Jones —No, why not give us the facts? Mr PEACOCK —His actions have effectively and prematurely stopped Costigan's investigations. If you like, that is fact one. I will give two critical facts, if you like, and I have substantiated them. This man wound down Costigan, and the gyrations of his body today only equate with the gyration of the lies that have been told in the winding down of this operation. Mr Barry Jones —You were better than this at Scotch College. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Science and Technology will cease interjecting. Mr Barry Jones —It is true. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister should not transgress the Standing Orders of the House. Mr PEACOCK —The fact is that the Prime Minister's actions have effectively and prematurely stopped Costigan's investigations, investigations into the drug trade, into prostitution, into pornography, into massive tax evasion, into murder. This is stated not by me; it is stated by Costigan that the transition is a failure-not just that his own investigation has been stopped or curtailed but that the transition to the National Crime Authority is a failure. We accept that the Costigan inquiry had to end some time, but it should not have ended yet. We said it when we were in government, because we had a strong crime commission Bill which went into this Parliament and which had far more teeth than this Government's Crime Authority has. It should not have ended until the Crime Authority was up and running. That again is not just our view; of course, it is the view of Mr Costigan. This Government has effectively weakened the follow-up of the Costigan material. I outlined all the facts relating to this matter, and in detail, on 13, 19, 21 and 23 September, and then in a series of written questions to the Prime Minister on 27 September. The Prime Minister's response was to scurry out of the Parliament, though he has added new chapters to so-called Hawkespeak in his twisting and turning-writhing, if you like-on the skewer of fact, refusing to answer questions put to him at Press conference after Press conference, and certainly refusing to answer the questions that we have put to him both here and outside. Mr Speaker, I trust that time will be made available to me every day of this week and next week to speak on this matter, because the Opposition will not be diverted from the central issues. Now that the time has been made available to me, I want-as I thought might have been appropriate today-not to come in and parade a lot of new material, because there has been a lot of obfuscation-- Government members interjecting- Mr PEACOCK —There is more to come, do not worry about that. In the past 10 days there has been a lot of obfuscation and it is time to draw these matters together. We shall not be diverted from the central issues of why the Costigan Royal Commission was told to cease investigations, or why the Crime Authority legislation was severely weakened, or why the Prime Minister refuses to investigate the substance of the Age tapes. It can well be asked: What is this man hiding? Why will he not promise to table the Costigan report in Federal Parliament? Let him do it today. Let him promise to table the Costigan report in this House and have a full debate before once again he scuttles, this time to an early election. What does he have to lose if he has done the right thing? We reject the attempt by the Prime Minister to divert attention from the real issue. What is he afraid of? Is it that debate on Costigan may bring out the worst? Is it that the New South Wales Government's position would deteriorate further, with more crime and corruption scandals added to the already long list, perhaps taking this Prime Minister with it? They are the real issues. Let me look-I have been asked to do so and I shall do it-at the Prime Minister's role in this matter, drawing these central issues together today, as I am, and trusting that time will be given to me to pursue this matter in the Parliament in the weeks ahead, particularly when, as I would expect, an undertaking will be given to table the Costigan report in this Parliament before we go to the election. Let us go to the Costigan report. The fact is that the Prime Minister repeatedly attempted to put an end to the Costigan investigations until he finally succeeded. He did that despite the clear warnings from Costigan. The man the Prime Minister says was doing such a great job for Australia was the man he prevented from further investigating organised crime in this country when he himself said that he was within an ace of locating the principals in the drug trafficking in this country. Why was it so urgent for the Prime Minister to get Costigan wound up less than halfway through 1984 when the Premier of Victoria supported and approved an extension through to the end of 1984? Look at the correspondence that was tabled in the Victorian Parliament yesterday. Honourable members will see letters coming back to Hawke from Cain and from Fordham indicating that they would grant more time. They went beyond that and not only indicated it to him in letters but also gazetted an extension of the time. The Prime Minister would not listen to them because he had listened to other advisings about just where the Costigan report may fall. He was not prepared to take the attitude that most would take of tabling a report and letting it fall where it may. In fact, the correspondence tabled by Mr Cain yesterday only strengthens my claim that the Prime Minister was absolutely determined to force Costigan to cease investigations. Despite the Prime Minister's attitude, Mr Cain and his Deputy Premier persisted with their support for Mr Costigan's work being extended. What could have been-it is a fair question to ask-more important to the Prime Minister than the ongoing pursuit of the principals of the drug trade? There is just no way out for him on that central fact. What could have been more important to him than the ongoing pursuit of the principals involved in the drug trade? He cannot on this occasion shift it on to someone else. It was the Prime Minister who received Costigan's letters, and it was the Prime Minister who replied to them. It was the Prime Minister who turned his back on Mr Costigan's request, and it is the Prime Minister who built his power base on the shifting sands of the New South Wales Labor Party. Let us detail what Commissioner Costigan was telling the Prime Minister the consequences would be. What were his clear warnings? Mr Barry Jones —What are the charges? Mr PEACOCK —I am asked: 'What are the charges?' I have been given time to explore this matter and I am very happy to do it. Let me quote from Mr Costigan. On 24 November 1983, Mr Costigan pointed out-- Mr Barry Jones —No! They are your allegations. Mr PEACOCK —Did the honourable member say 'No'? That is symptomatic of the Prime Minister. Every time Mr Costigan wrote to him he said no. The honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) should not suffer from osmosis. I beseech him. He is an honest man. He should not suffer from osmosis. On 24 November 1983 Mr Costigan pointed out: Unless such an extension is granted it will not be possible to maintain the thrust of my investigations or to hand them over to a new crime authority in an efficient and sensible manner. On 5 March 1984 Mr Costigan referred to the damaging effects of a lengthy hiatus between his investigations and those of the new crime authority. He said that even if the new authority had sufficient powers: . . . the breach in investigations is likely to be fatal to their success, particularly the current drug investigations. . . . The only basis on which an efficient transition can take place is for me to continue my investigations until the crime authority is up and running. What could be clearer and more damning of the deliberate actions of the Prime Minister than those statements by Mr Costigan himself? In my view, not a person in this Parliament, receiving correspondence from a royal commissioner indicating that those would be the consequences if he did not extend-other than a cabal in the Cabinet, and particularly the man who heads it-would, irrespective of the consequences identified by Mr Costigan, tell Mr Costigan to wind up. This man carries the consequences on his hands. He is answerable for them because, having been warned of the consequences, he nevertheless imposed on the Australian community the risks and consequences identified by Mr Costigan, because of short term political factors and for the protection of persons so far unnamed by him. What could be clearer and more damning than that? This man has spoken of his hatred, of his abomination of the cancer of drug trafficking and its devastating effects on individuals and families. There would not be anyone here who does not share his feelings on that sort of evil or would not use the language that he properly chose in regard to such a degrading influence that is growing in this community. No one would deny the Prime Minister his feelings on the matter. We share them. But why did he act to wind up Mr Costigan's drug investigations before they were brought to a conclusion? Mr Costigan warned the Prime Minister on 3 July 1984 that the transition to the new Crime Authority 'cannot be done within the time you suggest, and any pretence that it has been done will be no more than cosmetic'. He alluded again to his concerns that the Government was making 'the maintenance of my investigations' not possible. Mr Costigan was totally explicit about the consequences for Australia, for our nation. He was not addressing the fortunes of some man in office or of a political party. He was talking about the consequences for this nation of what the Prime Minister was doing to suppress and curtail the fight against sophisticated and organised crime. And he was wound up. In his statement of 20 September the Prime Minister tried to dismiss the Opposition's references to Commissioner Costigan's correspondence as ' selective and tendentious quoting from tabled correspondence'. Anyone who reads those letters from Commissioner Costigan in full will not come to that conclusion. The fact is that the Prime Minister's actions-the actions of someone claiming to be dedicated to the fight against crime-shut down the single most effective crime investigation this nation has known, leaving nothing in its place. This happened despite plea after plea by Costigan that the most important thing was actually to allow a system whereby investigations could continue unabated. The Government has stated that all material from Costigan has been handed to the National Crime Authority and there have been some promises that some investigations will be continued at some later date. The central demand by Costigan was that investigations be transferred and continue unabated. When Mr Justice Stewart was asked whether some trails could have gone cold, he replied: 'I do not think so'. That is hardly a reassuring answer. How could it be? Costigan repeatedly offered a method which would ensure a smooth transition and maintenance of investigations. This is exactly what has not happened. Request after request for extension has been denied, although granted by the Labor Premier of Victoria. Of course, the key point is that before the Crime Authority can use its limited coercive powers-this is a very fundamental point- it has to have a reference. As yet, four months after Costigan ceased investigation, the Authority has still not received one reference. When the Opposition brought to the public's attention the warnings of Costigan and the clear consequences of the Prime Minister's actions the Prime Minister had no answer, save that of rhetoric followed by emotion. In regard to that emotion I say to the House that, like every other parent in this country, I sympathise with the plight of the Prime Minister and his family. Let me make it utterly clear that the Opposition did not bring families into this matter. It never has. The Prime Minister brought up this matter and he must carry responsibility for it. In any case this is not the point of any debate on a matter in this Parliament. I seek to bring this man down for his omissions and commissions in this area and other areas, not in relation to his family. I will not mention the matter again. Emotions and cries for trust can never be substitutes for effective action when it is so imperatively demanded and requested in the case of a royal commission. The tortured attempts to crawl out from beneath responsibility unquestionably have failed. If the Prime Minister cares so much, one can justifiably ask why he has not acted. The Prime Minister knows that the Government has the power to intervene under section 18 of the Crime Authority legislation. He could have cut a swathe through any bureaucratic obstructions to Commissioner Costigan's continuing of pivotal drug investigations. The Prime Minister knew very clearly that by not intervening he was putting at risk substantial investigations into organised crime. It is really not a question of whether Commissioner Costigan or the National Crime Authority was right. The issue is that the Prime Minister deliberately chose to take action to halt these investigations. Again I ask why that was so in view of all the statements and tortured logic and emotions that have flowed. Why did he act to stop Costigan's pursuit and give those being pursued breathing space and at the same time provide breathing room for the beleaguered New South Wales Government which, as I have said, is the home of the Prime Minister's power base? I remind the House of the Cabinet meeting of last December. There are journalists in this place who have written that it occurred. I ask honourable members to read the National Times of 21 September if they do not believe me when I say that a Government Minister allegedly said that Commissioner Costigan was ruining Labor in New South Wales. Why did the Prime Minister do these things ? We are left with a series of question marks hanging over the whole matter and they may never be removed as a consequence of the Prime Minister's actions. As far as I am concerned in moving this motion today, the Prime Minister stands condemned by his own failure to act in the public interest. I have talked considerably about Costigan; but what about the other element of very grave concern, the National Crime Authority? The previous coalition Government acted to develop the type of body which had the powers and the resources to be fully effective and to carry on from Costigan. We steered legislation through the Parliament so that when the Costigan inquiry was wound up the crime authority would be up and running. That was a firm undertaking to Costigan and it would have been carried through. What a marked contrast it was to the approach of the present Prime Minister when the opportunity arose to drive Costigan and his investigations into the ground. Because of us the Prime Minister had legislation on the books when he came into office. He could have got cracking straight away. This Prime Minister is the very man who said he would continue the fight against crime. He even said he would proclaim the Fraser Bill. I do not know why he changed his mind on that. It is interesting to pose the question, just as we can pose the question in regard to the other diversions he has made on this matter until there was an eventual U-turn and he moved right away from his determination to fight organised crime other than in parsimonious rhetoric. On 19 May he said in the Parliament that he would 'ensure that everything that can possibly be done is done to smash organised crime in this country'. That should have read 'to smash investigations into organised crime in this country', judging by the behaviour and the patterns that have emerged through the period of this Government. Something went wrong. We got a toothless tiger of a Bill that was given teeth only by the actions of the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. Mr Steedman —Ha! Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member says 'Ha'. Let me add some further material. I am pleased to see that we have some visitors in this place. Let me quote Labor Senators Tate, Crowley and Bolkus who supported the conclusions of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. What did they have to say about the Hawke legislation, this ineffective legislation that masquerades as an organised crime fighting body? This is what they had to say: This Committee has concluded generally that the Bills which were presented to the Senate had grave defects or omissions. Fundamental change is required to the legislative framework upon which the Authority is to operate. Labor senators charged with the investigation of the legislation the Government brought in knew that it was a farce and that it would not operate. They knew that it needed fundamental change. It was changed, to the extent that it was changed, only by the moves of the Opposition and the Democrats. Furthermore, I listened with interest to what His Honour Mr Justice Stewart said at his Press conference last week because I respect him greatly. I have been reading his 1983 report. I wanted to see what power a crime authority ought to have. To whom did I go over and above the letters of Commissioner Costigan? I naturally went to His Honour Mr Justice Stewart, because he is a man of great standing. He knows a great deal about royal commissions. I know that the Prime Minister wants to wind up the Costigan Royal Commission because it has been going for a long time but he does not want to wind up Mr Justice Stewart's Royal Commission. He has even given him more work such as checking on the authenticity of the Age tapes-not the substance; just the authenticity. He has given that work to Mr Justice Stewart not in his capacity as Chairman of the National Crime Authority but as a royal commissioner. The Labor Party has made many statements about winding up royal commissions that go for years. As I recall it, Mr Justice Stewart's Royal Commission has been going for a considerable period. I think he is into his fourth year. He has not been wound up. He has been given more work as a royal commissioner. I will quote him because he is a man of great standing. He analysed what was required in a crimes commission. I refer to the report that he brought in in March 1983. He said, for example: The inability of a crimes commission to initiate its own inquiries reposes far too much power in the Commonwealth Attorney-General. He concluded: The commission should undertake investigations of its own motion and at the request of the Commonwealth or a State Government. Yet this Prime Minister committed himself to the 1983 legislation despite its grave weaknesses. Mr Speaker, I have pages and pages of material; I could go for another hour. Will you give me an extension? Mr Hawke —Yes. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-proposed: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from completing his speech. Mr SPEAKER —I have to raise another matter. Standing Orders were suspended to allow the Leader of the Opposition to make a 30 minute statement. He subsequently moved a motion of censure. Since there was no objection at the time I take it that the Government has taken that as a formal motion. Mr Young-Yes, we are just waiting for him to speak. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr PEACOCK —I was dealing with the National Crime Authority in this censure motion against the Government. I remind honourable members that the tactic of the Government was to give me half an hour to speak. I thought that I would do as the Opposition has been wanting me to; that is, move the censure motion today that I was considering moving either later in the day or tomorrow. Honourable members will recall that that censure motion-- Mr Young-It could have been done earlier. Mr PEACOCK —It could not have been done earlier because we indicated that we would give the Government leave to raise matters following Mr Speaker's statement. I moved the censure motion as soon as possible thereafter. The Minister should not on this occasion call into question his undertakings and statements. He has been caught out in the past in car parks as well as in this House so he should not do it here today. I was referring to the National Crime Authority. I referred to the fact that the previous coalition Government acted to develop the type of body which had the powers and the resources to be fully effective to carry on from Costigan. We steered legislation through this Parliament which gave that body real teeth. This Government came in, after having said that it would proclaim that legislation, changed it and brought in a toothless Bill that was criticised by the Senate Committee to which it was sent for examination. Honourable members will recall that the determination was to get that toothless organisation in place so that Costigan could be wound up last December. Remember that element, oft forgotten. Costigan was to be wound up in December and the toothless tiger was to take over then. What transpired was that the Opposition and the Australian Democrats, seeing how toothless that legislation was, sent it to a Senate committee. Hawke could not get his way. He could not wind Costigan up last December because that was his wish. He was caught then, as he was caught subsequently, as he tried to steer Costigan and his investigations into a pit that he could cover up and to place this weakened authority in its stead. We gave this body coercive powers-to the extent to which it has coercive powers- acting in the Senate with the support of the Democrats. I referred to the fact that I regarded the reports of Mr Justice Stewart, particularly his 1983 report, as very interesting. I noted a contrast by Mr Justice Stewart in his Press statement last week, but he being an honourable man I know that there must have been a change of approach since the report was put down and since he actively took up his position of Chairman of the Authority. I can understand that as Chairman of the National Crime Authority he would wish to pursue matters as effectively as possible. I remind honourable members of the quotations I used-I would refer to many others-from that 1983 report. Another quotation I had been asking for was in regard to the extent of the inquiry which was dealt with in a letter from Hawke to Costigan of 16 December 1983. Going on from the reference to Mr Justice Stewart, I then wanted to refer to the Prime Minister's commitment to the 1983 legislation, despite its grave weaknesses. Despite those grave weaknesses the Prime Minister made a firm commitment to the legislation. In a letter to Mr Costigan, dated 16 December, he stated: Although the Senate Committee of Inquiry has injected a degree of uncertainty, we still anticipate being able to create the new Authority, with a structure and powers not markedly different from those proposed in the National Crime Authority Bill 1983, by June next. Let me emphasise that the Prime Minister committed himself to legislation which in fact gave a State the veto power over investigation of a Federal offence. Who would have wanted that veto power? New South Wales may have wanted it. I cannot think of any other State that may have wanted it. New South Wales may well not have wanted an investigation into Federal offences in that State. This Prime Minister was happy to give that State absolute veto over those investigations of Federal offences-a veto power directly vested in the State of New South Wales through its membership of that committee. If honourable members think that Marmaduke would not get up to that, after all the twisting and turning and meanderings and denials and then the revelations that the denials have been false, I would say to them that there was a desperate pleading for Marmaduke to have that veto should this Government be thrown out and we be in power and direct that investigations be conducted. As I said, it was the Senate that removed this Achilles heel, over the protestations of the Government. In the negotiations with the States on the National Crime Authority, both the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) repeatedly referred to the wishes of the Prime Minister that Costigan be wound up. It is an open secret. Everyone knows that at most of these meetings with the States negotiating the Crime Authority, the Special Minister of State, who sits in this House, and the Attorney-General constantly told the States: ' Our Prime Minister wants Costigan wound up and we want the new Authority to be put in in its stead.' There was clearly no cautious approach to the warnings of Costigan and certainly no concern about what would transpire within the community should Costigan be wound up. There was just indecent haste all about. Quite clearly, thanks to the Government, the Crime Authority still does not have the major powers which experts such as Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Justice Moffitt , the doyen of judicial investigators into organised crime, said it needed to have to be fully effective. It was very interesting to read the Melbourne Herald yesterday and subsequent newspapers about interviews carried out with Mr Justice Moffitt. For example, he said, referring to the National Crime Authority: The way it has been set up I don't think it will work. I would like to have read all that His Honour Mr Justice Moffitt said about this Authority, but I understand that not all of it could be published and that what was published would have been extremely embarrassing to the Government. This Prime Minister finds some amusement in sitting in the Parliament. The fact is that he is not a creature of this Parliament. He is a creature of bodies outside. He never feels comfortable in this Parliament, not only because he rarely tells the truth in it but also because his volatile emotional state depends on a continuing massaging of his ego. We heard last Sunday this man of many talents, who was morally bound to offer himself to the Australian community ; dragged reluctantly for a massage of this inflated ego into the mainstream of the Australian community and serving despite all the difficulties-difficulties which we never noticed before outweighing this inflated ego. We recognise the discomfort he feels in this Parliament. At least today he is staying here, but I am prepared to say that he will not indicate to this Parliament today why he wound up the Costigan Royal Commission. He will not indicate to this Parliament today why, despite the continual pleadings of Mr Costigan, pointing to the consequences for this nation, he put his own alleged short term political benefit ahead of community concerns. He will not tell us why he introduced a weakened National Crime Authority which the most detached observers note will not do the job that it was meant for. The trails have gone cold; the investigations have failed; and he knows it. He knows that Mr Costigan has said that the transition has failed. Yet despite that failure, this man has not acted to ensure that the transition was a success. He has the power to do it but he was not prepared to do it. Of course, the Prime Minister refused, after many other requests, quite apart from the questions we have asked him, in his Press conference on 20 September to amend the National Crime Authority legislation. He is not prepared even now, despite all the advisings, to put in place an effective crime authority body. Today there are no public hearings into organised crime because of the actions of this man. The actions of this man have brought about the situation in which, despite approximately 40 references from Mr Costigan, none are being pursued by the National Crime Authority and there is a total hiatus. So much for the concern of this Government. In fact the concern of this Prime Minister is clearly with those who could be hurt by the Costigan Royal Commission rather than that community concern be recognised and that those who are breaking the law be brought to book in court. We suggest that the answer to all these matters that I have been posing lies in part within that mosaic of power base, Prime Minister and concern over where the crime trail might lead. There is a pattern of systematic and deliberate attempts to hinder the fight against organised crime. The pattern is, of course, repeated with the Age tapes. The Prime Minister and his New South Wales allies have used every delaying trick in the book to avoid investigating the substance of the tapes. What is needed, as we said, is a royal commission into the source and particularly into the substance of the tapes. Nearly a year after their publication the Government has taken no action other than, as I said earlier, to have Mr Justice Stewart continue with investigations into a small part of the tapes. Can the Prime Minister yet again seriously claim that he was not aware of the consequences of his actions? This Prime Minister is responsible for the breakdown, for the hampering of the fight against organised crime. The overall picture is damning. It goes back at least as far as the allegations raised about the early prisoner release scheme in October 1983. I remind the House that we raised the matter of Jackson in this Parliament and that this man, cringing behind Marmaduke again, echoed Marmaduke's words that there was no crime involved. This man, of course, subsequently stood with Marmaduke in the election campaign and gave him shoulder to shoulder support. They stood together , brother to brother, linked in arms, not in the fight against organised crime but simply in the fight against those who would wish to fight organised crime. This man, with Marmaduke, has sought to put down and deny every charge which has been made. One by one, as I mentioned at the outset of my address, those denials have been seen for the lies that they were, as person after person has been either charged or stood down. This man directly enmeshed himself with the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party in the obfuscation of crime in that State and, by his actions with Costigan, in a wider area. He is the one who chose to go all the way with Mr Wran, to close ranks behind him. But now, a year later, the track record of the Prime Minister on crime and corruption is one of steady and deliberate obstruction of those who would root out these evils both in New South Wales and throughout the nation. Throughout the Costigan saga, the weakening of the Crime Authority and the amazing failure to pursue the substance of the Age tapes, this Prime Minister has been in charge. This is the man who wound up Costigan despite Costigan's plea. This is the man who would not give an extension to that inquiry , despite the fact that Premier Cain would. This is the man who engaged in a systematic and deliberate refusal to support a strong National Crime Authority. This is the man who has refused to investigate the substance of the Age tapes. This is the man who directly aligned himself with Mr Wran and the others whom I have mentioned and the charges made against them. This is the man who stands today proud of that, I understand, and this is the man who has refused to institute an effective investigation into the factors that I have raised. He has refused to answer question after question. I have dozens of questions here that I could read into the record, but I think enough has been said. Time has been made available to us today by the Australian Labor Party which did not realise that we would use it to move this censure motion against the Prime Minister. I remind the House that the reasons are: His winding down of Costigan; his denial of the request for an extension for Costigan, despite the pleadings of both Cain and Fordham; his winding down of the effectiveness of the National Crime Authority; his tolerating of the hiatus in the investigation of organised crime at present; his tolerating, despite the power that he has, of the fact that there is no investigation into organised crime today; and the fact that he has tiptoed around the Age tapes, defending Wran all the time, simply playing with the matter and posing questions such as whether the tapes were authentic. He is the man who, as I indicated a few minutes ago, gave as the only reason to justify the winding down of Costigan the proposition that royal commissions could not go on forever. He wound down the Royal Commissioner who said to him in confidential pleading: 'I am close to getting the financiers of organised crime'. That was too close for this man, so Costigan was wound up. But if the Prime Minister were consistent he would not have been winding up Costigan, extending Stewart and putting down a National Crime Authority which is supposed to be working full time but which has as its Chairman a fine man who is preoccupied with an investigation into Nugan Hand. He is now being charged with investigating the authenticity of the Age tapes, yet is supposed to be working with the Crime Authority full time, according to this occupant of the prime ministership. In addition, the Crime Authority has not received one briefing from the Costigan Commission. As I wind up, I simply say this to the Prime Minister. He can obfuscate as much as he likes; he can protect his mates as often as he can; he can refuse to tell the truth, which is what he engages in from time to time; he can indulge in emotion with which we will have sympathy, but we will not allow that sympathy to override our penetration into the facts and into what is occurring; and he can try as he may to explain away the faults and the errors of his Government. However, he has not told us why he wound up the most effective crime fighter when he was close to the principals, why he put in his place an ineffective crime authority, why he even tolerates a situation that no one with a cubit of common sense can comprehend, that is, how he allows that toothless tiger to operate without even receiving a briefing from Mr Costigan. I know that the Government's explanation is that the Authority now knows how to work the computer. It has been pressing buttons as fast as it can. The Government can understand the situation the National Crime Authority is in at present. What about pressing the truth and saying to the Authority: 'You are not effective; we will give you more power'? If the Government were to do that it would have our support. Perhaps before the Prime Minister indicates that he will give the Authority that power, he will today rise in his place, tell the truth, answer the charges that are made against him and, when he has concluded, give the undertakings for which we have asked throughout. Instead of protecting those close to him, the Prime Minister should follow through the recommendations that Costigan made to him and that independent sources have provided to him, that he is presiding over the greatest wind down in activity in the face of the greatest wind up of crime in this country. The Prime Minister is an unsettled man but, worse than being unsettled, he is tragically despoiled because he is allowing crimes in the community to continue and investigations to cease. For that he is answerable. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Is the motion seconded? Mr Howard-Madam Deputy Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Prime Minister speaking without limitation of time. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(3.23) —I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words- That this House expresses its disgust at the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition and determines that he warrants the censure of this House for demeaning his office and this Parliament, in that he: (a) has wilfully and recklessly conspired with the Member for Boothby and others to denigrate the reputation of the Treasurer by a baseless insinuation imputing some improper association between the Treasurer and the Nugan Hand bank ; (b) has wilfully and recklessly conspired with the member for Boothby and others to suggest that the Prime Minister attempted to exert influence upon the Editor of the Age to suppress a story; (c) has refused, with the Member for Boothby, to retract that baseless allegation after it was destroyed by the Editor of the Age; (d) has wilfully and recklessly accused the Prime Minister of being a ''little crook'', ''a perverter of the law'' and ''one who associates with criminals and who takes his orders from those who direct criminals'' all of which allegations are to his certain knowledge without foundation; (e) has consistently failed to substantiate such claims in respect of the Prime Minister; (f) has by his baseless insinuations impugned the motives of the Government's decisions as to the timing and process of merging the work of the Costigan Commission into the operations of the National Crime Authority; (g) has attempted to undermine the credibility of the National Crime Authority and so weaken the fight against organised crime in this country; and (h) has not only demeaned his office and brought discredit upon this House but has been derelict in his duty to provide this country with a credible Opposition . I intend to address myself, in detail, to all the issues that have been raised by the Opposition. Before I do that, I should like to remind you, Mr Speaker, that in an earlier debate in this House I had cause to refer to the two leading figures opposite as Gucci and the albatross. Now I must change that, because it is now the chicken and the albatross. We have had this pathetic sight of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) chickening out. He had the opportunity, given specifically to him, to face up, to substantiate the grave allegations that he had made, to name names. Everyone in this House and in the gallery has been waiting breathlessly for any substantiation. Its forthcoming has been totally absent. In recent weeks, in this Parliament and elsewhere, the Opposition has made a series of unsubstantiated allegations against members of the Government, and an attempt, by smear and by innuendo, to cast doubt on the Government's commitment to the fight against organised crime in this country. On both counts, its actions are to be deplored and to be condemned in the strongest possible manner. The Labor Government is unequivocally committed to total support for a sustained fight against organised crime. This is a course of action that will be pursued without fear and without favour. It is a course of action already demonstrated by this Government's action. Let me repeat to the House what I said at a Press conference in Canberra on 20 September: This Government, and this Prime Minister in particular, will do nothing to protect anyone, whether that person is known or not known to me, whatever the station in life of that person. Let the record of the facts speak for itself. In 1983-84, the first full financial year of the Labor Government, total expenditure on the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union was just more than doubled. In our first year we more than doubled the expenditure of the previous year by our predecessors. The amounts were $5.9m in our first year, 1983-84, as compared with $2.9m during their last year in government of those opposite. The Royal Commission's staff was also substantially increased in size in our first year. That is hardly the action of a Government seeking to hamstring the Costigan Royal Commission.In the last two financial years the Labor Government has increased expenditure on the Australian Federal Police by 19.5 per cent and increased staffing by 13.7 per cent. That action by this Government, as soon as it came to office-that significant enhancing of the resources of the AFP-follows the appalling treatment of the AFP by our predecessors, particularly at a time when it was the only permanent national crime fighting body in this country. It was that treatment by our predecessors which caused the AFP to report in September 1982 as follows: The unavailability of skilled resources in AFP divisions is a significant factor when determining the effectiveness of any concerted action taken to suppress medical fraud or, for that matter, any form of criminal activity. That is what the AFP was saying in its report in September 1982 after seven years of the former Government-condemning that Government unequivocally out of hand for the fact that it had been starved by that Government of resources to fight crime in Australia. In addition to what we have done to remedy the previous Government's dereliction of duty, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been established by this Government to revitalise proceedings in relation to offences against Commonwealth legislation and to remove any suggestion of possible political interference in the prosecuting process. The Labor Government has established the National Crime Authority to pursue the fight against organised crime in this country, while providing for the protection of fundamental civil liberties, and for the active participation of the States and of the Northern Territory. I shall return at a later stage of this speech to talk in depth about the National Crime Authority. At the outset I wish to nail the utter hypocrisy of the Opposition in its purported concern about organised crime in this country. Until a number of documents recently came into the possession of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues, they had displayed virtually no interest in the subject of organised crime. It is not as if organised crime in this country is a phenomenon of which governments at all levels and the general public have only recently become aware. Quite the contrary. I refer the House to the following inquiries over the past decade: The Moffatt Royal Commission on Alleged Organised Crime in Registered Clubs in New South Wales, the Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking, the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, the Stewart Royal Commission into drug trafficking, which dealt with the Nugan Hand Bank, and now the Costigan Royal Commission. Mr Howard —Who set them up? Mr HAWKE —I remind the people of Australia and members of this House that for 30 out of the last 35 years in Australia the Federal Government has been in the hands of the conservative parties. If one wants to talk about political responsibility for the emergence of organised crime in this country, one has to ask: Which is the political force which for the overwhelming preponderance of the last 35 years has had responsibility for these matters? The answer is that it is the conservative parties of this country. The reality is that the Opposition when in government permitted organised crime to flourish in this country to the point that, in Mr Costigan's words-I remind the House that these were Mr Costigan's words four days after Labor came to government-organised crime had raped this country. The previous Government had been in office for seven years, and after we had been in office four days Mr Commissioner Costigan said that organised crime had raped this country. Opposition members now have the temerity to come into this Parliament and purport to exhibit some concern about organised crime. Mr Keating —Particularly in tax avoidance. Mr HAWKE —I will come to that point immediately. That Government presided over a massive growth in the tax avoidance industry. Members of this House will recall, and I shall repeat it, what Commissioner Costigan said in his report in December 1981. He said that the tax avoidance industry was the fastest growing industry in Australia, particularly, he said, in the last five years, that is, from 1976 to 1981. That is what happened in that period. Who was in government and who was the Treasurer for most of that period? The honourable member for Bennelong. Opposition members when in government presided over a massive growth in the tax avoidance industry and the serious maladministration of the Attorney-General's Department. By the time the present Opposition left office, even after a period of seven years, it still had no permanent national machinery in place for fighting organised crime. Certainly the Costigan Royal Commission was not intended for that purpose. Indeed, the previous Government's motive was cheap political advantage. It thought it might embarrass the Labor Party in respect of the painters and dockers. If ever a cheap political trick blew up in the perpetrator's face, it was the Costigan Royal Commission. No one was more surprised, more embarrassed, more alarmed, than were the members of the previous Government and their friends when Mr Costigan's investigations took him into the territory of the massive tax rackets over which they had presided in their seven years of government. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Opposition is now denigrating the National Crime Authority, the body to which not only the Federal Government, with the support of all political parties in the end, but also the States and the Northern Territory gave their support in the fight against organised crime. As for the Leader of the Opposition-I hope he listens to this and savours it well-the depth and sincerity of his concern on this matter can be judged by the fact that he did not even bother to speak during the debate in this House on the National Crime Authority Bill, despite the fact that I spoke in that debate on 7 June. Here is the Leader of the Opposition getting up and talking about the inadequacy of the National Crime Authority, saying that it is a toothless tiger, but what was his concern in June this year when this House had the responsibility of debating the structure of that Authority? Did he come in and tell this Government in the debate on the Authority what it should do and what its weaknesses were? He did not speak in the debate. The people of Australia will make their judgment about the depth and sincerity of the commitment of the Leader of the Opposition on this matter. The Opposition's new-found concern about organised crime in this country, and particularly that of the Leader of the Opposition, springs from the most cynical, and at this stage most desperate, exploitation of genuine national concerns for the most paltry political advantage. The Opposition has been prepared to do this at any cost to reputations, to institutions, and indeed at any cost to the real fight against organised crime. It is prepared to do this for the most part under cover of parliamentary privilege. Let me deal with the three examples to which my colleague the Treasurer has already alluded. On 12 September in this House the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) tabled a telex message purported to be in the possession of the Stewart Royal Commission inquiry into the Nugan Hand Bank which provided brief biographical details of the Treasurer and referred to advice that he would accept an offer, clearly implying that there was some illicit financial transaction involved. In fact, as we all now know, the same details were provided for a number of people from other political parties; it was not just the Treasurer. The offer-this sinister offer-was one to address a seminar in Hong Kong. That was item 1, on 12 September. On 13 September in this House the same honourable member for Boothby asked me whether a member of my personal staff had visited the Age newspaper in order to attempt the suppression of a story that was to be published in the Age. This attempted smear was subsequently refuted unequivocally by the editor of the Age, Mr Creighton Burns, but the honourable member for Boothby has declined to withdraw unreservedly his malicious remarks. On 13 September in this House, the Leader of the Opposition called me-everyone will remember the words-a little crook, a perverter of the law, and one who associates with criminals and takes his orders from those who direct criminals. Not one of those allegations has been substantiated. Let me make one thing very clear. The disgust that I feel about those allegations that concern me is not just because they happen to be about Bob Hawke. Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —Opposition members may laugh. I can assure them that it will be the last time they will be laughing for a very long time. My repugnance is not, as some would suggest, just a sensitive reaction to criticism. These are allegations about a person who now holds the highest office in the land. As everybody in this Parliament knows, I am proud of my reputation. I will fight to the utmost to defend my integrity against slurs and smears of this kind. But beyond that, those of us who hold high office have even higher obligations. While we have a right to protect ourselves, we have a duty, a trust placed in us by the people, to protect the office. This Leader of the Opposition, in search of high office, is prepared to demean and pervert the very office he seeks. We are not speaking here merely of allegations thrown around in the Parliament in the heat of battle. Cool, sober reflection did nothing to restore dignity and decency to the utterances of the Leader of the Opposition. He left this Parliament and consciously, deliberately and malevolently continued his campaign of throwing enough mud in the desperate hope that some of it would stick. Only a massive swell of public and media outrage forced the Leader of the Opposition to crawl away in some respect from his allegations. Day by day, fear of the inevitable electoral backlash and the certainty that the people had seen through his smutty tactics drove him to try to wriggle off the hook on to which he had flung himself. But still he has not had the courage to face the reality of what he has done and what has to be done to correct it. Only two courses of action are now open to the Leader of the Opposition. He must substantiate his claims. He has been given every opportunity to do that today. It is a matter of public record now that he has not substantiated his claims. Nor did he seek to. He made no attempt to do so. He must, if he can-we all know that he cannot-produce evidence, cold, hard, incontrovertible facts, to prove his claims. Every person in this country knows that he cannot do so. If he could have done so, why did he not do it today in this House? If he cannot do it , as he knows he cannot, he must somehow find the courage to behave with honour, to withdraw the allegations and tell the people of Australia that he made them up, as he did. Government members-Or resign. Mr HAWKE —I have to reprimand my colleagues. They say: 'Or resign'. Do they not have the best interests of the Government and the Party at heart? Do they want to get rid of our greatest asset? There can be no half-way house in this matter, no fatuous claims by the Leader of the Opposition. This is what he tried once: ' I will withdraw them if the Prime Minister promises to table the Costigan report '. What a perversion of propriety that little piece of hook-wriggling was from the Leader of the Opposition. 'The Prime Minister is a crook', he says, 'but I will say no more about it if he does what I say'. That is a remarkable proposition, but that is what he said. He said: 'The Prime Minister is a crook, he associates with criminals, and he is directed by those who direct criminals; but it is all not true if he will say what I tell him to say'. I have never heard anything so preposterous in all my life. This is indeed the day of reckoning for the Leader of the Opposition. The people of Australia have accorded him an approval rating appropriate to his behaviour. His colleagues on the other side of the House squirm with embarrassment; they are forced to share his odium with him. He is at politics' death's door. However, he can restore some life to his dying career with a deathbed confession. A moment of decency and contrition at least could ameliorate history's judgment of him. His refusal to retract, his refusal to reach out and grasp some vestige of dignity, his refusal to heal the wound he has attempted to inflict on the office of Prime Minister can leave this House with no choice but to join the people of Australia in condemning him as a man not fit to be Leader of the Opposition, much less the Prime Minister of this great nation. Let there be no doubt what this campaign by the Opposition is about. It is not about fighting organised crime in this country. It is about trying to make cheap political capital out of this issue in a desperate but doomed attempt to retrieve some of the political standing the Opposition has lost with the Australian public because of its lack of credibility on economic or any other issues. In pursuit of that end it will stoop to any means, as the Opposition Leader did on the last sitting day of this House. As Geoffrey Barker of the Age recently put it, the 'commie' slur has been replaced in the Opposition's litany by the 'crook' slur. But the baseless nature of its allegations has been and will be further exposed in this House today. Let me stress that at all times our Government welcomes genuine debate in the Parliament, the media and the nation about the most effective means of fighting organised crime in this country. It is only when Parliament, government, the law agencies and, above all, the people of Australia join in a genuine, united effort that the threat posed by this menace can be beaten back. It is important to know that in that sense we acknowledge that there can be quite genuine differences of opinion about the best way of merging the Costigan Royal Commission into the work of the National Crime Authority. But there should be no room amongst honourable people for recklessly undermining the authority and the credibility of the National Crime Authority and for impugning the motives for its establishment at this time. It is in the spirit of the genuine advancement of real debate that I now wish to address three specific questions. First, why is the Costigan Royal Commission now being merged into the National Crime Authority? Secondly, are the powers of the Authority adequate for the task of effectively fighting organised crime in Australia? Thirdly, how is this task being affected by the publication of the details of ongoing investigations? I want to address myself to each of those questions and give direct, honest answers to each of them as distinct from the smear and the unsubstantiated innuendo which have been associated with the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition. The simple answer as to why the work of the Costigan Royal Commission is now being concluded is that it is being replaced by the National Crime Authority. As correspondence released yesterday by the Victorian Premier makes clear, my predecessor in this place, Mr Fraser, intended to close down the Costigan Royal Commission when its proposed National Crimes Commission was established, and, indeed, this would have had the effect of winding it up much earlier than in fact has been the case under this Government. There is no evidence of which I am aware or any other member on this side of the House is aware to show that the Leader of the Opposition or any of his colleagues voiced any concern at that time that the decision to wind down the Costigan Commission then and replace it with the National Crimes Commission would in any way impede the fight against organised crime in this country. It is also significant that the Premier of Victoria, whose position on the Costigan Royal Commission the Leader of the Opposition has tried to differentiate from that of the Federal Government, said in agreeing to an extension of the Costigan Royal Commission until the end of l984: . . . it would be hoped that the Royal Commission would be able to finalise its inquiries and activities before that date. In addressing this issue it is very relevant to note that the Acting Attorney- General in the Fraser Government, Mr Neil Brown, said in this House on 21 October 1982 during the second reading debate on the National Crimes Commission Bill: . . . the Government came to the view that the solution to the need to improve law enforcement does not lie merely in the use of royal commissions in their traditional form. The function of a royal commission is essentially to inquire into and report on the matter referred to it. It may recommend the institution of prosecutions; however, most Australian governments, Commonwealth and State, have had the experience of a royal commission recommending the prosecution of named persons but it being subsequently found that it is not possible to bring the prosecutions because of lack of evidence. It is the very shortcoming referred to by the Acting Attorney-General in the Fraser Government-the need for better machinery for assembling admissible evidence to maximise the chances of obtaining convictions against major criminals-which the National Crime Authority is intended to remedy. To put it bluntly, it is an unsatisfactory outcome for this country of ours if the tentacles of organised crime are exposed, as they have been by successive royal commissions, but limited progress is made in actually obtaining convictions against major criminals. On this point I think there is little that I can usefully add to the remarks of Mr Justice Stewart-I was pleased to hear the Leader of the Opposition speak in the House today in such high, glowing and unqualified terms about Mr Justice Stewart-at his Press conference of 26 September. I think there would be common agreement that there is no more experienced crime fighter in the country than Mr Justice Stewart. This is what he said: . . . the function of a Royal Commission is completely different to the function of a National Crime Authority. The function of a Royal Commission is to identify areas of crime, to point in the right direction. Mr Justice Stewart continued: A Royal Commission is not a body that seeks to accumulate hard evidence and Mr Costigan has already indicated that he hasn't seen his task as that, he hasn't wanted to do it, he hasn't tried to do it . . . But the function of the NCA accumulating hard evidence is quite a different function- I ask honourable members to mark Mr Justice Stewart's next words- and I think people miss the point when they ask why shouldn't Mr Costigan be allowed to carry on. This is the man who just half an hour ago was praised in this place in unqualified terms by the Leader of the Opposition. The same Mr Justice Stewart said: I think people miss the point when they ask why shouldn't Mr Costigan be allowed to carry on. The very person identified by the Leader of the Opposition as one of whom we should take great notice is saying directly to the Leader of the Opposition that he misses the point. It has been suggested in recent weeks by the Leader of the Opposition through a process of innuendo and the fuelling of media speculation that there are sinister motives behind the Government's decision to merge the Costigan Royal Commission into the National Crime Authority. So that this issue can be directly addressed, I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to name in this House any person or persons who he might be suggesting have influenced in any way decisions by this Government relating to the Costigan Royal Commission. I repeat : I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to name in this House any person or persons who he might be suggesting have influenced in any way decisions by this Government relating to the Costigan Royal Commission. In this regard it is very relevant that the Government, recognising the importance of maintaining Mr Costigan's work until the National Crime Authority was established, has given him three extensions of time to his letters patent. Furthermore, as a result of a specific request put by me when I met with the Commissioner on 25 April last year-honourable members can see Mr Costigan's letter of 3 February 1984 to me, already tabled in Parliament-the Royal Commission's recent investigations have concentrated on drug trafficking. I told him I wanted him to concentrate on drug trafficking. It can be seen that that is what has happened. I believe it is a matter of simple and indisputable logic-no laughs from the other side of the House can dispute this-that if the Government was engaged in some cover-up, particularly in regard to drug trafficking, it is very difficult to explain why it would have given Mr Costigan three extensions of time and why I would have specifically asked him to concentrate on investigations of drug trafficking in this country. I readily concede that, if the National Crime Authority had not been replacing the Costigan Royal Commission and the Commission's investigations and existing database were not being maintained, there would be some reason for concern. However, this is demonstrably incorrect. It is to this point that I now wish to turn. I refer to a National Crime Authority Press release of 26 September by Mr Justice Stewart-the Mr Justice Stewart unqualifiedly praised by the Leader of the Opposition-and the other two members of the National Crime Authority, Mr John Dwyer, QC, and Mr Max Bingham, QC. The appointment of those other two members of the National Crime Authority was unanimously endorsed by every State government in Australia and the Government of the Northern Territory. They are the people one is talking about when one is denigrating the capacity of the National Crime Authority. Mr Bingham is a former Liberal Deputy Premier of Tasmania. What did Mr Justice Stewart, Mr Dwyer and Mr Bingham say in their Press release of 26 September? In it they: . . . rejected recent suggestions that the Authority's powers were inadequate to tackle organised crime or to continue the investigations begun by Mr Costigan and his staff. That is what Mr Justice Stewart-the man praised by the Leader of the Opposition- Mr Bingham and Mr Dwyer, the three members of the National Crime Authority, said . They 'rejected recent suggestions that the Authority's powers were inadequate to tackle organised crime or to continue the investigations begun by Mr Costigan and his staff'. Mr Justice Stewart said: Claims that our powers are too limited are unjustified and can only comfort those who will be investigated by the Authority. The question of the powers of the National Crime Authority compared with royal commissions does not seem to be well understood and I shall now go to that point in some detail. The National Crime Authority, when it is operating under a reference, which is the same thing as terms of reference for a royal commission, is able to summon witnesses and compel the production of documents in the same way as the Costigan Royal Commission. But-this does not seem to be fully understood-the National Crime Authority has additional powers which are not available to a royal commission. Let me go to some of them. The Authority has general access to information that Commonwealth agencies may be obliged by statutory secrecy provisions to keep secret from a royal commission. The Authority may apply to the Federal Court of Australia to obtain and retain a person's passport and stop him from leaving the country where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that he may be about to flee. A royal commissioner has no equivalent power. The Authority can apply to the Federal Court to issue a warrant for the arrest of a witness where there are reasonable grounds to believe he is likely to leave Australia to avoid giving evidence to the Authority. Again, a royal commission has no equivalent power. The power to issue warrants for the arrest of witnesses is limited to the apprehension of witnesses who have failed to comply with a summons to attend the commission. Further, evidence given before the Authority may be used in prosecutions except in criminal proceedings against any person who provided that evidence under indemnity. Evidence given to a royal commission cannot be used in evidence against that witness in any criminal or civil proceedings other than perjury proceedings. The National Crime Authority Act expressly gives the Authority power to enable arrangements to be made for the protection of witnesses. Royal commissions have no equivalent power. The National Crime Authority is not constrained by narrow terms of reference as is the case with royal commissions. Mr Hodgman —Only by a Premier's veto. Mr HAWKE —If we run out of anything else we are always likely to get a helpful interjection from the honourable member for Denison. We will deal with him in a minute. Mr Hodgman —You answer it. Mr HAWKE —Let me deal with it straightaway. The honourable member for Denison referred to the power of veto of a Premier. I have dealt with that, but, perhaps more convincingly for the honourable member for Denison, Mr Justice Stewart has also dealt with it in a very realistic way. The honourable member for Denison has said that it is within the realms of political reality for a Premier or government with something to hide to exercise the power of veto on the intergovernmental committee. Let us say that a Liberal government-only a Liberal government would do it-said to the other State governments that it would not allow a matter to be investigated. Would the Labor Premiers say: 'That is very funny but we will not say anything about it'? If a Labor government said 'We will stop this; we will put a veto on it', would the non-Labor government representative say: 'That is very interesting; we will not say anything about it '? Let us not be stupid. The reality is that if there was any attempt in the intergovernmental committee by a State to say that it would stop something, the other States would crucify the State that attempted to do so. Further, as Mr Justice Stewart himself has said-this may convince the honourable member for Denison even if that first political reality will not-if there were any such attempt to pervert the operation of the National Crime Authority's work, an attempt by a State to stop investigation by the National Crime Authority, he would publicly expose that situation. The honourable member for Denison is saying one of two things: Either he does not believe Mr Justice Stewart or, if Mr Justice Stewart were to expose such an action, there would be no political ramifications. The situation is crystal clear. The political realities would stop it happening in the first place. If we hypothesise that it would happen, Mr Justice Stewart would blow the government concerned out of the water. He has made it clear that he would do so. So much for the interjection by the honourable member for Denison. At the level of its ordinary powers the National Crime Authority itself can investigate any relevant criminal activity. Provided it has a reference from government, it can use its special powers to pursue the full range of relevant criminal activities without hindrance. The Costigan Royal Commission on the other hand has on a number of occasions been subject to court challenges as to the reach of its jurisdiction. Mr Costigan himself has complained of this limit upon his jurisdiction. The limited purposes for which the Costigan Royal Commission was established must be remembered. The Authority does not have to concern itself with the preparation of lengthy and time consuming reports on its findings. This is a very important distinction to make between a royal commission and the Authority. Although there is provision in the National Crime Authority Act for the Authority to make reports, the Act makes it clear that the real task of the Authority is to gather evidence for prosecutions rather than to produce reports for government. That is what the people of this country want. They do not want report after report, useful as most of those reports have been. There comes a time when we want an end to reports. We want hard admissible evidence which will start putting people behind bars. All States and the Northern Territory are involved in the National Crime Authority and I cannot overemphasise the importance of this widespread national co-operation. By contrast, as anyone who studies this objectively will know, the Costigan Royal Commission has no legal mandate or authority to investigate offences against any State law other than in Victoria. That is the difference. The Costigan Royal Commission has a limited mandate and the National Crime Authority has a comprehensive national mandate. There is a formal mechanism in the National Crime Authority legislation for achieving the co-operation of law enforcement agencies. There are over 30,000 members of the police forces in Australia. It would be totally irresponsible to ignore this vast resource in the fight against organised crime in Australia. The National Crime Authority Act expressly provides for the Authority to work with law enforcement agencies, including the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, in the collection and dissemination of important criminal information. Furthermore, the Authority can arrange for the establishment of joint task forces and co-ordinate investigations by these task forces to make as effective as possible the national effort against organised crime. Neither the Costigan Royal Commission nor any other royal commission has these vital statutory functions which can and will be performed by the National Crime Authority. It is important to understand the extent of the powers of the National Crime Authority. It is also relevant that on this question Mr Justice Stewart has said: . . . if with experience we find that our powers are lacking in any particular area, we will not be slow to propose to Governments that they should be increased. That is quite clear. He said: 'If we find with experience that we need any more powers we will not be slow to come to the Government'. Let me stress that Mr Justice Stewart is already well aware of my Government's desire to co-operate fully with the Authority in this regard. I ask people to note particularly that in discussions in my office in this Parliament House with members of the Authority on 6 September I asked Mr Justice Stewart a simple and straightforward question, taking account of all his experience in fighting organised crime: Whether there was any further assistance the Authority required from the Government in its fight against organised crime. He replied that there was not. That was a simple, straightforward question to a man who members of the Opposition have said in this House today is totally to be respected. They have not questioned his integrity at all. On 6 September, just 30 yards from the place where I am standing, I asked that man: 'Is there anything else you need?'. He said that there was not. Mr Justice Stewart said to my question whether he needed more powers that he did not. I asked Mr Justice Stewart whether he was confident that the Authority would be effective in fighting organised crime. He replied that he was. The authority of what I have just said is overwhelming. I do not have to plead the case of Mr Justice Stewart to be listened to as someone with authority and someone to be respected because the Leader of the Opposition has done that for me. He said in this debate that the authority and the integrity of Mr Justice Stewart are beyond question. As I have said, 30 yards from this place, in my office, I asked him those questions. I asked: 'Is there any further thing that you need to discharge your task?'. He said no, there was not. Secondly, I asked: 'Do you believe that your Authority will be effective in fighting organised crime?'. He said yes, he believed it would. In this regard it is relevant that Special Prosecutor Redlich said at page 48 of his recent report: The Authority has the scope to maintain the initiatives developed by the Costigan Royal Commission. The attitude of the Government to the Authority's powers and to any necessary extension of those powers has been made abundantly clear. But in case there should be the slightest doubt on this point I give a formal undertaking to the House that I will respond quickly and sympathetically to a request for any such extensions from Mr Justice Stewart and his fellow members of the National Crime Authority should they feel it necessary. The other aspect of this question that I wish to address-it is a different issue from the reasons for the merging of the Costigan Royal Commission with the National Crime Authority to which I have already referred-is whether the transition phase will have any adverse effect on the fight against organised crime in this country. Those opposite, by smear and innuendo, have had a good deal to say about this. Let me address that question. Again, I can think of no better way of responding to this point than by quoting the remarks of Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Bingham at their Press conference on 26 September. This is what Mr Justice Stewart had to say on this point: . . . because there is a transition period, people aren't just all going to go away, documents aren't going to melt, and let's face it, there has to be a transition period sooner or later. There has to be a period when things do change. Mr Costigan has indicated that he has to wind up sooner or later. Well this happens to be the time that's all. On the question of the handover arrangements, Mr Justice Stewart, speaking for all three members of the Authority, said: . . . we still unanimously maintain that the handover is succeeding and will continue to succeed. That was said by Mr Justice Stewart, a man of authority and integrity, quoted by the Leader of the Opposition today, and not to be questioned. That is what Mr Justice Stewart said; there is no qualification about it. Mr Bingham was equally direct in responding to a question as to whether the Authority could be confident that no criminals will escape justice as a result of the transition. This is what Mr Bingham said: . . . there is not the slightest reason to think that that might occur. The nature of these investigations is such that some of them have been going on for years. A matter of a week or two really isn't going to be vital in that kind of time-scale. I can only say we see no reason to think that that would happen. Indeed, when we look at the scale of the resources being transferred from the Costigan Royal Commission to the National Crime Authority we find that, in addition to the material relating to the 42 uncompleted inquiries of the Royal Commission, the confidence of Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Bingham would appear to be well justified. I shall list those resources which will transfer from the Costigan Royal Commission to the National Crime Authority: The Commission's computer database and system; the analyses prepared by the staff of the Commission; the material contained in reports of the Commission, including the full, unexpurgated final report; one of the Commission's junior counsel; the team of solicitors who have been engaged in conducting Mr Costigan's operations; and accountants, analysts, collators and other staff who have been involved in Mr Costigan's operations. All those things are going from the Costigan Royal Commission to the National Crime Authority. Members of the National Crime Authority, at their Press conference and in their Press release of 26 September, categorically rejected any suggestion that the momentum in the fight against organised crime was not being maintained. The Authority referred to investigations and inquiries already taking place into tax schemes which suggest criminal activity, a drug trafficking matter and other allegations of corporate crime, gang warfare and tax fraud. Those are the matters that the National Crime Authority referred to as being under way. I cannot put strongly enough to this House and to the people of Australia that the effect and, I believe, the intent of the Opposition's statements in recent weeks , particularly those of the Leader of the Opposition, has been the public denigration of the National Crime Authority and its members and the erosion of its credibility as an effective crime fighting authority in this country. It is simply not possible to draw any other conclusion from the facts. There is only one way that the merging of the Costigan Royal Commission with the National Crime Authority could weaken the fight against organised crime in this country, given the extent of its powers and the scale of its resources; that is, if the commitment and the purpose of the Authority and its members were to be placed in doubt. That could happen only if this Opposition's present campaign of denigration were to be successful. I reject out of hand any attempt to discredit the National Crime Authority. Yet, as I have said, that is explicit and implicit in everything that has been said and done by the Opposition. The members of the National Crime Authority have responded to such attempts with disdain. Not that any of us should expect anything better from members of this Opposition. As I said earlier, what they are about is perceived political advantage; a last desperate attempt to restore their destroyed political fortunes. Their concern, and all that has been coming out of their mouths, is not in any way about strengthening the fight against organised crime in this country. The third specific point that I wish to address is to what extent the fight against organised crime is affected by the publication of the details of ongoing investigations. The recent disclosures by the National Times newspaper are clearly in this category. I wish to remind this House of the consequences of such disclosures, again as seen by Mr Justice Stewart. In a recent letter to that newspaper, Mr Justice Stewart pointed out some of the ways in which investigations can be affected by publication of such material. He said: It may place at risk the life and limb of a person or persons.It is likely to affect seriously the willingness of persons to co-operate with law enforcement agencies generally and this authority in particular.It informs those, the subject of the investigations, of the existence and progress of the investigations and warns them to go to ground.It increases the risk of documents and other potential evidence being secreted or destroyed.It may alert those not yet aware of an investigation.It is destructive of trust and co-operation between law enforcement agencies.It may blacken the innocent by the publication of unverified hypotheses about them.It may prejudice the fair trial of those accused, arising out of the investigations. Mr Speaker, as you will appreciate, all of those points made by Mr Justice Stewart are important in their own right and are fully endorsed by the Government, but let me stress two points in particular. Firstly, in the fight against organised crime in this country there has to be some protection of the civil liberties of individuals. The Government believes the National Crime Authority provides that protection, a view shared by Special Prosecutor Redlich. We want the fight against organised crime to be pursued by the proper processes and not by smear tactics and innuendo, including under cover of parliamentary privilege. Secondly, we do not want that fight to be compromised in any way. Again, it is a matter of simple logic, as indeed Mr Justice Stewart's letter highlights, that unless prosecution cases are fully assembled, premature disclosures will make such prosecutions in the end far less likely to succeed. What this Government is about is putting major criminals behind bars, not the cheap political advantage that is the sole concern of the Opposition. It is for this reason that I have already indicated that in reaching a decision on the tabling or publication of the final report of the Costigan Royal Commission the Government must be mindful of the recommendations of Mr Costigan, the members of the National Crime Authority, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, and the Attorney-General's Department. To remove one of the Opposition's many despicable insinuations on this issue, it will be self-evident from the process to which I have just referred that decisions on what will or will not be tabled or published will in no way be affected by political considerations. To suggest that they could be is to reflect in the most grotesque manner on the crime-fighting bodies and individuals to whom I have just referred. As I have said before, the full report will be made available to the Leader of the Opposition. I stress, for reasons that will be clear, that the Government's view is that it would be the height of irresponsibility to table or to publish the final report of the Costigan Royal Commission in a full, unexpurgated form, as the Leader of the Opposition has suggested, without taking advice of those who have to carry on the fight against organised crime in this country. For them, and for most of Australia, this is an issue of fundamental importance. For the Opposition it is simply an opportunity for cheap politics, and the Leader of the Opposition does the crime fighting bodies and institutions of this country a grave disservice by suggesting otherwise. On the question of the tabling of the Costigan report, I have made the position of this Government quite clear. I have done it again just now. So that those opposite may finally gather and understand the point, let me say it again: There will be no political considerations as to what is published or not published. I have made it clear that we will be advised by Mr Commissioner Costigan, by the members of the National Crime Authority, by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and by the Attorney- General's Department. The advice will be concerned with two issues which should be accepted across the political spectrum. Firstly, should anything be published the publication of which would effectively hinder the prosecution of organised crime? Secondly, would its publication involve an undue and improper infringement of the civil liberties of an individual? Those principles are crystal clear. They are not up for grabs. They are the principles upon which we operate, and I presume they are precisely the principles upon which the previous Government operated. I remind this House that, of the four reports received from the Costigan Commission, one was partially tabled, one was tabled in full, and two were not tabled at all. I presume that the previous Government, in making the decision not to publish two of the four reports and to table only partially one of the four, did so because it took account of the very principles that this Government holds close and will in fact operate upon. In recent weeks members of the Opposition have engaged in deliberate smear and innuendo against members of the Government. These have consistently been demonstrated to be absolutely false and without any basis in fact. Yet they have declined to withdraw a number of those allegations which have been made under cover of parliamentary privilege. At the same time, the Opposition's approach to the issue of organised crime in this country does a grave disservice to both the Costigan Royal Commission and the National Crime Authority. In the case of the Authority, what the Opposition has been about-for reasons that have no basis, as I have indicated today-has been to undermine its credibility and in this way to weaken the fight against organised crime in this country. There could be no action on the Opposition's part more hostile to Australia's best interests and it can in no way be justified even by this Opposition's parlous political condition. The Government's commitment to fighting organised crime in this country is total and unequivocal. By contrast, the Opposition was never prepared in government seriously to fight organised crime in this country. Those facts are irrefutably on the record. Members of the Opposition did not fight organised crime when they had the responsibility of government in this country. Their effort was so good in fighting organised crime that, four days after my Government took office, Mr Commissioner Costigan reported that organised crime had raped this country. That was four days after we came to office. That is how good members of the Opposition were in government. That was their performance in government, and their performance has been consistent in opposition. They have sought by unsubstantiated smear and innuendo to divert attention from the Government's strong standing with the Australian public and to weaken the fight against organised crime by undermining the credibility of the National Crime Authority. The true and, indeed, sinister significance of the Opposition's tactics goes beyond its efforts to weaken the real fight against organised crime, a fight which this Government will wage unrelentingly until we have smashed it, as we are smashing the tax avoidance industry which grew up in the years when this discredited Opposition was in government. Members of the Opposition are trying to break the national morale, the national will, the national spirit of confidence and self-confidence which has been created over the last 18 months- the people's confidence in their government, in their institutions, in the integrity of the business leadership of Australia and in the crime fighting organisations we are creating. The Opposition is trying to erode and smash the people's confidence in themselves as a people and as a nation. The people of Australia will reject these tactics, as they assuredly will massively reject their authors, at the earliest opportunity. I conclude by saying that I believe from my knowledge of this great institution that there has never been a day in its history when the Leader of its Opposition or indeed any of its members were put so openly and clearly on trial, or when so manifestly that Leader of the Opposition has failed. The Leader of the Opposition made the vilest of charges that could be made against me. He was asked, in the words of the Treasurer, to put up or shut up. He did not put up, and the judgment which the people of this country have already made about him and which gives him the lowest credibility rating of any Opposition Leader in the history of this country is an appropriate judgment and one which will further be made by the people of this country after they take account of his miserable and pathetic performance in this place this day. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(4.32) —If ever the Parliament or the people of Australia wanted a demonstration of the sensitivity, the vulnerability and the nervousness of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of this country on this issue they have just had it, because for the last hour we have been berated with one of the most boring and repetitious speeches this Parliament has ever heard from a Prime Minister of this country. Before I come to the substance of the charge against the Prime Minister, that is, his failure, again repeated today, to properly explain why the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union was terminated prematurely and his failure to properly explain why the National Crime Authority has such inadequate power, let me deal with the cant and humbug that we have been treated to from both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) about the allegations of smear and innuendo. Let me say to the now departed Prime Minister and his yabbering Treasurer: If they want to lecture us in this Parliament about standards of behaviour, let them acquit their responsibility in the past. In the words of his own amendment, I accuse the Prime Minister of wilfully and recklessly conspiring with the Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) a few weeks ago in this House to inflame the issue of racism. I accuse the Prime Minister of wilfully and recklessly conspiring with the Treasurer to accuse the former Prime Minister of being a liar. I accuse the Prime Minister of conspiring wilfully and recklessly with the now silent and discredited Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) to traduce the reputations of honest and decent Australian citizens under parliamentary privilege. I accuse him of conspiring with the now formally discredited Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) in another place in establishing the unenviable record of being the prime muckraker in the Parliament in the last 10 years. Let no Labor Prime Minister in 1984 give us in this place a sermon about smear under parliamentary privilege, because this Prime Minister has allowed his colleagues in opposition and in government to defame the reputation of members on this side of the House, to insult their relatives, some of them now deceased, and to insult the reputations of honest and decent Australian citizens without any basis or substance in fact. He has the cant and the humbug to deliver us in this place a sermon about parliamentary standards. Let him acquit himself of his responsibility. Let him not demonstrate once again his pathetic double standards on the question of criticism. When I said a couple of weeks ago that I believed that the Prime Minister of this country had a glass jaw, I meant it. I was talking about the monumental incapacity of this Prime Minister to take political criticism without displaying a monumental sensitivity. I do not attack him as a man or as a parent. I attack him as a politician. I accuse him of double standards as a politician. I accuse him of sensitivity as a politician. I accuse him of giving us in this House a monumental lecture of cant and humbug about parliamentary privilege and about smear and innuendo. Somebody with the record of this Prime Minister who can sit beside such people as the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Resources and Energy, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, of whom I frankly thought better until a few weeks ago, has no credit at all when he gives us in this House a lecture and a monumental display of humbug and cant. Let me get back to the two substantive issues. These are the two issues that the Prime Minister did not really address in his remarks. These are the issues on which for an hour he weaved and bobbed but avoided addressing. Why was the Costigan Royal Commission prematurely terminated? He spent 30 minutes of his 65- minute speech demonstrating why the Costigan Royal Commission and the National Crime Authority had to be merged. That is not in dispute. It has never been in dispute from the time the Fraser Government was in office. I know as a member of the former Fraser Government, as does the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), that it was always intended that those two bodies should be merged. There is no argument about that. The only argument is about the timing of the closing down of the Costigan Royal Commission. It is not an answer to our charge for the Prime Minister to say: 'You have to merge them. You cannot have a perpetual royal commissioner'. Of course we cannot. But he did not answer the question. I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister. Time and again he almost got to the point, but then he said: 'There you are, we really had to merge the two bodies'. That is not an answer to our charge. The charge that the Leader of the Opposition has made repeatedly over the last three weeks is that the Government chose to close down the Costigan Royal Commission at a time calculated to do maximum damage to inquiries that Mr Costigan was then conducting. That is the charge that the Prime Minister has not addressed today. The Prime Minister has not explained to our satisfaction how the Government could close down the Costigan Royal Commission at a time when Mr Costigan was pleading for an extension of time and how his Labor colleague in Victoria could give Mr Costigan an extension of time within 24 hours but the Prime Minister said: 'No, you have to be closed down'. Absolutely nothing that this Prime Minister has said today has gone any distance towards satisfying us on that count. There remains a grave suspicion that for unexplained reasons this Government prematurely terminated the Costigan investigation. To say that is not to traduce the reputation of Mr Justice Stewart. We make no attack on Mr Justice Stewart's integrity. But even men of integrity can be in error. Surely the Prime Minister would not argue that men of integrity cannot be in error. I know that he argues that some can never lack integrity, but surely he could not argue that men of integrity are not sometimes in error. I know, as of course does the Leader of the Opposition, the words of Mr Justice Stewart about the effectiveness of the National Crime Authority. But I am afraid that I do not share all of Mr Justice Stewart's enthusiasm and I have to point out, without any disrespect to Mr Justice Stewart and without any suggestion that he is not serious about fighting crime-of course, he is-that what Mr Justice Stewart said a couple of weeks ago at his Press conference in Sydney was in stark contrast to many of the things he said about this subject earlier this year. At that time he was a lot more full-blooded in his criticism of the weakness of the Crime Authority. He was as worried about the veto as we are now. Even more importantly, he was as worried then about the veto as was another recognised authority on this issue, the former President of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, Mr Justice Athol Moffitt. I put it to the House that at a judicial level there is no more respected person when it comes to experience of conducting inquiries into crime and matters relating to it than Athol Moffitt. What he had to say at the beginning of the year is tremendously pertinent to that performance of the Prime Minister when he said that under no circumstances would we ever get a Premier in council with his fellow Premiers refusing to give a reference. I do not accept the blandishments of the Prime Minister on that matter and neither did Mr Justice Athol Moffitt. This is what he said: If you have a political veto the moment you raise a matter not regarded as politically acceptable you are at risk of somebody telling you 'No go'. They are not my words, they are not Stewart's words, they are not the words of the Leader of the Opposition; they are the words of Mr Justice Athol Moffitt. Let nobody kid himself; the National Crime Authority that we now have is a compromise body. In the true spirit of the approach of the Prime Minister to everything, the Crime Authority he has now produced is a consensus Crime Authority. It is a consensus between the advocates of a crime authority and those in his Party who did not want an authority at all. There are many in the Labor Party-they sit opposite and they know that what I am saying is the truth- who bitterly opposed, on what they saw as civil liberties grounds, the establishment of any kind of crime authority at all. Mr Young —There are some in your Party too. Mr HOWARD —Indeed, but we do not happen to be in the position of having to answer a charge. Of course, the interjection of the Special Minister of State confirms everything that I have said. Well may he interject, because when he sat on the back bench he led the attack on the Crime Authority. No wonder we are worried about the Crime Authority. The Minister responsible for it tried to stop it getting off the ground. Another prime opponent of the Crime Authority was the Special Minister of State's mate from South Australia, Senator Bolkus. Senator Bolkus put in a dissenting report. What did he say in that dissenting report? He said that he was really against the Crime Authority. This body really is a compromise. It is a consensus. It is a lowest common denominator National Crime Authority. It is not the body that the Fraser Government intended. It is not the body that people such as Athol Moffitt want to see. It is not the body that many people in the Government know in their hearts we ought to have. It is a miserable, lowest common denominator, consensus Crime Authority. Of course the people on it are decent, hard working, dedicated crime fighters. We are not attacking their integrity and we never have. Of course as an Opposition we will give every co-operation to that body but we will not forfeit the political right to attack the inadequacies of this body. It has an effective State veto. Frankly, I do not have any confidence in the political bona fides of the New South Wales Government as it is presently constituted. Why should I? Why should anybody in New South Wales or, indeed, anywhere else in Australia have any real confidence in the New South Wales Government? Why should anybody after Wran's roll call-Bill Allen, Murray Farquhar, Kevin Humphreys, Rex Jackson, Mervyn Wood and so on? Honourable members opposite lecture this House about civil liberties. What about the present civil liberties of Clarrie Briese, the person who has emerged as the real honest champion of what is going on in New South Wales? What do their National President and their mate in New South Wales, the Premier of New South Wales, and the Attorney-General in New South Wales do to Clarrie Briese? They hang over him the Damocles sword of dismissal. They are treating him like the bearer of bad news was treated in the olden days. What did people do to the person who brought along the bad news? They executed him or they threatened to execute him. I think that what Wran and Landa are doing to Clarrie Briese in New South Wales is a classic demonstration of the fact that if anybody does anything to embarrass a Labor government in that State it will hold the threat of dismissal over him if it has the power to do so. With that kind of record, with a Minister who tried to abort the National Crime Authority, a Minister who really did not want it, even in its present watered- down form, in charge of it, and with a Premier of New South Wales who has presided over the worst breakdown in the administration of justice that any State in this country has seen since 1788, with those two people in such enormous positions of influence, no wonder many people, not only on the Opposition side of politics but throughout the whole of Australia, lack confidence in what this Government has done. It is not a question of attacking individuals, it is not a question of dragging families into it; it is a question of judging the Prime Minister on his record. It is a question of asking him whether, as the political head of this Government , he has done everything necessary to give this nation the National Crime Authority that it needs. We charge that he has not done so. We believe that the National Crime Authority is a weakened body. We believe that it will be hobbled by the State veto. We believe that the Authority should have had the powers envisaged by the Fraser Government, the powers that many experts in this field know that it ought to have. We believe that without those sorts of powers it will not be able to do as effective a job as it should. Of course we wish it well. Of course we support the integrity and the dedication of the people who will work for it, but we will not resile from criticising the political inadequacies of the Prime Minister. He is the person in the political dock today . He has not done the right thing. He has been in error. He has prematurely terminated Costigan and he has given us a National Crime Authority totally inadequate to the task in 1984. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(4.47) —This is another classic example of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) taking the high ground. He takes the high ground so often it is a wonder he does not run out of oxygen. The real charge that was laid against the Government by the Opposition two weeks ago is that the Costigan Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union was being closed down because of the influence of criminals and that associates of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who were criminals were bringing pressure to bear on the Prime Minister to close down the Commission. We have been told for the last fortnight that the Opposition would pursue this issue relentlessly in the Parliament today, so we gave it the opportunity to substantiate those charges. We noticed in the first week of the debate that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would not say a word. When he was being interviewed by the Press about the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), playing his game of being the cleanskin after the election so he can become the leader, he said: 'I am sure that the Leader must have some knowledge of the facts that he is talking about to be able to make statements like that in the House'. He did not dissociate himself from the statements of the Leader of the Opposition but he did not come close to them because he has to round up the numbers amongst members of the Opposition in order to become leader after the election. Where have the charges been substantiated today? Who are the criminals who are having this influence on the Prime Minister of Australia? Who are the criminals who associate with the Prime Minister of Australia and who are bringing this pressure to bear? Members of the Opposition have been given the greatest privilege that Australia has to offer, the opportunity of speaking in a chamber in which no one can accuse them, get at them or bring pressure to bear on them and they can name anybody they like and say anything they like about them, and when they were given the opportunity today, the first day since the charges were made two and a half weeks ago, they were silent. That is the case that they brought into this House today. It does not matter what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says about the powers of the National Crime Authority. No one has ever heard him speak about the National Crime Authority before. He is like the Leader of the Opposition. All of a sudden he has discovered the National Crime Authority. When we look back through the Hansard records of the debates that took place in this House, we find that the Leader of the Opposition did not speak. He had nothing to say. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says that it was only people in the Labor Party who had some doubts about the setting up of the National Crime Authority. I refer him to the debate on the National Crime Authority in this House early in June when the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) during his speech told the House that many people in the Liberal Party were very critical of the activities of the Costigan Royal Commission. So the criticism was not coming just from the Labor Party. There was a lot of doubt, a lot of reservation in the Liberal Party about the way these matters were going. Let us see what happened in this House. When the National Crime Authority Bill came to the House of Representatives one amendment was moved by the Opposition- one amendment! It was in relation to what was a relevant criminal activity. No amendment was moved on the veto. But an amendment on the State veto was moved in the Senate. Let me remind the House of what Senator Missen, a member of the Liberal Party, said during the debate. He said: I indicate to the Senate that I will withdraw from this debate. It is obvious the Opposition is not genuinely seeking to fight these important issues. I intend to take no further part in this debate. So said Senator Missen about the drive, activity and initiative that the Liberal and National parties were putting into the debate in the Senate about the establishment of the National Crime Authority. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition now charge that the people who we have put in charge of this National Crime Authority will not be able to do their job because of lack of powers. We have some statements on record today-as late as 3 o'clock this afternoon-from the former Liberal Attorney-General of Tasmania , who happens to be one of the three people who have been appointed to run the National Crime Authority. Let me quote what he said this afternoon: I wouldn't be in it- that is the Authority- if I thought it was going to be a waste of time. This is going to be an on-going, long continuing battle. It's not going to be all over in five minutes. We'll be able to muster other resources as they are needed to do a reasonable job to limit the incidence of organised crime in this country. We've already had meetings with heads of government and senior police officials across the country. We've already been asked by some of those agencies, some of those State agencies, to take up jobs that they have not been able to do or do successfully and I think that they are already demonstrating that they are prepared to give us a go at least. That ought to be the attitude of everybody in this country. Australia is crying out for a rational discussion about the establishment of the National Crime Authority and what it will be able to do in fighting organised crime in this country. We have continual charges that criminals are affecting the decisions of this Government. It may be easy in general terms to use these charges which the Liberal Party brings to the Parliament but it is very difficult to substantiate them. The Liberal Party has failed to do this today. The Leader of the Opposition, in unbelievable terms, suggested to the Parliament and the people of Australia that the volumes and volumes of material that will come in the final report of the Costigan Commission can all be laid on the table of the Parliament. That is what he suggested last Thursday fortnight and that is what he suggested again today. There will be perhaps 10 or 12 volumes in the final report and the Leader of the Opposition suggests that all of that material can be tabled, irrespective of what Commissioner Costigan says about it, irrespective of what Temby may say about it, irrespective of what the National Crime Authority may say about it and irrespective of what the Australian Federal Police may say. According to this new expert on organised crime-the Leader of the Opposition-the material should all be displayed and open . We have seen what damage can be done by the publication of material that flowed between Costigan and the National Crime Authority. Anybody who thought that it was clever or in Australia's interest in fighting organised crime for all of that material to start appearing in the National Times as an exhumed document going from Costigan to the National Crime Authority is very wrong. I think last week is a clear illustration of how bad it can be if this material gets to the public. The Opposition is not helping to fight organised crime; it is hindering the fight against organised crime by making such material public. I again refer to the activities of the previous Fraser Government. Less than 25 per cent of the material that passed between Costigan and the Government has ever been made public. What is suggested by the Leader of the Opposition today is that not only should the material that in future comes from Costigan be made public but also we should now make public the material that was handed over to the Fraser Government. That is what the Leader of the Opposition suggests. It is an idiotic suggestion and one which, as has been pointed out by the Prime Minister, comes from an increasingly desperate person. Anyone who believes that he is doing anything to help fight organised crime in this country by making all of the material of the Royal Commission public would have to be an idiot. Even the Royal Commissioner has recommended on a number of occasions that material be kept confidential. The police want material kept confidential; the Crime Authority will want material kept confidential because it will be the subject of ongoing investigations. None of the material which has been handed over from Costigan to the National Crime Authority has reached the conclusion of investigation. More investigation has to be done. If the targets of those investigations become aware of the work that has been done by the Commission, and which in turn will be taken up by the National Crime Authority, they will have some advantage over the Authority. It is said that a lot of people did not want the National Crime Authority. Of course a lot of people did not want it. It was not just a political question. A lot of people representing various arms of law who attended the seminar last year to discuss the model that ought to be adopted by the Government came to the Senate chamber and argued that we should not establish a National Crime Authority at all. Some of them probably have a little more legal experience than the Leader of the Opposition. They argued that there was no place for a new National Crime Authority in this country. Initially some States argued against the establishment of the National Crime Authority. It was this Government's purpose to work with the States and to persuade them that it was in Australia's interests to establish it. For the States' part, of course, they had some suggestions and amendments to make in their input about the way in which we could incorporate the role of the States and give them some influence. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, most of the law enforcement in this country is carried out by the States; it is not carried out by the Federal Government at all. Most of the drug trade and most of the drug offences are offences against State laws; they are not offences against Federal laws. The overwhelming capacity of the police in this country is with the States. There are 27,000 State police as against 3,000 Federal police. It is in everybody's interests that we are able to get the utmost co-operation from the States in the work of the National Crime Authority. It is not as though Commissioner Costigan or Commissioner Stewart did not have the co-operation of the States. However, we need to put the matter into some statutory law so that we do know what will be the proper role of the States. Justice Stewart has made it abundantly clear that, if a State wants to veto an investigation into affairs under the jurisdiction of that State law, he will make public the vetoing of the reference. Not everything that will be done by the National Crime Authority requires a reference. It can carry out investigations without references. That is what it is doing at the moment. If honourable members read the transcript of the Press conference last Thursday by Mr Justice Stewart, John Dwyer and Max Bingham, the Authority members, they will see that they stipulated a number of matters which they have started to investigate in addition to furthering the investigation of the Costigan Commission. The Authority does not have any reference at all. However, it will have a reference shortly because we hope to be able to put before it specific items about which it can use its additional powers in the not too distant future . We can on this issue give the National Crime Authority the opportunity that is required of it to carry out its function. If, in the not too distant future, the Authority members come to the Government and as a result of their experience say 'We do need additional powers' or 'There is some anchor on the role we are trying to play, we are being hampered by the restrictions which are being placed upon us' that is another matter which will have to be considered by the Government and the Parliament. However, no one can charge this Government with not taking every person's or every group's ideas and amendments into consideration when establishing the National Crime Authority. One must keep reminding people that this Government does not have a majority in the Senate from where the National Crime Authority Bill came. This Bill is an amalgam of ideas of the Government, the Australian Democrats, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. When it came to the crunch in the Senate of putting forward the legislation which came to the House of Representatives, the view of the majority of people in the Senate-the Liberals, the Nationals and the Democrats-persisted; so that was the Bill which came to the House of Representatives. As I said, when it came to the House of Representatives the Leader of the Opposition was quite happy with it: He did not speak on it. I think the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), who led in the debate, moved one amendment. He did not move any amendments about the State vetos; he did not move any amendments on the matters about which the Leader of the Opposition has now spoken. He moved an amendment on the interpretation of relevant criminal activity. That is the only amendment that was moved. In the Senate Senator Missen accused his colleagues in the Opposition of not taking the debate seriously and he walked out of the chamber. So, so much for the seriousness with which Opposition members treated the debate on this legislation when it was before the Senate early this year and before the House of Representatives in June. We shall not be able to assist the National Crime Authority by charge and counter-charge across this chamber. What the Leader of the Opposition did last Thursday fortnight is to be regretted by every person in Australia, because his charge was that we were closing down the Costigan Commission because of criminal influence on the Prime Minister. Opposition members have suffered greatly as a result of those charges, and today they have been unable, when given the opportunity, to substantiate them. That is the real crux of what has happened. After I sat down with Commissioner Costigan on 12 March this year we put out a mutually agreed Press release which said that the Costigan Commission would conclude its hearings on 30 June, that there would be a transition period of a month, and that there would be a final two months in which to write the report. The only difference from that has been that it has taken three months to write the report. All of the material from Costigan which was handed to this Government on 16 July was handed to the National Crime Authority on 17 July. This Government has done everything possible to help both authorities to conclude his business in the case of Mr Costigan, and to commence business in the case of the Crime Authority. This Government ought to be congratulated on the way in which it has gone about the work that has been necessary, of both Costigan and the National Crime Authority. If Opposition members are hoping to be able to continue to sling mud for the next few weeks in order to make this an election issue, I am very sorry to say that they will fall on their faces on this issue. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.02) —Why has the National Crime Authority carried out no investigations using its coercive powers since the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union ceased investigations on 30 June? Why has this Government allowed the trail to go cold on the major drug financiers that Mr Costigan was pursuing? Why, in the context of Mr Commissioner Costigan's warning that with operations stopping on 30 June there would be very great difficulty in ever taking them up again, has the Government not pursued them? Why? Why? Why? Why is this Government running away from having a proper National Crime Authority? Why is this Government shutting down Royal Commissioner Costigan's inquiry into matters which go to the very heart of drugs, of prostitution, and of major money movements among the criminal elements of our society? We heard the Treasurer (Mr Keating) telling us that the whole purpose of this motion was really just to tarnish the names of members of the Government. He knows full well that that is not so. He knows that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) , in his dealings with people in the community, has been quite prepared to reach a position within his own Party to set up a National Crime Authority that is toothless, a Crime Authority that is unable to carry out any inquiry without the authority of the State governments. He knows full well that Mr Justice Athol Moffitt has so properly described the veto as denying those who wish to pursue an inquiry, if there is a whiff of politics in it, the opportunity to pursue that inquiry. So what do we have? We have a tactic this afternoon which shows the Treasurer, first, coming to the House and challenging us to try to produce facts around the circumstances of the Government's evasion. It is not the Opposition that is on trial; it is the Government. It is the Prime Minister who should come to this place to explain on all those questions. I put three of them a moment ago: Why the Government is trying to shut down the Costigan Commission, why he was not prepared to accede to an extension of time that was given by Premier Cain, and why we do not have a National Crime Authority with teeth. They are at the core of this motion. We want to know why the Prime Minister is running away, why he wants to have an early election, and why he is trying to hide behind circumstances about which in this House he has not been prepared properly to answer. Let us look at the matter. First, we find that in the circumstances of the whole Costigan Royal Commission we have a series of events that, without doubt, have been seen by the Prime Minister in some way as trying to obfuscate proper public scrutiny of what is going on. First, we had his emotional display. If one produces enough emotion, members of the community tend to feel sympathetic. Let us look behind that. We then find that he is following the second tactic of the New South Wales Government, which is to block effective investigation of the matters at issue, and, of course, to block debate about them. Whatever members of the Government might think, I assure them that moving this sort of amendment to our motion of censure this afternoon is not laying to rest the question of the Government's prevarication on proper inquiry into crime. The tactic that has been followed in New South Wales is not working. We all know the circumstances of how the Government has been dragged along to have any sort of inquiry into the Age tapes; not into how they were taken, for the Government was quite prepared to go ahead to inquire as to whether they had been acquired legally or illegally. The Government has been trying, persistently and consistently, to avoid having an inquiry into what the substance of those tapes revealed. We now have not just a question of tapes but the whole matter of Clarrie Briese. As my colleague the shadow Treasurer said a moment ago, if Clarrie Briese, put under the thumb of a threat by the New South Wales Government, pursues his charges he will lose his job. What a despicable concern for human rights that shows. It equates with that which the Labor Party showed for David Combe. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, denying the former Federal Secretary of the Australian Labor Party, one who had worked so closely with the man who sits here as Federal Treasurer and with the Prime Minister-who has long since left the chamber-the opportunity to state his case is the same as the tactic now being used against Clarrie Briese. In New South Wales there is not just the question of the Age tapes. There has been a succession of events in which allegations have been made and the person concerned, in the first instance, has been, in one way or another, said to be totally innocent. Then look at what has happened. We had the newly appointed Commissioner of Police, Bill Allen. We saw it when allegations were raised about the involvement of Chief Stipendiary Magistrate Murray Farquhar in a court case involving Kevin Humphreys. Murray Farquhar is now facing trial. We saw it when allegations were raised about Rex Jackson and the early release of prisoners. Mr Jackson is now facing trial. We saw it in allegations about Mr Justice Murphy and his little mate, solicitor Morgan Ryan. He is also facing trial. We also have the whole of the sorry circumstance regarding Judge Foord, who has now been stood aside. All this is a veneer which shows the circumstances in which the Labor Party in government is quite prepared to prevaricate, to avoid proper scrutiny, and then, when the circumstances come out, is prepared to take whatever action is forced upon it. It is necessary for us to consider the circumstances of these two acts by this Government which have led over the last month to the whole question of crime continuing to be a matter of major concern in this community. Why does this Government want to shut down Royal Commissioner Costigan's inquiry into organised crime and why is it not prepared to give to the National Crime Authority adequate powers? Mr Hodgman —Who is the Government protecting? Mr SINCLAIR —That is the point: Whom is the Government protecting, and why? Of course, these approaches have also been prominent in the treatment, as I mentioned, by the Federal Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Prime Minister's close colleague, Mr Wran, of the transcripts of the Age tapes. The one new approach by the Prime Minister to the Opposition's criticism of the Government's approach to the Costigan Commission has been an appeal for public trust. That certainly would not work in New South Wales. The response of any reasonable citizen of that State to an appeal of that sort by a Minister of the New South Wales Government would be to send his family to Queensland, to bury his silver in the back yard, and to get a quote from a security firm for a 24- hour bodyguard. But that is what the Prime Minister is saying: 'Trust me; I'm not soft on crime'. I do not trust the Prime Minister. If he is not soft on crime, he is giving a very convincing impression to the contrary. The evidence of the correspondence between the Government and Mr Costigan, tabled with such great reluctance in this House by the Prime Minister a fortnight ago, is a compelling condemnation of the Government's reluctance to allow Mr Costigan properly to pursue his investigations. The correspondence tabled yesterday by Mr Cain extends that concern. The condemnation has not been weakened in any way by the fact that the correspondence in Victoria showed that we were going to wind down the Costigan inquiry for transition to a properly constituted National Crime Authority. The reverse is the case. We were intent on having a National Crime Authority with teeth. Had it not been for the changes that the Senate Opposition imposed on the Government, the National Crime Authority would have been significantly weakened. One should compare the Prime Minister's words in the House today with those of 19 May 1983, when he said: What we are doing is to ensure that by increasing the resources of the Costigan royal commission the work of the commission will be increased and improved and that, at the beginning of 1984, we will be in place with the proclamation of the Act, for the National Crimes Commission to take over, in the most effective way, the work of the royal commission. That has not happened. It is the manner and form of the transition that Commissioner Costigan has identified as being totally inadequate, no matter that Mr Justice Stewart has said that he is quite content with the powers he now exercises. We need to remember that neither Mr Justice Moffitt, who as all honourable members will recall conducted the Royal Commission on Alleged Organised Crime in Registered Clubs in New South Wales, nor Mr Justice Woodward, who conducted the Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking, believed the National Crime Authority capable of pursuing properly the inquiries with which they had been charged. Mr Justice Moffitt, quoted in an article in the Melbourne Herald yesterday, said: 'The way it has been set up I don't think it will work'. Mr Justice Woodward was quoted in the same article as saying: 'I believe the new Authority will have no effect because it lacks teeth'. So much for the capability of this new National Crime Authority to carry on properly the work of Royal Commissioner Costigan. Our concern is that in the past few weeks it has not been just a matter of what has been revealed in this Parliament by the Leader of the Opposition and Opposition members. In the course of these few weeks there have been a number of devastating publications by way of brochures, bulletins, articles in the National Times and in various other areas about the circumstances of the pursuit of crime in our society. We all know that as late as Saturday night, on the Four Corners program, yet another serious allegation was made about the manner of prosecution of crime in this society. We need to recognise that there are two bodies that seem to be going soft on crime. The first is the New South Wales Government. For a long time those of us on this side of politics have been concerned about the manner and behaviour of the New South Wales Premier, the extent to which he has been running away-- Mr Keating —Just as Cross was concerned about you, too. Mr SINCLAIR —Well might the Treasurer interject. No doubt he is tied up with it as much as anybody. I refer to the way in which the New South Wales Premier has attempted over the years to say: 'Look, there is nothing happening. We are quite prepared to run away from all questions of a proper investigation'. It is important to realise that the two bodies are, first, the New South Wales Government and, second, the right wing sector of the Australian Labor Party in this Federal Parliament. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, who is burbling away over there and who gave us such an emotional response, are so closely interwoven in the power play within the Labor Party that anything that happens in New South Wales flows through to them. The point of this whole debate is that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are both very closely involved with the machinations for power within the New South Wales Labor machine. Without any doubt, Mr Wran and the circumstances of his administration of justice are progressively getting into greater and greater disarray. We all know the circumstances which the shadow Treasurer and I have run through and the way in which first the crime is denied, then emotion comes out, whether it is tears or some other emotional reaction, then there is an avoidance of debate, then there is a denial, and then there is the charge. That has happened time after time. It is happening in a way that must lead every citizen to wonder what is going on in the Labor camp. That is what this debate is about. What is going on in the Labor camp? Why is the Prime Minister racing off, as he told us only a little while ago in this House, prematurely to the polls? Is he like Mr Wran, who rushed to an early election so that the Special Commissioner could not go into the inquiry into the former Minister for Corrective Services in New South Wales? We well remember those circumstances. What happened? The Premier of New South Wales was not prepared to have the Special Commissioner inquire into his Minister for Corrective Services before the election for fear that the facts would come out. So we are seeing it again now. We are seeing that this Government, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer, are having difficulties in Caucus. We have already heard that the National Crime Authority is a compromise. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has long since left this debate. Heaven forbid that he should ever have to fill in the new assets test form. I do not know what he would be doing filling in the form, but I know what he would be doing in the valuations. I would not trust his ability on either. The point is that the genesis of the changed National Crime Authority centres largely on the power play within the Labor Party. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer are each in a position where they depend on the New South Wales Government for their sanctions and their power. They are trying to ensure that this National Crime Authority is so circumscribed that it will be unable properly to pursue the inquiries that Royal Commissioner Costigan has so effectively been pursuing for so long. Why did they close down Royal Commissioner Costigan's inquiry so early? If I may paraphrase the Prime Minister, I think that the most apt conclusion of this debate is that the Prime Minister today, and throughout the whole circumstances of this crime inquiry, has shown himself to be a man not fit to be Prime Minister, let alone Leader of the once great Australian Labor Party. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(5.18) —Members of the Opposition are obsessed with the New South Wales right wing of the Party-and well it might be because it put them in opposition and it will keep them there. The middle ground of Labor is the centre of the pendulum swing. The Opposition knows that whenever the middle ground is in the ascendancy the Opposition will remain in that position. The now discredited Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) worries about the New South Wales Labor Party, and well he might. The speech made by the Leader of the National Party had nothing to do with the case in issue. Anyone listening outside the House-people listening to this debate in cars while driving home from work-may have thought there was some relevance to this debate. The irrelevance is that it was dealing with New South Wales, not the National Crime Authority. They were all New South Wales matters. They were irrelevant to the National Crime Authority. It is amusing to hear the Leader of the National Party talking about people's reputations and about the administration of justice in New South Wales. When he made an attack on the New South Wales Government, saying that he had been offered a bribe by the New South Wales Government through two personages in New South Wales, he was found by a judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court to be lying. Opposition members interjecting- Mr Howard —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Speaker has ruled that the use of the expression 'lies' is unparliamentary. I submit that the Treasurer should be required to withdraw the allegation he made against the Leader of the National Party. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Chair was quite unable to hear any of the allegations or the word 'lies' because of the noise in the House. Mr KEATING —Let us get to the central point at issue. The charge is that the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union would be wound up-- Mr Donald Cameron —I take a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If a point of order is raised and the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker says that he or she did not hear it, does that mean that one can get away with saying anything in this Parliament? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —It might be an idea if the House were quiet enough for the Chair to hear. I call the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —The charge is that the Costigan Royal Commission would be wound up by the Government prematurely because of criminal pressure. Today we had demonstrated as clearly as possible the facts in regard to the charge against me that I received or was prepared to receive an offer from the Nugan Hand Bank. The implication was that there was some offer of money or of some financial transaction. We found out today from the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking that the offer was an offer to speak at a seminar in Hong Kong. To think that members of the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) and the Leader of the National Party, would sit in an office of this Parliament and ask a question to impugn another member's integrity on the basis that he had received money when the offer concerned was, in fact, an offer to speak at a seminar in Hong Kong. That cynicism and shame amazes me. The public of Australia can make the appropriate judgment when we squash the parliamentary garbage opposite at the next poll. Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the level of noise was not such that you could fail to hear the words 'parliamentary garbage'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair heard the words 'parliamentary garbage'. Mr Tuckey —I ask that those words be withdrawn. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Those words are not unparliamentary. Mr Tuckey —Well then, those opposite are garbage. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr KEATING —I make this point-- Mr Tuckey —You smell like you came out of the rubbish bin. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting . I point out to the House that all previous speakers were heard without interruption. I ask for quiet for the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —Madam Deputy Speaker, if the Opposition insists on eroding my time I will move for an extension of time. It can keep it up if it likes. Let me make this point: The coalition parties were in office for 30 years. If there is crime in this country the responsibility rests with them. Indeed, the three previous speakers-the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party-spoke not once on the National Crime Authority Bill. They were so outraged and concerned about the powers of the National Crime Authority that they spoke not once during the debate on the Bill. Yet they are back here now saying how appalled they are by the state of the National Crime Authority and the transition to it of the Costigan Royal Commission. What they did for two weeks recently was to lay unfounded, baseless charges against the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and me. They charged that the Prime Minister was subject to criminal influences. When we gave the Leader of the Opposition a chance today to substantiate his charge he squibbed the attempt because, of course, there was never a basis for the charge in the first place. The fact is that the Opposition now talks about the transition of the Costigan Commission to the National Crime Authority and the powers of that Authority. The smears, filth and innuendo which the Opposition trafficks are a substitute for real policy. The Opposition has no policies. It has no idea about where to take the economy other than into recession. It has no ideas about social policy or about the community. It has no platform on which to go to the next election. It trafficks only in filth, smears and rubbish. Now, when the filth, smears and rubbish have been rejected by the public, it resorts to talking about the powers of the National Crime Authority. It was so concerned about the National Crime Authority that not one of the three speakers for the Opposition spoke during the debate in June last year. Now we have the Deputy Leader of the Opposition talking about powers and crime. He let tax avoidance in this country prosper for the five years he was Treasurer. Mr Costigan revealed him for the fraud that he was in attempting to come in here and argue that the previous Government was doing something about organised crime. He let the flood gates open on organised crime, particularly in the tax system. They were closed only after he was exposed by the Costigan Royal Commission. How can the Opposition come in here talking to us about crime and corruption? It was in government for 30 years. When it left office it still did not have a national crime authority. It had no permanent machinery to deal with organised crime in this country. When it left office it had nothing. It had only the Costigan Commission. This seems to be the point at issue which the dummies of the Opposition simply do not understand: The powers of the Costigan Royal Commission are inferior to those of the National Crime Authority. They are inferior powers. Yet the Opposition is trying to say that we ought to continue with a body which has inferior powers rather than switch to a body which has superior powers. That is the sort of distorted logic we get from the Opposition. It seems to have no understanding of the matter. Mr Justice Stewart, who is chairing the National Crime Authority, said recently: The function of a royal commission is completely different to the function of a national crime authority. The function of a royal commission is to identify areas of crime, to point in the right direction. A royal commission is not a body that seeks to accumulate hard evidence. Mr Costigan has already indicated that he has not seen his task as being that. He has not wanted to do it. He has not tried to do it. The function of a national crime authority, which is to accumulate hard evidence, is a quite different function from that of a royal commission. People miss the point when they ask why Mr Costigan should not be allowed to carry on. In other words, Mr Justice Stewart is saying that the Opposition's argument is bunkum. It is nonsense to be arguing that we ought to be carrying on with a body with inferior powers when there is now a body with superior powers to collect evidence and to mount prosecutions which, of course, a royal commission cannot do. Who has debased the concept of royal commissions? The Opposition has done so. Why? A royal commission can gather evidence but if the powers of a royal commission are used as the Opposition has used them in the Parliament, to besmirch the reputations of people and to make baseless allegations, the whole technique of royal commissions is damaged because the persons who are affected by the evidence or by the arguments put in the Parliament from royal commissions cannot defend themselves. They cannot go into a court or represent themselves in that court. They are not formally charged. So the whole procedure of royal commissions has been dragged through the gutter by this Opposition which, of course, haunts the political sewers of this country. It is nonsense for the Opposition to be arguing that the Government in any way has sought to circumscribe the powers of the Costigan Royal Commission. The fact is that the powers of the National Crime Authority are superior. Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Bingham, a former Tasmanian Liberal Attorney-General, have already rejected that argument out of hand. They were reported as follows: We rejected recent suggestions that the Authority's powers were inadequate to tackle organised crime or to continue the investigation by Mr Costigan and his staff. Mr Justice Stewart said, along with his two colleagues, Mr John Dwyer, QC , and Mr Max Bingham, QC, that 'claims that our powers are too limited are unjustified and can only comfort those who will be investigated by the Authority '. I do not see much point in trying to argue any further what has been stated so eloquently by three members of the National Crime Authority, Mr Justice Stewart, his colleague John Dwyer, and the former Tasmanian Attorney-General, Mr Max Bingham. They have said that the powers are adequate. They have also said that if they are inadequate they will seek an extension of power from the Commonwealth Government. So all of this desperation is simply opportunism on the part of the Leader of the Opposition who now hangs on to his leadership by a gossamer thread. It is opportunism by an uncomfortable back bench and an Opposition which knows that it is walking in to stop the electoral punch at the next poll when it tries to propose itself as the alternative government. The Opposition has sunk to great depths. The honourable member for Boothby, who will probably follow me in this debate, prides himself as a man of integrity. Fancy any honourable member asking whether another member has received money from the Nugan Hand Bank knowing it to be false to ask such a question! The cynicism of it shames me. That was the clear implication of the question. Such a question brings eternal shame on him. As well as that he attacked Peter Barron, saying that he sought to nobble the Editor of the Melbourne Age, Creighton Burns , who said that there was no threat and no attempt to nobble him whatsoever. Even then the honourable member for Boothby would not resile from that. He repeated the accusation and said he had two corroborated reports of such a conversation. That is the depths to which the leadership of the Opposition will go. The Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Boothby haunt the sewers of this country. The public of this country understand where the value is. They understand that the Government is getting the economy back on its feet and getting the people back to work. They understand that we are creating a fairer society, looking after the areas which matter and dealing with organised crime as we should. The public will not reject this Government and take on an Opposition with no ideas, no values and no integrity on the basis of some cheap smears thrown in the Parliament which have no basis and which cannot even be defended by the Opposition when it is given the chance. We will accept no mock indignation and no mock outrage from the Opposition. The Opposition is discredited; it has no principles and no honour. Therefore, it deserves to be condemned and censured by this Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(5.33) —At this stage the first thing to do in this debate on the motion of censure of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is to put down the fiction that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or the Prime Minister occupies any high ground in relation to assertions and charges made in this Parliament. As I look across at the Prime Minister I well remember sitting on the back benches in 1981 and listening to him, sitting on this side, saying to the then right honourable member for Lowe, a former Prime Minister: 'You dishonest little bastard'. That was the standard that the Prime Minister adopted in this House. He went on further in his first years in this place to elevate-if I can use that word-the word 'liar' to an art form in this Parliament. Time and again he defied the Speaker, refusing to withdraw upon request the charge that honourable members were liars until he established it as a term which his own Speaker will not accept under his own Government. He did not go down to the sewers; he went below them. It is a complete fiction that the Prime Minister should come into the House now, aided and abetted by his Treasurer, and claim some high ground. When the Prime Minister's actions were called into question what did he do when standing at this table? He wept. He wept on a particular occasion when his views were called into question. The Prime Minister can dish it out, he can call people dishonest little bastards; but he cannot take it. However, he stands here with his Treasurer and adopts some fictional high ground. I say to the Treasurer that the question which I put to him was a question which he was able to answer in this House. His answer was accepted in this House. That was a darned sight better than the chances his colleagues in South Australia gave me when the Australian Labor Party made assertions about the Nugan Hand Bank without putting questions directly to the person concerned. Those people simply went out into the street with those assertions undenied and gave the person concerned no chance of denying them. The facts are that this Government has appointed no royal commissions to inquire into crime. All such royal commissions of recent time have been set up by the Fraser Government, either by itself or in conjunction with the State governments of New South Wales and Victoria. That is the record of the Opposition in relation to crime. It has pursued crime relentlessly. It is this Government which opposed in the Senate putting teeth in the legislation. Today the Prime Minister was prating about the powers of the National Crime Authority. He made decisions in Cabinet to oppose those powers. He directed his Attorney- General in the Senate, Senator Gareth Evans, to vote against those powers. I quote from a report that Senator Chipp gave concerning the activities of his Party in relation to the amendments carried in the Senate. I refer to a few of the very important ones. He said: The Democrats did not proceed with amendments . . . to remove the need for Inter-Governmental Committee approval for Commonwealth references. Instead the Australian Democrats supported the Opposition's move in relation to that matter. All Government senators voted against that. They wanted the State governments to have the veto power in relation to not only investigations referring to State administration but also investigations referring to Commonwealth administration. This Prime Minister wanted the Jacksons and the Wrans of this world to have a complete veto of investigation into crime concerning Federal statutes and Federal law. That is how much the Prime Minister 's prating meant in the House today. Senator Chipp went on to say: Under Clause 11 the Government had proposed that 'the Minister may, at any time . . . withdraw the reference'. The Prime Minister wanted his Attorney-General to have the power at any time to cease investigations. He could have one of his mates in New South Wales ring up and say that it is getting too hot and that he should withdraw. The Attorney- General would have had the power to withdraw. The Senate majority of the time- the Australian Democrats and the Opposition-voted to remove that power. The Prime Minister instructed his Minister to vote against those amendments so that the powers of the Authority would be so much the weaker. Senator Chipp made another point when he said: Government amendment No.(9) provided that except during hearings, interviews during investigations may only be carried out by Police Officers in accordance with their existing powers. He continued: The Democrats' amendments 5B and 5C ensured that Authority staff may interview persons once they have been summonsed to appear before the Authority and were incorporated in a subsequent Government amendment that extends this to persons with expert knowledge required by the Authority. That is an example of how this Prime Minister and this Treasurer tried on behalf of New South Wales and the President of the Australian Labor Party simply to weaken the Authority until it had no teeth whatsoever. The shenanigans and the fictional high ground that honourable members opposite have adopted will not blind the Australian public to those facts. Mr Redlich also had something to say. If the National Crime Authority is so ready to take over from Costigan, one would have expected the Special Prosecutor to say that in fact it was. What did the Special Prosecutor have to say about one of the most essential elements of the investigation of any national crime authority, the protection of witnesses? Protection of witnesses is one of the most essential elements that one must provide in ferreting out crime in this country. I imagine that the Special Prosecutor would be an independent authority on this matter. He stated in his report delivered in the last few weeks-- Mr Hawke —What page? Mr STEELE HALL —The Prime Minister would not be interested in this page-- Mr Hawke —What page? Mr STEELE HALL —This refers to one of those powers which I am sure the Prime Minister directed his Ministers in the Senate to vote against. On page 51 of the report, Special Prosecutor Redlich stated: There might be a belief that the National Crime Authority can resort to State or Federal police forces to provide protection for the Authority's witnesses ( with, in any event, the concommitant diminution of confidentiality). The Stewart Commission reported . . . that it had enquired of Commonwealth and State Law Enforcement Authorities 'as to what if any, program or guidelines they have for protection of witnesses. The answer has been the same in each case-that no specific program or guidelines exists; that each case is dealt with according to needs'. Mr Redlich continued in paragraph 4.13: The National Crime Authority Act provision does not enable the Authority to offer such protection as and when it is needed. One of the most vital powers of investigation is simply not present in the National Crime Authority legislation. This Prime Minister prates about the powers of the Commission which he supports. He has actually subverted the National Crime Authority by preventing it, despite the amendments moved at that late stage in the Senate, from having the powers it needs. Of course, the Costigan report will be printed and selected parts will be tabled. It will not only be interested politicians and those on this side of the House interested in fighting crime who will avidly read the report, but the criminal element in Australia also will avidly read it. The criminals will read it knowing that there is no effective investigation into their affairs and into criminal activities in this country at present. They will know that the transition period is proceeding and that not one of the 42 suggested references in the Costigan Commission report has been referred to the National Crime Authority. They will obviously take evasive action because the Government, as someone said in this debate, has let the trail go cold on criminals in Australia. The Costigan report will be of immense value to criminals in that sense because this Government has made no provision to continue its investigations. One of the most pathetic references of the Prime Minister has been to the need for Mr Justice Stewart to involve himself in politics to get sufficient powers to proceed. He said that if a State government uses the veto powers which the Prime Minister gives it to prevent an investigation in areas of its administration Mr Justice Stewart will blow it out of the water. He uses political reference, political threat, to pitchfork the honourable and able Chairman of the National Crime Authority directly into the political field. This is because he does not have the guts, or the persuasive power over his own Party , to provide the National Crime Authority with direct powers of its own. He relies on telling the Chairman of the Authority that he must use political persuasion, as an independent servant of the country, to get the powers he needs to investigate crime in the Australian community. It is absolutely pathetic that the Prime Minister should resort to such tactics. The Prime Minister referred to the Inter-Governmental Committee which must approve references. The impossibility of the situation was defined clearly on television last night. The Police Minister in New South Wales, Mr Anderson, said that he did not know about the information conveyed to Mr Abbott, the then Police Commissioner in New South Wales, by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in June last year to the effect that, I think, seven members of the New South Wales police force were selling drugs. They are still on the New South Wales police payroll and 15 months later the New South Wales Police Minister does not know about it. He is a man who, under the National Crime Authority Act, will sit on the Inter-Governmental Committee. He will have the power to veto investigation in New South Wales. Is he armed with the facts of his office? Is he suitable to carry out that high duty? The Minister who will chair the Inter- Governmental Committee has not seen fit to inform his fellow Minister. This is the second time such a thing has happened. We remember the Jackson tapes which were sent on via the Australian Federal Police Commissioner in May last year. Four and a half months after they were publicised we were told that the New South Wales Police Minister had not heard of them. What is it about this Government that it will not tell the New South Wales Minister for Police about the enormous difficulties within his own police force and area of administration ? Is he too honest to tell or too dishonest to tell? The Government has spread around the House enough diversions and sob stories today. It owes the Australian public a few explanations about its rotten administration. It should tell the community why it protects criminals by giving insufficient powers to investigate under legislation. More specifically, it should tell the House why it keeps from the Police Minister in New South Wales information of the most vital nature to the prosecution of crime in that State. Why does it aid and abet criminals by not telling him? It is not good enough for the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) to sit in stunned silence. He should answer. Mr Young —You are an idiot. Mr STEELE HALL —The Minister can reply in that way and continue his diversion tactics. He can talk about high ground from his position, and the criminals in New South Wales will be ever thankful for his action. The Special Prosecutor indicated in his report that the resources of the Australian Federal Police are in a precarious position. He said that the grossly inadequate condition of parts of the Federal law enforcement arena must be viewed with consternation and that there must be a radical strengthening of and improvement in the traditional methods of combating crime to withstand the modern challenge of the criminal entrepreneur. He goes on further in his report to point out specifically the shortage of resources in the Australian Federal Police. Mr Beazley —Which you created. Mr STEELE HALL —The Minister can prate today but the vote in this year's Budget is not as strong as it was last year. If it is adjusted for inflation, as I pointed out in a previous debate, it is fraudulent to claim that the vote has increased resources for the Australian Federal Police. I will repeat the figures if Ministers are unable to read their own departmental estimates and to persuade their Treasurer or prevail in the councils of Cabinet to provide the resources that the Australian Federal Police needs. This year's vote, short of a special requirement for the surveillance organisation and a new requirement to protect judges of the Family Court of Australia, adjusted for inflation, is hundreds of thousands of dollars, in real terms, below last year's vote. This is at a time when the Australian Federal Police is confronted with enormously large and new responsibilities associated with the National Crime Authority, the reorganisation and separation of the protective services component and many more disturbances which it will have to adjust to this financial year. The Government is simply deficient and it deserves to be censured on every level for falsely proclaiming its interest when it has none. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(5.47) —The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) was obliged to come into the House and give the reasons he laid the very grave charges against the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on three different occasions in the last sitting of the Parliament. He was obliged to give us an answer or to retract the charges. His first proposition was that the Treasurer had said in the Cabinet that it was time the Costigan Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union was closed down. Secondly, he suggested that pressure had been put on Special Prosecutor Gyles to influence his report. Thirdly, he suggested that the Treasurer was implicated in a telex tabled by honourable gentlemen opposite as having received funds or a bribe from the Nugan Hand Bank. All three of those points were answered specifically and in detail and they are the subject of the two motions before the House. They require an explanation from the honourable member for Boothby but that explanation was not given. Only one thing can be said for the honourable member for Boothby in respect of this debate to set him apart in a slightly more honourable way from the rest of his colleagues who have spoken in this debate. When the legislation to establish the National Crime Authority came before the Parliament he alone of the four Opposition members who have been waxing indignant in the House today had sufficient interest to come drifting into the House and make a few comments. They were largely irrelevant; nevertheless he made a few. This was despite the fact that, in the debate on the National Crime Authority when all these issues were canvassed, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) and a number of other Ministers spoke. So vitally concerned was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) with the problem of organised crime, so tremendously interested was he in offering constructive and relevant criticism of the National Crime Authority that he did not deign to appear in this place and put propositions to the Government. No matter what has been said by the Opposition today about the inadequate powers of the Crime Authority and how it would have advanced it in various directions if it had had an opportunity, the only amendment put in this place was an amendment to make the very broad terms of reference of the Crime Authority inclusive as opposed to exclusive. That was the Opposition's one amendment. There was nothing on protection against self-incrimination. There was nothing on the other aspects that were the subject of debate as to what precisely ought to be the powers of the National Crime Authority and in what area civil liberties should be protected-not one contribution and no amendments from the other side. If we go back over the debate on 7 June-I suggest honourable members do-we find that it was a debate replete with comments such as , whereas there might be one or two other things the Opposition would quite like the National Crime Authority to do, on the whole the Government had to be supported in bringing it in and all people of goodwill ought to give it a chance to work. There is only one reason why this debate has come before this House today. I think it behoves all of us here to get back to it so that we get a thorough understanding of why we are sitting here discussing these matters now. We are discussing a smoke-screen put up by the Leader of the Opposition to cover the fearful error that he made in accusing the Prime Minister in this place of being a crook and a perverter of justice. That is all. That is where this debate stemmed from. Nothing has been said over the last two weeks about the Crime Authority and the Costigan Royal Commission that was not said month after month while the National Crime Authority was debated in this place, in the Senate, before the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and before the conference that we organised on the National Crime Authority. All that was required by this exercise was to put up a camouflage. The combination of that camouflage and the type of unsubstantiated, dishonest accusations made by members such as the honourable member for Boothby. Mr Bilney —And disproved. Mr BEAZLEY —And disproved accusations, has debauched the debate on organised crime in this country. If there is any element of the debate in the last two weeks which has advanced the position of those involved in organised crime it has been the political atmosphere in which this issue has been debated as a result of attempts by members of the Opposition to create for themselves a smoke -screen or, to use another analogy, a cocoon around their highly vulnerable Opposition Leader while he is about to metamorphose himself into something that will be less well paid after the next election. It is not surprising that they have to do this. I think we ought to take this point a degree further and look at the events surrounding the creation of the National Crime Authority. Because of the way in which this debate has been raised I think we are under some obligation to talk about how the Crime Authority came into existence and why it did. One thing that was not conceded earlier in the period of this last fortnight, but which was being conceded with desperation here today, is that on the question of the transition between the National Crime Authority and the Costigan Royal Commission there was a bipartisan position between the parties in this House. There was never the slightest intention by the Fraser Government to persist with the Costigan Royal Commission whilst its Crimes Commission was established. From the day this Government came to office and substantially expanded the staff and the funding of the Costigan Royal Commission there was never any intention publicly or privately announced by this Government that when we had our National Crime Authority in place or we had done whatever we wanted to do with the Crimes Commission the Costigan Royal Commission would be continuing. What we were obliged to do, however, when we got into power was to undertake a diplomatic exercise to overcome the problems that had been created for us by the former Government in proposing the National Crimes Commission. Honourable members opposite sit around now as though the National Crimes Commission that they put up was something that was well thought out. All of us who were in the House at that time remember what that National Crimes Commission was. We remember that the then Government staggered under the weight of the continuing blows, the revelations as to what it had been doing about the problem of the relationship of tax avoidance and organised crime. We remember that the former Government reeled around the chamber, punch drunk under that influence, desperate to put across to the public the view that it was on top of the issue of organised crime. It rushed into that Crimes Commission legislation over the screaming objections of Liberal as well as Labor State governments whose co- operation was essential if a total fight against organised crime was to be established. The former Government overrode all that, ignored all that and proceeded with that proposal. Because the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) is looking somewhat sceptical about this, I think I will go to a direct quote of something said by one of the Liberal Ministers in power at the time, none other than Sam Doumany, the Liberal Attorney-General in the Queensland Government who came before our conference on what ought to be done about the Crimes Commission. His words demonstrate the nature of the diplomatic problem that we confronted as we sought to get a co-ordinated approach to organised crime. Sam Doumany said: Should we be moving generally towards the introduction of the continental system of accusatory justice? We must be careful that, in reacting to the problems of existing law enforcement agencies in confronting sophisticated criminals, we do not destroy the system of checks and balances which our system of criminal investigation and prosecution has built up over centuries. To move away from existing agencies and create an entirely separate criminal investigation agency would be a less than satisfactory solution to the perceived problem. That is what Sam Doumany, the Liberal Attorney-General in the Queensland Government, said at that time on what he thought about the Crimes Commission being established by the Fraser Government. That is what he thought about it. Of course, turned loose from the problems that confronted Fraser at the elections and the understandable silence of his State governments in the face of their election problem, the whole backwash dumped on to us. The whole attitude of non- co-operation-'We will not accept your Crimes Commission; you deal with it'-is the problem that we were confronted with as a result of the performance on this matter put up by the Liberal Party of Australia in opposition. We sat down to work out with the various State authorities what we should do. At that point, while we were doing that, we were not getting pressure from honourable members opposite to keep Costigan going. Oh no, that was not the pressure that was coming from honourable members opposite. What we were getting from them was a weekly rendition of our failure to put into place a national crime authority while we were trying to discuss these matters with Liberal and Labor State governments to get an effective thing going on organised crime. I well remember the Leader of the Opposition in this place. He was not worried then about the problems of the Costigan Royal Commission or the problems of the State authorities. He was wanting to get a crimes authority in place to enable the pursuit of criminals in what he then regarded as a satisfactory manner. What did he say then? I quote him: Royal commissions unfairly label a lot of innocent people against whom no criminal action can be sustained. Royal commissions are clearly not the fairest or the best approach. What does he do now? When he is in real trouble in this place he comes in here, in a total reversal of the position that he puts forward, and he says: 'This is an inadequate formula and an inappropriate means of pursuing organised crime. This Royal Commission ought to be continued ad infinitum with no transition. We will hold the National Crime Authority in abeyance while we get on with this'. As far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned principle can go out the window. He has no leg to stand on in this matter. He took that position on what ought to be done about the Crime Authority at that stage. He has jettisoned it since he has had something else to counter. The simple fact of the matter is that people such as Mr Justice Stewart are trying to educate the Opposition on the different nature of those two organisations. The only reason why this is necessary now and why we have to go through another difficult exercise in looking at the most effective way of fighting organised crime is simply that the Leader of the Opposition wants to avoid the consequences of the accusations that he made in this place. It does not matter a darn if the work of the Stewart National Crime Authority is hindered as a result of what he does! It does not matter if, as a result of that attitude, positions are taken by the organised criminals who will come under investigation! The investigations are not just to discuss their affairs in public; they are to produce evidence to put them before the courts and behind bars. If, as a result of what the Leader of the Opposition has done, the position of the Royal Commissioner and the position of the National Crime Authority Chairman and his two associates has been damaged in the struggle against organised crime, the full circle of the debauching of this debate by the Opposition from the day it started until this day will be complete. The Crime Authority was set up after much thought and negotiation with the State authorities. As honourable members know, if there is going to be any Commonwealth-oriented body, any Commonwealth-initiated body, capable of investigating the many aspects of organised crime that are specifically a matter of State law, there is only one way that can be done. It cannot be done by initiative in this place; it can be done only by initiatives from those State governments and investigated, under our proposition, jointly with us. The only thing that has happened in the fight against organised crime in these last two weeks-nothing else has happened-is that Mr Justice Stewart's position has been made much more difficult. Mr Justice Stewart was perfectly happy with his position, as he made quite clear to the Press conference he and his two very distinguished colleagues conducted. That is all that has happened in the fight against organised crime over the last two weeks. The Leader of the Opposition is worthy of censure. He is worthy of censure in the most strict terms. He has not put up in this House and he has not shut up. Enough has been said in this House on the matter, and I therefore move: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)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. Tickner, R. E.Hawke, R. J. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Fry, K. L. Katter, R. C.Hayden, W. G. Edwards, HarryHumphreys, B. C. Wilson, I. B. C.Blanchard, C. A. Newman, K. E.Jacobi, R. O'Keefe, F. L.Theophanous, A. C. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Hawke's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)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. Tickner, R. E.Hawke, R. J. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Katter, R. C. Fry, K. L.Edwards, Harry Hayden, W. G.Wilson, I. B. C. Humphreys, B. C.Newman, K. E. Blanchard, C. A.O'Keefe, F. L. Jacobi, R.Millar, P. C. Theophanous, A. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Question put: That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)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. Tickner, R. E.Hawke, R. L. J. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Fry, K. L. Katter, R. C.Hayden, W. G. Edwards, HarryHumphreys, B. C. Wilson, I. B. C.Blanchard, C. A. Newman, K. E.Jacobi, R. O'Keefe, F. L.Theophanous, A. C. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion, as amended, be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)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. Tickner, R. E.Hawke, R. J. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Fry, K. L. Katter, R. C.Hayden, W. G. Edwards, HarryHumphreys, B. C. Wilson, I. B. C.Blanchard, C. A. Newman, K. E.Jacobi, R. O'Keefe, F. L.Theophanous, A. C. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) notes that section 54 of the National Crime Authority Act requires the appointment of a joint committee of the Parliament to monitor the operation of the National Crime Authority and that this Act came into operation on 15 June 1984; (2) further notes that, notwithstanding questions in the Senate and promises by the Attorney-General for expedition on the Government's part to establish the joint committee, to 2 October 1984 this has not eventuated; (3) regrets that the Government's inaction provides evidence of an unwillingness to have in place a committee of the Parliament to monitor the arrangements for the National Crime Authority to take over references and the inquiries of the Costigan Royal Commission. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) will second: That this House- (1) congratulates the officials and players of the Canterbury-Bankstown District Rugby League Football Club for their achievement in winning the 1984 Premiership which is a fitting reward during the club's golden jubilee year of operation; (2) notes with satisfaction the club's fine sporting competitive record over the past 50 years which include 4 first grade premierships; (3) records its appreciation to those involved with rugby league for their efforts in providing a great competitive sport for the young people of Australia , and (4) congratulates the Parramatta Rugby League Football Club officials and players for the fine sportsmanship shown by them during and after the 1984 premiership match. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) will second: That this House- (1) notes that subscribers to ABC concerts in Western Australia receive through the mail in September an invitation to attend ''An Unusual Concert'' on 17 October 1984 at the Octogan Theatre; (2) further notes that- (a) the last line of this advertisement stated that proceeds would go to assisting a candidate for the electoral Division of Forrest; (b) subscription lists are supposedly confidential but were used to promote this concert, and (c) at the ABC subscription concert on 14 September 1984, a news sheet, bearing the ABC logo advertised this same ''unusual concert'' without reference to the ALP's fund raising, was distributed among patrons; (3) expresses its concern at the use of ABC subscription lists and news sheets for party political fund raising, and the attempts to conceal the fund raising purpose of the concert on 17 October 1984, and (4) calls on ABC management to ensure that ABC mailing lists and publications are no longer used for electioneering purposes. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) will second: That this House- (1) deplores the unabated attacks by the National Party on Commonwealth transport assistance to Tasmania; (2) condemns the continued calls by the Member for Dawson for the termination of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme; (3) calls upon the Member for Dawson to stop misrepresenting the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme as a subsidy to offset losses incurred on depleted Tasmanian shipping services; (4) condemns the Member for Hume for urging that Tasmania be banished from the Commonwealth, and (5) calls on Tasmania's Liberal representatives in this House to cease their acquiescent and timid behaviour in mutely endorsing these National Party attacks . Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) — I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for its failure to condemn the strikes by hotel workers in pursuit of a 38-hour week in Melbourne on the eve of the VFL Grand Final and previous strikes in Melbourne and Sydney which clearly breach the prices wages accord; (2) notes that the claim by the Liquor and Allied Trades union for a 38-hour week is equivalent to an effective wage rise of 5%, and (3) calls on the Government to support the employers and recognise the needs of small business in the tourism and hospitality industry by resisting the claim which, if granted, would limit the tourism industry's capacity to create jobs, especially for young people. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates Peter Brock, 8 times champion of Mount Panorama, and his co-driver, Larry Perkins, on their success in the 1984 James Hardie 1000 at Bathurst on Sunday, 30 September 1984. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) there is an upturn in the rate of unemployment particularly in the area of youth unemployment, and (b) while the Prime Minister keeps referring to the new jobs that have been created, he conveniently never mentions how many jobs have disappeared, and (2) condemns the Government for its gross exaggeration of the improvements to the Australian economy flowing from the ending of the drought and the upturn of the world economy. Sitting suspended from 6.31 to 8 p.m. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Prime Minister and the Government for its disgraceful treatment of Tasmania with a miserable $3.5m in new capital works program for 1984-85 and its refusal now to sign official documents to release $ 6m of Tasmanian money to be spent on upgrading Hobart International Airport. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Essendon Football Club for winning the coveted 1984 VFL Grand Final, particularly coach Kevin Sheedy and captain Terry Daniher for their inspirational leadership; (2) congratulates other team members, officials and supporters for their loyal efforts over many years, deservedly culminating in this great victory, and (3) notes that, unlike Essendon's current number 1 ticket holder, the Member for Maribyrnong, not only supports the Club but resides in the great City of Essendon and represents its people in this House. Mr FISHER(Mallee) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House acknowledges the outstanding premiership win by Essendon in the Victorian Football League Grand Final on 29 September 1984, and (2) recognises the efforts of the players Hawker, Neagle, Watson, Merritt and Heard who are all constituents of the Electoral Division of Mallee. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Treasurer on his award by the highly influential magazine Euromoney as Finance Minister of the Year, and (2) notes with approval that the Government's economic policies have the endorsement of the international community. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the refusal of authorities in the Northern Territory to permit the British writer Mr Shiva Naipaul to visit Aborigines at Yirrkala, and (2) condemns this decision by white Aboriginal 'minders' to prevent discussions between Aborigines and Shiva Naipaul. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates the Government on the fact that, since its election, inflation has gone down, unemployment has gone down, interest rates have gone down, the labour force participation rate has improved, consumer confidence has gone up, capital investment has increased, Australia has the highest rate of growth in the OECD and the quality of life of Australian families has started to improve. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) reminds the Prime Minister of his statement in February 1983 that under his Government, Parliament would run its full term; (2) views with concern the Prime Minister's recent statement that it was ''odds on'' that an election would be held before the end of this year; (3) reminds the Prime Minister that an election is not due for close to 18 months, and (4) calls on the Prime Minister to explain what has changed since February 1983 , such that he now considers it necessary to break his public commitment not to hold an early election. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the actions of the Northern Territory Government in, without reason, confiscating 2 hotel complexes owned by Federal Hotels Ltd, in the Northern Territory and handing those assets over to foreign operators, and (2) notes with deep concern the failure of the NT Government to indicate how much compensation will be paid to Federal Hotels Ltd and when it will be paid. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that after Australia and world wide advertising, the Pingelly Shire has received only one application, from England, for a replacement to the disenfranchised Dr Rex Hood, the town's only doctor, and (2) condemns the Federal Minister for Health for not supporting this first offender and the State Minister for failing to keep his promise to provide a government-employed replacement for Dr Hood to allow for a smooth transition. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the continued occupation of northern Cyprus by Turkish troops as a flagrant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus; (2) calls for the immediate implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution 550 of 11 May 1984; (3) expresses its concern about the effectiveness of the UN in resolving world problems if it is unable to guarantee security for the Republic of Cyprus, and (4) urges the Government to use its influence with other Governments, including the Governments of the United States of America and the United Kingdom to provide more positive support for the implementation of the relevant General Assembly and Security Council Resolutions. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern that recent statements by the Prime Minister have confused public understanding of the powers and role of the National Crime Authority; (2) affirms the intention of successive Parliaments that many Commonwealth authorities should have the powers to initiate investigations, permit self- incrimination, subpoena witnesses, and issue warrants for the non-appearance of witnesses; (3) condemns the Prime Minister for not granting these powers to the National Crime Authority, and (4) urges the Government to allow the Costigan Royal Commission to conclude its work. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) deplores the inaction of the Minister for Primary Industry for not directing that funds be allocated to the Queensland Wheat Board for the payment of premiums on high protein wheat produced in that State as these payments are now 3 months overdue, and as many families are depending on this income, and (2) directs the Minister to release immediately these funds. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the decision of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs not to allow Bess Armstrong into Australia to act in the film Fortress, and (b) the subsequent decision by Crawford Productions to cease production of the film with a consequent loss of 80 jobs for Australian cast and crew, and (2) condemns the Minister for Immigration for making a decision which is so damaging to the Australian film industry. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) having heard the Prime Minister in his own defence, on 2 October 1984, records that it is not impressed with the unconvincing explanations advanced as to why the Costigan Royal Commission has been killed, when it was so close to success, and (2) notes with sadness the Royal Commissioner's comment that operations stopped on 30 June 1984 and there would be very great difficulties in ever taking them up again. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting- Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind honourable members that, by tradition, there is a limit of three notices of motion each sitting day. Mr COLEMAN —Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is my third; this is my limit. I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the submission by Actors Equity of Australia to the Treasurer concerning taxation reform for Australian performing artists, and (2) supports the submission. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —This is my third notice of motion, Mr Speaker. I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), a very good member, will second: That this House- (1) expresses its grave concern at the figures tabled on 7 September 1984 by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs disclosing massive drops in European and United Kingdom migration to Australia, and (2) calls upon the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs now to explain publicly why they have repeatedly claimed that there has been ''no change in immigration policy'' since the election of the Government. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recognises the importance of the Murray-Darling River Basin to the economic and environmental future of Australia; (2) calls on the Government to support the appointment of a parliamentary committee comprising Members of Parliament whose Electoral Divisions border the Murray-Darling River system, and (3) ensures that the interests of the Murray-Darling Region are kept before the federal Parliament and the Government. Mr Young-Mr Speaker, I ask that questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Mr Hodgman-On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Prime Minister is not present. No Ministers are present. Why is the honourable gentleman calling it off? Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava) —Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MACPHEE —I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr MACPHEE —The Age of 17 September purported to report details of a Liberal Party meeting to determine attitudes to a Bill by Senator Harradine to disallow a decision of the Remuneration Tribunal extending certain benefits of married spouses of politicians to de facto spouses. The report said that I was one of 11 Liberals who said that they would oppose the Bill. That report was incorrect and it misrepresented my position. I was, in fact, absent from the meeting at which the issue was discussed and therefore I could not have said the things attributed to me. Moreover, in prior discussions with colleagues I made it clear that I believed that it was wrong for the taxpayers to pay for overseas travel of spouses of politicians, whether de facto spouses or married. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers. National Flag 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 petitions 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 every pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Fisher,Mr Hawker,Mr Howe,Mr Lloyd,Mr Peacock and Mr Scholes. 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 Cadman,Mr Carlton,Mr Connolly,Mr Drummond 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 of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. 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 upon 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 upon 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 Beazley,Mrs Kelly,Mr McArthur,Mr Staples and Mr Steedman. 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 Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with grave concern and deplore the decision to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become more widespread during the period of inquiry. 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 Cadman,Mr Donald Cameron,Mr MacKellar,Mr Moore 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 Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs ( Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law: The power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. x- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; The power to require imported video tapes/discos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure That the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; That Censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; That further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and That, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beazley,Mr Blunt and Mr Rocher. 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 Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change.' And your petitioners as in duly bound will every pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Drummond and Mr Rocher. 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 reject the Remuneration Tribunal's travel entitlement to de facto wives of Parliamentarians and the ABC's Commissioners decision to allow de facto and homosexual partners of ABC staff to travel at public expense, and that the Government should introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications, (2) Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes, (3) Protect Australians and those who enter into de jure (legal) marriages, and their families, from exploitation and the encroachment of immoral regulations and Acts into the traditional and Christian forms of life. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Fisher and Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows- That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilizing chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complains do not respond satisfactory to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensure that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. by Mr Cadman,Mr Hawker and Mr Rocher. 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 we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Inquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31st March, 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Carlton,Mr Hodgman and Mr Ruddock. 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. And 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. Your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cohen,Mr Tickner and Mr Uren. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territory or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Barry Jones and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery at the rate of 20% is an unfair and unjust burden on this important manufacturing industry and your petitioners therefore pray that confectionery be treated in a similar fashion to all other foods, including snack foods, which are exempt from sales tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Maher and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that objection is made to any proposal for the extension of the Port Wakefield Proof and Experimental Range. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that no such extension shall take place and that such a proposal will be rejected by Parliament. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The Federal Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. The Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad inquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and, 3. following the report of such a wide inquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We assert that TAFE, with over 1 million students, requires greatly improved resources if it is to continue to train Australia's skilled workforce effectively. 2. We call upon the Commonwealth Government to provide greatly increased funds to ensure that TAFE is accessible to all Australians, unlike the present time when thousands of people are turned away from TAFE colleges each year. 3. We urge the Commonwealth Government to equip TAFE workshops with the advanced technology used in modern Australian industries, and to expand TAFE's capital works program so that sufficient quality accommodation is available for TAFE teachers and students. 4. We ask that the Commonwealth Government greatly increase TAFE's recurrent expenditure, so that TAFE can respond quickly and flexibly to industry, Government and community demands. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth that the Australian flag reflects Australia's membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, her position in the southern hemisphere, and her federation of original colonies, and recognises that the flag is a symbol of pride for most Australians, such that several organisations, including the ALP, incorporate the flag in their motifs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will resist moves to change the Australian flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth- That ABC radio transmission from 4QA Mackay is antiquated and operates on transmitters installed in 1947-48 to service a region in which the area and population has doubled in the intervening 36 years, The signal from 4QA is below strength so that station 4QN at Townsville has a far better signal strength into the Mackay hinterland than 4QA, a distance of only 70 km from Mackay and over 300km from Townsville, The 4QN news programs are of no interest in the Mackay region and in emergency situations such as cyclones, the 4QA frequency has limited penetration within the region, That while FM programs are available in Rockhampton and Townsville, Mackay, with a regional population of 100,000 people, has been by-passed when towns of smaller size have the advantages of FM radio. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government and the Department of Communications will move urgently to rectify both these anomalies. 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 showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth That the Attorney-General with the agreement of the Federal Executive Council amended the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations under the Customs Act (1901), to permit the importation of obscene and indecent pornography into Australia without reference to the Australian people or the Australian Parliament. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will establish a Parliamentary Committee to take evidence from the people of Australia, such as the Judiciary, the Police, Welfare workers and Youth workers, the video industry , the media, those engaged in public health, private citizens, civic organisations, churches and other community groups, and report to Parliament on the effects of all pornography. 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 the certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the the guidelines for classification of video tapes and discs for sale and hire issued by the Film Censorship Board places no realistic restrictions 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 of 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 is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout the ACT respectfully showeth that: 1. We are concerned at the continued existence of oversized classes in ACT government schools and the effects on our children's learning. 2. We state our strong support for the recommendations of the Review of Primary Education in the ACT to reduce class sizes. 3. We call upon the Federal Government to develop a timetabled program to reduce class sizes in ACT government schools. As a first step we ask that funds be provided to ensure that (i) no kindergarten class has more than 20 pupils. ( ii) no Year 1 or 2 class has more than 25 pupils. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Labor Government's policy of automatically increasing the excise applying to beer increases the price of beer; eliminates the opportunity for public or parliamentary debate on a tax increase; perpetuates inflation; reduces job opportunities in the hotel and brewing industries. Your petitioners therefore urge the Government to immediately repeal those laws which automatically increase the excise on beer when the C.P.I. increases. 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Labor Government's policy of automatically increasing the ABRD fuel levy when the C.P.I. increases, increases the price of petrol; perpetuates inflation; increases the cost of goods to country people; reduces the living standards of all Australians; short changes motorists, as the extra funds raised are NOT spent on roads. Your petitioners urge the Government to give Australian motorists a better deal and immediately repeal those laws which automatically increase the price of petrol when the C.P.I. increases. 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 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 the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That 1. We are Australians who oppose the continued destruction of the Great Daintree region. 2. We urge that the Federal Government immediately regulate to prevent any further destruction of the rainforest of the Greater Daintree region by regulating under the provisions of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. 3. We suggest that sealing the Mulligan Highway between Cairns and Cooktown is an appropriate way of providing access to Bloomfield. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Reeves. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. That 'The Mining and export of Uranium be banned' Your petitioners humbly pray the Parliament assembled 'will enact legislation to ban uranium mining and export from Australia and seek to stop weapons testing in the pacific' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: Undermine civil liberties and religious freedom; Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action Hospitals, Doctors and Nurses, who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school 'community' provide an environment conducive to the development, including moral development of their children. Deny to parents their rights to have their children enjoy single-sex sporting activities e.g., boys cricket team, boys football team, et cetera. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament assembled should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of all principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. In 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 we are patients, colleagues and friends of Dr J. Martinick. That she is apparently being victimised by the Department of Health and the Federal Police regarding itemisation in 1983. That at no time in the last year the Department of Health Liaison officer or investigator had approached Dr Martinick to discuss any apparent problems. That the Federal Police who are not a representative of the Department of Health made the first contact with her. That we are perturbed that the normal procedure of investigating an irregularity was not adhered to in this case and we request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should clarify this situation and amend the Health Insurance Act if necessary to ensure that the Medical Practitioners in future receive a fair and just hearing. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This Petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That the penalties of a fine and three years suspension from Medicare imposed on Dr Rex Hood of Pingelly are out of all proportion to his offences; That neither Medicare nor Dr Hood's patients were put to increased expense by his unlawful acts; That the court action, administrative action and Medical Board inquiry in respect of the same acts constitute a form of triple jeopardy repugnant to the traditions of our legal system; and That the interests of the people of Pingelly were not considered. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Minister for Health rescind the suspension of Dr Hood; And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. 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 the phasing out of the recurrent grant to residential colleges will be detrimental to the ability of disadvantaged and country students to receive a tertiary education. That alternative arrangements to fund needy students will be of no net benefit to those students, owing to the higher costs of administering such arrangements. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the recurrent grant to residential colleges be maintained as the most efficient and equitable means of ensuring that all citizens, irrespective of background, have equal opportunity to receive a tertiary education. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: The Australian Aerospace Manufacturing Industry has not been developed to its full growth potential through lack of Government commitment and planning. Local industry has not been allowed to fully participate in designing, developing and manufacturing Australia's Aerospace requirements. Whilst the Hawke Labor Government's recent announcement by Senator Button to address the industry's problems are a welcome change. These opportunities will only be fully realised if there is proper consultation with unions before decisions on equipment purchases are made. It is essential that the Government take account of points raised in the A.C.T. U. endorsed C.U.S.C. Future of the Aircraft Industry including the following points. Development of the Australian Aerospace Manufacturing Industry requires participation as a full partner through co-production with overseas manufacturers. To fully realise significant export potential requires the Australian Government to fund through the A.I.D.C. design and development costs. To avoid previous mistakes in equipment purchases which failed to take account of workload requirements for the local industry e.g. FIII and FA/18. Your Petitioners therefore, humbly pray that the Government, prior to a decision being made to purchase helicopters for the R.A.N., that there be full consultation with the Unions on which helicopter is to be purchased, to establish which helicopter purchase would be in the best interest of the industries development as well as the nation's defence needs. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scholes. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows their concern for the present unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental and technical problems associated with the mining of uranium, the development of nuclear power and the proliferation of Nuclear weapons. And your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: 1. prohibit the establishment in Australia of nuclear power plants and all other stages of nuclear fuel cycle. 2. declare a moratorium on all mining and treatment of Uranium in Australia. 3. prohibit the export of Australian uranium. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: That we strongly urge the Australian Government to immediately start a diplomatic initiative through the auspecies of the United Nations, to bring about a genuine act of self determination by the East Timorese people. The initiative should involve Fretelin, Indonesia and Portugal and its aim should be the free, democratic consultation of the East Timorese people on the issue of independence or becoming part of Indonesia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government make an immediate start on this initiative for an act of self determination by the East Timorese. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr West. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take not action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann,Mr Braithwaite and Mr Scholes. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Authorities in Australia shows considerable concern that the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program levy, at 2 cents per litre on petrol and diesel, was indexed in the 1984 budget, but that funds raised from indexation of the levy will go into consolidated revenue, and not specifically into expenditure on road funds. It has been estimated that indexation of the levy will raise $491m over the next six years to 1988-89, of which Local Government could have expected to receive $58m. This is a further denial of funds to Local Government, following $13m lost this year from Personal Income Tax Sharing entitlements. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will amend the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act, such that funds raised through indexation of the levy will be placed in the Trust Fund, and used for much needed road construction work. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of Roche Products Pty Limited located in the Division of Mackellar, N.S.W., respectfully showeth that the pharmaceutical industry in Australia views with concern the trend in Government policy to pay insufficient attention to the importance of brand-name products. Since the progress in development of new, safe and effective drugs is vitally dependent on the economic viability of a research-based pharmaceutical industry; Since the viability is a pre-condition for continued employment of our well educated and skilled workforce in all aspects of the industry activity; Since full information and reliable technical back-up can only be provided in easily accessible form from product information supplied by the research-based companies which are product originators, your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government initiate policies which ensure that continued access of Australians to safe and effective drugs is secured. And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the citizens of New South Wales respectfully show: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; Alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; Alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; Alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effects 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 Mr Maher. To the Honourable the Speaker and 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. 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. Half these threatened sackings. 2. Implement Labor policy and establish a National Coal Authority. 3. Increase Government intervention in the mines if the companies refuse to withdraw the threatened retrenchments. by Mr West. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned Dawson Waldron, solicitors of 60 Martin Place, Sydney, in the State of New South Wales. Respectively showeth: 1. Your petitioner is a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of Mirror Newspapers Limited and Greg Hartung who are defendants in an action for damages for defamation brought by Anthony Allan Staley and commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The said action has been set down for hearing commencing March 4, 1985. 2. The publication of which Mr Staley complains is material appearing in the Daily Telegraph on August 20, 1982 under the heading ''Staley linked to tax fraud firm''. The text of that material is set out in the First Schedule of this Petition. 3. In defence of Mr Staley's action, Mirror Newspapers and Greg Hartung rely ( inter alia) upon a defence of fair protected report of proceedings in public of this House on August 19, 1982. The reference to those proceedings is set out in the Second Schedule of this Petition. 4. In reply Mr Staley alleges that Mirror Newspapers and Mr Hartung were actuated by express malice and ill-will, did not act in good faith for the information of the public or the advancement of education and that the material did not represent the opinion of Mr Hartung as the servant or agent of Mirror Newspapers. 5. In order to meet any evidence which Mr Staley might adduce to the contrary Mirror Newspapers and Mr Hartung have been advised that it will be necessary for them to adduce in evidence and make reference to or otherwise use in the presentation of their case full and official records of the proceedings of this House on August 19, 1982 and full records of the ''Greens'' for the same day and the evidence of the officers of the Parliamentary Reporting staff who were present during the proceedings and the then and present principal parliamentary reporters and assistant parliamentary reporters. For the above purposes it will also be necessary for proofs of evidence to be taken from the abovementioned persons. 6. Mirror Newspapers and Mr Hartung have been advised further that the proper procedure for obtaining the right to adduce in evidence and make references to and otherwise use in Court in the presentation of their case the full and official record of the said proceedings and the proceedings themselves and further to adduce in evidence the ''Greens'' and the evidence of the officers of the Parliamentary Reporting staff who were present during the said proceedings the then present principal parliamentary reporters and assistant parliamentary reporters is to petition this House and seek its leave (see Church of Scientology v Johnston-Smith (1972) 1 AllER 378; Finnane v Australian Consolidated Press and Ors (1978) 2 NSWLR 435; and Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Limited (1979) 2 NSWLR 287). 7. Mirror Newspapers and Mr Hartung have been further advised that proving as a fact of what was said in this House on August 19, 1982 would be in accordance with the principles laid down in Church of Scientology v Johnston-Smith (1972) 1 AllER 378; Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd (1960) AllER 294; Mundey v Askin ( 1982) 2 NSWLR 369; Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1; Finnane v Australian Consolidated Press and Ors (1978) 2 NSWLR 435; and Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Limited (1979) 2 NSWLR 287. 8. Your Petitioner therefore humbly prays that your Honourable House will grant leave: (a) to your Petitioner and to Mirror Newspapers Limited and Greg Hartung to issue and serve subpoenas for the production of the relevant official records of the proceedings of this House and the 'Green' referred to above; (b) to your Petitioner and to Mirror Newspapers Limited and Greg Hartung to adduce the said official records of the proceedings as evidence of what was in fact said in the House; (c) to an appropriate officer or officers of the House to attend in Court and produce the said official records of proceedings and to give evidence in relation to the recording of proceedings providing that such officer or officers should not be required to attend at any time which would prevent the performance of their duties in the Parliament; (d) to your Petitioner and Mirror Newspapers Limited and Greg Hartung to interview and obtain proofs of evidence from the said officers of the Parliamentary Reporting staff and the principal and assistant parliamentary reporters and to issue and serve subpoenae for their attendance on the trial of the said action. FIRST SCHEDULE STALEY LINKED TO 'TAX FRAUD' FIRM. IMPORTED PLANE SOLD. BY GREG HARTUNG. A former federal Minister was linked yesterday with a company alleged to have defrauded the Taxation Department of $800,000. He is the former Post and Telecommunications Minister, Mr Tony Staley, who resigned from Parliament before the 1980 elections. Mr Staley returned to private industry to become the director of several companies, including the aviation firm, Jet Corporation of Melbourne. A spokesman for Mr Staley said last night: 'The transaction referred to in Parliament today occurred prior to the incorporation of Jet Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd'. 'Mr Staley is therefore in no position to comment on the accuracy of the statement'. A Labor MP, Mr Barry Cunningham, claimed in Parliament that the company obtained an investment allowance on an aircraft it had flown to Australia in June 1981 and later sold to a South Australian syndicate. Only new aircraft are entitled to the allowance-but the aircraft brought in by Jet Corporation was four years old and had a record of 1000 flying hours. Mr Cunningham alleged that the Casa 200 series 212 aircraft was valued at $1 million and was sold as a new aircraft to a South Australian syndicate for $2 million. Mr Cunningham said Mr Staley was the part-time chairman of Jet Corporation, which imports new and second hand aircraft. 'On the surface this looked like a normal business investment flowing from the Fraser Government's 40 per cent investment allowance', he said. 'But Jet Corporation defrauded these investors in a big way because the aircraft was declared for tax purposes as new'. He had been told by the Customs Department in Victoria that the matter was ' under investigation'. Photograph of the plaintiff with the caption 'Mr Tony Staley . . . director'. SECOND SCHEDULE House of Representatives, Weekly Hansard, No. 9 1982 Thirty-Second Parliament, First Session-Fifth Period 17, 18, 19 August 1982: 19 August 1982 Pages 694, 695 and 696 Grievance Debate. Mr Cunningham (Member for McMillan) And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray Mr Sinclair-Mr Speaker, may I ask, as a matter of procedure, the nature of that request and the petition? Could I ask the Leader of the House to give his response? Mr SPEAKER-I am advised that the petition has only been presented, so there has not been time to consider the petition. Mr SINCLAIR (New England)—Leader of the National Party of Australia)-I seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER—I will allow the right honourable member indulgence. Mr SINCLAIR—The petition, by its nature, is obviously one that bears consideration in relation to precedents before the House. I know nothing of it other than that I heard its presentation. Obviously, it involves matters which would need reporting to the chamber. Could I ask you, Mr Speaker, after consideration and consultation with the Leader of the House, to make a report to the House? If action is desired to be taken, could the House be advised? Mr SPEAKER—I think what the Leader of the National Party suggests is the appropriate course. The petition has just been received, so there has been no time for consideration. I undertake to look at the precedents and report back to the House. by Mr Young. Petitions received. Assent to the following Bills reported: Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1984 Sales Tax (Nos. 1 to 9) Amendment Bills 1984 Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 2) Bill 1984 Patents Amendment Bill 1984 Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill 1984 Loan Bill 1984 [COGNATE BILLS: INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1984 INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1984 and the Income Tax ( International Agreements) Amendment Bill 1984 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of these Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the three measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(8.23) —The Bills now before the House cover a very wide range of matters relating to the taxation law, and there are a number of matters that on behalf of the Opposition I would like to canvass. The Bills fall into two categories. Firstly, there are those provisions that deal with the significant strengthening of penalties for breaches of the taxation law, which was foreshadowed by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) a few weeks ago. Secondly, there are those that give effect to the general changes to the taxation law that were announced in the Budget and other changes to the taxation law which have been announced over the last few weeks and to which, until now, the Government has not given legislative effect. However, before I move to deal in particular with those Bills, there are a few general things I wish to say. It is customary when this House debates taxation Bills for honourable members on both sides of the House to say a few general things on the subject. I welcome the opportunity, as I always do, to say a few general things about taxation, and no doubt honourable members on the Government benches will also have a few things to say. Presumably, we are in the dying stages of this Parliament and fairly shortly, so we are assured by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), we shall be told the date of the election and the Australian people will be going to the polls. It is therefore appropriate that we talk about taxation in the time that remains for the sittings of this Parliament. In fact, I think we should debate taxation every day the Parliament continues to sit. If ever there is an issue on which the Australian people are entitled to have answers from the two political parties, it is the question of taxation. The other day I had the opportunity of hearing an excerpt from the Treasurer's address to a gathering of the Australian-American Association in New York. He was talking about economic changes in Australia over the last year or two and he made an interesting statement. He said that the next thing on our agenda is the reform of our taxation system and our taxation structure. I agree with the Treasurer, as do many people out in the community on both sides of politics, that some fairly significant changes to our taxation laws not only are necessary but would also be in the national interest. I welcome the fact that the Treasurer recognises this. Recognition of this factor places a strong obligation on the Government to tell the Australian public, before the election, the changes it has in mind for the Australian taxation system, if the Government is returned at the next election. The Opposition will be making clear its position on taxation matters in the course of the next couple of weeks. We shall be announcing a detailed alternative taxation policy. Not only will that be an attractive and credible alternative taxation policy, but its very release will place the onus on the Hawke Government to tell the Australian public what it intends to do with the taxation system if the Government is returned at the next election. I give notice to the Government that it will not be enough for the Prime Minister to wave his arms around in the messianic way he adopts and say: 'Leave it to me; trust me. Leave it to the Economic Planning and Advisory Council. I shall talk to everybody about it. It will be very fair and equitable and you will all be better off. Taxation will not go up and everything in the garden will be lovely'. That will not be enough. Australians want to know whether we are to have a capital gains tax and reintroduction of death duties. It is appropriate that my colleague the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) should enter the chamber at the moment I mention this topic. We all remember that it was the Liberal-National Party Government in Queensland that pioneered the removal of probate in this country. Therefore, the Australian people not only in the electorate of McPherson but also in those marginal electorates throughout Australia that will attract a great deal of attention in the next couple of months will want to know what reform of the tax system the Treasurer had in mind when he tabled to his New York audience. It is not good enough for the Treasurer to go over to New York and say 'We must reform the tax system' without telling us how it is to be done. We shall be all ears and give him plenty of time. I shall listen most attentively. If the Treasurer or the Prime Minister want to come into the House before Parliament gets up and tell us what reforms to the Australian tax system they have in mind if re-elected, they will be given plenty of co-operation to do so by the Opposition. We think that the Hawke Government should come clean before the election. It is not good enough for the Treasurer to say 'I believe in changing the tax system' and to have an obligation to explain how. There is another reason why he has a special obligation to come clean and tell us what he intends to do if re-elected . There is the little problem of what is to happen with next year's Budget-a problem that must be faced by whoever is elected at the end of this year. There is now a growing community acceptance, at first doubtful in many quarters, particularly among economic commentators that this year's Budget, short-sighted as it is, has created a significant revenue problem for next year. I do not always agree with the Queensland Premier, but I certainly agreed with him a few days ago when I heard him on AM say he believed there would be a mini-Budget if the Hawke Government were re-elected. I think Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen was dead right when he made that statement. In fact, in saying that he was echoing views that have been expressed by a number of us. Next year there will be one great revenue hole. We all know that the Government has locked itself into an escalation of expenditure next year which it cannot get away from unless it breaks a whole lot of commitments in areas such as health and education. We will be all ears to know whether those commitments are broken during the course of the next election campaign. With that commitment to expenditure increase not be be avoided or withdrawn from, the Government will have a very significant revenue problem next year. It will have to make a decision. It will have to decide whether to break some of its expenditure commitments, to live with an absolutely unmanageably large deficit or to increase taxation. The Prime Minister has said on two separate occasions over the last three weeks that any reform of the Australian taxation system carried out by his Government if it is re-elected will not involve any increase in the overall level of taxation. I say to the Prime Minister, and many economic commentators of independent political persuasion would also say to him, that if he is to have a responsible Budget next year it will not be possible for him to keep that promise unless he is to walk away from a whole range of commitments in the expenditure area that he has made because next year this country will not have the benefit of the enormous surge in personal tax collections that the Government has enjoyed this year. We will not have that 45 per cent increase in provisional tax collections. We will not have the largest real increase in tax collections of any Budget since the end of World War II. Next year revenue growth will be much more subdued. In the face of ever-rising expenditure commitments, that will produce an enormous gap. That is the gap the Prime Minister has to address between now and election day. The Australian people want to know whether there will be a mini-Budget; they want to know what will be in that mini-Budget; they want to know what new taxes will be in that mini-Budget; and they want to know what existing taxes will be increased. If they are not given those answers they will be entitled to conclude that the Prime Minister will break many of the expenditure commitments that have been made as recently as a few months ago. I am not dealing here in political fantasy. I am not dealing in political rhetoric. I am dealing in plain, simple fact. Next year the Government will not have the huge rise in expenditure that it had this year that would have enabled any Treasurer to achieve a reduction in the deficit and give the taxation cut that the Treasurer has given. One does not break a drought twice. One breaks it only once. One has to have another drought before one breaks it again. Of course , next year the Treasurer will not have the benefit of that and of an enormous surge in provisional tax collections. So I say to the Government that we welcome a debate once again on taxation because this Government has a lot of explaining to do. I believe that this Government will introduce a capital gains tax and probably a wealth tax if it is re-elected. I want the Prime Minister to say where he stands on those two measures. It is not good enough to say that he will reform the tax system. That could mean all things to all men. It means absolutely nothing in reality. He has to tell us what form a capital gains tax would take. He has to tell us whether he will reintroduce death duties. He has to tell us what he will do on the indirect taxation front. He has to tell us what he will do on the personal taxation front. Those things will all be canvassed by the Opposition when it produces its alternative taxation policy. So there will be no excuse for the Government to say: 'You cannot really expect us to come clean about these things before an election'. There will be no escaping the responsibility that the Government will carry. It is very important that in this election campaign the Government comes completely clean. The Australian people are entitled to be suspicious of the taxing policies of the Hawke Government. It may have escaped notice in some of the comments that have been made about the last Budget that it contained the largest taxation take of any Budget brought down in Australia since the end of World War II. The total taxation collections under this Budget are 27.9 per cent of gross domestic product, which is the largest taxation take of any Budget since the end of World War II. Of course, coincidentally, the expenditure take of this Budget, at 31.1 per cent of gross domestic product, is the largest expenditure take of any Budget in Australian peacetime history. So one can conclude from those figures that this is the largest taxing and largest spending Budget that this country has seen. That is not a description that the Government enjoys. It is certainly not a description that the Treasurer enjoys. He spent a large amount of his time trying to prove that a tax is not a tax. It is remarkable that he is inviting us to forget about the Medicare levy. The Australian public who are paying it are not forgetting about it. The Australian public, many of whom are now receiving taxation refunds or have received taxation refunds over the last few weeks, will have noticed a difference. They will have noticed that certain taxation rebates are no longer obtainable. They will have noticed that they are getting debit assessments for the first time in a couple of years because of the disappearance of so many taxation rebates. No wonder the Treasurer wants to prove that a tax is not a tax. No wonder he wants us to believe that the Medicare levy ought to be completely discounted. He has invented the new-fangled economic theory that one does not count Medicare expenditure as part of outlays and that one does not count the health care levy as part of receipts because it would have been easy for the Government to have left it in the private sector. If it was easy for the Government to have left it in the private sector, why did it not do so? It said it was a matter of national interest and important to our health system that we bring health insurance into the Commonwealth Budget. Having done that, having defended it, having written to all of us and said that it was cheaper and fairer for that to occur, it now does not like the inevitable budgetary consequences. The fact is that Medicare has added $2 billion or thereabouts to the health expenditures of the Commonwealth Budget. The levy has added $1.2 billion to the taxation collections of the Commonwealth as a result of the Government's policies. The Government is stuck with the implications of that and it cannot wriggle out of them. The Treasurer cannot re-write simple arithmetic and pretend that a tax is not a tax and that a $2 billion expenditure is not a $2 billion expenditure. It is, everybody knows it is. We are all paying more in tax to pay for Medicare. That has added enormously to the health expenditures of the Commonwealth Budget. All the statistical gyrations under the sun from the Treasurer cannot possibly alter those matters. I give an example of the way in which taxation rebates have disappeared over the last couple of months. It is take from today's Niemeyer statement. That is the name given to the monthly statement of receipts and expenditure of the Commonwealth Government. It was released today by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). It contained a very interesting figure which demonstrates the way in which taxation rebates have self-destructed under the present Government. It shows that there has been a 20 per cent rise in gross pay as you earn taxation collections over the first two months of 1984-85, there has been a 31 per cent reduction in PAYE refunds and a 33 per cent jump in net PAYE tax receipts. What all of that means is that because of the removal of the health care and housing rebates and other taxation changes made by this Government, hundreds of thousands, perhaps several million, Australians who otherwise would have received taxation refunds have not done so and that, in fact, many of those taxpayers are finding, for the first time in a couple of years, that, instead of having a refund, as a result of these rebates they are getting debit assessments . So it is no wonder that they will want some answers. They will want the Prime Minister to tell them what he is going to do about a capital gains tax, a wealth tax, indirect taxation and the reintroduction of death duties and estate duties. We want simple answers-yes or no. Will we have a capital gains tax? It is not good enough to say: 'I am sending it off to the Economic Planning Advisory Council'. That does not prove a thing. We can all send it off to EPAC. EPAC is not running the country. We want a policy statement from the Prime Minister on capital gains, wealth taxes, death duties and the like. We will be making a policy statement. We will be saying what we are going to do in those areas. We want the Government to do exactly the same thing. A whole lot of generalised hocus pocus about what we will or will not do and some calm evangelical words of reassurance will not be enough from the Prime Minister. We want something far more than that. The more specific comments I shall make before my time runs out relate firstly to that part of the legislation under debate that deals with increases and the introduction of new penalties under the Income Tax Assessment Act. I do not have enough time at the second reading stage to deal in detail with all of them but I will try to summarise the position of the Opposition. The Opposition welcomes many of the changes proposed by the Government. We think they are necessary and supportable and they will have our support. The House will be aware that the review of penalties, of which these proposals are the culmination, was started during the time that the last Government was in office. It is not only for that reason but partly for it that we naturally support many of the changes that have been put forward. It is necessary to update financial penalties from time to time and some of the measures proposed by the Government are certainly overdue. That has to be a comment about not only the present Government but also the former Government and I quite happily acknowledge that. Having indicated general support for the measures proposed by the Government, one or two worry the Opposition. We are worried, as is the Law Council of Australia, about the proposal to reverse the onus of proof so far as it affects officers of companies who might be liable for taxation neglect and taxation offences of the company. Frankly, we are at a loss to understand the reasons why a reversal of the onus of proof is thought necessary by the Government. I say on behalf of the Opposition that we would welcome an explanation from the Treasurer as to why he believes, on behalf of the Government, that a reversal of the onus of proof can be defended and justified. In the words of the Law Council-I quote from its letter to the Treasurer which was made public this morning-it is 'a staggering and unprecedented reversal of the onus of proof, imposing an improper and unnecessary burden and a change in the fundamental rights of every Australian'. That is a very heavy criticism from a respected body. I do not automatically adopt everything put to me by the Law Council. It was not my practice when I was Treasurer to do so, as members of the Law Council will be aware. But I tried to listen very carefully. I think people of the Law Council will be aware in particular that when I was Treasurer and was involved in drafting the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act, which became law in December 1980, I acceded to a number of requests put to me from the Law Council. One of those, if my recollection serves me correctly, related to the reversal of the onus of proof. The changes I agreed to make were sensible. I do not believe they have impaired the operation of that legislation. Again, if my memory serves me correctly, one of the areas of conflict when that legislation was being debated during 1980 was the onus of proof provisions. There were some who thought that a reversal of the onus of proof was necessary. Others thought it was unnecessary. In the end the latter group substantially won the argument and I do not believe it has impaired the operation of the Act. My understanding is that the Crimes (Taxation Offences ) Act has worked extraordinarily well. Despite some of the obiter dicta of one of the reports brought down in 1982-not the Costigan report; the McCabe- Lafranchi report-the advice given to me by the Australian Taxation Office at the time was that on all the evidence the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act worked extremely well without the necessity of reversing the onus of proof. That adds to my concern about the reversal of the onus of proof on this occasion. The Opposition is unhappy about it. We want an explanation of why the Government thinks it is necessary. If we are not satisfied with that explanation it will be our intention in another place to propose the excision of this provision from the Bill and the sending of that provision to a Senate committee for examination as to its possible effect. It will be necessary for the Liberal and National parties to secure the support of other senators to achieve that course of action . In proposing that course of action I make it perfectly clear that the Opposition does not object in any way to sensible increases in penalties. We are not in that business. We have no patience, any more than the Government or the Law Council of Australia, with objections to sensible increases in penalties but we are worried about reversing the onus of proof. Some will argue that there is a reverse onus of proof in provisions of the Companies Act. That may well be the case. It may well be that that was an error. If so, that ought to be criticised too but reversing the onus of proof is a very serious matter which ought not to happen lightly. I have not seen on the face of the Treasurer's statement sufficient and cogent reasons why the onus of proof ought to be reversed on this occasion. I therefore ask the Treasurer to provide to the House an explanation of and a justification for the Government's decision to reverse the onus of proof. It is significant enough to lift the corporate veil in these areas and impose an obligation on company officers personally for the neglect and default of companies in taxation matters. It is going a great deal further, having lifted the corporate veil, to reverse the onus of proof and put people at risk of liberty and financial penalty. We want an explanation of that. If we are not satisfied with it we cannot support the provision. But we will not simply vote it down. We will vote to send it to a committee for further examination. That is a sensible, responsible and constructive response to something that ought to concern people whatever their politics. We had a sermon this afternoon from the Prime Minister about civil rights and people being judged guilty before they are proved guilty. What is reversing the onus of proof? We cannot have any starker and more simple demonstration of making presumptions. I know there are cases where, from an evidentiary point of view, when we are dealing with state of mind and the like it becomes almost impossible to prove things in the normal manner carrying the normal burden of proof. That in itself does not discharge the Government from a responsibility to justify what it proposes to do. The Opposition is also concerned that prosecutions can now be brought without limitation of time and that this might impose an impossible burden on a director or person involved in the management of a company who had little to do with taxation affairs but who five, 10 or 15 years later may not have had the evidence available to prove beyond reasonable doubt in a court that he was not knowingly concerned in that offence. That concern has been raised with us by the Law Council and it underlines our concern about the existence of a reverse onus of proof. I should also mention some of the other concerns that have been put to the Government and other honourable members by the Law Council, such as the provision that the 200 per cent penalties should apply automatically and that the Commissioner's discretion is the only protection against undue oppressive action. The Council also takes the strongest possible objection to granting the power to arrest, charge and remand in custody a person, without the consent of the Attorney-General or his delegate, under the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act. I recall that this provision was introduced by me at the last moment into the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act in response to representations by the Law Council and the Law Society of New South Wales. There was debate at the time. I once again fall back on the argument I used a few moments ago that it does not appear to me, from any of the evidence presented to me, that the changes and the safeguards I put into the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act have impaired its operation. The evidence is that that Act certainly brought bottom of the harbour tax transactions to an abrupt end in December 1980 when it was brought in. The Law Council has requested that the Bill lie on the table of the House to allow more consideration. That would certainly be a very desirable course of action and one that I think the Government ought to consider. I think the Government will have to concede that, in the haste to get the Parliament up and get onto the election trail, there has not been enough time for this Bill to be considered. I would hope that the Government- Mr Cunningham —That is only rumour mongering. Mr HOWARD —It is only a rumour that we have not been given enough time? The honourable member could have fooled me. Mr Cunningham —About the election. Mr HOWARD —About the election; that is very interesting indeed. Can I quote the honourable member on it? Mr Cunningham —No. Mr HOWARD —No, I did not think so. I think the Bill has been prepared in great haste. But above everything else the provision that we are most concerned about is the one relating to onus of proof. In the couple of minutes left to me, I wish to raise one matter relating to Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 4), that is , the measure which provides tax deductibility for gifts of fodder and stock as from 21 August 1984. The problem with this is that the Bill will not cover gifts of the kind that were given in relation to the Ash Wednesday fires and the drought that preceded them. It is my understanding that both the former Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister gave undertakings during the last election that any gifts of fodder or stock would attract the same tax deductibility as gifts of cash. Mr Cunningham —Provided it was in the right year. Mr HOWARD —The honourable member for McMillan interjects: 'Provided it was in the right year'. I am not trying to score any political point but the problem is that, if the date is not altered back to 30 June 1982, anything of this kind given in relation to the Ash Wednesday catastrophe will not attract tax deductibility. It is my understanding that that was the intention both of the former Government and the present Government. That has not been carried forward in the Bill because it provides for an amendment to the law from 21 August 1984. If that is the Government's decision, we will be moving an amendment during the Committee stage. That is fair enough. I just point that out to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). It will not alter the election result in his electorate. But I think it is something that ought to be- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(8.53) —It is very pleasing at this time of the day to be back on economic matters in the Parliament. I know that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) who has just sat down was pleased to be discussing economic matters. I am sure that we on this side are, too. The only point that one ought to make at this stage is that it has been a matter of considerable concern in the community that, over the last couple of week, so much of the time of the Parliament has been wasted on allegations, smears and spurious argument. It is good to be talking about something of substance to the Australian community rather than these more headline grabbing but, at the same time, relatively peripheral matters in terms of the concerns of the Australian community. That is why this Government takes a great deal of pleasure in relation to its tax policy. I need to take up a couple of points about which the honourable member for Bennelong spoke. He said that there was some doubt as to where we were heading with respect to tax policy. I would have thought that two things were very clear in that respect: In terms of consumers, we are doing something as far as tax policies are concerned. I will talk about that in a moment. In other words, we are reducing the burden of taxation on consumers and in terms of business, we have made some reforms with respect to taxation policy. So quite clearly we have intentions to reform the tax system. If we look at the Budget and at the enabling legislation with respect to the Budget we see quite clearly that we are setting about reforming the tax system. I acknowledge that these are measures that have some support from the Opposition. They are measures that are due as far as the Australian community is concerned and we take them very seriously. I noted that the honourable member for Bennelong also spent a lot of time talking about next year's Budget. I think that he, as well as others opposite, recognise that this year's Budget has been successful. In many senses it is an almost forgone conclusion that the Budget has been received well by the financial community and by the electorate generally. I acknowledge that, when members of the Opposition are talking about economic matters, much of the time they are speculating about the future rather than dealing with the present. The present circumstances are that we have given tax cuts in the Budget. We have also made some reforms with respect to the impact of the taxation system on business. I will talk about those later. There is one issue that I wanted to address very briefly, that is, the removal of the bank accounts debits tax from school parents and citizens associations and other support groups. I know that many honourable members in this chamber are pleased with that amendment to the tax system. This measure, which was introduced by the previous Government, put an unnecessary burden on parents and citizens associations and parents and friends associations. It meant that they were paying what amounted to a charge on their accounts when they were voluntary organisations supporting schools. I am pleased that, in this legislation, the Government is moving towards removing those provisions as they applied to parents and citizens associations and parents and friends associations. It will be a significant burden to be lifted from those organisations. I wish to mention one other thing that I think underpins the entire approach to taxation that the Opposition has missed. This is one of the reasons why, towards the end of the period of the former government a great deal of anger developed in the community. I think the honourable member for Bennelong recognised this. Unfortunately he was not able to generate enough support from within the Government to move quickly enough. There was anger that a great deal of inequity was developing in terms of the Australian tax system. People were avoiding paying tax and they were doing so quite deliberately. I say to the honourable member for Bennelong that, when he talks about the question of the burden of proof and the reversal of that onus of proof, he has to remember there were people in the community who set out deliberately to defraud the tax system. They set out to defraud it when the honourable member was Treasurer. They set out to defraud it in all sorts of circumstances. We are not laying the blame entirely at his feet but we have to remember as a community that, if we are going to ask pay-as-you-earn taxpayers to pay tax-and we are-we also have to remember the responsibility of others to pay tax. One of the problems that the previous Government ran into was that a great deal of anger was generated in the community because of the fact that it was seen as being too slow in dealing with this question of tax avoidance and evasion. What we are tying to do with respect to these tax measures is to say, quite seriously : 'We have a prices and incomes accord. Part of that prices and incomes accord is to deal with the question of wage indexation and the effective development of a number of social policy goals. But the other part of our prices and incomes accord is to introduce some degree of fairness and equity into the tax system'. That is what we are about. That is what this legislation is about. It has to be constantly before this community and this chamber that, when we talk about the question of offences and penalties in relation to taxation, there were people in the community, and still are people in the community, who sought deliberately to defraud the tax system. It is very difficult to ask those who are honestly paying tax to accept that mutely and at the same time for us to spend a lot of time being terribly concerned about people who are defrauding the tax system. So I remind members of the Opposition that, when they talk about issues of penalties and tax avoidance, they have to be clear that there are people who do not have any choice with respect to paying tax. We have a responsibility to be concerned about them as well. We are on their side. We were so concerned that we reduced taxes in the Budget. That is another point to make. In fact, a substantial number of taxpayers will have a reduction in the burden of taxation imposed upon them. (Quorum formed) It is no wonder that members of the Opposition chose to call a quorum, because their record in tax administration is sloppy indeed. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) has to face the reality that the previous Government, when it was tossed out-he would have sought to be part of that government-was a very slack government when it came to tax administration. The Australian electorate was very dissatisfied with the previous Government. I also remind the honourable member for McPherson that his Treasurer was discredited by the Australian people on the $9.6 billion deficit. It is little wonder that Opposition members have to interrupt this debate. The facts do not sit very well with honourable members opposite. We and the Australian community recognise that. Honourable members opposite did not prosecute tax avoidance and evasion; they hid it away and let it persist under a very negligent Treasurer and a very negligent Attorney- General. It is no wonder that honourable members opposite chose to interrupt this debate when we are trying to get something going. The only tactic of Opposition members is to smear and to malign people. As soon as we talk about something substantial in economic terms honourable members opposite start to quake at the knees. No wonder, history is all against them. Opposition members are absolute economic vandals. Their performance was disgraceful. It is little wonder that they want to disrupt this sort of debate. That is all right because they will be tested very soon by the Australian community in the same way they were in March 1983 and they will be found wanting . The Australian community knows it and this side knows it. I want to mention two other points. This Government is increasing the depreciation allowance on new buildings from 2.5 per cent to 4 per cent, which means that business investment will be stimulated. Business will be able to write off buildings in 25 years compared with 40 years. That will be a great stimulus to investment. Where companies are operating as groups, they will be able to set off losses within one section of a company against profits in another. That will also enable investment to take place in the corporate sector. In regard to mining exploration, one of the major amendments in this legislation is to enable businesses to set off losses incurred in mineral exploration against profits in other divisions of companies. They are three major provisions that will have a major stimulating effect on the business sector of the economy. Opposition members know that. The other major provision is the tax cuts for consumers which will lead to even further economic recovery. I have already mentioned the removal of the bank account debit tax. That is a major move as far as we are concerned as it will help parents and citizens and parents and friends organisations. We are honouring that commitment. Time is against me, but I will close by saying: When Opposition members opposite ask us to tell them what we are going to do we know that they will distort it in the same way that we find them distorting arguments about immigration, the assets test, lump sum taxation and certainly about matters involving the judiciary. They cannot be trusted. Is it little wonder that we do not bring them into our confidence? We do bring members of the Australian community into our confidence because at least we know we can trust them, whereas they know that they cannot trust the Opposition. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(9.05) —The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1984 seeks to lift the corporate veil, impose a reverse onus of proof, reinstitute the need for taxation clearances for taxpayers with an outstanding liability travelling overseas and extends garnishee provisions to building societies. There have been one or two interjections about small business. I will be very pleased to deal with that matter because I want to look at this legislation particularly from a small business point of view. I point out to the honourable members who have been interjecting that small business is the big employer in this country; it is the key to the Australian economy. Of some 750,000 enterprises in Australia, 93 per cent employ fewer than 10 people. The bulk of the Australian economy is indeed small business. The Government needs to understand that clearly. When I point out what it is doing to small business and the harm it is rendering small business in this legislation, I hope that it will withdraw the legislation and redraft it. Let me look at the question of going behind the corporate veil and reversing the onus of proof. There are two issues. The Government has gone behind the corporate veil, which is serious enough in itself, but then actually to reverse the onus of proof to make directors and others concerned in the management of a company punishable for tax offences committed by the company other than where the person can show that he or she was not implicated in the particular act or omission is a fundamental change to the law of this country and a fundamental denial of rights to taxpayers. It is denying taxpayers, managers and directors of companies, due process of the law. They are being deemed to be guilty before they are proved innocent, not innocent before they are proved guilty. Every small business director of every company in Australia has been told by this Government that he or she cannot be trusted. This amendment offends against my general position on onus of proof because, apart from lifting the veil as I have said, it reverses what is basic law in this country. I think that is quite fundamental and it is frightening indeed because every small businessman or woman in Australia is being told by this Government that he or she is guilty before being proved innocent. He or she is being denied the normal application of law and there is a presumption of guilt. This Government has come to this House with this legislation and is saying to every director of every small company and corporation in Australia: 'You are guilty of a taxation offence unless you can prove otherwise that you are not'. So every small business in Australia is being presumed guilty before innocent in the eyes of this Government and the Commissioner of Taxation by this legislation . That is a very fundamental change. It proves again to me that small business does not matter to this Government. This Government gives only lip-service to the importance of the small business sector in the economy, because it is a trade union government. As we know, the Labor Party of Australia is the parliamentary wing of the union movement. It has the prices and incomes accord. Mr Braithwaite —Just an extension of it. Mr SHIPTON —My colleague reminds me it is only an extension of the union movement, which it is, and no one in the Government denies that. We have reached the high point of union power in this country with the amendments to section 45D of the Trade Practices Act which will be discussed later in this session. Small firms are an anathema to trade unions and an anathema to socialists. The Government does not like small firms, it does not like prosperity or people making a profit or creating wealth because all it wants to do is bring them down and equalise them. To trade unions small firms are a threat because they create a prosperous middle class which is a threat to unionism, unions, socialism and the Labor Party. That ought to be made clear. What we should be doing in this country today for small business is reducing the amount of regulation and red tape rather than imposing further burdens on the small business sector. Mr Gear —The Prime Minister is doing it. Mr SHIPTON —He is not doing it. In this piece of legislation before the House today the Government is reversing the onus of proof and is placing the most incredible and fundamental burdens on every manager and director of every company in Australia, small or large. Mr Hurford —Absolute rubbish. Mr SHIPTON —The Minister interjects: 'Absolute rubbish'. I ask him to point out to me later where the absolute rubbish is. I point out and say to members of the business community in Australia representing large and small businesses alike: Look closely at this legislation because it is the most fundamental change to the rights of company directors and company managers that has ever been introduced into the Australian Parliament. I say that very seriously because it imposes a greater burden on management. It makes managers guilty before anything else. It is a burden that reflects a lack of faith and trust by this Government in business, particularly small business. There is no trust. This legislation in effect says to every company and corporation manager and director: 'You are guilty of a crime under this Act unless you can prove that you are not'. That is a kangaroo court, I would have thought. I see this legislation as part of an anti-business framework, part of a consistent attack on the business sector, particularly small business, which I have pointed out is the key to the economy. Rather than reducing the amount of regulation, this Government is increasing it. I agree that companies and individuals should pay taxation. I believe that Part IVA of the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act and the general enforcement provisions are strong enough to ensure that. If they are not, let us look at them. Submit amendments to them to the Opposition and the people and we will be reasonable about it, but do not bring in draconian legislation of this type in the dying days of the Parliament. No one disputes that people and companies should pay taxation, but there is no consensus, no consultation, in regard to this legislation. The most damning indictment of it comes from the Law Council of Australia, the eminent Federal council of bar associations and law societies all over the nation. It says that this is a staggering and unprecedented reversal of the onus of proof, imposing an improper and unnecessary burden and a change in the fundamental rights of every Australian, every taxpayer, large or small-the people whom the honourable member for Stirling professed to be concerned about a few moments ago. The Law Council says about the reversal of proof provision: In the view of the Law Council this provision should not be proceeded with. Certainly such a fundamental change should not be introduced without the public and experienced practitioners- law practitioners- having had the opportunity to consider the Bill and the explanatory memorandum so that proper public attention can be directed to these issues. The Minister has the insolence to tell me that the Prime Minister is reducing regulation in Australia today. That is today's funny story. The Government spoke earlier about its high-minded approach to people's fundamental rights before the law, and here we have this legislation totally reversing the onus of proof. Let us look at some of the provisions of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill before the House. I refer to proposed new Part VII of the Income Tax Assessment Act, proposed new section 222, Penalty for failure to furnish returns, in clause 152 of the Bill. The provision states, in part: Where a taxpayer . . . fails to furnish, when and as required . . . a return, or any information, relating to a year of income, being a return relating to or information relating to . . . the affairs of, the taxpayer, the taxpayer is liable to pay, by way of penalty, additional tax equal to double the amount of tax payable by the taxpayer in respect of the year of income. Then it goes on to say: Where . . . an amount of additional tax, being an amount less than $20, is payable by a taxpayer . . . the amount of the additional tax shall be taken to be $20. Let us look closely at this provision. I ask the Minister for Housing and Construction, who is at the table and whom I regard as a reasonable man, to look at this provision. Mr O'Neil —The kiss of death. Mr SHIPTON —I suggest to the honourable member interjecting that he look at it, because I believe that he is a reasonable man. I would have hoped that he did have a concern not only for small business but also for all taxpayers. This is one of the most fundamental amendments to the taxation law in Australia ever introduced because it applies to people whom the honourable member for Stirling professed he was concerned about-the ordinary, average taxpayer, the factory worker, the normal worker who pays pay-as-you-earn taxation. Mr Gear —The honest ones. Mr SHIPTON —It is not a nonsense. Just listen. Mr Gear —I said: 'The honest ones'. Mr SHIPTON —The honourable member is insulting the electorate at large, but I will let him be judged on that. Let us look at what this provision does. It says that when a taxpayer, in furnishing a return, does not complete the required information-in other words, if he ticks the wrong box or fills in the wrong line -he is liable for taxation. That includes the PAYE workers those opposite profess to be so concerned about. But hold it; it imposes an additional tax equal to double the amount of tax. That is not just a doubling of the amount payable; it is a 300 per cent penalty. A taxpayer earning, say, $15,000 a year who makes an omission or a mistake by filling in the wrong line or forgetting to put in some interest amounting to $65 or more, assuming the taxpayer is paying approximately $3000 tax at the rate of 32 per cent, will be billed another $6000 in tax. Every taxpayer, every worker, whom honourable members opposite are so concerned about, will be hit by that provision. Let them tell that to the electorate. I ask the Minister at the table to look at that provision because the way in which the provision is worded means the taxpayer will be paying double the year's tax in addition to the usual tax. If one reads that provision in conjunction with proposed new section 227 one finds that the Commissioner of Taxation is compelled by the legislation to make an assessment of the additional tax payable, even if the taxpayer filled in the wrong line, ticked the wrong box or forgot to declare $65 or more of interest. Then he has to have a good reason for remitting the whole or part of the additional tax payable. Can we imagine the Commissioner finding a good reason? Obviously the Commissioner of Taxation will take a point of view in protection of the revenue. This amendment will be devastating for the ordinary, average taxpayer of this country. I ask the Government to have a second look at it. There is another provision which affects small business. I point out to the honourable member for Grey, who I am sure is still interested, that clause 297 states, in part: Where a corporation . . . omits to do an act or thing the doing . . . of which constitutes a taxation offence, a person . . . who . . . takes part in the management of the corporation shall be deemed to have committed the taxation offence . . . This applies to small business. Let us imagine a company with two partners, one doing the office work and the other working on the shop floor. Under this legislation, should the partner who fills in the forms make an honest and inadvertent mistake, or have a nervous breakdown and forget to fill in the forms , the partner working with his hands on the lathe or the machine will be liable. It hits them hard. Is that fair to small business? Is that fair to the way in which many small businesses in this country operate? I do not think it is. I think it is most unfair. I think that example is a telling one. I ask the honourable member opposite, who I know has a genuine concern and interest, to take this up with his Government because what I am telling him tonight is absolute fact. He should read this legislation before it goes into his party room or Caucus. He ought to be interested in protecting the taxpayers of Australia. In the remaining time available I want to look at the new provisions concerning taxation clearances. This is another fundamental change that needs thought and consideration. It has been rushed into by the Government. The amendment authorises the Commissioner of Taxation to prevent, subject to certain very limited appeal rights, the departure from Australia of a person with a taxation liability until the tax has been paid or satisfactory arrangements have been made. There may be some merit in seeking to limit the departure rights of those people against whom judgments have been made by the Commissioner on tax matters or against whom criminal proceedings are pending, but this proposal goes too far . The wording covers any provisional taxpayer and, I believe, any pay as you earn taxpayer as well. I make two points about this. Every taxpayer, whether PAYE or provisional, is subject to this provision. There is a potential for a new bureaucracy to be set up in the Australian Taxation Office. It will mean that every Australian taxpayer who wants to go overseas-there are a million of them a year-has to go cap in hand to the Taxation Commissioner to get a clearance. Heaven forbid! What will that cost in increased numbers of public servants? What will it cost in time, money and wastage? We are going back to 20 years ago when such a procedure was in existence. I would have thought that there was absolutely no need for this when the existing legislation works well. Sure, let us have this type of provision in specific cases where judgments are pending. Every tourist, whether he or she wants to go to Bali, Fiji or Hong Kong on a package deal-I will ask the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) to look at this because I am sure he does not know what is going on-will have to get a tax clearance. That will apply across the board. Let us look at what the legislation does to every provisional taxpayer. Provisional taxpayers are sole proprietors or partners in business. Again, the Government is insulting them in this measure. Again this measure is an indictment of the Government for failing to take into account the needs of small business in this country and to understand how the community operates and how partnerships and companies operate. It is absolutely crazy that this legislation should provide that every taxpayer in Australia who wants to go overseas has to go to the incredible bother and engage in the administrative burden of getting a tax clearance from the Taxation Office. This will apply to every business, every partnership and every sole proprietor. It is part of a fabric, an anti-business attitude by this Government. Most business people, I think, were fooled by this Government early on. I have always said that it takes a long spoon to sup with the devil. Mr Beazley —Ha, ha! Mr SHIPTON —The Minister laughs. He may well laugh. I need more than a long spoon to deal with him. We have examples of this in legislation before the House tonight. I just warn those businesses or professional organisations contemplating submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the Prices Surveillance Authority that once they are in they are in forever and they will be subject to total Government control. It is not a very long walk down the path to total Government control once an organisation has agreed to have general ' consultation' with the Prices Surveillance Authority. I believe this is just part of a total anti-business attitude on the part of this Government. This Government supported the Australian Council of Trade Unions job redundancy case. It cost every small business in Australia-and large business for that matter- thousands of dollars. It means less employment in the long run. It is supporting amendments to section 45 sub-sections (D) and (E) of the Trade Practices Act. Above all, I say in conclusion that this Government has failed to honour any of its taxation promises to small business. It made a number of pre-election taxation promises. In one mini-Budget and two Budgets it has not honoured any taxation promise to small business. The insult was that the Treasurer (Mr Keating), in his Budget speech did not refer at all to the special problems facing the small and medium size enterprise in this country. He could have said that the provisions would apply to small and larger business alike but he did not think of that. Small business, the entrepreneur and the individual are locked out of this Government's thinking. It is a trade union Government. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(9.24) —Anyone who listened to the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), who preceded me, would have to think that the Government was engaged in some malicious conspiracy designed to undermine the fabric of small business in this country. It is an extraordinary sort of claim for him to make because the fact is that during the period of this Government we have seen the creation of a set of economic conditions that have been enormously beneficial to small business as well as to the business community and the whole of society generally. We have seen enormous growth in the real output of the economy, a halving of the inflation rate and, as a consequence, an enormous growth in employment. Clearly, those sorts of developments must yield enormous benefit to small business as much as to anybody else. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) and the Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill contain a range of provisions. Obviously, I will not be able to deal with each and every done of them. They are a fairly disparate set of provisions. I wish just to make a number of comments about a number of specific matters. It might be advisable at this stage to remind the House of the observation made by Professor Russell Mathews, one of the leading experts on taxation in this country. He commented some time ago on the existence of a class of people of enormous wealth and income in regard to whom the question is not making them pay their fair share of tax but rather making them pay any tax at all. Clearly, this Government was elected on a platform of making the taxation system more equitable. That involves measures regarding the overt tax system such as varying the taxation rates and the nature of the taxes that are levied. It also involves ensuring that all sections of the community pay their fair share of tax. Clearly, that did not occur during the period of the former Government. There is no doubt about that. The magnitude of tax avoidance during the period of the former Government is now well documented. It did not do any good for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), speaking earlier in this debate, to claim that the Opposition has absolutely clean hands on this issue of tax avoidance. The clear rebuttal of that claim is the persistent rejection by the present Opposition parties of the legislation which his Government introduced to strengthen the bottom of the harbour legislation by extending it to the recovery of what should have been tax paid in the hands of shareholders for dividend income that they would have received. Attempts to implement that legislation have been frustrated time and again, including a number of variations of that legislation. As a result of the non- passage of that legislation we are looking at a revenue cost ranging between $ 270m and $540m, depending which version of the legislation is applied. We are talking about quite substantial sums of money. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill contains a range of provisions designed to streamline and strengthen the measures that the Government has at its disposal to recover tax which ought to have been paid and has not been paid. Obviously, that involves increasing the penalties in a range of cases. It involves increasing penalty taxes and fines for various forms of offences to levels which are consistent with modern day conditions. Those amounts in many cases have not been varied for a quite considerable period and it is obviously necessary to do something about it. We have also seen in that piece of legislation an attempt to lift the corporate veil to make sure that directors and people involved in the management of companies where there have been instances of tax avoidance are made accountable in some way for their actions. There have been many complaints about the reversal of onus that is supposed to have occurred there. I am certainly prepared to concede that a change of principle of that sort is something for which there ought to be very sound and good reasons. I presume that the rationale for that change arose out of difficulties in securing convictions without having that sort of provision in operation. I just make the observation-I think it is something that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition conceded-that this is far from being staggering and unprecedented , as was claimed in the correspondence of the Law Council of Australia. Such a provision exists in the Companies Act 1981 which forms the basis of the co- operative companies and securities scheme which is operative at the Federal level and in the States. I refer honourable members to section 552 (11) of that legislation, which refers to a range of offences. It states: Where a person convicted of an offence under this section is a corporation, each officer concerned in the management of the corporation is guilty of the like offence unless he proves that the act constituting the offence took place without his knowledge or consent. Clearly, that parallels the sort of provision that is being introduced. Section 552 (10) of that legislation states: A person who acts in contravention of this section is guilty of an offence. Penalty: $2,500 or imprisonment for 6 months, or both. For the Law Council to claim that this measure is unprecedented is demonstrably false. In saying that, I acknowledge that such a provision is something which should be introduced for only very strong reasons. I would be interested to see that flushed out in some detail. A couple of other pieces of legislation are before us. The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) involves a range of measures most of which amount to the implementation of a number of Government policies which were announced on Budget night. Some of them are of a controversial nature. There has been some complaint from the Opposition about the recognition of de facto relationships so far as eligibility for a dependent spouse rebate is concerned. I think there are possible grounds for concern about the dependent spouse rebate . Feminist organisations and others have expressed reasonably well-founded objections to it, arguing that it provides a positive disincentive to women entering the work force; and that it fails to take account of the household services which are provided by a dependent spouse. They are not included in income, but if we had a truly rational scheme they would be included in some way . There is a range of reasonably legitimate grounds for objecting to the dependent spouse rebate as a method of assisting families. In equity terms a case can be made that such a rebate provides a greater benefit to people on higher incomes than those on lower incomes. The report of the Commissioner of Taxation for 1981-82 indicated that the 55 per cent of taxpayers whose incomes were below $12,000 got only 25 per cent of the rebate. Correspondingly, those in the higher income bracket got a larger share of the rebate. One could cite a number of grounds against the dependent spouse rebate but the fact is the Government has decided to retain that form of assistance to families. If we are to have that form of assistance there is no reason for not extending that benefit to those in a de facto relationship. It makes the payment of the benefit consistent with what applies in the social security sphere. Unless one takes a very moralistic stance about the nature of people's relationships-whether they ought to be married and whether they ought to be punished if they are not formally married-which is something I reject, there is no reason in logic and equity for not implementing that policy. I have given an example of a discrepancy which existed between the treatment afforded by the tax system and that afforded by the social security system. As a general observation I say that those two areas need to be integrated far more then they are at the moment. The Department of the Treasury, in its paper to the Economic Planning Advisory Council on tax issues, made precisely that point; that is, if one is concerned about improving the impact of government on society , in terms of making income distribution more equitable, one needs to focus both on the tax system and on the social security system. Particularly when dealing with people in the lower income brackets it is arguable that the social security system is a more effective instrument. There are a number of other matters that I had hoped to comment on but we have been restricted to 10 minutes, so I will have to wind up here. One could go into a number of other interesting points about the Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill, which tightens up a number of provisions in regard to profits distributed from trusts to non-residents and the taxation treatment of them. The Bill also makes a number of modifications and amendments to Australia's tax agreements with Belgium and Malta. I think this is a matter which ought to be looked at more than it is and I hope that it will be considered in the EPAC review of the tax system. There is the whole question of section 23 (q) of the Income Tax Assessment Act which provides in general with some exceptions, an exemption from Australian tax if income derived overseas has had tax paid on it in the country of source. As I have said, there are a number of exceptions. Dividend income is one exception and income derived from Papua New Guinea is another. I think that that provision opens up a number of possibilities for tax avoidance which ought to be closed and I hope that that matter will receive some attention by EPAC in its review of the tax system. Mr ADERMANN(Fisher)(9.35) —We are discussing in cognate debate three taxation Bills-the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4), the Income Tax ( International Agreements) Amendment Bill and the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill. I wish mainly to address some remarks to the third of those Bills-the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill-which deals with penalties. There will be not criticism by me of heavy penalties on those who deliberately embark on tax avoidance and artificial avoidance schemes to defraud the revenue and place an increasing impost on other taxpayers, including me. Nor have I any sympathy whatsoever for professional cheats who manipulate the tax law and processes to delay interminably paying tax. Thus at the outset I want to make my position quite clear. Indeed the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), has made that plain on behalf of the Opposition. I hope, therefore, that the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford), who is in charge of the Bills, will accept that statement of my position as honest and sincere and that he will also accept that the remarks I now make are constructively made and that they reflect some genuine concern about some of the possible effects, perhaps unintended effects, on taxpayers who are not of that ilk but could be inadvertently and innocently caught up in the matter. I am sorry that the Minister in charge of the Bills is not in the House because I would very much like his response on these matters. Let me deal firstly with the penalties aimed at delaying tactics involved in the payment of tax. The measures to combat malpractice have merit; I do not debate that. I support them insofar as that is where the measures will fall. However, there is another class of taxpayer, certainly not in the category of a taxation cheat, who is now in a disadvantaged position and will be at a very much greater disadvantage if this legislation is passed. I am sorry to say that in very many instances the disadvantage is very much the fault of the Australian Taxation Office. I speak of a person who submits an honest tax return and who, in honesty and good faith, makes certain claims for deductions and the Taxation Office knocks back those claims and the taxpayer receives a very much increased assessment. Sometimes those claims are made when the assessment is first issued. Sometimes even a year or so later a revised assessment is issued indicating a further liability due to a change in view of the treatment of those claims. That is where the problem arises. In past years, as a token of good faith, the taxpayer could appeal and, pending the consideration of that appeal, could remit the undisputed portion of the assessment and suffer no penalty for late payment of the disputed portion under appeal because it was expected that the appeal would be expedited. Such a person is now expected to pay the lot and if he wins the appeal he gets some refund. If he withholds the disputed portion he pays a very heavy penalty. Here is the problem and this is how the Bill exacerbates it: The taxpayer appeals to the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, who declines the appeal. The taxpayer then notifies the Taxation Office that he wants to appeal to the Taxation Board of Review and/or the court. The Taxation Office can then indulge in a great old run -around. Because the Taxation Office is not sure of its grounds or because it fears that if it loses some unfortunate precedent will be established, the taxpayer cannot get a hearing or decision for years. I say 'years' advisedly. Mr Braithwaite —Yes, three or four years in some cases. Mr ADERMANN —I hear of taxpayers who have been trying to get their appeals decided or arbitrated three or four years after they have appealed. That is not an exaggeration; that is a fact. This is not happening only to dodgers and cheats; it is happening to a multitude of honest citizens who feel they have a legitimate case. The Taxation Office, by this means of attrition, presumably hopes that the taxpayer will eventually tire of the matter and give it away. In the meantime the tax has to be paid. The taxpayer is denied the use of his money for years to the benefit of the revenue. Alternatively, heavy interest penalties accrue and the aggrieved taxpayer is unable to pursue his legitimate grievance because, if he fails, years of interest will bankrupt him. So he has to forgo his rights. Therefore, I say that if increased penalties and heavy interest are to be applied to late or delayed payments, the Taxation Office should deal with appeals and get them decided quickly and justly. The Office ought not to be allowed to permit appeals to drag on and on for years with the taxpayer being virtually held to ransom because he cannot get an appeal finalised. Honourable members should not say that it does not happen. It happens frequently, and it happens to many people. How often as members of parliament do we have distressed constituents coming to us with that very problem? Mr Cowan —Very often. Mr Braithwaite —Very often. Mr ADERMANN —That is right. How often are we asked to go to the Deputy Commissioner and get some finality, and how often do we find that we also get nowhere? For connivers who continue to evade tax by delay, the penalties are fair enough. But while innocent, honest people cannot get an appeal heard or a decision made for years-in the hope that they will give the case away-that is not fair enough. If the Taxation Office is to impose these penalties, it must get off its tail. If it disallows claims which the taxpayer feels are proper, it should be prepared to defend that decision and get adjudication without delay. I hope that the Minister will not dismiss that grievance lightly. I am not opposing penalties for evasion. I am saying that in using the threat of penalties, the Taxation Office, from a position of unassailable power, does not always play the game with many taxpayers on this matter. Mr Braithwaite —That is right; justice delayed is justice denied. Mr ADERMANN —That sums it up very well. That should be rectified if penalties are to be further increased or the position in those cases gets worse and more unjust. The little fellow cannot get anywhere with his appeal and he does not have the resources to pursue his rights. I turn to two other real concerns that I have about the Bill-the increased penalty for non-lodgment or non-compliance with a demand from the Taxation Office, and increased penalty for late lodgment. Once again, I have absolutely no complaint about heavy penalties for cheats and evaders who do not lodge returns or who are purposely late in lodging them. But once again, I am concerned about some other aspects of the Bill. Many people go to a tax agent to get their returns lodged. They do this early and in good time. They believe that the return was lodged. Their agent fails to lodge the return. A final notice is issued. The agent fails to obey its demand. The taxpayer, still believing his return was lodged, knows nothing about this until he gets a summons to appear in court. Understandably, once a summons is issued, the Taxation Office is loth to withdraw it. I understand that. Under this Bill the taxpayer can face a massive fine. Similarly, if the tax agent delays lodging the return, a massive penalty for late lodgment can be imposed on the taxpayer; or, if the Taxation Office sends a query to the tax agent on some aspect of a return and the tax agent fails to answer it-again, the taxpayer knowing nothing about it-under this Bill, a massive fine can be imposed. There is not a member in this House, surely, who has not had to do battle for innocent, god-fearing taxpayers caught in that position. I know that the Taxation Office will say: 'The taxpayer can take recovery action against his agent'. But that is not adequate. Firstly, although the agent can lose his licence briefly, the taxpayer has a terrible job proving his case. He cannot remember whether he signed his return-some tax agents even get blank forms signed, anyway, when they should not-and so the blame can be shifted to the taxpayer quite easily and quite unfairly. Secondly, it is the taxpayer who receives the conviction, not the agent. Thirdly, there is another more serious consideration on which I have spoken in the House before. The registered accountant, guarding his reputation and good name, will not allow his client to be placed in that position. But in the Press, on radio and on television we see proprietary tax agents advertising spectacularly their services with great coloured signs. Honourable members have seen them-income tax professionals, H. and R. Block, and all the rest. Mr Braithwaite —No qualifications. Mr ADERMANN —They are not bound by any of the ethics or rules of the accounting profession. People go to them in good faith. I have lost count of the occasions on which taxpayers have come to me with a summons or final notice. They tell me that they went to one of those firms; they paid their fee and they believed that the return was lodged. Or they get a list of queries from the Taxation Office, but when they go to see the agent in whose hands they placed their business, and whom they had paid, he is not there any more. Either the office is closed and they cannot contact anyone, or they find someone entirely new in the office who cannot help them. Usually they do not have a copy of their return and cannot obtain one. It should not be said that that does not happen. It happens very frequently. Mr Cowan —It happens often in my office. Mr Braithwaite —They do not have a feather to fly with. Mr ADERMANN —It happens to all of us. I ask the Minister to look at that situation. The bewildered honest taxpayers in this situation can face massive fines and penalties although they have done everything that they could to comply with the law, and I am afraid that the only tax agents who will be caught up are the honest, unfortunate, battling accountants, overloaded, short-staffed and working day and night to meet lodgment programs. The fly-by-night agents will have flown; they are the ones who are at fault. So, as well as increased penalties, we also need tighter control of proprietary agents and a more understanding compassion from the Taxation Office for cases such as these. There are other reasons for late lodgment. A wage earner may not be able to get his group certificate from his employer, or his employer may have gone or folded up. He cannot lodge his return without the certificate or, if he does so, he cannot get his refund, although the tax was deducted, because his group certificate has not been provided. These drastic penalties can fall on him and there is little he can do about it. The Minister and the Department can give advice as to what such a man should do, but we must be realistic. We are talking of an honest worker earning his meagre living, not someone skilled in tax law or steeped in tax knowledge. We are talking of someone who has been let down and can be exposed to penalties such as this. I turn to the liability of directors. I do not want to repeat all that has been said. The Minister will be aware of the very responsible and proper submissions made to the Government by law and accountancy societies. I hope that he will seriously consider them, because their case must be considered and answered. In the Age of today we read of the Law Council of Australia writing to the Government on these matters. The article states: Under the Government's re-writing of tax legislation, the Tax Commissioner will be able to prevent people who owe tax leaving the country. Company directors and managers could be punished for their companies' tax offences unless they are able to prove they were not knowingly concerned in the relevant act or commission. The Law Council says that stopping people from leaving the country is an unreasonable restraint on citizens' movements, and the onus of proof provision should be abandoned. The article further states: The Law Council's letter outlined its fierce opposition to four new provisions. They are: A proposal in both the Sales Tax Assessment Act and the Income Tax Assessment Act which imposes a double tax penalty on a taxpayer who fails to furnish a return of information. The council says this means a retailer who was one day late in submitting his sales tax return and cheque for a particular month, or a taxpayer who fails to deliver his income tax return until 1 September rather than 31 August, is automatically liable to double the tax due. This would put him in the same category as the blatant evader who had been refusing for months to supply information, says the council. The 'distressing' proposed changes to the Taxation Administration Act which contain the reversal of the onus of proof. The Law Council says this could lead to prosecution of a manager who had little to do with taxation affairs of the company, but who five, 10 or 15 years later did not have sufficient evidence to provide that he had not knowingly been concerned in the offence. A proposed new section of the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act which will provide that even though the Attorney-General has not given his usual consent, a person may be charged with an offence, warrants for arrest may be made out, a person may be arrested and remanded in custody or on bail. The bill's power to prohibit a person owing tax from leaving the country goes ' far beyond reasonable restraint on citizens'. The shadow Treasurer has dealt with some of these matters. All I ask is that the Government seriously consider the aspects raised by the Law Council, particularly the matter of the onus of proof. I should like to speak on the other Bills also, but time is short. I know that members on the Government benches have curtailed their remarks and that some of my colleagues wish to speak in this debate. However, I wish to make a couple of other points. I repeat what I have said previously, that I do not oppose any penalties or sanctions against unconscionable evaders who use every device to escape their liabilities. However, I am deeply concerned that honest, decent people can be caught up and I appeal to the Government to consider the aspects I have raised. In matters of appeal, may I add that already appeals are delayed and prolonged for far too long. Yet in this Budget the amount allocated for the Taxation Board of Review has been reduced, which will make matters even worse. Penalties are to be increased and funds for the Board of Review slashed, which I believe is indefensible. I appeal to the Taxation Office to adopt some equity in imposing penalties. The penalties are heavy and the Taxation Office has not always been compassionate or even fair in imposing them. Let me cite the case of a widow who had a pension, a building fund account and a little other income which she faithfully declared. She had a small savings account which she did not operate, but she declared the interest on it. Her late husband, without telling her, had thoughtfully put a small Commonwealth loan in her name and the interest was paid into that savings account. She wondered why the interest on the savings account was a little greater each year when she did not operate it. She went to see the bank and found out about the Commonwealth loan. So she wrote to the Taxation Office explaining the matter and told it of the interest of the loan. She asked the Office to amend her last two returns to include it. It did so, but charged her the maximum penalty for non-disclosure, although she had brought the matter to its notice. I would like to think, when we are discussing a Bill about penalties , that decisions can be tempered with justice more clearly than in the case I have just mentioned, particularly when we are considering raising penalties so radically. That case illustrates the sort of concern I have outlined in this debate. I hope that the Government will consider these matters sympathetically and have regard to the implications of this legislation. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(9.53) —In the limited time available I should like to address some comments on points raised by Opposition members and then cover briefly some of the aspects of the legislation that pertain to people in my electorate. The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) mentioned a number of matters in the legislation which he thought disadvantaged small businesses. Sometimes one wonders what the honourable member really wants for small business, and indeed what more the Government can do. Let us consider the needs of small business. Certainly it needs lower inflation, and the Government has done something about that. Labor has halved the inflation rate and certainly brought it down very much lower than it would have been if the previous Government had remained in office. Secondly, small business operators need lower real labour costs. The present Government has taken action on that front too. From April this year to April next year wages will rise by a factor of less than 2 per cent, and real labour costs now are very much lower than they were 10 or 11 years ago. Small business also benefits from fewer industrial disputes and the Labor Government has taken action in that respect. Industrial disputation in Australia is now at the lowest rate it has been for sixteen years. Small business counts on its employees to pull it through. It does not need its employees on strike or out on the grass for any reason whatever. I believe that the accord has played a significant part in lowering industrial disputation, thus helping small business . Small businesses also need higher consumer confidence, and this Government has provided it. Along with higher consumer confidence small businesses need higher consumer spending. That is up also. Small business needs a more highly trained work force. The substantial amounts of money put into vocational education by the present Government have greatly assisted small business. Recent speeches by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) aimed at outlining what training institutions should be doing point to an awareness by the Government that the nation needs a more specifically trained work force. The Government is doing something about it . No small business can afford to train its own work force; it must rely on the Government to do it on its behalf. Workers compensation pay-outs also cripple small business. Once again, it is only the present Government that has looked at ways to bring down such costs and to have a uniform workers compensation payout. All these things affect small business and I have outlined a number of ways in which the Government has sought to assist small business operators. Another way in which one can help the genuine, honest small business which pays its tax is to bring in a fairer taxation system. The honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) rightly pointed out that he would not defend anybody who did not pay the rightful amount of tax. One can imagine the advantage gained by a small business, perhaps a small builder, that did not pay the rightful share of tax. Obviously such a small business could well undercut the honest small business. The present Government, in bringing in a withholding tax provision-one of the first things this Government did on assuming power-has given honest small business an advantage. I recall what went on in the building industry, in which I used to work, and I know of some of the rorts that used to take place in the industry. That situation has been remedied by Government action. It appears that the Opposition takes the same view of small business as it does of big business. It knows that big business is able to go to government to obtained substantial handouts or protection. Mr White —You are looking after big business. Mr GEAR —We are looking after the steel industry, which is in direct contrast to what was done by the previous Government. As for handouts, if the Government does not bring out a small business package that compartmentalises a lot of aid to small business it is accused of letting small business down. The points I have raised show that in a general way, and in some specific ways, the present Government is helping small business. The honourable member for Fisher gave examples of innocent taxpayers caught up in arrangements that were not of their own making. All the examples he gave involved innocent people. I share his concern that such people may attract summonses or action by the Taxation Office. But I am sure that this legislation was never intended to reflect that. These provisions will ensure that honest people have nothing to worry about from anything that flows from these Bills. I turn to deal with some of the specific points contained in the Bills. The dependent spouse rebate is to be made available to those who live in a defacto relationship. I do not pass any moral judgment, but I believe we should seek to treat people fairly. If people choose to live in a de facto relationship all government departments should treat them in the same way. The honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) rightly pointed out that the Department of Social Security recognises such relationships in regard to benefit payouts. However, the Taxation Office did not recognise de facto relationships where benefits could be accrued by de facto couples. Further, the Department of Education did not recognise de facto relationships for TEAS allowance, yet the Department of Immigration was very much more liberal in recognition of de facto relationships in the sponsoring of relatives to Australia. I believe that the Government, in giving dependent spouse rebate to de facto couples, has brought some consistency into the dealings of Government departments. The Government should be applauded. I repeat that I pass no moral judgment. It is not the first time that such benefit has been given to those in de facto relationships. Certainly such relationships have been recognised by the Government. The Department of Social Security under both the present Government and its predecessor recognised such relationships. The previous Government, in its 1982-83 Budget, the family Budget -when it brought in home loan interest rate deductions in a vain attempt to hang on to government, when it sought to give everything away-also recognised de facto relationships. Also contained in the provisions of these Bills are rebates for pensioners. The $250 tax rebate is to be increased to reflect the effect of the new personal income tax scales. The principle of maintaining real value for pensioners I am sure will be welcomed by pensioners. I am sure that the pensioners of Australia will not be taken in by Opposition charges that the present Government is in any way trying to disadvantage them. I trust that pensioners will overlook the sort of rhetoric that comes from the Opposition. The rebate for pensioners will be increased from $5,429 to $5,533 for 1984-85 and to $5,595 for subsequent years. It will cut out at $7,594 in the coming years. As I said, the $250 tax rebate has been increased. Another group of people to benefit from these provisions are social security beneficiaries. Special taxation rebates will ensure that persons wholly or mainly dependent on social security benefits will not have to pay tax. People have come into my office who receive no more income than the unemployment benefit but they have had to pay tax. I remember one such person, a gentleman with two children, who received a tax bill for $222. He had no income for the whole year other than social security benefits. When one compares that gentleman who was dependent on social security and yet received a tax bill with the tax cheats from whom some of the legislation we have brought into this House is designed to recover money, when one compares that person who was reliant on the Government but who still had to pay $222 in tax with millionaires who can get away with paying none, it strikes me as being very unfair. I am glad to see a provision rectifying that situation in this legislation. Two other provisions in the legislation which will do a lot of good for my State of Western Australia are the provisions relating to mineral exploration and prospecting expenditure. (Quorum formed) Expenditure incurred in exploration and prospecting, which is presently deductible only from a taxpayer's mining and associated income, will from this taxation year be deductible from income derived from any source. That will be of assistance to the small prospectors in particular. Much of the exploration in Western Australia is in very remote areas and to aid mineral exploration and prospecting, zone rebates for those people in the very far north of Western Australia will be increased by 25 per cent. It is about time we did that. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves), an excellent member, who is affected in the same way I am as he represents a far northern area, will also benefit from this measure. Finally, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1984 brings up to date many of the outmoded penalties that have been on the statute books, some since 1936, and have never been changed. We hope that in the Government's crackdown on tax avoidance, the introduction of a deterrent that more adequately reflects the seriousness of what people are doing will make tax cheats think twice about tax avoidance and evasion. In closing, I remind the Australian people that only the Labor Government has tackled the tax evasion and avoidance industry in a real way. That contrasts with the approach of the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.06) —Firstly, I take up the closing remark of the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear) that it is only his Government, the Labor Government, that has tackled tax avoidance. How does he explain why the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), shortly after assuming office, said at a public meeting of accountants that tax avoidance was dead because of the actions of the previous Government? I enter the debate with a few general remarks about taxation before I get to the specifics. No one in this chamber would deny that the reform of the tax system in this country is one of the fundamental questions that all of us have to face if we are to have a secure economic future. I am talking about the taxation of private companies compared with public companies. I am talking about double taxation on dividends. I am talking about high personal taxation which acts as a disincentive for people to work once they get to a certain income. Millions of Australians are capable of more work and exertion and would do so if they had some incentive, but when people on average weekly earnings start to pay 46c tax on every extra dollar they earn it is no wonder they are not inclined to do so. Mr Campbell —Think of the poor rich. Mr WHITE —Many of those people are supporters of the honourable member's Party. They will be thinking very seriously at the next election about why they are paying 46c in the dollar tax. I am sure that more than a few would have raised the matter with the honourable member. Why is it that it is almost impossible to get people to work overtime or to work on a Saturday or a Sunday? The very simple answer is that they are giving up their time and 46c of every extra dollar they earn goes to the Government. Is it any wonder that we have in this country a disincentive to work? We are part of the Asian region. Year by year other countries are passing us by in their standards of living. Until we redress that balance and provide some incentive for people to get out and work harder and retain more of their earnings we will have a problem, no matter which party is in government. During the last election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) addressed the question of tax. It is interesting to see what he said. Amongst other things he said: 'There will be an immediate reduction in income tax for the majority of Australians'. He also promised that there would be no change in the existing provisions for tax on lump sum superannuation payments. That was a hollow promise. He promised that he would lift the tax threshold for pensioners. Again, that was a hollow promise. He promised that he would reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre. Let me turn to the question of personal income tax. It is estimated-I have not heard anyone on the other side refute the estimate-that this year one million Australian people will move into a higher tax bracket. I have already said that people on average weekly earnings are now paying 46c in the dollar in tax. Who would have thought that someone on average weekly earnings in Australia would pay 46c in the dollar in tax? That was some promise by the Prime Minister. He said that he would reduce the tax burden for the majority of Australians but he has put another one million into a higher tax bracket. That promise was as good as the promise he has made constantly, and which he made again today, that he will take on organised crime. We are still waiting to see a lowering of the tax scales and we are still waiting to see the Government do something about organised crime, despite all the rhetoric in the last few weeks. I am not saying that the Government has not recognised the need for tax reform. I noted with interest-the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) referred to this when he spoke-that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) while overseas promised a tax review. I am not sure whether that review is to take place before or after the election but I would have thought that he would be sensible to have a tax review before the next election. The interesting question is what are the Government's options in any tax review. The biggest problem it has to face is the growing deficit which it added to in this year's Budget. We now face an annual interest burden of over $5 billion a year on the deficit. That is more than we spend on education and slightly less than we spend on defence. It is one problem that any review of the tax system has to take into account. It will also have to take into account the huge and growing welfare payments which this Government has undertaken. We have to ask ourselves, when looking at the tax system, where the money will come from. One of the obvious options that is canvassed freely among certain members of the Australian Labor Party is a wealth tax. Many of them, to their credit, make no secret that they want a wealth tax to be introduced. Others want a wealth tax to be introduced but they make a secret of it because they know the effect it will have on the electorate at large. One of the options that is being freely canvassed is a property tax. What will happen in any review of the tax system under a socialist government is that people who have got something, those who are earning something, employing people and creating profits, will be slugged. We must ask ourselves, when the average weekly wage earner is paying 46c in the dollar, what will happen to him and anyone who has the temerity to earn above average weekly earnings. The writing is in the wall. Any tax review will be bad news for those people. The interesting thing is that many of them obviously supported the Labor Party at the last election. Thousands of such people in my electorate and, I am sure, in every electorate in Australia are now starting to wonder why they supported a government which has put them into a tax bracket in which they pay 46c in the dollar. They are asking now, and they will increasingly ask, where the Government's loyalties lie. Another problem in any tax review is knowing what the Australian Council of Trade Unions will accept. The ACTU and the unions in this country are daily growing more powerful. The leader of the ACTU spends more time in the Prime Minister's office than he does in his own. The unions are telling the Government what they will accept. They did so in relation to the Budget which has just been passed. They are now saying publicly and privately to the Government that they will not accept certain things as part of a tax package. They say: 'We might accept that. Put it up and see how you go'. The old question is: Who is running the country? It is not the Government. If there is one thing worrying the people of Australia, apart from the tax question which we are dealing with specifically at the moment, it is the growing power of big unions in this country. I refer to this evening's edition of the Dateline News Digest. Item 848 states: The Federal Government today bowed to pressure from the ACTU for more consultations over the acquisition of helicopters for the Navy's new FFG-Class frigates. Consideration of the issue has been deferred until next week. Why? It is not because the Government cannot make up its mind but because the ACTU is leaning on the Government. Mr Campbell —You are being irresponsible. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for Kalgoorlie will not interject. He will move back to his own seat. Mr WHITE —He does not worry me. He seems to be coming across to join us. Mr Howard —He has on land rights. Mr WHITE —He saw the light there. I think in his heart he agrees with all I am saying about taxation as well, particularly about the power of the unions to direct the Government of this country. Mr Robert Brown —You do not want the rich to pay any tax. Mr WHITE —It is stupid to say that the rich do not pay any tax. Mr Robert Brown —I said that you do not want them to pay any tax. Mr WHITE —I find that an extraordinary conclusion to come to. That is the last thing on my mind. Mr Campbell —What about the helicopters? Mr WHITE —Perhaps the honourable member for Kalgoorlie can tell me why he objects to my reference to the ACTU's power to direct the Government to defer the helicopter decision. Mr Campbell —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I seek the indulgence of the House to answer the honourable member's question. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. I ask the honourable member for McPherson to remain relevant to the Bill. Mr WHITE —I am being relevant to the Bill. We are talking about tax reform which the Government has said it will undertake. I am saying that the options are limited because the ACTU will tell the Government how far it can go. As an example of the power of the ACTU I quoted from an official document. It stated that the Federal Government today bowed to pressure from the ACTU to defer a helicopter decision. If that is not relevant to the power of the ACTU I do not know what is. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! We are debating taxation Bills, not the ACTU. I ask the honourable member to remain relevant to the Bills. Mr WHITE —I bow to your wisdom, Mr Deputy Speaker. I turn to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4), one of the Bills we are debating tonight, and refer to the write-off rate in respect of short term travel accommodation and non-residential income producing buildings which has risen to 4 per cent from 2. 5 per cent. I congratulate the Government on that move. It will mean a lot more investment in the tourist industry, particularly in my electorate. Let me turn to something not quite so palatable, the extension of the spouse rebate to de facto spouses. This raises the attitude of this Government to a more permissive society in Australia. It encourages a permissive society. Every time the Government encourages what might be called extra-curricular relationships it denigrates the family unit. Let us look at the encouragement of de facto spouses in conjunction with some of the other measures to which the Government, if it is not encouraging them, is turning a blind eye. It has a lax approach to pornography. Today I brought some petitions from my electorate, which contain 1,000 signatures, against the Government's lax approach to pornography. These honourable members who do not think people are concerned should get out into the electorate and ask them. They are very concerned about what is happening to the younger generation in this country and the easy access that they have-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! Once again the honourable member seems to have difficulty in keeping to the Bills. I ask him to remain relevant to the Bills. Mr WHITE —I am talking about the Bills and the extension of the spouse rebate to de facto spouses. I am saying that that is just one of a series of measures which indicates the Government's approach towards the encouragement of a permissive society in Australia. Its lax approach to pornography is like its encouragement of de facto relationships. Look at the encouragement given to homosexuals by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Despite the fact that honourable members on the Government side regard the ABC as independent, I have not heard one of them denounce what the ABC has done in encouraging homosexual relationships. We are paying the ABC out of the public purse. Mr Deputy Speaker, as your are about to pull me up again-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am going to pull the honourable member up again. I ask him to remain relevant to the Bill if he wishes to continue speaking. Mr WHITE —Let me put it this way: We are talking about tax Bills. The ABC is funded out of the taxpayers' purse. If that is not relevant to what we are talking about-- Mr Ruddock —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order on the matter of relevance. Those who have spoken in this debate previously have argued by analogy, with reference to the Department of Social Security provisions in relation to de factos, that it is appropriate for such provisions to exist in the tax area. I submit that it is appropriate for the honourable member to be able to argue by analogy in related areas- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is not arguing by analogy. I ask the honourable member for McPherson to take note of the judgment of the Chair. Mr WHITE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge what you have said. I will skip over all the other things I wished to mention that are not analogous to de factos. They are: The failure to address the divorce rate, the lack of counsellors, the increase in the supporting mother's benefit and the vast increase in the unemployment benefit in our welfare state. Redlich alone identified $60m of overpayment in one department, the Department of Social Security, in the last year. We are talking about a tax Bill. The taxpayers just groan and pay but eventually they will give up; they are fed up now. I return to the de facto relationship which this Bill addresses. It extends the benefit to people who enter into a de facto relationship. It is interesting to note that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) just came into the chamber and then went out. He is concerned about the permissive society. He put an article in the Catholic Leader not long ago expressing his concern. He said: ' Where are all the Catholics in Australia who will stand up for the family? Those were his remarks on the matter that we are talking about. This Government is extending benefits to a man and a woman who live together as husband and wife for any period. The period is not specified. A couple can set up house together tonight and tomorrow they can go to the Department of Social Security and claim the married unemployment benefit. If that is not a serious erosion of the place of the family in Australian society I would like to know what is. By extending these provisions the Government is encouraging these relationships , not only in the case of the married unemployment benefit but also in a whole range of other benefits. Let me give one example of what the extension of this provision will do. It came to my attention a couple of weeks ago. An 18-year-old boy who had been unemployed got a job working in a garage for one week. After one week he voluntarily gave up that job, went and lived with a 16-year-old girl , set up house, and the next day went to the Department of Social Security and immediately got unemployment benefit. He did not have to wait six weeks because he had voluntarily given up a job; he immediately got the benefit because he claimed hardship. He was given the benefit the day after he voluntarily gave up a job which he had held down for one week because, he said, the married unemployment benefit gave him $5 a week more than the wage he was getting as an honest worker. Mr Robert Brown —He had a wife to support. Mr WHITE —He had a de facto girl of 16 years to support. If the honourable member is going to support that sort of attitude-- Mr Robert Brown —You would starve them. You think they should be starved. Mr WHITE —This is very interesting. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! I ask the honourable member for McPherson to ignore the interjections. Mr WHITE —I presume that all that honourable members opposite are saying is that they support the fact that an 18-year-old boy is living with a 16-year-old girl on married unemployment benefit and choosing to stay on that benefit rather than go to work. I am glad that that has come out because that is symptomatic of the whole approach of the Australian Labor Party to the extension of the benefit to a de facto relationship. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.26) —Even omitting the Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill the other two Bills being debated cognately will add nearly 230 pages to the tax legislation via the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) and the voluminous Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1984. Throw in the further tax Bills to be debated separately and, during this week, around 250 or 260 pages of law and amendments will be added to one of the largest tomes imaginable; that is, the Income Tax Assessment Act, as amended , has already reached War and Peace proportions and is fast approaching the dimensions of Churchill's memoirs. Accepting, if any reasonable person could, that ignorance of the law is no excuse, every taxpayer in Australia is now expected to memorise and abide by income tax law to be further expanded to an extent which no normal person could absorb. Whatever the merits of individual amendments, they are further straws-indeed another bale of straw-on the camel's back. The complexity of the principal Act will be expanded and the ability of individuals to understand and abide by the law, as it will be, will be further reduced. Although ignorance of the law is no excuse at law, any other possibility is just incomprehensible. Only a minute proportion of the millions of Australians who are expected to know their obligations under income tax law can ever possess the necessary knowledge. There is something deeply disturbing about law which affects our everyday lives being so complex as to be incomprehensible to the great majority. These Bills simply add to that circumstance and even savagely increase the penalties for offending against many of the principal Act's requirements, albeit it is not possible for the majority to know and understand those requirements. It seems that no government is really willing to tackle the job of simplifying the Act. The best we can get from the Hawke Government is a promise to do something at some time hence which has all the hallmarks of an intention to squeeze even more tax out of an already seriously overtaxed population. Mr Cadman —Capital gains tax. Mr ROCHER —A capital gains tax is on the books. So must be gift and death duties in one form or another. We might see a capital transfer tax of the dimensions of that which applies in the United Kingdom. I thank the honourable member for Mitchell for reminding me of that. In addition to the enormous complexities and size of income tax legislation and the resultant obligations on all and sundry, which cannot be known to them, another inequity continues and is indeed enhanced by these Bills. It is in evidence in one of the provisions of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1984. In clause 297, it is proposed to reverse the onus of proof principle. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) have both referred to our objections to that matter. I suppose it need not be further canvassed, except to endorse the remarks made by my colleagues. That requirement is consistent with and akin to the many and seemingly endless expansions of the Commissioner of Taxation's discretionary power. Discretionary power in itself is not necessarily objectionable. There may well be occasions when it might be desired that the Commissioner, or his delegates, have a free hand to deal with a particular problem or a particular set of circumstances that cannot be catered for in legislation. However, what should not be countenanced is that discretionary power is exercised post facto and not on application and before the event. For a few short years prior to July 1966 the Commissioner of Taxation took great pains to inform his clients-that is, taxpayers-in advance how he intended exercising his discretion. Certainly the Commissioner had fewer opportunities to exercise his discretion in those days. He also had fewer personnel then. So it is no excuse to quote an increased work load nowadays. It should be possible today, as it was in the 1960s, to tell interested taxpayers in advance how a particular discretionary power is to be applied. As with much tax legislation, the effect of these Bills will exacerbate the serious uncertainty confronting those businesses and businessmen who are unable to know their tax obligations in advance. Where discretion is given to the Commissioner there is no opportunity to plan for an after tax return on an investment, a risk venture or a project. This uncertainty is also true with the decision evidenced in the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1984, where it stipulates extension by only one year of the date by which eligible plant must be first used or installed to qualify for the investment allowance. That uncertainty is all the more critical in the light of the forecast degeneration in private sector investment reflected in the Australian Bureau of Statistics surveys. Private investment remains low in terms of historical levels and on present indications seems likely to be lower in 1985-86 than at any time since the notorious Whitlam years. There remain several verities if we are to maintain the employment levels, reduce unemployment and improve the prospects for that particularly disadvantaged group-our unemployed youth. Among those truths, excepting industrial relations considerations, is the fact that investment decisions are significantly dependent upon the rate of after tax returns on prospective projects. If the thinking of the former Commissioner of Taxation is typical, as expressed by him at a recent hearing before a Senate committee, the problems facing small and large businesses alike are indeed greater than we might imagine . It seems that the Australian Taxation Office bureaucracy may still labour under the misapprehension that income tax is something to be taken into account when planning a business venture as some sort of insignificant or unimportant cost. Nothing could be further from the truth. That type of old fashioned approach has no relevance in today's commercial thinking. Tax is just another cost to be fully taken into consideration when deciding the efficacy of a project and the adequacy of the after tax return to investors or shareholders. The second matter of fact is that we need more private investment to sustain our recovery to economic health enabling a return to satisfactorily high standards of living for our populace. Let us not forget the third factor, the third truth; that is, that after-tax returns and profits in Australia are far too low relative to the rate of return on Government bonds, as well as being well down on the levels prevailing during that unprecedented period of sound economic growth and progress during the 1960s. What do we see in this legislation to remove the sort of uncertainty that is stultifying economic growth in Australia today? We see the extension of the investment allowance by one miserable year to 30 June 1986. What sort of encouragement is that? Apart from those investors whose short term advantage may be catered for, there is nothing in this measure which gives heart, which generates confidence, to those contemplating a medium to long term investment. Everything is short term with this socialist Government. Every economic or taxing measure seems destined to be determined by the date of the next election; that is, the next premature election. In the meantime, with commendable flexibility and dexterity, private investors sit on their hands until their future is clear. It is not difficult to imagine that the private sector will be accused sooner or later, sometime in the future, of perpetrating a strike of capital. That will be the excuse offered by this Government. That sort of diversionary accusation is quite on the cards unless there are reintroduced into business planning matters which encourage and induce medium to long term planning and commitment of capital over the medium to long term. To the extent that these Bills do little or nothing towards durable economic goals, goals without controls, they are to be condemned. To the extent that they do not address real needs, these Bills are to be decried. While there is almost universal agreement among the economically informed, the Budget and these associated tax measures fly in the face of the demands which should be made by anyone having an iota of common sense. There is almost certainly general agreement in the private sector on the need for increased investment. Increased private investment is probably the most important ingredient of the mix that is necessary to improve our productive capacity and in turn to meet the demands for growth of living standards. But that sort of investment will be forthcoming only if the profitability of private Australian enterprises improves. Economic growth will occur only-in fact, it will occur irrespective of world economic trends and improvement-if after-tax profitability is enhanced. To achieve that, or to achieve what should be common objectives, there has to be a re-ordering of Commonwealth Government priorities, which is not evident in these Bills or in the recently announced Budget. The extension of the investment allowance by a year will not go any way towards what are inescapably desirable economic objectives; nor will the record levels of deficit spending, taxation or government expenditure. These Bills are part of the Budget plot to increase expenditure on interest-that is not repayment of principal borrowings but interest on a deficit-by 29 per cent to an unprecedented $5.6 billion this financial year. The Bills are part of the scheme to increase expenditure on health by 40 per cent, or $1.772 billion. They are part of the plot to increase total spending by 13 per cent to nearly $64 billion , which is another record. They are part of the scheme to increase pay as you earn taxation by 14 per cent, or $2.755 billion. They are part of the plot to increase other personal taxes by an horrendous 45 per cent or nearly $2 billion. They are part of the scheme of things which will see an increase in total taxation of 18 per cent or nearly $8.6 billion. These Bills fail, as does the entire Budget strategy, to come to grips with even the basic medium term needs of Australian industry and commerce. The end result of this Government's lack of foresight, which is tantamount in my opinion to negligence, will be more of the unimaginative same for the foreseeable future . There will be more unpredictability, more inflexibility, and more, in fact massive doses of, crippling uncertainty. That is to be regretted. But more than that, it is to be deplored. Particularly will it be deplored by our unemployed youth as the realisation sets in that short term election-oriented measures will rob them of the opportunity of gainful work. The uncertainty of these voluminous additions and amendments to an already voluminous principal Act is almost beyond description and is yet to be largely understood. The fact remains that massive uncertainty arises out of them. Uncertainty is rife not only because of these measures but also because of other Budget and industrial relations policies adopted by this Government. There is massive uncertainty among the investing public and it will remain to be seen what judgment the Australian people put on that. But I am very confident that in the coming election they will make the right judgment. I hope to see the day when we return to responsible government led by a Liberal Party Prime Minister in Andrew Peacock in coalition with our colleagues in the National Party. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.42) —We have heard a great deal in the past 18 months since this Government came to office, particularly in the last few days, about honesty in politics, and we have been subjected to the continual protestations of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that he is a man of unimpeachable integrity and honesty whose word is his bond. But nowhere is this misrepresentation of the Prime Minister's capacity for honesty more highlighted than in the field of taxation. There are three areas in which this Prime Minister has misrepresented the truth to the Australian people. First and foremost are the broken promises of immediate tax cuts made prior to the last election and the fact that personal income tax cuts were allowed only in the 1984 Budget and proved to be totally illusory when seen against increased government charges and taxation. Secondly, the Prime Minister will not come clean, will not be honest, as to this Government's intention with regard to a capital gains tax. Does he intend to impose a capital gains tax? Every piece of evidence available to us suggests that a capital gains tax will certainly be introduced, but not before the next election. Thirdly, the Prime Minister stands condemned for a lack of honesty in his continual misrepresentation of the Opposition's stand on tax avoiders and retrospective legislation. He knows, as every member of the Government knows, that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the former Treasurer, did more than any other Treasurer in the history of this nation could possibly have done to catch and prevent tax evaders. Yet time and again in this chamber we have seen the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) harangue the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and, quite simply, present a barrage of misrepresentations and inaccuracies to the people of Australia. For that the Prime Minister stands condemned. (Quorum formed) Prior to the quorum being called I was discussing the failure of the Government to be completely honest with the Australian people about the matter of taxation. It is extremely ironical that the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), who has now entered the chamber, stands condemned as the most dishonest pretender in this Parliament. I refer to a person who did not hesitate for a moment to destroy or to attempt to destroy the good name and reputation of a great many innocent people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —The honourable member for Gippsland knows that it is out of order to reflect on any honourable member. He will withdraw the reflection on the Minister for Finance. Mr Howard —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Insofar as your request relates to the expression 'dishonest' it is consistent with my understanding of the procedures of the House. But insofar as it extends to the general allegations of double standards it is not consistent. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member for Gippsland will withdraw the remark he made reflecting on the honesty of the Minister for Finance. Mr Howard —Which remark? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —He well knows the remark I mean. Mr McGAURAN —It is somewhat amusing, Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr McGAURAN —I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have told the honourable member for Gippsland to withdraw the remark. He will withdraw the remark or resume his seat. Mr McGAURAN —I have withdrawn. Allow me to say that the Minister for Finance has displayed a lack of honesty to the chamber over a period and as a result it is abundantly clear that he stands condemned as a person who is prepared to mislead this chamber as to his commitment to the tax avoidance industry. He is a person who sought to avoid paying his taxation and yet in an unprecedented display of double standards set out deliberately to wreck the reputation and good name of a great many people, and any member of the Government who condones that behaviour stands condemned with the Minister for Finance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Gippsland will resume his seat. The honourable member for Gippsland has again suggested to the chamber that the Minister for Finance was misleading the chamber, and that is unparliamentary. I suggest to the honourable member for Gippsland that he confine his remarks to the Bills. Mr Howard —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your guidance on a point of procedure. I understand that to be in accordance with the Standing Orders. I ask you, Sir, whether by that request to the honourable member for Gippsland you are asserting that it is contrary to the Standing Orders of this House for an honourable member to allege that another honourable member has misled the House. Mr Uren —Mr Speaker, further to the point of order, the term used was 'lack of honesty'. Mr Howard —That was earlier. Mr Uren —It was not. It was after Mr Deputy Speaker asked the honourable member for Gippsland to withdraw. He used the words 'lack of honesty'. It seems to me that that is a direct reflection on the Minister. Therefore I believe that your ruling should be upheld, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that the honourable member should withdraw and apologise. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have asked the honourable member for Gippsland to withdraw the remark that I ruled was a reflection on the Minister for Finance, that is, that he was misleading the chamber. The honourable member had earlier referred to the dishonesty of the Minister for Finance. I asked him to withdraw that remark, which he did. He went on then to reflect further on the Minister for Finance with the claim that the Minister has misled the chamber. I rule that that was unparliamentary and ask that it be withdrawn. The honourable member for Gippsland will withdraw that remark. Mr McGAURAN —That is withdrawn, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is no more important issue in this country than the reform and restructuring of our taxation system, but the contribution of the Minister for Finance holds that in absolute ridicule . If he is to be involved in a direct way with the very type of taxation avoidance activity for which he so roundly and so unjustly condemned innocent members of the public, then by his own words and standards he stands condemned by this chamber and by a great many Australians. It is of no assistance at all to the ongoing taxation debate in this country for the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance continually to accuse the Opposition of supporting the tax avoidance industry when one of their colleagues is certainly part of that attempt to minimise or avoid taxation. The honourable member for Bennelong, the former Treasurer, stands proudly on his record as having done everything to smash and destroy the tax avoidance industry. There is no greater testimony to that than the words of the Minister for Finance himself when last year he declared to a meeting of accountants in Sydney that the tax avoidance industry in this country was dead. For that reason any member of the Government who accuses the Opposition of assisting or sheltering tax avoiders or of not having done enough in the past is playing with the truth and completely an utterly misrepresenting the situation. The Prime Minister has not only failed to implement the taxation cuts as promised at the last election and to come clean on the matter of a capital gains or wealth tax or gift and death duties tax, but he has also introduced an assets tax. We know, of course, that it is termed an assets test, but it amounts to nothing more and nothing less than an assets tax. It is a capital gains tax under a different cloak. Mr Rocher —And it is retrospective too. Mr McGAURAN —As my colleague has advised the House, it is also a retrospective tax and amounts in a different form to a gift duties tax. It is a capital gains tax because it takes no account of to what extent a holding or a capital investment generates income. Thus, of course, we have a situation in which a great many rural producers have over a lifetime invested a great deal of capital and a lifetime of hard work. Mr Gear —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I appreciate that you give a fair bit of leeway in these discussions but certainly the honourable member for Gippsland is straying way away from the Bills. I ask you to draw his attention to that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —I uphold the point of order. I was about to suggest to the honourable member for Gippsland that he return to the subject matter of the Bills before the chamber. I now do so. Mr McGAURAN —I well understand the sensitivity of Government members on this matter, particularly the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) who has throughout his electorate and also in this chamber sought to reassure the rural producers of the country electorate of McMillan that they have nothing to fear from an assets test or an assets tax. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland I fear is defying the Chair. I told him to return to the Bills. He will return to the Bills. The honourable member for Gippsland is a fairly new member, but he has been here long enough to know that when he is told to return to the subject matter of the Bills he should do so. He will now return to the subject matter of the Bills. Mr Cadman —I rise on a point of order. I refer you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to standing order 81 (b) which deals with debates regarding appropriation and supply. I would have regarded a tax Bill as a Supply Bill in the proper sense of it and therefore the honourable member has a free range of areas that he can debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr McGAURAN —My colleagues and I have a number of concerns about the legislation before the House, not least being the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill which automatically makes officers of companies guilty of tax offences committed by companies unless they can prove-I stress that the onus is upon those officers- that they did not participate in the offence. This has a very clear effect of shifting the onus of proof away from the Crown or prosecution to a defendant. In my view, one which is shared by such eminent legal counsel as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) who is at the table, that is a matter of severe concern and creates a precedent which will be proved very difficult to live with . Mr Braithwaite —They will be guilty until proven innocent. Mr McGAURAN —As the honourable member for Dawson interjected, this legislation will have the effect of declaring someone guilty until proven innocent whereas the most basic tenet of our common law system is that one is innocent until proven guilty and that the burden of proof and the standard of proof lies upon the prosecutor. For that reason, that legislation is of concern. That concern has been expressed by the Australian Law Council and by a great many lawyers who have made representations to members of parliament. To date the Government and every member of the Government who has spoken have failed to address satisfactorily that objection of the Opposition. I ask the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) in his summing up remarks to satisfy the Opposition that that is not the case. It is a very dangerous path to go down whereby somebody charged with an offence has the duty and the liability of proving his innocence. For that reason, together with the reasons outlined by a number of members of the Opposition, I have a number of concerns about this legislation. The legislation is part of the Government's stop-gap or band-aid measure approach to taxation. One of the failures of the last Budget was that there was no comprehensive or cohesive restructuring of, or even an attempt to restructure and reform, the taxation system, reform which is so desperately needed in this country. It is desperately needed if we are to attain the objective which I believe is shared by all honourable members-employment. It is only by stimulation and assistance to the private sector by deregulation and the lowering of taxation that we will achieve the necessary economic growth to achieve a higher rate of employment. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(11.00) —I would like to continue the arguments advanced by my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). Honourable members should be aware, if they have read today's Australian Financial Review, that the Law Council of Australia has described part of the provisions of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) and the Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill as staggering. The Law Council has said that these Bills are administratively harsh, unfair and unnecessary. The area to which the Law Council is particularly referring is the decision of the Government to amend the Taxation Legislation to reverse the onus of proof so that it essentially provides that company directors are considered to have committed a tax offence unless they are able to prove they were not in any way knowingly concerned with the action which led to the offence. This is a major reversal of the standard of proof in this country. I suggest as an aside that the Government should think very carefully about the implications of this proposed change. Perhaps if it were applied to the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) there may be a case for him to argue. As I understand it, all the statements made by the Government in defence of the Minister have been on the basis that the Commissioner of Taxation does not believe that an offence has been committed. However, I think that if this onus of proof decision were to be applied now to the Minister he would be required to prove that no offence has been committed rather than seek the opinion of the Taxation Commissioner that no offence has been committed. We should be presuming that the Minister for Finance has avoided paying tax and it should be encumbent upon him to prove to this House and the Australian people that he has not avoided paying tax. It is a great pity that the Minister is not in the House because I think one of the great problems we have with this Government is that it introduces regulations which apply to the Australian people but not to Ministers or members of the Government. This House should consider fully the implications of what amounts to a very totalitarian act on the part of this Government. Obviously what we are seeing in this legislation is totalitarian socialism, or, to be more correct, totalitarian democratic socialism. It is democratic, of course, if you are on the Government side of the House. I return to the implications of the proposed fundamental change to our system of law. We should examine its implications in economic terms for Australia. The corporate structure was invented out of an economic need, a need to provide a structure which enabled people who are prepared to invest and to risk their capital in business with a way of limiting their liability. It has a great history in our British legal system as opposed to the French legal system. I believe it has been the backbone and the basis of the economic development of the Western world. In this measure the Government proposes to reverse the principle of limited liability and provide a situation in which company directors, when they assume office, can become liable. Their liability can be virtually unlimited unless they can prove that they were not associated with it in any way, at any time, and the limitations on the period for which they must prove that they had no knowledge or no association are very long indeed. I do not believe the consequences of that matter have been addressed by this Government. I do not believe they have been addressed because the Government does not understand the basic economic system under which this country operates. People will not invest unless they have confidence that the investment will be successful. One of the limiting factors in determining whether an investment will be successful is the legal position of that investment and the legal position of the person making the investment. This legislation changes substantially the legal position of company directors with respect to tax liability. In this country the tax liability of companies is ever increasing. If that ever increasing liability is to be transferred to company directors, what will be the impact on people considering investment and considering the company structure as a vehicle for that investment? One thing this country needs right now is new investment, new business and people who are prepared to take a chance , invest in our future and work. However they are not going to do it if the Government proceeds with this sort of legislation, which is a further disincentive to the individual to invest, a disincentive to economic growth and, more fundamentally, a change to our structure of law and the basis of our economy. I guess I should not be surprised that the Government has decided to bring in such draconian legislation. The Government also decided in the Budget that it would extend the spouse rebate to de facto relationships. How is the Government going to decide what is a legitimate de facto relationship, whether it exists and whether it is continuing without introducing some other far reaching and totalitarian inspection system to determine who is sleeping with whom on what nights and how often? Will such a system apply for the seven days leading up to 30 June or must it continue for 14 days after 30 June and must it have occurred for three months in the previous 12 months? I think that and the reversal of the onus of proof is a further indication of the Government's determination to burden this country with unnecessary and ridiculous tax laws. When one considers the size of the deficit that is projected on what could best be described as rubbery figures-that is, $6.7 billion-there is some understanding of the need for the Government to maximise tax revenues. I think it has been suggested that provisional tax revenues are expected to increase by some 43 per cent in the coming tax year. How can that be achieved in a situation where the economy is not growing rapidly, other than by these excessive, harsh and unconscionable administrative changes to the tax penalties and tax administration legislation? Obviously what this Government proposes to do is wring every cent out of Australian taxpayers through penalties , fear and investigations to pay for its profligate expenditure and to cover the rubbery figures which are included in the Budget. I do not believe that the people of Australia approve of this sort of approach to tax gathering. They do not approve of basic tampering with our system of law. They will have a chance, apparently, very soon to vote on it and I am confident that they will vote against it. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.07) —in reply-I thank all honourable members who took part in the second reading debate of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1984. Although I was not able to be in the chamber for all of the debate I have had a report on the various contributions and I would like to respond to a few of them . Of course, the main one was from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who led for the Opposition. I thought his main point was that the reverse onus of proof provision relating to the commission of offences by officers of corporations should not be proceeded with. The Government would like to respond to that proposition of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and others who mentioned it during their contributions because the Government has considered very seriously that point of view. The Government looked at it very carefully before it made up its mind to go ahead with that proposition. Our response to it is as follows: The proposed new section 8Y of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 will mean that a person who is concerned in , or takes part in, the management of a corporation is deemed to have committed any taxation offence committed by the corporation and will be punishable accordingly. Of course, a lot of criticism of that view was set out in a letter from the Law Council of Australia which was given publicity particularly in this morning's Age newspaper. This letter, which apparently was only penned last Friday was, I believe, received in the office of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) only yesterday. The Law Council says without any justification that this is an unprecedented reversal of the onus of proof, imposing an improper and an unnecessary burden and a change in the fundamental rights of every Australian. The provision is by no means unprecedented. Section 552 of the Companies Code, enacted in 1981 during the term of the Government of those now in Opposition who are making these charges, applies in a similar way in relation to offences concerned with share offers. I know that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the Companies Code-he did not altogether ignore it-during his remarks. But there are 200 other Commonwealth laws, including the Health Insurance Act, the Customs Act and the Migration Act, containing provisions reversing the burden of proof where the conduct constituting the offence is within the knowledge of the offenders. The provision is necessary. The very recent case of Reynolds v. the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, decided on 26 September 1984, amply demonstrates how people can avoid being penalised for clear breaches of the law by hiding behind the corporate veil. In that case, the company had failed to remit to the Commissioner of taxation tax instalments deducted from the wages of employees. The Commissioner was unable to secure a conviction against a person who was at all material times a director of the company despite existing provisions that were designed for that very purpose. Opposition members are seeking to promote that sort of thing happening, seeking to promote people hiding behind the corporate veil, managing to avoid the taxes that should have been paid, so that innocent taxpayers of this country, who are making up for those people who are avoiding and evading this tax, are therefore obliged to make up the difference. Without the aid of a provision such as section 8Y it would be difficult to obtain a conviction against company officers who deliberately shield behind the corporate veil. That practice is one being used to the detriment of the revenue in the pay as you earn area. A most disturbing practice has developed of persons using the corporate veil to misappropriate moneys due to the Commissioner on account of tax withheld from employees' salaries or wages. Often the shareholders themselves are employees of the company and not only make off with moneys due to the Commonwealth revenue but, under existing law, claim to be entitled to a credit in their personal assessments of such money. In some cases the practice is repeated on more than one occasion, thus giving the lie to any suggestion of unintended breaches of the law. Section 8Y, while modelled on section 552 of the Companies Code, eliminates deficiencies that would have arisen from the fact that, to secure a conviction, it is necessary first to obtain a conviction against the company itself. If the section 552 approach had been adopted precisely that could have led to the situation where a company director may have become exposed to a gaol sentence for an offence by the company established only on the balance of probabilities rather than a 'beyond reasonable doubt' basis. That cannot happen under section 8Y. Under that section it will be necessary, in those circumstances, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the company actually engaged in the conduct constituting the offence before a company officer could be convicted. Even then, the officer would not be convicted if able to show, 'on the balance of probabilities', that he or she did not aid or abet, and was not knowingly concerned in, the act that constituted the offence. Apart from misrepresenting the required burden of proof, the example cited by the Law Council, and the clones opposite who have been mouthing the same thing, of a conviction after the elapse of 15 years, is, to say the least, absolutely fanciful. As the only way in which a company can commit an offence is through the actions of its officers or those who control it, what alternative does the Law Society, or the Opposition, have to deal with the problems of adequately punishing those who choose to hide behind the corporate veil in cheating their fellow citizens? Their solution, thus far, is just to delete the proposed measure and allow such persons to escape scot-free. I say again that all that they are doing is managing to take up the cudgels on behalf of those who are avoiding and evading taxes, which is what their normal behaviour has been. The only other matter that the Law Council raised that is worth mentioning is that a double tax penalty is automatically imposed for late lodgment of returns or information, regardless of the degree of lateness or culpability. Our response to that is that under the relevant new provisions-for example, section 222 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 being inserted by clause 152-a person is liable to a penalty for refusing or failing to furnish a return or information when required to do so pursuant to the law of double the amount of tax payable in respect of the relevant year of income. The new provision is nothing more than a re-enactment of the existing provision, which is contained in section 226 (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act, with an increase in the penalty from 100 per cent to 200 per cent of tax assessable. Apart from increasing the maximum penalty, the new provisions do not impose any great relative burden on new or marginal offenders as against blatant or habitual offenders than do the existing provisions. There is no change in relation to the existing provisions. The question needs to be asked, therefore, why the Law Council has not now or in the past seen fit to criticise that aspect of the existing provisions which have, after all, been in operation for many years. The Law Council is well aware that it overstates the position to say that a person who is one day late in furnishing an income tax or sales tax return will be automatically liable to pay double the tax due. The truth is, and the Law Council knows this because it is as it has always been so, that the Commissioner of Taxation will be able by the exercise of his power to remit the whole or a part of the maximum penalty, to adjust the penalty to take account of variable factors such as the degree of lateness in complying with lodgment requirements, the taxpayer's previous record of lodgment, a persistent refusal to furnish information or many other special factors that have prevented compliance with the requirement to furnish a return or information. I could answer at greater length, but it is late and the House has a lot of business to enact. I say this: The submission received from the Law Council of Australia is irresponsible. It is totally irresponsible because every one of the other matters it raised in the course of its letter- Mr Shipton —So much for consensus and consultation. Mr HURFORD —We will have consensus with those who will be responsible. But for such a body to raise matters like this in this way is totally irresponsible. It is an understatement to say heaven help this community when people who have had a privileged education put forward something of such poor quality as is the case with the Law Council of Australia on an occasion like this. Lastly, there are matters that were raised by the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) and the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) which I would have liked to have responded to tonight. But I will take the trouble tomorrow to respond to them in written form because of the lateness of the hour. Before resuming my seat I inform the House that the Government will make several amendments of a technical nature to one of the Bills that is before the House at this time-the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill. It will make those amendments in another place because of the technical requirements of printing. The Government decided on this way of dealing with the matter to avoid delays that would otherwise occur if the amendments were dealt with in this House and this large Bill then had to be reprinted and proof read before its introduction in the Senate. Those matters of a technical nature will be amended in the Senate and will come back to this House next week. Mr Shipton —Will you be looking at some of the matters we have raised in the debate? Mr HURFORD —I have looked at all the matters that the Opposition has raised in the debate and I have already answered the main ones. I have also said that the minor ones raised by the honourable member for Higgins and the honourable member for Fisher will be answered in writing tomorrow. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.22) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HODGMAN —This afternoon I was disgracefully misrepresented by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his lengthy speech to the Parliament in which he attempted to justify his Government's action in killing the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. In response to a question I put to the Prime Minister he responded-and I have checked the Hansard tape: The honourable member for Denison is saying one of two things: Either he does not believe Mr Justice Stewart or, if Mr Justice Stewart were to expose such an action-- that is, a veto by a Premier- there would be no political ramifications. Both those statements by the Prime Minister gravely misrepresent me. I said nothing in my question to the Prime Minister to indicate disbelief of Mr Justice Stewart. I said nothing in my question to the Prime Minister to indicate that there will be no political ramifications. What I was conveying, as I believe the Prime Minister well knew, is that if a State government, through its Premier, said that it was a State matter, the National Crime Authority would be powerless to continue its investigations-- Mr Allan Morris —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The question that is being referred to was by way of an interjection in the chamber, not a formal question. I submit that to make a personal explanation in relation to an interjection is not within the rules. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair is not aware of the exact circumstances, but the honourable member for Denison has been given permission to make a personal explanation. He may continue. Mr HODGMAN —If I could just respond in supporting your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker , I have checked with Hansard. It was a question put during the Prime Minister's remarks to which he responded. It is in Hansard, and I have heard the tape. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison may continue his personal explanation. Mr HODGMAN —What I was conveying, and it is a matter of great importance, as I believe the Prime Minister well knew, is that if a State government, through its Premier, said that it was a State matter, the National Crime Authority would be powerless to continue its investigations-- Mr Hurford —Nonsense! Rubbish! Mr HODGMAN —The Minister for Housing and Construction says 'nonsense' and ' rubbish'. Mr Deputy Speaker, am I allowed to continue my statement or am I to be interrupted? Mr Hurford —It is a silly point you are making. Mr HODGMAN —It is not a silly point to make. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Denison does not continue with his personal explanation, he may resume his seat. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. What I was conveying is that if a State government, through its Premier, said that it was a State matter, the National Crime Authority would be powerless to continue its investigations, whereas the Royal Commission of Mr Costigan, QC would be able to continue its investigations and bring the criminals to justice, notwithstanding the objections of a particular State Premier, such as Mr Wran in particular. Consideration resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced. Clauses 1 to 8-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 9 (Gifts, calls on afforestation shares, pensions, &c.) Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(11.26) —I move: (1) Clause 9, page 6, lines 17-19, omit sub-clause (3), substitute the following sub-clauses: ''(3) Sub-paragraph 78 (1) (a) (lxxxi), and paragraph 78 (1) (ac), of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 apply to gifts made after 21 August 1984. ''(4) Paragraph 78 (1) (ad) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 applies to gifts made after 30 June 1982.''. The amendment deals with the date of application of the additions to section 78. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) will recall that during the second reading debate I expressed concern that the extension of the gift provisions to embrace gifts of stock and fodder would not cover gifts of that kind made in relation to the Ash Wednesday fires, for example, and the very severe effect of the drought. I suggested to the Minister that what ought to happen is that the measure be revised to have a retroactive effect, it not being an objectionable principle to confer a retroactive benefit as distinct from imposing a retroactive liability, and that instead of the date of operation being 21 August 1984 it ought to be 30 June 1982. As I said to the honourable gentleman, I do not seek to take an undue political point about it. It was my recollection, without checking the record, that both the former Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) indicated during the election campaign support for the idea that gifts in kind should attract the same benefit as the gifts of cash which are, of course, tax deductible in relation to those particular disasters. That is the purpose of this amendment. It is a sensible amendment. It is one which honourable members such as the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) whom I see in the chamber, and indeed the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths), would want to support. I know that, exercising his normal common sense in these matters, the Minister at the table will see the wisdom of it. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.29) —The Government listened carefully to remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) during his speech on the second reading. We have gone back over our records in order to address the point that he raised with the seriousness it deserves. But in undertaking that examination we have found that there is no evidence of any undertaking to alter the law in a manner which would apply to gifts of trading stock made during the Ash Wednesday bushfires. The Government agreed in another place to examine an apparent anomaly that was drawn to attention by the introduction of a private member's Bill that itself had some technical deficiencies. The result of that examination was reflected in the amendments contained in this Bill. It should be noted that gifts of trading stock by one farmer direct to another farmer are not within the ambit of this Bill. The Bill deals only with the gift of trading stock to recognised tax deductible gift institutions. The final point I make is that without a power to amend assessments that have already been made, any retrospective operation of the measure would be largely ineffective. It is for those reasons that the Government does not support the amendment moved by the Opposition. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 10 to 12-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clause 12A. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.32) —I move: (1) After clause 12, page 8, insert the following new clause: Limitations on certain deductions ''12A. (1) Section 79C of the Principal Act is amended by omitting 'Subject to sub-section 121BA (5), the' and substituting 'The'. ''(2) The amendment made by sub-section (1) applies to assessments in respect of income of the year of income that commenced on 1 July 1984 and of all subsequent years of income.''. This amendment is technical in nature. It will remove from section 79C of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Act (No. 4) 1984 reference to a provision of that Act which was repealed earlier this year. Therefore, I suggest that the amendment is worthy of support and I trust that the Opposition will support it. Proposed new clause 12A agreed to. Clause 13. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(11.33) —I move: Clause 13, page 8, after proposed sub-section (2) insert the following sub- section: '' ' (2A) Where the existence of non-voting, redeemable preference shares in a subsidiary does not have any relevance to the beneficial ownership of that subsidiary, they will be disregarded for the purposes of paragraph 2 (a).' . '' . The purpose of this amendment is very simply that where there is a situation in which there is 100 per cent common ownership in relation to companies entitled to the group taxation deduction provisions but for the existence of non-voting redeemable preferences shares in a subsidiary which do not have any relevance to the beneficial ownership of the subsidiary, we believe that the intention of the Government's very wise measure should be given effect to. I am very pleased that the Government has resurrected a measure that was contained in the Fraser Government's last Budget. It was put aside last year. The Government, to its credit, has brought it back this year. I am simply suggesting that in those cases where but for what is basically a technicality one has a common ownership and there is no shifting of beneficial interests the full effect of the measure ought to be available. Once again I appeal to the common sense of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) and ask him to consider accepting this amendment on behalf of the Government. It will stand the Government in good stead. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.34) —Once again I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) for giving us notice of this amendment and giving us time to look seriously at it. But the Government is of the view that the concession proposed in the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1984 to allow for the offset of losses incurred in 1984-85 and later income years by one resident company within a company group against the taxable income of other resident companies in the group is a considerable concession to such groups. We are concerned with the qualifying test which will require a 100 per cent common ownership of all shares in the company which incurs the loss and the company to which the right to an allowable deduction for the loss is to be transferred. The Government recognises that there may be so-called hard cases where, for whatever commercial or other reasons may be present, there are minority shareholdings in a company or some or all of a particular class of shares are owned by persons outside the company group, which will leave the particular company outside the scope of this concession. We realise that that may be the case. However, the Opposition will remember that a concession along the lines proposed was considered by both the Asprey Taxation Review Committee and the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. It is not a new idea that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition brings to us. It is an idea that was considered at length by those committees and they recommended a 100 per cent common ownership test, although the latter did suggest that consideration could be given to lowering the limit at some future date. I want to put the emphasis on that future date. There is also no doubt that the need to have regard to the interests of minority shareholders and to guard against the possible increased potential for tax avoidance, if anything less than 100 per cent ownership on all classes of shares is adopted as the fundamental test, would add considerably to the administrative complexity of the scheme. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to accept my good faith in saying to him that we want to introduce this at this stage, to see how it works and to look at the administrative burdens of it. If it is the Government's view that it should be altered at a later stage, I give him my assurance that we will do so at that later stage if there are no administrative difficulties. We therefore oppose the amendment at this stage. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.37) —I move: (2) After clause 24, page 19, insert the following new clauses: Interpretation ''24A. Section 221YHA of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from paragraph (a) of the definition of 'payment' in sub- section (1) 'or' (last occurring); (b) by inserting after paragraph (b) of the definition of 'payment' in sub- section (1) of the following word and paragraph: 'or (c) a payment made to or by a trustee, being the trustee of the estate of a bankrupt or the liquidator of a company that is being wound up;'; and (c) by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: '(7) For the purposes of the application of sub-section 221YHAA(3) or 221YHD ( 1E) or (1F) in relation to an obligation transfer form forwarded to a payee by an eligible paying authority, a reference in that sub-section to a year of income shall be read as a reference to- (a) in a case to which paragraph (b) does not apply-a financial year; or (b) if the payee has, before the end of the first month in respect of which the obligation transfer form has effect, given written notice to the eligible paying authority that the payee has adopted under this Act an accounting period in lieu of the financial year-that accounting period.'. Special provisions relating to certain prescribed payments ''24B. Section 221HYAA of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (3) and substituting the following sub-section: '(3) Where- (a) either before or after the commencement of this sub-section, a payee has completed the part of a deduction form applicable to the payee and delivered the form to an eligible paying authority; and (b) the eligible paying authority completes, and forwards to the payee, an obligation transfer form that specifies, as the month from which the obligation transfer form has effect, a month during a year of income (in this sub-section referred to as the ''relevant month''), not being- (i) where- (A) no prescribed payment has been made by the eligible paying authority to the payee in the month in which, and before the time when, the obligation transfer form is forwarded to the payee; or (B) the payee has properly furnished a deduction form to the eligible paying authority in respect of the month in which the obligation transfer form is forwarded to the payee, a month before the month in which the obligation transfer form is forwarded to the payee; or (ii) in any other case-the month in which the obligation transfer form is forwarded to the payee or a preceding month, the payee shall be taken to have properly furnished a deduction form to the eligible paying authority in relation to prescribed payments made to the payee by the eligible paying authority during- (c) the relevant month or a subsequent month in the year of income; and (d) where, before the end of the year of income, the payee has delivered to the eligible paying authority a deduction form in which the payee has declared that the payee is the holder of a deduction variation certificate that is in force during a period (in this paragraph referred to as the ''variation period'') commencing before the end of the year of income and including the first months after the end of the year of income-any month after the end of the year of income and during the variation period, not including any month commencing after the eligible paying authority has been notified by the payee of the revocation of the deduction variation certificate.'. Provision of information to Commissioner ''24C. (1) Section 221YHB of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by inserting in sub-section (9) 'subject to sub-section (9A),' after 'the person shall,'; and (b) by inserting after sub-section (9) the following sub-section: '(9A) Where- (a) but for this sub-section, sub-section (9) would apply in relation to a person in relation to a construction project; and (b) by reason of the application of sub-section 221YHR (11), section 221YHD did not apply in relation to any prescribed payment that the person was liable to make under any contract for the undertaking or carrying out of the construction project, sub-section (9) does not apply in relation to the person in relation to the construction project.'. ''(2) The amendments made by sub-section (1) apply in relation to construction projects completed after the commencement of this section. Duties of eligible paying authorities ''24D. Section 221YHD of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by inserting after sub-section (1) the following sub-sections: '(1A) Where, under paragraph 221YHAA (3) (b), an eligible paying authority completes, and forwards to a payee, an obligation transfer form, the eligible paying authority may, in the obligation transfer form, elect that the payee be treated as a prescribed payee for the purposes of this section in relation to the month or months during which the obligation transfer form has effect. '(1B) For the purposes of this section, a payee is a prescribed payee in relation to a month if- (a) an obligation transfer form forwarded to the payee under paragraph 221YHAA (3) (b) includes an election under sub-section (1A) of this section; and (b) the obligation transfer form has effect during that month. '(1C) Paragraph (1) (b) does not apply in relation to prescribed payments made during a month to a payee who is a prescribed payee in relation to the month. '(1D) A person who is an eligible paying authority in relation to a prescribed payment or prescribed payments that the person is liable to make during a month to a payee who is a prescribed payee, or payees who are prescribed payees, in relation to the month shall, within 14 days after the end of the month- (a) complete a reconciliation form in relation to prescribed payments made during the month to payees who are prescribed payees in relation to the month; (b) if no amount has been deducted under paragraph (1) (a) from any prescribed payment made by the eligible paying authority during the month to a payee who is a prescribed payee in relation to the month-forward to the Commissioner the reconciliation form together with such other information as the Commissioner, by notice published in the Gazette, requires, being information in such form as is required by that notice, or in such other form as the Commissioner allows; and (c) in a case to which paragraph (b) does not apply- (i) pay to the Commissioner all amounts deducted under paragraph (1) (a) from prescribed payments made by the eligible paying authority during the month to payees who are prescribed payees in relation to the month; and (ii) at the time of making the payment referred to in sub-paragraph (1), forward to the Commissioner the reconciliation form together with such other information as the Commissioner, by notice published in the Gazette, requires, being information in such forms as is required by that notice, or in such other form as the Commissioner allows. '(1E) Where- (a) an obligation transfer form that included an election under sub-section (1A ) has been completed and forwarded to a payee by an eligible paying authority; (b) the obligation transfer form ceases to have effect at the end of a month during a year of income (in this sub-section referred to as the ''relevant month ''), not being the last month of the year of income; and (c) the eligible paying authority does not, before the expiration of the relevant month, complete and forward to the payee a further obligation transfer form including an election under sub-section (1A), the eligible paying authority shall, within 14 days after the end of the relevant month- (d) complete the part of a deduction form applicable to the payee by transcribing the particulars (not including any signature) contained in the last deduction form completed by the payee and delivered to the eligible paying authority; (e) complete the part of the deduction form applicable to the eligible paying authority; (f) specify in the deduction form- (i) the total of all prescribed payments made to the payee by the eligible paying authority during the month or months in the year of income during which the obligation transfer form had effect; and (ii) the total of the deductions made in accordance with paragraph (1) (a) from the prescribed payments specified in the deduction form in accordance with sub- paragraph (i) of this paragraph; (g) forward the completed deduction form to the Commissioner; and (h) deliver to the payee a copy of the completed deduction form. '(1F) Where- (a) an obligation transfer form that included an election under sub-section (1A ) has been completed and forwarded to a payee by an eligible paying authority; and (b) the obligation transfer form has effect during the last month of a year of income, the eligible paying authority shall, within 14 days after the end of that month - (c) complete the part of a deduction form applicable to the payee by transcribing the particulars (not including any signature) contained in the last deduction form completed by the payee and delivered to the eligible paying authority; (d) complete the part of the deduction form applicable to the eligible paying authority; (e) specify in the deduction form- (i) the total of all prescribed payments made to the payee by the eligible paying authority during the month or months in the year of income during which any obligation transfer form that included an election under sub-section (1A) had effect, other than prescribed payments in respect of which the eligible paying authority has forwarded a deduction form under sub-section (1E); and (ii) the total of the deductions made in accordance with paragraph (1) (a) from the prescribed payments specified in the deduction form in accordance with sub- paragraph (i) of this paragraph; (f) forward the completed deduction form to the Commissioner; and (g) deliver to the payee a copy of the completed deduction form.'; (b) by inserting in paragraph (2) (a) 'or sub-section (1D), (1E) or (1F)' after paragraph '(1) (b)'; (c) by inserting in paragraph (2) (b) 'or sub-section (1D), (1E) or (1F)' after paragraph '(1) (b)'; (d) by inserting in sub-section (3) ', (1D), (1E) or (1F)' after 'sub-section ( 1)'; (e) by inserting in paragraph (3) (b) 'or sub-sub-paragraph (1D) (c) (i)' after 'sub-paragraph (1) (b) (v) (A)'; (f) by omitting sub-sub-paragraph (5) (a) (ii) (B) and substituting the following sub-sub-paragraph: '(B) the payment is made during a period that the payee, in the deduction form, has declared to be a period during which a deduction variation certificate is in force varying the amount otherwise to be deducted from the prescribed payment under regulations for the purposes of sub-paragraph (i);'; and (g) by omitting sub-sub-paragraph (5) (a) (iii) (B) and substituting the following sub-sub-paragraph: '(B) the payment is made during a period that the payee, in the deduction form, has declared to be a period during which a deduction variation certificate is in force varying the amount otherwise to be deducted from the prescribed payment under regulations for the purposes of sub-paragraph (i); and'. ''24E. After section 221YHD of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: Refund of deductions in certain cases '221YHE. (1) Where, on application in writing by a person (in this section referred to as the ''applicant''), the Commissioner is satisfied that- (a) a deduction was made either before or after the commencement of this section from a prescribed payment to the applicant; (b) the whole or a part of the amount of the deduction (in this section referred to as the ''relevant amount'') was made due to an act or omission of the applicant or another person; and (c) having regard to- (i) the purposes of this Division; (ii) the nature of the act or omission referred to in paragraph (b); and (iii) such other matters (if any) as the Commissioner thinks fit, it would be fair and reasonable to refund the relevant amount to the applicant, the Commissioner shall refund the relevant amount to the applicant. '(2) No person is entitled to a credit under section 221YHF in respect of an amount refunded under sub-section (1) of this section.'. Credits in respect of deductions from prescribed payments ''24F. (1) Section 221YHF of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end of sub-section (3) the following paragraph: '; (d) where there is no net income of the trust estate of the year of income, the trustee is entitled to a credit of an amount equal to the sum of the deductions.'. ''(2) The amendment made by sub-section (1) has effect in respect of deduction forms received by the Commissioner before or after the commencement of this section. Application of credits ''24G. Section 221YHG of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from sub-section (2) 'neither sub-section (3) and (4) applies' and substituting 'none of sub-sections (3), (4) and (4A) applies'; (b) by inserting after sub-section (4) the following sub-section: '(4A) Where the trustee of a trust estate is entitled to a credit under paragraph 221YHF (3) (d) in relation to deductions made in a year of income from prescribed payments made to the trustee, the Commissioner shall- (a) if the amount of the credit does not exceed the amount of any tax payable by the trustee under section 99 or 99A in respect of the net income or a part of the net income of the trust estate of any other year of income-apply the amount of the credit in payment or part payment of that tax; and (b) if the amount of the credit exceeds the amount of any tax payable by the trustee under section 99 or 99A in respect of the net income or a part of the net income of the trust estate of any other year of income-apply so much of the amount of the credit as does not exceed that tax in payment of that tax.'; and (c) by omitting from sub-section (5) '(3) or (4)' and substituting '(3), (4) or (4A)'. Failure to pay amounts deducted to Commissioner ''24H. Section 221YHJ of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in sub-section (1) 'sub-paragraph 221YHD ( 1D) (c) (i)' before 'remains'. Failure to furnish deduction form, &c. ''24J. Section 221YHK of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (1) (a) all the words from and including 'or sub-sub-paragraph 221YHD (1) (b) (v) (B)' to the end of the paragraph and substituting ', sub-sub-paragraph 221YHD (1) (b) (v) (B) or paragraph 221YHD (1E) (g) or 221YHD (1F) (f) (including that sub-paragraph, sub- sub-paragraph or paragraph, as the case may be, as varied under sub-section 221YHD (2)), in relation to the prescribed payment; and'. Deduction variation certificates ''24K. Section 221YHP of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from sub-section (1) 'year of income or a part of a year of income' and substituting 'period specified in the certificate, being a period ending not later than- (a) if the period is to commence in any of the first 4 months of a year of income-the end of the corresponding month of the next succeeding year of income; and (b) in any other case-the end of the fourth month of the year of income next succeeding the year of income in which the period is to commence'; and (b) by omitting sub-section (2) and substituting the following sub-section: '(2) The Commissioner shall not issue a deduction variation certificate to a person in relation to a period unless the Commissioner is satisfied that, because special circumstances exist in relation to the person in relation to the period- (a) the amount otherwise to be deducted, under regulations for the purposes of sub-paragraph 221YHD (5) (a) (i), from prescribed payments to the person should be reduced; or (b) no amount should be deducted under those regulations from prescribed payments to the person.'. Deduction exemption certificates ''24L. (1) Section 221YHQ of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from sub-section (2) all the words from and including 'the Commissioner is satisfied' to and including 'the certificate, is issued, will relate or'; (b) by inserting in paragraph (2) (b) and sub-paragraphs (2) (c) (iii) and (2) (d) (iii) ', to the best of his knowledge and belief based on that examination,' after 'satisfied himself that'; (c) by omitting paragraph (3) (a); (d) by omitting sub-paragraph (9) (a) (i) and substituting the following sub- paragraph: '(i) the payment is to be made during a period that the payee, in the deduction form, has declared to be a period during which there is in force a deduction exemption certificate that has been issued to the payee and has not been revoked ;'; and (e) by omitting sub-paragraph (9) (b) (i) and substituting the following sub- paragraph: '(i) the payment is to be made during a period that the payee, in the deduction form, has declared to be a period during which there is in force a deduction exemption certificate that has been issued to the payee and has not been revoked ; and'. ''(2) The amendments made by sub-section (1) do not affect the validity of deduction exemption certificates issued before the commencement of this section. Reporting exemptions ''24M. (1) Section 221YHR of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1) ', being a deduction exemption certificate issued by virtue of the conditions specified in paragraphs 221YHQ (2) (a) to (e) (inclusive) being satisfied or by virtue of sub-section 221YHQ (4),'. ''(2) The amendment made by sub-section (1) does not apply in relation to deduction exemption certificates issued before the commencement of this section. ''. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(11.38) —I would like to address a couple of remarks to clause 19, which deals with the extension of the dependent spouse rebate to de facto relationships. The Opposition is unhappy that the Government has brought in this extension. It is not our intention to divide the Committee on this measure, but I would like to state on behalf of the Opposition-both the Liberal and National parties-that this is a change we resisted when we were in government. Quite a number of representations were put to me while I was Treasurer to extend the measure in the existing provision in the way that the Government proposes in the Budget. Both I and the former Government took the view that governments should continue to discriminate in favour of orthodox marital arrangements, and that in doing that governments were not passing moral judgments or moral sanctions on people's arrangements. It is not our intention to do that in stating the view I am stating. It is the view of both Opposition parties that there should continue to be a bias in our society towards orthodox marriage arrangements. If we qualify the nature of those arrangements too much by putting other arrangements on an equal legal footing, I think we will contribute to the growing disrespect for the institution of marriage. I want to make it perfectly clear that, whilst we will not divide the Committee and we are not proposing an amendment, we do not support what the Government has done in this area. There are occasions when governments ought to pay some regard to symbolism, and I think it is very unfortunate that the Government of this country has decided to remove yet another bias in our system towards orthodox marriage arrangements. I do not accept that in any way I am expressing a discriminatory view. I am in favour very strongly, and I make no apology for it, of governments discriminating in favour of orthodox marriage arrangements. I believe that this particular proposal of the Government goes against that. I know that analogies are drawn between social welfare provisions and taxation provisions. I had no difficulty during my time as Treasurer in distinguishing between the two. There is a difference between something that is in the nature of taxation benefit and something that is in the nature of an income support measure, and I think honourable members can draw a distinction between the two. I state quite strongly, on behalf of both Opposition parties, our objection to what the Government has done. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.40) —I want to add a couple of words to what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said on the matter of paying a spouse rebate to de facto spouses. I will speak purely on its administration. There is an obligation on the Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) tonight to explain to the Parliament how the Government intends to establish what is a reasonable de facto relationship and, having written the rules, how it proposes to police them. It is the height of the ridiculous. I suggested in the Parliament recently that perhaps the Government would issue a certificate of enduring personal relationship or something like that. It is well known that people who marry get a certificate. We have read recently that they can be forged but forgeries can be detected, as they have been, and the matter can be resolved. Records are kept of marriages. They can be checked. It is simple for the Commissioner of Taxation to know whether someone is married and can attract a rebate. It is well within the realms of tax evasion and avoidance in the future for someone to claim a de facto spouse. Short of parking a taxation inspector outside a person's front gate the Taxation Commissioner will have no idea whatsoever whether it is a truthful claim. If a taxation inspector went to see a person he would say: 'I am sorry about this but on 30 June I had a very loving relationship. On 5 July we had an argument and under the arrangements we have she left'. The arrangements, of course, were no arrangements at all. What will the Government do about it? It will grant the rebate. Dumb people put up these propositions, as we have seen in so many social security matters and in other areas. No thought whatsoever is given to how they will be administered. It is a joke. It goes down with other propositions of those people who live in fairy land and fly around. It is now the right of anybody in Australia to claim a de facto spouse rebate. I defy the Minister to do anything about it but grant that right. Of course he can refer to the clause of the Bill which imposes massive penalties. Perhaps he will catch a poor old truck driver who claims the rebate and is silly enough to get caught. He will be fined $10,000 which he will not have. Then the Government can put him in gaol. That will be a great help to the community as well! Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.43) —I will address the points raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). There was an anomaly inasmuch as there is no bias in favour of orthodox marriage arrangements in the Social Security Act, yet there is a bias against de facto relationships in the Income Tax Assessment Act. There is no difference in the way that either Act is administered to any great extent. I ask the honourable member for O'Connor how many times during the years that he has lodged income tax returns he has been asked to produce for the Australian Taxation Office his marriage certificate. How many times does he think that any other taxpayer in this country has so lodged his marriage certificate? How on earth does the Taxation Office find out whether a daughter-housekeeper or a housekeeper is a legitimate arrangement? Mr Tuckey —It is a case of public record. Mr HURFORD —Surely one of the other arrangements too is a case of public record. All the points he raised about what might happen on 30 June and 5 July apply to every one of the other cases. The honourable member has raised an absurdity. There is no greater difficulty in administering the law in relation to one of these relationships than there is in relation to other relationships involving a housekeeper, daughter-housekeeper or, in spite of the marriage certificate, a wife. There was an anomaly. It is long overdue that something should be done about it. For 30 of the last 35 years we have had Liberal-National Party governments in this country and they have not removed the benefits available to de factos in the Social Security Act. In fact, if we looked at it we would probably find that they introduced those benefits for de facto relationships. Similarly, we are not at all ashamed to recognise such a relationship in the Income Tax Acts. I owe it to the Committee to say something about the two amendments that I am moving in this section. They will insert in the Bill provisions that will modify the prescribed payments system, which has now been in operation for a little over one year, along the lines recently foreshadowed, following a review of the system. Honourable members will recall that the system was designed to deal with the significant tax evasion problem of non-reporting and under-reporting of income in certain industries. It has been very successful in that regard. However, the Government has always acknowledged that some changes to the operation of the system could be warranted, and undertook to review its first six months' operations. That review was completed recently, and on 4 September the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced details of the major changes which the Government has decided to make to the prescribed payments system. I will refer to them only briefly because members can look at the Treasurer's statements. There are three changes that will significantly improve the practical working of the system. The first will enable the expiry dates of deduction variation certificates and obligation transfer forms for the majority of taxpayers to be spread between the period 30 June and 31 October each year. Another will allow a payer who, by the obligation transfer form procedure, undertakes to complete deduction forms for a payee, to renew that procedure automatically each year. The third will give to a payer using that procedure the option of completing a deduction form for each payee annually instead of completing them on a monthly basis. Further changes will exclude from the scope of the system liquidators of companies that are being wound up and trustees in bankruptcy; allow excess deductions resulting from a genuine oversight or error to be refunded by the Commissioner of Taxation; and remove the existing no tax to pay basis of issuing deduction exemption certificates. The Government is satisfied that these modifications will not affect the anti-evasion objectives of the system, but will significantly lessen the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with it. The amendment will also clarify the responsibilities of accountants who are required to support their clients' applications for exemption from this system. This matter has caused some disquiet within the ranks of the accounting profession since the system's introduction. Finally, the amendment will make some changes of a housekeeping kind which, in his statement on 4 September, the Treasurer indicated would be announced at this time. The first of these changes will relieve householders who do not have to report payments made to exempt payees in connection with a construction project of the obligation to notify the Commissioner of Taxation of the project's completion. Another will provide a basis for the allowance of credit for tax deducted from prescribed payments in situations where a trust estate sustains a loss. The last such change will make it clear that the benefit of a deduction variation or exemption certificate can only be obtained in relation to prescribed payments made when the certificate is in force. A supplementary explanatory memorandum containing details of the amendments has been circulated to honourable members. I am pleased to be in a position to move this amendment so soon after completion of the Government's review of the operation of the prescribed payments system. I am pleased, not only because I am Minister Assisting the Treasurer, and therefore leading in this debate, but also as Minister for Housing and Construction because I realise that there is an administrative burden for a lot of builders and sub-contractors. They realise now, with 55,000 new tax files applied for, that there has been a good purpose, in the introduction of the prescribed payments system. They also realise the Government is doing its best to streamline the administration of this system. The changes, when enacted, will be particularly welcomed by all persons associated with the system, and by affected industry and other bodies which contributed to the review. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(11.49) —Lest it is thought that the Minister's answer was an effective answer to the comments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, I would like to take issue with him over his suggestion that what the Government is seeking to address in this Bill is an anomaly in that the provisions that are intended to be placed in the income tax area, and in taxation generally, are on all fours with the provisions operating in relation to the Social Security Act insofar as de facto couples are concerned. The fact of the matter is that the principal provisions in which in the Social Security Act de facto situations are treated in the same way as married situations are those relating to the payment of a pension at the married rate. Of course, if a de facto couple living together were to be treated in the same way as a married couple no significant disadvantage would be suffered by the married partners through their being married. However, if a de facto couple who were living together were treated as two people living together and received two single rate pensions while maintaining one household they would be significantly advantaged and a married couple receiving only the married rate pension would be significantly disadvantaged. The reverse is the situation in the taxation area. I think that is what needs to be understood. In one situation, that is, in the social security area- Mr Hurford —You are being hypocritical. Mr RUDDOCK —I am not being hypocritical at all. I ask for a withdrawal of that statement. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The Minister will withdraw. Mr Hurford —Madam Chair, because you asked me to withdraw, I will do so. Mr RUDDOCK —The fact of the matter is that they are quite different situations. In the area of social security-I know that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) understands this-a married couple would be penalised in relation to the pension rate that they would receive if de facto couples living together were able to receive two pensions at the single rate. In relation to the income tax situation, the reverse is the case. We are saying that maintaining the disadvantage that exists in the taxation area is a positive symbol of support for the concept of marriage. If the Government reversed the situation in the area of social security to give effect to the former arrangement that operated in the area of taxation law, the situation would be that married couples would be positively disadvantaged through the way in which the Social Security Act operated. It would not be a support for marriage at all; it would be a positive disincentive to marriage. In view of what we see as being the desirable end that ought to be achieved it was totally consistent to have two methods of interpretation in relation to what regard would be paid to the fact that parties were living in a de facto relationship. I think that important point needs to be understood. It is the very justification for the Opposition's approach in this matter and for its consistency in relation to the approach it maintained in the area of social security. Amendment agreed to. Remainder of Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Debate resumed from 5 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(11.56) —The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) is the so-called cherry picker legislation. I think it is the second or third time it has come back to this House. Mr Hurford —The third. Mr HOWARD —My friend at the table, the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, reminds me that it is the third time. There is really only one point at issue between the Government and the Opposition on this, and that is the date of operation of the Bill. The Government proposes that the Bill operate from 1 July 1977. We object to that and in Committee I will be moving an amendment that the commencement date be 7 December 1983. We can find no reason at all for retrospective operation of this Bill. I have been through this before and it has been gone through in another place but let me briefly recapitulate that the Government is proposing a commencement date of 1 July 1977 which in fact is two and a half years prior to a time in 1980-namely, January or February-when I as Treasurer was advised by the Commissioner of Taxation not to take action to outlaw prospectively these particular practices. In the face of that kind of evidence, it is beyond the comprehension of the Opposition how on earth the Government can possibly argue, even if one accepts that there are ongoing circumstances in which retrospective legislation can be used, that this falls within the category of Bills where ongoing retrospective legislation ought to be used. On 8 February 1980-that is, two and a half years after the Government's proposed commencement date-Commissioner O'Reilly said: Because, in revenue terms, we have larger problems in other areas and also because of the need-- Mr Allan Morris —Oh! Mr HOWARD —Yes, of course we had some problems in 1980, and they were being attended to. That led to the introduction of quite a large number of other measures. Mr O'Reilly continued-listen to this: to make certain that no avoidable difficulties are created for genuine superannuation funds, I would recommend that you await the comments of the Task Force before undertaking any corrective measures to deal with actual or potential misuse of the superannuation concessions. That was in response to a letter I had sent to the Commissioner; it was not something he had sent to me on his own initiative. People had complained about this matter to me, asking whether I thought anything ought to be done so I wrote to the Commissioner and said: 'What about it?'. That is why he wrote back. In the face of that, how on earth the Minister at the table, whom I know to be very reasonable in these things, can possibly say that we need to make it retrospective is beyond our comprehension and therefore we simply cannot support this measure. This argument has been gone over before. In earlier debates a letter from the present Commissioner of Taxation was produced. It did not really come down on the side of the Government, although the Government alleged that it did. All Mr Boucher was willing to say was that one could reconcile what the Government was doing with the earlier memorandum. That is not very convincing. I do not think Mr Boucher ought to be dragged into something which is essentially a political debate between the two parties. The fact is that there is no basis for this. The Government is putting up an outrageous piece of legislation knowing that we are going to oppose it on good grounds. It will then run around saying: 'There you are; this proves you are the friends of the tax avoidance industry'. It is really as simple as that. There is no principle or merit in it and there is no justification for it; it is an election subterfuge. By not agreeing to apply this measure prospectively, which the Government could have done months ago, it has in fact cost the revenue millions of dollars. If, on the Government's own definition, this is an outrageous practice, its failure to accept our offer to pass the legislation prospectively means that it is losing money. We are not going to be bluffed into this. How on earth can the Government possibly argue that something former Commissioner O'Reilly said in February 1980 ought not to be attended to and can be backdated to 1 July 1977, two and a half years earlier? This is an absolute nonsense. The Opposition will not support a nonsense measure such as this. We will support any reasonable, tough steps against tax evasion. We will not support nonsenses. We will not bow to the new McCarthyism. Apparently, if one puts a label on legislation that it is concerned with tax evasion, no matter how unreasonable or ridiculous it is, as long as it has 'tax evasion' connected with it, it is, ipso facto, to be supported no matter what is involved. We have had lectures today from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his messianic way about rights and principles and abuse of this and that. This is a terrible abuse and we will not support it. There is no colour of justification for it. Whilst I am always moved to reasonableness, whenever the Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) is at the table, I think he is the unfortunate victim of nothing other than a cheap electoral stunt. We are not going to support it. We will move the same amendment that we moved in the past and we will continue to oppose the legislation. I emphasise yet again that, as far as the Opposition is concerned, we have already said we will support the prospective operation of this change. I invite the Government, if it is really interested in the money, as distinct from the politics, to embrace that offer. But I do not think the Government is interested in the money; it is only interested in the politics, which makes a mockery of its protestation of collecting money from the tax avoiders in order to distribute to the needy, honest taxpaying community of Australia. Wednesday, 3 October 1984 Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(12.03 a.m.) —We have had the comments by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) for quite some time with respect to this and similar legislation. Suffice it to say that when one embraces retrospectivity in any form then the principle of non-compliance with retrospective legislation has been breached and the previous Government did embrace retrospective legislation. So it becomes a matter then of the particular application of retrospective laws. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made his position clear in the context of retrospectivity with respect to this legislation. When he says that there is no reason at all for retrospective operation, it is worth having a look at precisely who would benefit from non- retrospectivity. Before I go on to discuss a particular case that might amplify precisely what has been involved in matters of this nature, it is worth making a comment. Former Commissioner O'Reilly gave advice to the then Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard); however it is up to the Treasurer to act upon his own judgment. All advice received by Commissioner O'Reilly or anyone else is not holy writ and it is up to a Treasurer, holding one of the highest offices in the land, to exercise his own judgment. When one looks at the particularly blatant nature of the so-called cherry-picker scheme, it amazes me that the then Treasurer, the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition, was not moved to act and to act very quickly. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was prepared to quote former Commissioner O'Reilly I am moved to do likewise. In the context of his evidence given to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations-that was the report on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984, which is precisely the same legislation as that which is before the House today-Mr O' Reilly said: The name is not derived from what the promoters or the instigators of the fund do to it; it is derived from the sort of people who are in general the pseudo- beneficiaries; that is the cherry pickers, the transients, the itinerants, the sort of person that you can get into funds like this and be pretty sure that when the time comes for payment they will be gone. (Quorum formed) The then Commissioner of Taxation, Mr O'Reilly, indicated in no uncertain terms precisely what the so-called cherry-picker scheme meant. It meant that people who were in a particularly vulnerable position in our society were those who were most likely to be the recipients of the treatment meted out by the embracing of this type of scheme by unscrupulous businessmen. Many years ago, in fact, in 1966, the late Sir Robert Menzies was quoted as saying: 'I pay my taxes' says somebody, as if that were an act of virtue instead of one of compulsion. The reality is, as supported by Professor Russell Mathews, that under the previous Government the payment of tax became optional for a large number of members of our community, in particular those members who were in a lucky situation in terms of income and assets. Mr Robert Brown —Absolutely disgraceful. Mr GRIFFITHS —As my colleague the honourable member for Hunter has indicated, it was an absolutely disgraceful situation and one which will not be accepted by this Government. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was fond of quoting former Commissioner O' Reilly. I might do the same. In further evidence Commissioner O'Reilly indicated to the Senate Standing Committee that 1 July 1977 had been chosen as the date from which the new measures should apply because the Taxation Office had identified that date as the first instance of an improper payment of the benefit from a section 23F fund. The Taxation Office identified then some 70 cases where payment should have been made in those circumstances. The sum total at that time of the loss to the revenue was in the vicinity of $15m. That might be seen by some to be a relatively small amount of money in a global context, but when one looks at the circumstances that led to that-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member is having a great deal of difficulty, given the level of noise. Mr GRIFFITHS —Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think it is worth adverting briefly to precisely what sort of people in the community are going to benefit by receiving the protection of the Opposition in the non- application of retrospective legislation. The so-called tontine funds were designed in such a way as to ensure that the trustees of those funds had open to them two quite distinct options: They could pay up to the total amount credited to a member's account or, in the case of an unallocated fund, up to the member's actuarially determined equitable share; that is, they could pay out what a particular employee was entitled to. Alternatively, they could pay absolutely nothing. Of course, where a member has personally contributed to the fund it would be expected that his own contributions would be repaid, in many cases without interest. Failure to pay back a member's contributions would clearly constitute a breach of trust, although such action has been suggested from time to time by trustees who view a superannuation fund as a pool of money for their personal benefit. The one very famous case that created a lot of discussion about these types of abuses of the taxation laws of Australia was Kelly v. Raymor (Illawarra) Pty Ltd . That case was discussed at length in 13 Australasian Taxation Reports at page 592. I will indicate some of the main features of that case. Then rather than passing judgment, I will indicate some of the comments by His Honour Mr Justice Wootten. The first point of the case was much of the fund's assets were being loaned back to the Raymor group of companies at very low rates of interest. A large loan had been made to a company controlled by a Mr William Kelly, one of the main people involved in this rather disgraceful sequence of events. Another aspect of this case was that steps were being taken to ensure that only the Kelly brothers and those whom they wished to favour could ultimately benefit from the envisaged substantial superannuation payments. The third point was that the only circumstances in which an employee obtained a vested right to receive a sum standing to his credit in the account of the fund was if he remained a member until his normal retirement date. A number of employees were in fact encouraged to retire before reaching their specified normal retirement date. The end result of that was that they received no money at all. There are a number of other relevant points to make, but I think my time is somewhat limited, so I will confine myself to repeating some of the comments made by Mr Justice Wootten. He indicated that the brothers shared one consuming passion, that is, a desire to pay as little tax as possible. He indicated that one way of abusing the scheme was for Mr Kelly to enrol his three children aged six, seven and eight on the pretext that they were employees of his private company in the role of musicians. The abuses were not confined to that. He approached particular employees, one of whom had a very long period of employment with the company. He indicated to that person that he would let him retire early and that that would have no adverse impact upon him. In fact that employee retired and automatically lost some $48,000 to which he would have been entitled had he completed his normal period of employment; that is to his retirement date. The company gained assets by ripping off both employees and the taxpayer by an amount in the vicinity of $3m over something like four years. These were gross abuses, abuses that ought not to be countenanced by this Parliament or by the Opposition. If the only way that fraud on the revenue can be remedied is to implement retrospective legislation that quite simply in these circumstances ought to be the approach embraced by this Parliament. I will wind up my speech simply by saying that when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) adverts to the electoral implications of the Opposition' s stand in the Senate of supporting people who have involved themselves in these disgraceful sorts of activities, he is dead right. The reality is that the Government is pursuing it because that is what equity and fairness dictate. To the extent that there will be electoral repercussions, those electoral repercussions will be very much on the head of a now discredited Opposition. Certainly this is the sort of issue that I will be fighting in the electorate of Maribyrnong. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Before I call the next speaker let me say that there are a series of private conversations going on in the chamber. It is distracting to the speaker. If honourable members wish to continue with these conversations, I ask them to extend courtesy to their colleagues and to hold such conversations outside the chamber. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(12.16 a.m.) —Mr Deputy Speaker, these particulars-- Mr Robert Brown —Another defender of the tax dodgers. Mr TUCKEY —Look, you are down on the record-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I suggest to the honourable member for O'Connor that he listen to the Chair for a moment. I ask the honourable member for Hunter not to interject and provoke the honourable member for O'Connor. I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to direct all his comments through the Chair and in that way he will have the protection of the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —Fine. Let me continue, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and advise you that the honourable member for Hunter is recorded in the Hansard of this Parliament as being a person who came in here with numerous other members sitting on the opposite side of the House and voted for a tax cheat to protect him. I refer to the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). Let us get that on the record for a start before I get down to the subject of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 [No. 2]; which I would like to address at some length. Mr Campbell —I will talk to the Carnarvon Shire about you again. Mr TUCKEY —Let me take that up. The Minister for Finance had a lot of innocent councillors-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask honourable members on my right to cease interjecting and to stop provoking the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Might I say to you that the Minister for Finance recently organised the dismissal of a whole group of innocent councillors, and I was not one of them, so he could appoint the retired Clerk of Fremantle to the Shire of Carnarvon for the express purpose of trying to get hold of some of the dirt this member speaks of. Mr Parkes failed because it is not there. The Minister had Stan Parkes up there for three or four months. This action caused great pain to other people, and it was a blow to the democracy of Australia. So that is what happened. Let us get down to the subject of the Bill. I say to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie: You voted for a tax avoider and you went overseas when the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage ( Interim Protection) Bill was introduced, you hypocrite. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member for Kalgoorlie to cease interjecting. Also, I say to the honourable member for O'Connor that if he wishes to continue making his speech, he will address all his remarks through the Chair and he will make them relevant. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. For your information I have marked out substantial references that I want to make to this Bill, and I am quite happy to keep to them, with your assistance. This Bill is about collecting tax. I have told the Parliament on another occasion that taxes are generally the involuntary payments made by members of the community for services provided by government that they may not even need or desire. A tax payment is not something that anybody makes voluntarily, and that includes everybody in this place. It is nevertheless something that is necessary to keep the community going and to provide community services. The Government is now setting out to raise a tax and in so doing it is neglecting entirely its responsibilities in this case. It was interesting to hear the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) refer to a particular case. I think it related to someone by the name of Kelly. He told us a terrible story of how individual people were robbed of their rights under a superannuation scheme. It would have been very interesting to me if the Government had introduced into this Parliament some sort of legislation to redress the wrongs committed against the people who are robbed by this device, this cherry picking scheme or tontine or whatever we like to call it. The loser is not the revenue. It can be considered a tax avoidance measure, and it probably is in the example of two or three children that has been given. But if bona fide arm's length employees are involved and those employees are dismissed ahead of time without being informed of superannuation arrangements made on their behalf, they are the ones who are being robbed, not the taxation revenue which this Government is so wrapped up in collecting so that it can spend. When it cannot collect enough it borrows some more and spends that as well. The fact of life is that there is a responsibility on this Government to protect the very people that the honourable member for Maribyrnong chose to talk to. Within the Bills Digest provided to us we find reference to the fact that the New South Wales Government has taken some steps in this direction. It is quite interesting. This Government has not done that because it is tax crazy. This Government would not think that its real responsibility is to protect people under this legislation so that if a company comes up with a scheme under section 23F of the Income Tax Assessment Act, and says that it has an intention to pay its employees and gains tax deductions accordingly-there is nothing wrong with that-those people should get the money. The Taxation Commissioner should not be able to say: 'You cheated on your employees so I will have the money instead'. That is what the Government is telling us. Mr Griffiths —Do you think the money should be left with those principals? Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am explaining to these people how they are letting down the very people they have been carping about being here to represent. They seem to have some wonderful opinion in their minds that as long as they get the tax they will in some way help those poor people who have been robbed. Mr Robert Brown —We do. Mr TUCKEY —I think it would be a lot easier if the Government just gave them the money. Honourable members opposite cannot even do what their close associate the Premier of New South Wales has managed to do; that is, to bring in legislation that will protect people in these circumstances. The Commissioner of Taxation lays down in section 23F what a superannuation scheme is. It is a fund that must be indefinitely continuing and must be exclusively established and maintained to provide benefits for employees and/or the payment of death benefits to their dependants. That is what a superannuation scheme is. If it has been manipulated in some way so that people do not get the money, the Government should bring legislation into this Parliament to ensure that the people do get the money. That would be fair and reasonable; but it has not done that. It got all wrapped up in trying to get in a bit more taxation. The Government is still determined to run its campaign for the next election on the tax evasion issue. I welcome that because it is my intention every time it raises the issue to say 'Dawkins, Dawkins, Dawkins'. If that message has not gone over in New South Wales, honourable members need only see some of the cartoons in Western Australia. The people there know what it is all about, even in his electorate. They know that. The situation is that this particular- Mr Young —What is the relation between tax evasion and homosexuality in Western Australia? Mr TUCKEY —They are both a problem with someone like the Minister for Finance around. If Government members ask the questions, they will get the answers. The fact of life therefore is that this legislation is in the first instance misplaced. It sets out to do something in an area in which the Government has no right to interfere. The Government has no right to money that rightfully belongs to the people who were listed in those superannuation schemes as people who were beneficiaries of the schemes and to people in a scheme that is tax free under the laws of the Commonwealth. The Government through the reasonably recent introduction of the 30:20 arrangement whereby a large amount of any superannuation scheme funds has to be invested with the Commonwealth has again taken an opportunity from small business people to get into a position of having a bit of superannuation. Quite well paid salaried people in many instances have access to superannuation schemes. It is a reality of life that small businessmen seldom have surplus capital. They do not have that sort of money. They are in a position of needing every penny they have, yet many do not have great capital assets. They are probably in rented premises. When they reach retirement age, unless they put aside funds in some fashion, they have very little to retire on. They pay taxes on their businesses as they go along. Of course, they would like to benefit from the same arrangements that benefit certain salary earners and their employers. Consequently, it was necessary for them to have the right to reinvest some of the funds from their superannuation schemes into their businesses. This activity has been curtailed by the 30:20 rule. Nevertheless, they can reinvest some moneys, but they are having life made a lot more difficult for them by this legislation because many of them have gone into schemes and at some time may find they cannot proceed with them. If this legislation passes, and in view of the earlier legislation of this evening imposing huge penalties, I wonder how some of those people might then be treated. It is certainly not the type of legislation that is necessary. Of course, I heard mentioned some of the figures as to the potential for revenue collection by making the legislation retrospective. I have informed the House about this on a previous occasion. If the legislation were not retrospective the moneys forgone would not even equal the cost of bringing those extra members of parliament into this place 18 months ahead of the necessary time. Thus the Government is not even very honest in saying to the Australian people that this money can be collected and redistributed to the people. It will spend the money on new members of parliament. Even that particular issue does not help very much. Nevertheless, it is agreed between us that each speaker will not contribute to this debate for more than 10 minutes. As much as I would like to talk about other issues relating to tax avoidance and evasion practised in this place, this is probably not the opportune time. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(12.28 a.m.) —As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), said earlier tonight, this is the second or third time that some of us have spoken on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 [No. 2] and its implications. The unfortunate part is that in fact we are forced to do that because the Opposition is intent on deluding the people of Australia and on pretending that what we are putting forward is not significant. If in fact one were to ask the people of Australia in recent days how significant the Parliament of Australia is, they would say that it was not very significant at all because for the last four weeks or so that we have sat we have virtually talked about nothing but trivia. We have not been able to talk about the real issue facing Australia. The real issue facing Australia is a sense of equity. The people of Australia will have that sense of equity when they see that they are being treated fairly. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition constantly refers to the fact that the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) said earlier this year that tax avoidance was dead. It is clear that the Minister was referring to a statement in which he said that no matter what scheme was found or what means were used the Government would make that procedure illegal from the time it began to be used. In other words, this Government for a very long time has said to the tax avoiders of Australia that no matter what loopholes or clever stunts are found to try to avoid taxation, this Government will ensure that those revenues that were morally and in all terms of equity due will be collected. We feel that two crimes are involved. One crime is the act of tax avoidance that we have seen so much of in Australia, and the second crime is the retention of the funds obtained. While the people of Australia see that those who have avoided paying taxation have retained the money, in no way can they accept any other measures that we take regarding the systems we operate. The greatest complaint from pensioners concerning the assets test is not the one put forward by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) in an earlier debate; it is: 'How come you cannot collect the money of which the revenue was defrauded? How come you cannot get back the money that was stolen from the taxpayers? How come the money that was ripped out of the system cannot be collected? Until you as a parliament can collect that money you have no credibility'. We are talking about a parliament consisting of two Houses; not about a government. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also raised the question of why the Government wanted to make the legislation retrospective to 1 July 1977. That question has been answered in previous debates and again tonight. Yet each time the question is answered the answer is completely ignored. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also keeps asking: 'What other examples are there apart from Kelly v Raymor (Illawarra) Pty Ltd?' In a speech on 1 May I referred to an example brought to my attention by a constituent in my part of the world whose concern and anger was based on the fact that his name had been used unknown to him. He did not feel that money was due to him legally; he did not feel that he was being ripped off as such. However, he discovered some years later that although each week he had paid his taxes his employer had not paid his. His employer had used his name and put money into a fund that was non-taxable. My constituent's anger and concern was not selfish. It may have been personal to some degree but his concern was that he was paying his share of taxation but his employer was not. It is that unfairness that has happened in the past that will act as a cancer in our community. People in the community know-maybe it is the person across the road-if somebody does not pay his share. The Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats have all said: 'Bad Luck. They can get away with that. It is wrong of the Government to try to recover the money which was obtained falsely in the names of people who were kept ignorant'. This situation is about a sense of fairness. Tax avoidance is about fighting letters of the law rather than the spirit of the law. Pay as you earn taxpayers observe the spirit of the law because they have very little choice but it is quite clear that those who can spend the time and the money to find technical ways around the spirit of the law will do so for ever and a day so long as they have governments in power which say: 'That is okay. We will ignore it for four or five years. When the situation gets a bit too hot we will change the legislation'. That is exactly what has happened. This situation ran for five years until it got too hot. When it got too hot the honourable member for Bennelong said: 'Right fellas, enough is enough. Now we will cut it out'. The people of Australia are saying: 'But what about the money?' It is all very well to talk moralistically about the rule of law but what about the ill-gotten gains ? What happens to those? The fact is that five years of freedom on that kind of legislation and that kind of operation is a very lucrative business. It is also obvious that for a number of years there were people running around Australia selling these schemes. I think that the previous Treasurer's letter to the Commissioner of Taxation, which indicates that he had had complaints about these schemes from the life assurance industry, is quite illuminating. The life assurance industry knew that people were being sold these schemes because of the massive profits that were available. Sure, not a great deal of money is involved in terms of the gross national product or the overall tax revenue to Australia, but to people who are paying a third of their income in taxation it is an awful lot of money. In terms of the increases we were able to provide this year to people in receipt of tertiary education assistance scheme benefits, the unemployment benefit and the supporting parents' benefit, it is an awful lot of money. The question is: How relevant is their concern? It is a tragedy that people in this country have been obtaining funds quite contrary to the spirit of the law. Speaker after speaker has admitted that there was tax avoidance, that the schemes that were used were quite blatant and quite contrived, but that the money obtained should not be recovered. That is what this whole debate has been about for the last two years. It has been about whether or not people should keep the money they obtained by those means. I feel very strongly about the fact that the names of people in my community have been used in a way that not only is immoral but also denigrates them for the rest of their lives. Mr Robert Brown —They funded the Liberal Party and that is why those opposite are trying to protect them. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —The point made by the honourable member for Hunter is well taken. We will find that in many cases the funds that they have had have now been spent. Honourable members opposite may as well do the right thing and help to get back the money because there will be no more funds from those sources. The last time I spoke on this matter I said that I would much prefer the coming election to follow on a double dissolution because I would love to be part of a joint sitting of both Houses that was responsible for recovering all of the moneys due to the taxpayers of Australia. I would take great delight in playing a part in showing that the rule of law eventually prevailed in this country. We have had weeks and weeks of mockery, nonsense and charade about laws, morality and organised crime. This kind of crime was amongst the best organised crime in Australia. This crime extended across the nation, across companies and across institutions. The ill-gotten gains, the proceeds of that organised crime, are being kept by those who perpetrated a rort on the system. While ever such a state of affairs is allowed to continue it will fester and continue to exacerbate the distrust and lack of standing of this Parliament in the eyes of the Australian public. Day after day, hour after hour, we have heard people wax lyrical on how strong the Opposition is on organised crime. The organised criminals who perpetrated this rort on the system are still out there and they still have the funds they obtained by that means. While ever this legislation is not carried in both Houses and while ever those funds stay out there there is no way that the National Party, the Liberal Party or the Australian Democrats can stand up and talk to the people of Australia about organised crime in a way that has any semblance of morality. I trust that this time there will be some sanity, that the Senate will recognise that there is a need for the Parliament to pass legislation to enable the funds that have been obtained by these methods to be recovered. I trust that eventually that point will be made and sanity will prevail. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(12.38 a.m.) —The proposals before the House in this legislation are an absolute sham. The Government is seeking a mechanism for a back up, a guarantee, for its appeal to the Governor-General when it wants to go to an election. That is exactly what the legislation is about. It is not about tax collection or tax avoiders. The difference between the Government and the Opposition relates to the date on which this legislation will apply. The amendment moved by the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), indicates that the Opposition accepts that we should substitute the date of 7 December 1983. To hear the hearts and flowers from Government members, one would think that this great Government is going to collect that tax which is out there and distribute it to all the beneficiaries of these schemes. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Government is going after its take. The legislation is a sham because the Government wants a mechanism to enable the Parliament to get up for an early election. One of the reasons given for an early election is the need to bring Senate elections in to line with House of Representatives elections. That most specious argument is supported by the proposition that the Government is unable to have important and key legislation passed through the Parliament. In 1980 the Treasurer of the day wrote to the Commissioner of Taxation saying: 'I have heard about these schemes. What should I do about them?' The Commissioner responded by saying that the Treasurer must be most careful of moving into that area because more damage than good may be done by the Treasurer were he to legislate. No one can deny that under some of the schemes in which the cherry picking process was used there was abuse by employers. But in 1980 the Commissioner himself said that he would not dare to propose legislation without further investigation; he was uncertain as to how he would move. Mr Robert Brown —That was four years ago. Mr CADMAN —Yes, but we have proposed 7 December 1983, so there is a difference of less than two years between us, and the Government will not accommodate the Opposition's amendment. The Government is after the money. It is trying to prop up its failing and flagging Budget, and it wants an excuse to run off to the Governor-General. Labor members will grab money wherever they can. They will not take one bit of care of those contributors who may have lost their funds. What they are after is an early election and a reason for that. The contrivance of this legislation is such that it ignores the established legislation on the need for trustees of these funds to observe the 30:20 rule with their investment. That is one very worthwhile protection for employees and contributors to these funds. The Government has now moved, by draconian legislation, to take this back and grab those funds that may have been abused. I say 'may' have been abused, because the Government has yet to indicate how it will identify where funds have been abused or have not been abused. If funds may have been abused, the Government will seek the payment of funds, and those funds may well be invested in plant, property or equipment. They could be job creating investments that the Government will go after to reclaim. It is a most dangerous process. The whole thing is a sham. It is a reason for getting an early election. It is insurance so that the Government has a back-up when it goes to the Governor- General-nothing more, nothing less. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.43 a.m.) —I move the amendment circulated in the name of my colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard: Clause 3, pages 1-3, omit '1 July 1977' (wherever occurring), substitute '7 December 1983'. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the retrospective element involved in this legislation and to find out whether the Government is serious about the question of recouping revenue in relation to schemes that operate in this area. Two arguments on this matter were mounted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition . He said that if the Government were serious about recouping revenue, it would accept the amendment and proceed to have the legislation in place, whereas if it persisted without the amendment, the legislation would not pass the Senate. The honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris) said that he would like to see a double dissolution on this matter and would like to see the matter pressed. The fact is that the Government has given no indication that it intends to have a double dissolution on this matter. In fact, I have seen the challenge thrown out by Australian Democrat members of the Senate in regard to this question. If the Government were serious it might well introduce a double dissolution Bill and there might then be a prospect of the legislation being passed and the revenue being recouped. But the Government has no intention of proceeding to a double dissolution. As it would suffer considerably in terms of the outcome of its early election were it to take that course of action, of course, it will not proceed with it. That serves to demonstrate even further that the Government's intention is not to recover revenue as a result of the operation of these schemes in the past; rather, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said during the debate on the second reading of the Bill, the Government's real intention is to beat up this matter as a political issue, to discuss it in the context of an election and to be able to suggest, as honourable members did quite scurrilously in regard to my colleague, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) when he was debating this question, that we were in some way friends of tax dodgers because of the principled approach we have taken on this matter. It is on the basis of the principle that we have put to the House that there should be an amendment to clause 3 to remove the substantial retrospective effect involved in this legislation. It needs to be noted that the effort on the Government's part is to back date these proposals to 1 July 1977. I think that indicates the nature of the retrospective element that is involved-some 7 years. I strongly support the amendment, commend it to the Committee and suggest that if the Government is serious about recouping revenue as a result of this matter, it should proceed to accept the amendment that the Opposition has moved. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(12.47 a.m.) —The Government, of course, does not accept this amendment. This matter has been covered twice, if not three times, previously when these Bills have been before the House. The fact is that people have evaded tax since 1 July 1977 and, indeed, before that time. They should have been caught under section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. They will be caught because the Government is quite persistent in this matter and we will make sure that this legislation is enacted at some time. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford)-by leave-read a third time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(12.49 a.m.) —I ask leave of the House to amend notice No. 1, Government Business, relating to the powers and proceedings of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority in the form in which the amendment in my name has been circulated. Leave granted. Mr YOUNG —I move: (1) That, in accordance with section 54 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority shall be as follows: (a) That the committee consist of 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to nominated by the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (b) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (c) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (ca) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman, or the deputy chairman when acting as chairman, have a casting vote. (d) That 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (e) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into. (f) That the committee appoint a chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at the meeting. (g) That the quorum of sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub- committee. (h) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (i) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (j) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (k) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate or of the House or Representatives. (l) That a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (m) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (n) That, in carrying out its duties the committee, or any sub-committee, ensure that the operational methods and results of investigations of law enforcement agencies, as far as possible, be protected from disclosures where that would be against the public interest. (o) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. I do not wish to take up too much time of the House. This motion sets up the Joint Parliamentary Committee which is necessary as provided for in the new National Crime Authority Act 1984. The amendment merely takes note of the suggestion put from the other place that instead of there being three Government senators and one Opposition senator from the major parties and one from the minor parties there should be two from the major parties-two from the Australian Labor Party and two to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney)-and one from the minor parties; but to counteract the even numbers on the Committee, the Chairman will have a casting vote. As I have said publicly, I was not altogether attracted to the idea of the establishment of the Committee in the first instance because much of the debate that surrounded its establishment seemed to attract the idea that perhaps a parliamentary committee was to start carrying out some type of criminal investigation. With that in mind, I must say that in the early stages of discussion of the legislation I was not a fervent supporter of the concept. However, in the form in which we now put the matter to the Parliament, after the National Crime Authority has been established- Mr Steele Hall —This is one of those things that you did not want at all. Mr YOUNG —No, not initially, that is quite correct; but because, as I have said, some people in the Parliament thought that they were going to play Sherlock Holmes. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) is one of them. He has proved himself such an idiot in the last three weeks that he is not the sort of person many people in the Parliament, on either side of the House would like to see put on a committee of this nature. So there was good reason why people in this Parliament had reservations about the establishment of a joint committee acting with the National Crime Authority. I have some respect for the way in which parliamentary committees can work. They can do a lot of constructive work in examining the various references given to them in all sorts of areas, and can perhaps do far more constructive work than the House itself. The role now is not so much an investigative one but rather that of monitoring and reviewing the Authority's performance of its functions. I hope that after tonight when the Committee is established and the parties put forward the people who are to serve on it, the Committee will lose no time in talking to those people who will head the National Crime Authority about what is happening. There has been some loose talk in this Parliament about what these people are supposedly not doing. It is to be hoped that the Committee, comprising members of all parties, will visit the National Crime Authority and be briefed on what it is doing and on the problems it may have. The concept of a joint parliamentary committee to monitor the Authority's performance will ensure that its members can bring back that information to the Parliament so that there can be rational debate on these matters. The examination of the Authority's annual reports is just part of its function. It is to examine the trends in criminal activities, practices and methods, which I see as an enormously important feature of the Committee's establishment. At this early hour of the morning, when we are not observed so much by the Press, perhaps we can be a little more rational in a discussion of this nature, but we face big problems on the question of criminal activity. These people are surrounding themselves with some clever people from the professions to protect them. There are changes taking place in criminal activities and perhaps the Committee also in its initial stages will seek to be briefed by the Australian Federal Police on the way in which the AFP observes changes in criminal activities in this country and the way in which it sees the role of the National Crime Authority as another gatherer of investigative material which can be disseminated amongst all the law enforcement agencies around Australia. The Committee will also have the role of reporting to both Houses any changes which it considers desirable to the functions, structures, powers and procedures of the Authority. I raise this as being particularly pertinent to the criticism made by the Opposition about the structure and the powers of the Authority as it is now. The Joint Committee itself, if it sees fit, can report back to the Parliament on what changes it thinks ought to take place. It is a matter for debate not only on what changes may take place in the legislation but also on the report which will come back here from the Joint Committee before the legislation is constructed and brought before the Houses of Parliament. So in every way in which the Committee has now been structured I must say that I have gone from a very lukewarm supporter to a very firm supporter of the role that I think the Committee can play. Hopefully, it will see its role as do many other parliamentary committees. For instance, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has just been involved in a classic example of how well a committee can work if it sets its mind on attacking a problem. The report on privilege which I think the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege is to present tomorrow or the next day is a classic example of what people from all parties can do if they put their minds to it. Here is another example where, hopefully, people from all the parties can look at these things, monitor the activities of the Authority, continue to review the structure, functions and powers of the Authority, make reports to Parliament about changes that they think ought to be made and inquire into and report on any relevant question referred to them by either House. Again, it is not just a flow from the Committee back to the Houses; the Houses themselves can refer matters which they think it is competent under the Act for the Committee to look at. It is a very major step forward in terms of the relationship of a criminal investigative body. It is probably the first of its kind-I am not sure that it is the first but it is probably the first of its kind that we have had from this Parliament-and it gives us the opportunity to be far better informed than some of the debates over the last few weeks would have led people outside to believe we are. Quite frankly, I am sure that many people in Australia are quite confused about how sophisticated we are in our understanding of what really is happening in Australia. When the point scoring finishes-one day it has to finish when we are not so close to an election-we still have the burden and the responsibility of carrying on the work constructively to be sure that we minimise this criminal activity in Australia. We still have to find the solutions. Perhaps this motion that I have moved tonight on the establishment of this Committee is just one of the ways in which we can play some role in overcoming this massive burden with which Australia is now faced. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(12.58 a.m.) —It is interesting to see how rational the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) can be about the changes that have been made, against his desire, to the National Crime Authority legislation to bring in amendments and improvements to the Bill. One looks with some astonishment at the way that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) today spoke of the strength of the National Crime Authority and at how tonight the Minister at the table welcomes the setting up of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority as a watchdog on the National Crime Authority-something which he, his Leader and his spokesman in the Senate opposed at the time it was moved. It is interesting to note, as the election approaches which the Minister recognised in his statement to the House, how the views of the Government and the Minister have changed. They have become reasonable. It is all a good measure now even though a few months ago it was all too much and the Government was resisting these changes for some reason or another which it has never explained to the House or the Senate. It resisted these changes which are now adopted as a major improvement in fighting crime in Australia. I take it that there is not much point at this hour of the night in redeveloping the issues which have been mentioned today. There is a mystery about the Government's attitude to the changes which have been forced upon it. As I said earlier, it has never explained its opposition to the changes which have become so desirable since they were made by the Senate. But at least the Committee is something which the Senate was able to force upon the Government. The legislation and the operation of the Crime Authority will be much the better for it. It is unfortunate that not all the changes that ought to have been forced on the Government were able to be so made in the Senate, but this is one point which will be of use. It will be a window to Parliament on the operations of the National Crime Authority and I hope it will be able to point out to this House and to the public of Australia the deficiencies in the legislation which obviously will become apparent as time goes by. For instance, as I pointed out this afternoon, the Special Prosecutor, Mr Redlich, has said that the National Crime Authority has no power to offer protection an immunity to witnesses. I would have thought that the Special Minister of State would not need the deliberations of a parliamentary committee or any other advice to know the worth of that observation of the Special Prosecutor. He ought to know that one of the prime means of getting evidence against criminals in Australia is to protect those who give evidence. It is one of the original deficiencies that remain in the legislation. I hope that this Committee perhaps may convince the Government, as other reasoning people or reasoned arguments have been unable to do so until now. I also pointed out this afternoon that deficiencies exist in that the State governments, through their membership of the Inter-Governmental Committee, have a veto on those areas of investigation which may affect particular States. I pointed out that in New South Wales, for instance, the ludicrous position has arisen whereby the Minister for Police and Emergency Services has not been informed by this Federal Government of matters of enormous consequence to the conduct of the police force in New South Wales. That makes that Minister, not because of any fault of his own but because of the neglect of others to inform him of the position, a most inadequate representative on the Inter-Governmental Committee to deliberate on the possibility of veto against investigations into matters concerning New South Wales. As I have said, it is these sorts of things that I hope, that this Committee will look at. During the last few days the Chairman of the National Crime Authority very dramatically pointed up the deficiencies of the powers of the National Crime Authority when he said that if a State government would not allow an investigation into matters of its jurisdiction, the National Crime Authority would reveal all to the public of Australia and that State would be under great public and political pressure to allow the investigation to proceed. I thought that was a most lamentable admission of deficiency of power. That this Government could place the Chairman of the Commission and the commissioners in a position residing on a political persuasion, a political power among the public, to gain access to those matters which it needed to investigate is in fact a great reflection of the Governments lack of desire to prosecute crime in Australia properly. But as I have said, at least this Committee is a window from this Parliament into the operations of the Authority. The increase in the numbers on the Committee and the better balance which will ensue are things which I congratulate the Minister for obtaining. Certainly the coalition would have moved here and in the Senate to proceed along these lines if the Government had not intimated that it would do so here. I believe, of course, that it was the intimation by the coalition that brought about the Governments prior move in this direction. But it is to be welcomed. I trust that the Government will give its full support to this Committee once it is in operation. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(1.03 a.m.) —I take this opportunity to raise a general question which is relevant to the setting up of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. We have a hysterical attitude in the community at present, pushed to a large extent by the Opposition and the media, to the question of crime. I remind the House of what happened in November 1982. I am pleased that the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) is at the table for the Opposition because he took a very rational attitude in that debate. I remind honourable members that that was the debate on the National Crimes Commission Bill as introduced by the Fraser Government. There were three of four members on the then Government side-the honourable member for North Sydney, Mr Hyde, who I think was the member for Moore, the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) and the then member for Tangney, Mr Shack. They took a fairly rational line, and I think they were led in some way by the honourable member for North Sydney. I should like to quote some of the things they said at that time because I think they are still relevant. As far as I am concerned, it is important that once the Committee is established it ought to have a twofold purpose. On the one hand, obviously, if we believe the National Crime Authority is to perform its task we must ensure that it is doing what it is meant to do. The Committee should also draw to the attention of this Parliament any interference, if it should occur, with what we would consider to be the ordinary civil liberties and the basic presumptions of innocence until proved otherwise before such commissions. It is important to remember also that the Costigan Royal Commission on the activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and other royal commissions were in existence at the time and, in a sense, there was much less hysteria in the community about it. Legislation arising out of hysterical attitudes in the community is always dangerous. Let me quote from a speech made by the honourable member for Curtin, on page 2907 of Hansard of 9 November 1982. In quoting from a Western Australian Law Society Council statement, he said: . . . such a Commission would constitute a serious threat to the historical rights of its citizens for the reasons given by Mr Clifford in his comments of July 1982, which include the words: 'if it is secret then the possibility of all kinds of abuse cannot be overlooked. If on the other hand it operates openly publicly, with the possibility of media coverage for the witnesses that it subpoenas, then there is a real danger of ''trial by association'' and a denial of all the human rights which the Civil Liberties Organisations are so concerned about.' Whatever reservations, attitudes and views we may have about Kerry Packer, I think we have all seen just how 'guilt' is presumed by the community at large and by what I call the gutter Press, such as the National Times, in its general attitude in raising those sorts of questions. The honourable member for Curtin then went on to quote Mr Clifford and the failure of the crime commissions in the United States. He said: The United States has a number of Crimes Commissions and as most people know, it still has a very flourishing organised crime industry which the Crime Commissions may harass or embarrass from time to time, which they may even check at certain times or in certain places, but which they are quite evidently in no position to properly control. In some places a Crime Commission has been a political exercise, a kind of posturing for the benefit of the taxpayer without any appreciable effect on the amount of organised crime in the area. This is also obviously true as far as the Costigan Commission is concerned. He then quotes the Chairman of the Victorian Bar Council, who also has serious misgivings. At the time the Victorian Bar Council said: The Council sees the dangers associated with a Crimes Commission as greatly outweighing its advantages. Insofar as such a commission is sought to be defended by reference to US counterparts, it should not be forgotten that the United States Bill of Rights confers constitutional guarantees of civil liberties. Such guarantees are not present in the Australian constitution and therefore any Australian Commission will not be subject to the same degree of control by the courts, as would be the case in the United States. The Bar Council regards the proposal as a grave threat to the fundamental civil liberties of all Australians. The honourable member for North Sydney, on the same evening, said: To permit the Crown indiscriminately to compel witnesses to incriminate themselves by the expedient of giving an undertaking not to use the compelled evidence would be to make a major breach in the citizen's right to remain silent . There would be nothing to prevent the Crown giving such an undertaking to every witness summoned before the Commission. As the whole purpose of the Commission is to concern itself with crime we could, inadvertently, be taking a major step towards the adoption of an inquisitorial system of criminal justice . . . The possibility of abuse, simply from an excess of zeal, is far too obvious. Instead, it should be placed in the hands of someone outside the Commission who is answerable for his actions. He argued that the Attorney-General should be that person. I refer again to what we have seen in the last few weeks in the National Times and the Fairfax Press. The honourable member talked about prejudice to the safety or reputation of a person or the fair trial of a person who has been or who may be charged with an offence. He said. Trial by public reports, trial by the media and trial by the Parliament, so impossible to refute and so insidiously damaging, have no place in this country. If people are to be judged, let them be judged by the courts. I do not want to detain the House for too long because it is very late but this issue is extremely important. The honourable member for North Sydney said, if I remember rightly, that he had been concerned in these different kinds of investigations into, I think, alleged commercial fraud. I do not think he called himself the inquisitor, but something close to it, and said that as such he had great reservations about the sorts of powers he was given. I suggest that the sorts of recommendations or reports that have been leaked by the Costigan Commission-I am not saying that they were leaked by Costigan himself-to the newspapers are extremely dangerous. Whenever people are paid a huge amount of money, such as the people associated with the Costigan Commission are, they will always try to think of some extremely good reason why their work should keep going forever. It is not surprising. All of us would probably do exactly the same sort of thing. If we were paid $1,500 or $1,800 a day for six days a week, 52 weeks a year we would obviously think of extremely good reasons why our work should keep going forever. The same thing has happened in the United States with Hoover and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It is extremely important that we should be aware that the people involved in those sorts of investigations will always think of terribly good reasons why their work should continue. They always see huge threats to the fabric of society if they are not allowed to continue their investigations. They will think of all kinds of reasons. They will exaggerate the amount of time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I hate to interrupt the honourable member for Prospect at this late hour but we are dealing with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, not the original legislation. It seems to me that the honourable member is addressing himself to the legislation and not to the Committee itself. Dr KLUGMAN —I am trying to address myself to what I see to be the function of the Committee which ought to prevent this sort of thing happening, amongst other things. I accept that one of the functions of the Committee obviously is also to make the National Crime Authority efficient and effective. It is a sort of motherhood proposition. We all agree that we are against crime. I am tempted to suggest that, like President Reagan who a couple of years ago passed motions through both houses of Congress to abolish the deficit and then had a $200 billion-plus deficit, perhaps we should pass a motion to abolish crime in Australia. Everyone would feel terribly happy about it, but obviously it would not affect the existence of crime. I say again, in periods of extreme hysteria, whether that hysteria is based on what people see as political threats-from communists, fascists or whatever group one is worried about-or on threats from people who are pushing drugs, or from prostitution or videos, or whatever the latest threat to society is supposed to be on any particular day of any given week, we have a duty to realise that people will use those alleged threats to try to take away certain civil liberties that we generally assume should be present and available to all those living in Australia. I make the point because of the hysterical propositions which are being pushed on both sides of the House. I hope I am not alone in my view. It would be very depressing for me if I thought that I was the only one in this Parliament who can see real problems associated with the hysterical response to a problem which is not new, a problem which exists and which is not likely to be abolished by the creation of any particular kind of authority or royal commission or whatever . It is terribly important that we do not give away lots of our civil liberties on the basis that there is an alleged acute threat to the fabric of society. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(1.17 a.m.) —I welcome what the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has said about rational debate, but it is a great pity that that rational debate has to start around one o'clock in the morning when most of us are not feeling quite as rational as we may have done earlier in the day. Our minds tend to become somewhat fatigued. I also welcome what the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) has said but I would perhaps add one qualification. I really do not think that those who get involved in investigations continue to pursue them because they are well paid. My own personal experience is that after a while one's one desire is to finish off and have done with it because it is like a huge burden that one wants to shift and shift effectively. The major investigation that I conducted-an inquiry into Gollin Holdings-took a long time and resulted in two men going to gaol for a long time. I noted that one of them has come out and I am very glad to see that he now has a position with the Western Australian Government because , as he said, he has purged himself and I think it is quite right that he should be given an opportunity to start his life again. It would have been a great pity if he had not been allowed that opportunity. As the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) has said, the proposal that we have here will provide us with a window into the operations of the National Crime Authority. Under the Act the functions of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority-and it will be a very important Committee-will be to monitor and review the performance of the Authority, to report to the Houses of Parliament, to examine each annual report of the Authority, to examine trends and changes in criminal activity, practices and methods, to report to the Houses on changes which the Committee thinks are desirable, and to inquire into any question in connection with its duties which is referred to it by either House of Parliament and report to that House. These are very onerous responsibilities and it will be a difficult task for the Committee to discharge them if it is to do its job well. It will require a great deal of time, thought and application by all concerned. The honourable member for Prospect spoke of the hysteria which is engendered about organised crime these days and I think that in public debate there is a degree of that. I think that to a very large extent it is provoked by the fact that people really believe that things are getting out of control. Is that not, after all, a view which it is quite reasonable to hold? Take something which I do not think has drawn any note in this Parliament, the massacre recently in Sydney, when seven members of motor cycle gangs or motor cycle groups were killed and others were injured. I think one of those seven who were killed was just a bystander. If that happened in America we would be writing it up as a St Valentine's Day massacre. In fact it has happened here. People ask themselves these questions: What is happening? Are we out of control? What are the police doing? It is unfortunate but every day there seems to be more evidence coming to light that traditional methods are not working, that the Australian Federal Police are not good enough and that something needs to be done. I agree with the honourable member for Prospect and I do not withdraw any of what I said two years ago. It is very difficult to balance the necessary investigatory roles against civil liberty considerations. One of the prime considerations that one always has to look at is whether or not one should compel people to answer questions. My general bias is against that compulsion. I think we have to try to restrict it as much as we can. In this case we are restricting it to an authority. I think we should look at all the legislation that we have on the books and we should ask ourselves: Do we really need powers such as those which are to be found in the Social Services Act, under which a pensioner can be called before an officer of the Department, can be forced to take the oath and can be cross-examined about his or her assets? That seems to me to be demonstrably wrong in a society such as ours. We have heard a great deal of talk today about the issue of organised crime and about the issue of Mr Costigan and the reasons why Mr Costigan's inquiries were terminated. I will not spend very much time talking about that because I have little time as it is. I want to make what I hope are some cool remarks about one or two things that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said. As I heard the debate today-I am sorry to say that I did not have a chance to join in it, but such is life-he said, as I recall, that the reason Mr Costigan's services were terminated was that he was being replaced by the National Crime Authority. It was as simple as that. He also said that if investigations were not being maintained there would be some reason for concern-one can only agree with that- but that that was demonstrably untrue. I must say that the Prime Minister's understanding of what the Authority is doing must be very defective. When he speaks of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union being replaced by the National Crime Authority he should understand that the functions of these two authorities or commissions are quite different, as was made plain by the National Crime Authority when it wrote to the Prime Minister on 4 September 1984 and, in speaking about Mr Costigan and his views, said this: With due respect to Mr Costigan what he has failed to take into account is the fact that the functions of the Authority are quite different from those of his Commission and that the Authority's work will not be limited to investigations of matters taken over from the Costigan Commission. That is unquestionably so. We are dealing with a different ball game and we are dealing with different rules. However when the Prime Minister says that it is demonstrably untrue that investigations are not being maintained he omits altogether to refer to the need to have references under the National Crime Authority Act for the purposes of the conduct of coercive investigations. Allowing for all the concern that we feel about coercive investigations and, in particular, allowing for the concern that we feel about the leaking of secret draft reports or evidence taken in camera and the consequent public trial of people, which is perfectly wrong, the plain fact is that Mr Costigan had and used coercive powers. They were central to his activities and they were central to the success of those activities. Of course, the Commission depends on references, and so far as we know the Commission does not have any references. I think we would all agree that the work that Mr Costigan has done has disclosed apparent breaches of both Federal and State laws. For the purposes of investigating and using the coercive powers of the Commission, a reference is needed. If it is a State matter, it is needed from the relevant State. If it is a Federal matter, it is needed from the Federal Government. So far as we know, none of those references have yet come. We in this Parliament are not in a position to compel State governments to come forward with references. Honourable members will recall that one of the provisions of the Act which regulates whether a reference should be made is that which is to be found in section 9, sub-section (2), which provides: The Committee shall, before approaching a reference, consider whether ordinary police methods of investigation into the matter are likely to be effective. Bluntly, that is a good let-out to a State government which for whatever reason desires that an investigation by the Crime Authority should not take place. It enables a State simply to say that it is perfectly satisfied that ordinary police investigation into a matter is what is necessary, that it has faith in its police force and does not believe that any good purpose will be served by having the Authority intruding into State affairs. If one wants to look at Costigan's record, one must remember that it is sometimes said that the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union was not set up to achieve the same sorts of ends, that it was not set up to get evidence which can be used. Mr Redlich, at page 3 of his report dealing with the Costigan Royal Commission, said: Over 600 charges have been laid covering 12 different areas of illegal activities. Other charges are likely to be laid. Prosecutions have been successfully completed in 6 of those areas. We have not as yet had any real answer from the Government as to the reasons why the Commission was terminated in the circumstances in which it was. Without in any way casting doubt upon Mr Justice Stewart's views as to his own competence, when he says in effect that the Authority will be in a position to do the job that Costigan is handing over to it, he has not had to come to grips with the immense volume of material that Costigan has had to examine. He does not have the experience of just on four years that Costigan has and so he is really making an assumption without having a basis on which to make that assumption. The Act itself has a number of deficiencies, some of which we can observe as we look at it. If we really want a Crime Authority which has a lot of teeth-there can be very genuine differences of view as to the extent to which it should have teeth-we need to go through the Act and see the various ways in which the Authority's actions can be effectively curtailed. For example, there is the exclusion of offences committed in the course of a genuine industrial dispute. We know how simple it is to create a genuine industrial dispute under the Federal system. One simply serves a log; a notice. There is the requirement to which I pointed to look at ordinary police methods. There is the inter- governmental oversight role and the problems that that poses in terms of security. There is the requirement of the Federal Government-it is patently unjustifiable-to consult when an examination into a breach of Federal law is involved. A review mechanism is provided by section 25 which permits a person charged in certain circumstances to get access to the transcript of evidence which has been taken in camera. The potential for misuse of the review mechanism so as to delay criminal trials is perfectly obvious, as is the potential for harm to witnesses and to deter persons from co-operating with the inquiry. There are other matters-time does not allow me to go into them-which the Committee which has been set up by this House will need to look at very carefully indeed. If we are going to go down this road-the decision has been taken that we should- we must make sure that we go down it effectively, balancing on the one hand the requirements of our traditional immunities, one of which is the bedrock principle that, as a general rule, one should not be forced to incriminate oneself against the very great need to be far more effective in the way in which we deal with organised crime. This is the beginning of a very long road. I welcome the establishment of this Committee. I think it will be years before the position greatly improves from what it presently is. I think we are a long way indeed from getting anywhere near to being on top of organised crime. Since the Special Minister of State is at the table, I ask him whether he can tell us when references will be given on all the matters which have been handed over to the Authority. Question resolved in the affirmative. The following notices were given: Mr Keating to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Banks (Shareholdings) Act 1972, and for related purposes. Mr John Brown to present a Bill for an Act to establish an Automotive Industry Authority. Mr Duffy to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942. Mr Hurford to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Townsville Airport, Queensland, Terminal Area Redevelopment. Mr Hurford to move- That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of a Submarine Warfare Systems Centre, HMAS Watson South Head, New South Wales. Mr Hurford to move- That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of Australian Embassy Complex at Beijing, People's Republic of China. Mr Lionel Bowen to move- That the standing orders be amended by adopting the following new standing order: Committee of Members' Interests 28A. (a) A Committee of Members' Interests shall be appointed at the commencement of each Parliament- (i) to inquire into and report upon the arrangements made for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of a Register of Members' Interests; (ii) to consider any proposals made by Members and others as to the form and content of the Register; (iii) to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests; (iv) to consider what changes to any Code of Conduct adopted by the House are necessary or desirable; (v) to consider what classes of person (if any) other than Members ought to be required to register and declare their interests, and (vi) to make recommendations upon these and any other matters which are relevant. (b) The Committee shall consist of 7 Members, 4 Members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip and 3 Members to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip: Provided that, where the Opposition is composed of 2 Parties, the committee shall consist of 4 Members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 Members to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, and 1 Member to be nominated by either the Leader of the Third Party, the Deputy Leader of the Third Party or the Third Party Whip. (c) The committee shall elect as Chairman of the committee one of the Members nominated either by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip. (d) The committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records but shall not exercise that power, nor undertake an investigation of the private interests of any person, unless approved by not less than 4 members of the committee other than the Chairman. (e) The committee shall have power to confer with a similar committee of the Senate. (f) The committee shall, as soon as practicable after 31 December in each year, prepare and table in the House a report on its operations during that year and shall also have power to report from time to time. Mr Lionel Bowen to move- That the following resolutions relating to the registration and declaration of Members' interests be adopted, such resolutions to have effect from the commencement of the 34th Parliament and to continue in force unless and until amended or repealed by the House of Representatives in this or a subsequent Parliament: (1) Declaration of Members' interests That within 28 days of making and subscribing an oath or affirmation as a Member of the House of Representatives and within 28 days after the commencement of the first period of sitting in each subsequent calendar year while remaining a Member of the House of Representatives, each Member shall provide to the Registrar of Members's Interests, a statement of the Member's registrable interests, including those of the Member's spouse, and any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the Member for support, in accordance with resolutions adopted by the House and in a form determined by the Committee of Members' Interests from time to time, and shall also notify any alteration of those interests to the Registrar within 28 days of that alteration occurring. (2) Registrable interests That the statement of a Member's interests to be provided by a Member shall include those of the Member's spouse, and any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the Member for support, and shall cover the following matters: (a) shareholdings in public and private companies (including holding companies) indicating the name of the company or companies; (b) family and business trusts and nominee companies- (i) in which a beneficial interest is held, indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and beneficial interest, and (ii) in which the Member, the Member's spouse, or a child who is wholly or mainly dependent on the Member for support, is a trustee, indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and the beneficiary of the trust; (c) real estate, including the location (suburb or area only) and the purpose for which it is owned; (d) directorships in private companies, indicating the name of the company, its activities and the total amounts of its assets and liabilities; (e) partnerships, indicating the nature of the interests, the activities of the partnership and the total amounts of its assets and liabilities; (f) liabilities (excluding short-term credit arrangements) indicating the nature of the liability and the creditor concerned; (g) the nature of any bonds, debentures and like investments; (h) saving or investment accounts, indicating their nature and the name of the bank or other institutions concerned; (i) the nature of any other assets (including collections, but excluding household and personal effects) each valued at over $5000; (j) the nature of any other substantial sources of income; (k) gifts valued at more than $250 received from official sources, or at more than $100 where received from other than official sources; (l) any sponsored travel or hospitality received, and (m) any other interests, such as membership of organisations, where a conflict of interest with a Member's public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise. (3) Register and Registrar of Members' Interests That- (a) at the commencement of each Parliament, and at other times as necessary, Mr Speaker shall appoint an officer of the Department of the House of Representatives as the Registrar of Members' Interests and that officer shall also be Clerk to the Committee of Members' Interests; (b) the Registrar of Members' Interests shall, in accordance with procedures determined by the Committee of Members' Interests, maintain a Register of Members' Interests in a form to be determined by that Committee from time to time; (c) as soon as possible after the commencement of each Parliament and in each subsequent calendar year during the life of that Parliament, the Chairman of the Committee of Members' Interests shall table in the House a copy of the completed Register of Members' Interests and shall also table from time to time as required any notification by a Member of alteration of those interests, and (d) the Register of Members' Interests shall be available for inspection by any person under conditions to be laid down by the Committee of Members' Interests from time to time. (4) Declaration of interest in debate and other proceedings That, notwithstanding the lodgment by a Member of a statement of the Member's interests and those of the Member's spouse, and any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the Member for support, and the incorporation of that statement in a Register of Members' Interests, a Member shall declare any relevant interest- (a) at the beginning of his or her speech if the Member should participate in debate in the House, committee of the whole House, or a committee of the House ( or of the House and the Senate), and (b) as soon as practicable after a division is called for in the House, committee of the whole House, or a committee of the House (or of the House and the Senate) if the Member proposes to vote in that division, and the declaration shall be recorded and indexed in the Votes and Proceedings or Minutes of Proceedings (as applicable) and in any Hansard report of those proceedings or that division: Provided that it shall not be necessary for a Member to declare an interest when directing a question seeking information in accordance with standing order 142 or 143. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 2 October 1984: Australian Citizenship Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 252. Canberra College of Advanced Education Act-Statute-No. 54-Staff Superannuation Amendment 1984. Companies Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 246. Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 244 . Companies (Acquisition of Shares-Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No . 243. Companies (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 245. Defence Act-Determinations-1984- No. 41-Representation Allowance. No. 44-In Port Allowance and Settling In and Settling Out Allowance. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1984, Nos. 236, 237, 238, 239. Designs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 256. Director of Public Prosecutions Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 249. Federal Court of Australia Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 258. Fisheries Act- Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 233. Notices, Nos. 124, 126. Judiciary Act-Rule of Court, dated 13 September 1984. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). Life Insurance Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 248. Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 235. Migration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 251. National Gallery Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 250. National Health Act-Report on the operations of the registered medical benefits and hospital benefits organisations, for year 1982-83-Corrigendum to paper presented on 31 May 1984. Patents Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 254. Postal Services Act-Australian Postal Commission-By-laws-Postal (Staff)-1984- Amendment No. 2. Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- Advance Australia Logo Protection Act 1984-1 October 1984. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Act 1984-Provisions other than sections 1 and 2-6 July 1984. Commonwealth Banks Amendment Act 1984-29 June 1984. Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Act 1984-1 July 1984. Judiciary Amendment Act (No. 2) 1984-Section 7-1 July 1984. Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984- Part II and sections 31 and 33-20 July 1984. Parts III, IV and V-1 September 1984. National Crime Authority Act 1984-1 July 1984. Public Service Acts Amendment Act 1982- Section 95-30 June 1984. Sections 78, 79, 85 and 87-30 June 1984. Sub-section 4 (1), sections 15, 19, 20, 23 and 24, sub-section 25 (2), sections 26, 29, 31, 32 and 33, sub-section 34 (2), and sections 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 60, 61, 62, 70 and 73-1 July 1984. Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Act 1980- Sections 22, 25 and 42 and sub-section 45 (8)-14 June 1984. Sub-sections 5 (1) and (4), sections 14, 15, 23 and 36 and sub-sections 37 (1), (2), (3) and (4)-30 June 1984. Public Service Reform Act 1984- Sections 10 and 150 and sub-section 152 (1)-20 July 1984. Sections 12 and 34-2 October 1984. Sections 26 and 153-1 November 1984. Sub-sections 5 (1), (2), (3) and (9), sections 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, 20, 23, 27 and 51, sub-sections 52 (1) and 57 (1), sections 58, 60, 62 and 78, sub-section 80 (1), sections 81, 89, 90, 91, 92 and 93, sub-sections 97 (2) and 99 (1) and ( 4), sections 101 and 102, 110 (1) and 127 (1) and (3), sections 128, 134, 135 and 136, sub-sections 151 (1), (2) and (9) and section 158-1 July 1984. Sub-sections 5 (7) and 110 (2)-2 July 1984. Sub-sections 5 (5) and (6), section 19, sub-sections 37 (2) and 53 (2), section 55, sub-sections 57 (2), 80 (2) and 95 (2) and section 155-1 September 1984. Sub-sections 5 (4) and (8), sections 11, 16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 31 and 36, sub- section 52 (2) sections 82, 83 and 84, sub-sections 95 (3), 96 (1), 97 (3), 99 ( 2), 104 (1), 126 (1) and 127 (2), section 132, sub-section 137 (1) and sections 143 and 156-1 October 1984. Quarantine Amendment Act 1984-Sections 20, 21, and 22-1 August 1984. Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984-3 September 1984. Sex Discrimination Act 1984-1 August 1984. Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1984- Amendments of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-2 July 1984. Section 6 and the amendments of the Student Assistance Act 1973-1 August 1984. Transfer of Prisoners Act 1983-1 August 1984. Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 257. Public Service Act- Determinations-1984-Nos 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, Nos 234, 247, 253. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determination listing fees for purposes of Sewerage Rates Ordinance, dated 10 September 1984. Variation of plan of lay-out of City of Canberra and its environs, dated 12 September 1984. Securities Industry (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 242. Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act-Notice by Minister fixing 24 October 1984 as the date on which Part V of the Act shall come into operation. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendment of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated- 3 September 1984. 12 September 1984. States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1982-Statement of particulars of direction given by Minister under sub-section 16 (2). Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, Nos 240, 241. Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendment No. 48. Trade Marks Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 255. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 153) Dr Charlesworth asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: (1) Can he indicate (a) how many private hospitals there are in the Electoral Division of Perth and (b) what range of specialist services are provided by these private hospitals. (2) Are statistics available on the types and numbers of operations undertaken in private hospitals in comparison with public hospitals in the Electoral Division of Perth. (3) To what extent are public hospitals in the electorate funded by the Federal Government. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) There are four private hospitals in the Electoral Division of Perth. (b ) Radiology is the only specialist service provided by these hospitals. (2) No. However, statistics are available on the types and numbers of certain approved surgical procedures performed in private hospitals. (Approved surgical procedures are relatively major operations which are defined in Schedule 4 of the Health Insurance Regulations). These are shown below. No comparable statistics are available to the Commonwealth for public hospitals for that period. (3) It is not possible to identify specific Commonwealth payments to individual public hospitals in any State since Commonwealth payments are made to State Governments and it is their responsibility to decide allocations based on priorities decided by them. All State public hospitals receive Commonwealth funding via the State Government in the same manner, namely: untied but identified health grants under the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act; (this amounted to $150.7m in Western Australia for 1983-84), and compensation payments under the Medicare Agreement for revenue foregone in removing or reducing hospital charges (the provisional grant for Western Australia in 1983-84 is $27.277m and for the current financial year is $81.389m) . PRIVATE HOSPITALS-ELECTORATE OF PERTH Number of Approved Surgical Procedures by Medical Benefits Schedule Numbers for the Period April 1982-March 1984 Item No. 194 1 196 2 200 13 207 16 208 7 209 24 211 8 213 6 216 2 217 1 241 306 258 2 3,038 2 3,041 26 3,104 1 3,120 7 3,124 87 3,208 4 3,213 16 3,217 2 3,221 7 3,222 90 3,223 5 3,224 16 3,225 13 3,226 3 3,261 1 3,265 79 3, 268 1 3,271 25 3,276 2 3,281 8 3,289 17 3,295 4 3,301 7 3,306 4 3,308 5 3,309 3 3,310 11 3,311 140 3,351 1 3,352 1 3,399 1 3,425 1 3,444 2 3,450 16 3,455 20 3,480 1 3,526 7 3,530 2 3,542 7 3,547 2 3,563 36 3,576 2 3, 581 7 3,591 1 3,616 1 3,618 8 3,622 1 3,638 18 3,647 1 3,652 10 3,654 8 3,664 91 3,668 2 3,673 408 3,683 9 3,698 3 3,700 7 3,702 57 3,718 71 3, 722 32 3,726 11 3,745 14 3,793 1 3,798 296 3,809 1 3,820 6 3,822 2 3,825 2 3,834 3 3,849 7 3,851 1 3,882 2 3,889 23 3,891 20 3,892 1 3,893 1 3, 898 16 3,922 10 3,930 3 3,938 5 3,981 6 3,986 1 4,018 17 4,043 16 4,046 25 4,048 2 4,068 5 4,074 102 4,080 696 4,087 1 4,093 6 4,130 1 4,141 1 4 ,144 1 4,202 6 4,209 3 4,222 6 4,227 380 4,233 9 4,241 19 4,246 3 4,249 14 4,251 2 4,254 43 4,258 1 4,262 53 4,273 58 4,293 19 4,296 6 4,307 25 4,388 1 4,397 2 4,399 1 4,413 5 4,482 1 4,490 49 4,523 19 4,527 431 4, 537 1 4,544 80 4,552 1 4,557 51 4,573 32 4,606 4 4,611 7 4,617 87 4,640 177 4,643 3 4,649 313 4,651 5 4,662 6 4,693 1 4,702 1 4,766 1 4,789 1 4, 860 1 4,976 1 4,983 1 5,072 51 5,075 11 5,078 154 5,081 21 5,085 8 5,087 4 5,091 2 5,095 17 5,098 23 5,100 47 5,106 1 5,116 6 5,138 50 5,143 2 5, 147 2 5,166 10 5,217 833 5,270 98 5,277 7 5,280 85 5,288 1 5,301 17 5, 308 4 5,318 1 5,320 38 5,330 1 5,354 2 5,357 1 5,363 26 5,366 381 5,389 17 5,392 324 5,456 2 5,470 4 5,486 2 5,498 1 5,524 29 5,530 9 5,534 53 5 ,540 64 5,661 5 5,665 12 5,675 2 5,683 4 5,691 24 5,699 6 5,705 46 5,715 2 5,721 2 5,724 1 5,734 12 5,773 1 5,812 4 5,864 1 5,871 56 5,875 17 5, 878 13 5,881 9 5,885 20 5,888 4 5,894 4 5,901 4 5,916 2 5,941 2 5,968 3 5,977 6 5,984 1 6,001 43 6,005 114 6,027 2 6,053 2 6,086 1 6,110 1 6,208 1 6,224 32 6,228 29 6,236 7 6,238 1 6,244 24 6,245 30 6,302 3 6,327 1 6, 332 1 6,347 1 6,352 39 6,363 113 6,367 2 6,373 22 6,396 1 6,406 5 6,407 53 6,408 22 6,483 20 6,508 16 6,513 6 6,517 510 6,533 124 6,536 1 6,542 2 6,544 108 6,557 24 6,585 2 6,594 17 6,607 854 6,611 24 6,612 796 6,631 26 6,643 34 6,644 219 6,648 3 6,649 137 6,681 1 6,692 1 6,724 1 6,740 1 6 ,758 1 6,766 1 6,778 8 6,810 4 6,837 145 6,846 4 6,848 140 6,852 69 6, 857 1 6,859 69 6,861 2 6,865 19 6,871 1 6,873 28 6,881 1 6,885 7 6,889 1 6,900 2 6,922 58 6,924 26 6,928 21 6,938 1 6,997 7 6,999 1 7,116 1 7, 117 1 7,138 1 7,143 2 7,156 8 7,175 1 7,178 5 7,182 128 7,376 25 7,540 2 7,544 5 7,572 1 7,652 3 7,715 1 7,809 4 7,828 1 7,853 2 7,857 1 7,975 1 7,999 9 8,001 9 8,017 12 8,022 15 8,040 6 8,079 1 8,081 5 8,082 13 8,085 73 8,087 24 8,088 25 8,090 4 8,097 1 8,100 1 8, 113 5 8,116 2 8,120 2 8,131 28 8,135 13 8,153 6 8,166 3 8,169 4 8,173 24 8,182 11 8,185 16 8,187 1 8,190 4 8,195 4 8,201 5 8,222 3 8,225 4 8, 233 4 8,235 2 8,238 7 8,249 2 8,251 5 8,257 3 8,262 2 8,275 5 8,290 6 8, 294 1 8,298 32 8,320 1 8,328 1 8,408 1 8,450 4 8,454 35 8,478 3 8,480 69 8,482 1 8,484 65 8,488 1 8,490 52 8,498 10 8,502 7 8,508 37 8,509 4 8 ,512 31 8,516 35 8,518 94 8,524 5 8,528 147 8,530 120 8,532 8 8,542 2 8, 544 1 8,546 1 8,551 13 8,574 2 8,576 3 8,578 1 8,580 2 8,582 5 8,585 11 8,586 9 8,588 8 8,594 167 8,596 25 8,598 114 8,600 7 8,604 4 8,606 5 8, 608 153 8,614 18 8,616 17 8,618 1 8,628 1 8,634 1 TOTAL 13,707 (Question No. 186) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: (1) Can he indicate (a) how many (i) private and (ii) public hospitals there are in the Electoral Division of Moore, (b) what range of specialist services are available at and (c) how many beds are provided by, these hospitals. (2) Do these hospitals receive any funding from the Government; if so, what sums. (3) Are statistics available on the types and numbers of operations undertaken in (a) private and (b) public hospitals in the Electoral Division of Moore. (4) Do the private hospitals within the Electoral Division of Moore produce any form of annual financial statement; if so, what loss or profit did these financial statements indicate for each of the years 1980 to 1982. (5) Are public hospitals currently operating with funding deficits carried over from previous years; if so, what were the deficits for each of the years 1980 to 1982. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) (i) There are two private hospitals in the Electoral Division of Moore. (ii) There are two public hospitals in the Electoral Division of Moore. (b) There are no specialist services provided at the private hospitals. Radiology and pathology are provided at the public hospitals. (c) There are 122 beds provided by the private hospitals and 92 beds provided by the public hospitals. (2) The Commonwealth daily bed subsidies paid to the two private hospitals in the Electoral Division of Moore during 1982-83 amounted to $615,584. It is not possible to identify specific Commonwealth payments to individual public hospitals in any State since Commonwealth payments are made to State Governments and it is the States' responsibility to decide allocations based on priorities decided by them. All State public hospitals receive Commonwealth funding via the State Government in the same manner, namely: untied but identified health grants under the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act; (this amounted to $150.7m in Western Australia for 1983-84); and compensation payments under the Medicare Agreements for revenue forgone in removing or reducing hospital charges (the provisional grant for Western Australia in 1983-84 is $27.277m and for the current financial year is $81.389m) . (3) Statistics are available on the types and numbers of certain approved surgical procedures performed in private hospitals. (Approved surgical procedures are relatively major operations which are defined in Schedule 4 of the Health Insurance Regulations). These are shown below for a two-year period ended March 1984. There are no statistics available to the Commonwealth on types and numbers of operations performed in public hospitals for that period. (4) Financial statements are produced by the private hospitals, but these are not publicly available. (5) The day to day operation of State public hospitals, including the allocation of funds to specific hospitals, is a State responsibility, and this information is not available to the Commonwealth. ELECTORATE OF MOORE Number of Approved Surgical Procedures by Medical Benefits Schedule Numbers for the Period April 1982-March 1984 Item No. 194 7 196 18 198 3 200 4 207 5 209 18 211 4 213 8 216 4 217 4 241 335 3,041 8 3,104 2 3,120 1 3,124 14 3,208 2 3,213 4 3,217 2 3,221 2 3,222 22 3,224 2 3,225 2 3,226 1 3,230 47 3,261 1 3,265 19 3,268 1 3,271 2 3, 281 7 3,284 1 3,289 1 3,290 1 3,295 1 3,301 3 3,307 2 3,308 4 3,309 1 3, 310 18 3,311 21 3,427 2 3,444 1 3,455 2 3,563 10 3,576 1 3,581 1 3,618 2 3,622 1 3,638 5 3,647 1 3,652 7 3,654 1 3,664 17 3,673 118 3,683 1 3, 698 4 3,700 5 3,702 7 3,713 1 3,718 27 3,722 7 3,726 29 3,730 1 3,745 3 3,793 2 3,798 88 3,802 1 3,820 10 3,822 6 3,851 1 3,889 8 3,891 3 3,981 1 4,018 3 4,039 2 4,043 1 4,046 5 4,048 1 4,074 3 4,080 394 4,222 5 4, 227 95 4,241 1 4,246 1 4,249 2 4,254 24 4,258 1 4,262 6 4,273 12 4,293 2 4,296 1 4,307 13 4,523 3 4,527 124 4,537 1 4,544 30 4,557 3 4,573 12 4 ,606 1 4,617 18 4,640 78 4,647 10 4,649 46 4,651 4 4,655 1 4,662 3 4,690 1 4,754 1 4,764 1 4,798 1 4,862 1 4,867 1 5,072 2 5,075 26 5,081 4 5,095 1 5,127 1 5,138 11 5,166 1 5,217 263 5,270 26 5,277 2 5,280 11 5,295 1 5,298 1 5,301 6 5,318 1 5,363 9 5,366 118 5,392 94 5,524 2 5,534 12 5, 665 1 5,683 1 5,691 1 5,705 1 5,732 1 5,734 1 5,773 1 5,864 1 5,871 8 5 ,875 1 5,878 5 5,881 4 5,885 4 5,941 2 5,977 4 6,001 2 6,005 6 6,027 1 6 ,079 1 6,105 1 6,224 10 6,228 7 6,347 1 6,352 17 6,363 37 6,373 18 6,396 1 6,401 2 6,406 3 6,407 25 6,408 12 6,483 8 6,508 4 6,513 4 6,517 183 6 ,532 3 6,533 13 6,542 2 6,544 134 6,553 2 6,557 15 6,585 2 6,594 31 6, 607 385 6,611 6 6,612 645 6,631 30 6,633 12 6,643 5 6,644 50 6,648 1 6, 681 1 6,768 1 6,796 1 6,837 2 7,117 1 7,156 3 7,178 2 7,182 28 7,376 6 7,540 2 7,544 3 7,715 1 7,749 1 7,853 1 7,977 1 7,993 1 8,001 1 8,036 1 8,082 8 8,085 50 8,087 8 8,088 27 8,090 1 8,097 1 8,113 2 8,120 1 8,131 6 8,135 1 8,166 1 8,173 8 8,182 2 8,185 2 8,187 1 8,190 1 8,201 2 8,222 2 8,233 1 8,238 4 8,251 1 8,257 2 8,298 5 8,316 1 8,328 1 8,330 1 8,450 1 8,454 1 8,472 1 8,474 1 8,480 7 8,484 4 8,485 2 8,502 2 8,508 1 8,512 6 8,516 5 8,518 20 8,524 3 8,528 25 8,530 39 8,532 1 8,542 1 8,564 1 8, 568 3 8,570 1 8,572 1 8,576 1 8,580 3 8,585 3 8,586 1 8,588 2 8,594 7 8 ,596 16 8,598 14 8,600 1 8,606 3 8,608 30 8,614 6 8,616 3 8,618 2 8,644 1 TOTAL 4 647 (Question No. 284) Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Will he provide an analysis of funding for nursing homes and private hospitals in the Electoral Division of Stirling for the year 1981-82. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There are no private hospitals in the Electoral Division of Stirling. There are two deficit financed nursing homes providing a total of 41 beds in the Electorate of Stirling and Commonwealth payments for the 1981-82 financial year amounted to $558,534. This funding was in respect of nursing home care and accommodation at both nursing homes as well as approved services provided at a day care centre operated by one of the homes. The approved services provided are podiatry, occupational therapy, and meals and transport and are made available to patients from the nursing home as well as hostel residents and members of the local community. (Question No. 646) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 October 1983 : (1) What action are Telecom Australia employees instructed to take when they become suspicious that Telecom services are being used for SP bookmaker activities. (2) What action is taken if a Telecom employee reports these suspicions. (3) How many reports of Telecom services being used for SP betting have been made over the past five years. (4) How many prosecutions have resulted from these reports. (5) How many telephone services have been disconnected due to use for SP betting. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) and (2) There are special investigatory sections in Telecom which investigate any suspicious circumstances or illegal activities which come under notice from any source involving Telecom's responsibilities. Telecom has taken action to draw the attention of staff to the requirement to report any circumstances indicating the use of the telephone network by subscribers for illegal purposes. (3) (4) and (5) Over the years 1979 to 1983, an estimated total of 720 telephone services have been disconnected by Telecom following the conviction of subscribers for illegal bookmaking activities. (Question No. 1124) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) What consultants have been engaged to work for the Minister or the Minister 's Department since 1 April 1983. (2) What is the name of each consultant, or if a company or partnership, the name of the corporation or partnership. (3) For how long was each consultant engaged. (4) What fee is to be or has been paid to each consultant. (5) What special background and experience does each consultant possess to enable the consultant to undertake the engagement. (6) Was the merit principle applied in each case; if so, in what manner. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) to (6) Further to the answer provided previously (Hansard, 4 September 1984 , pages 498-500) covering the period April 1983 to June 1984, I have been informed that details of two consultants engaged were omitted. A telephone survey to gauge public awareness of the assets test was conducted in August 1983 by market researchers, REARK Research Pty Ltd. They were engaged for one week at a cost of $2,850. Management consultants, W. D. Scott and Co. Pty Ltd were engaged for six months at a cost of $215,000 to advise the Minister on the cost validation of standard hostel service costs.