Thursday, 4 October 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Chynoweth,Mr Hawker,Mr Lloyd,Mr Shipton and Mr Willis. 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 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 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 and Mr Tuckey. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change.'' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Drummond,Mr Rocher and Mr Tuckey. 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 the 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority, the decision of the Hawke Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with deep concern, and deplore the decision of the Government, to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become even more widespread during the period of the inquiry. We request the Federal Government to immediately re-enact the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Ruddock and Mr Shipton. 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 31 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 Donald Cameron,Mr Ruddock and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth: That we, citizens of the Commonwealth, earnestly request our Government to: 1. Cease the discrimination of residents of rest homes who need similar care and assistance as those in other institutions, therefore requiring equal funding . 2. Immediately fund these people so that rest homes can survive and continue caring for the aged and disabled for the good of the nation as a whole. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bilney and Mr Steele Hall. 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: 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 Blunt and Mr Groom. 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 Fife,Mr Free,Mr Simmons and Mr Snow. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows - That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Hawker. 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 Rocher and Mr Willis. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively 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 citizens of Australia respectively 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 retirement; 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 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 respectively showeth that: 1. the Hawke 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 members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled 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 Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth that: That the barriers to the importation and distribution of hard core pornography should not be lifted for the following reasons, namely, (a) The material will fall into the hands of young people. (b) The moral and spiritual health of the community will be seriously eroded. (c) The promulgation of immoral attitudes results in the violation of the sanctity of marriage and contributes to its breakdown. (d) Illegitimate use of drugs, soft or hard, destroys the physical, mental and spiritual health of the user, those with whom he associates and ultimately that of the nation. We the undersigned request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia shows: That we, electors of the Commonwealth of Australia, view with extreme concern and express forthwith our complete abhorrence to the relaxation of the former Federal Laws concerning censorship classification to allow publication and importation of 'Hard Core' pornography. Therefore we, the undersigned, do fervently request the Federal Government to repeal the ''A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinances'' as they affect publications and videos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, and in particular the citizens of the Manning Valley, respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia and in particular the citizens of the Manning Valley, firmly express our strong opposition to the classification of the Taree Open Cadet Unit as a unit to receive limited support only under the restructured Army Cadet Scheme. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that, the Minister for Defence direct the Australian Army to re-classify the Taree Open Cadet Unit as an open, community-based, regional cadet unit (R.C.U.). And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That we sincerely believe that the new Commonwealth censorship procedures for publications and the A.C.T. Classification Ordinance 1983 Standards for Classification of Printed Materials, No. 1-February 1984 passed by the Senate last Wednesday, removing from existing Commonwealth law:- (a) The power to prevent the importation and sale of hardcore pornography (e.g. X-rated videos). (b) The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; (c) The power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from customs was a step in the wrong direction. It is the view of the religious community on the north side of Brisbane, of which we are a part, that the new laws should be amended immediately to give protection to all Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation . It is believed that those materials that come under Category 2 classification should not be allowed to be made available to all, and the knowledge that this kind of material described under Classification 2 is now lawful under the new regulations is nauseating. We believe it is the duty of the Government to protect society from those who would incite paedophilia, child pornography, terrorism and extreme cruelty. We believe this protection should be extended to cover items such as are currently listed under Category 2. We respectfully request that amending legislation be drafted accordingly. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that the House of Representatives will vote in favour of the Senate resolution calling for the appointment of a Select Joint Committee to examine the effects upon children of viewing pornographic, violent and obscene video material, because not all parents are supervising all children all of the time, and not all video outlets are impoverishing themselves by compliance with the law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the guidelines for classification of video tapes and discs for sale and hire issued by the Film Censorship Board places no realistic restriction on the sale to adults of explicit hard-core pornography and coupled with the widespread existence of video playing machines, little or no realistic family control can now be exercised over the likely viewing of explicit hard-core pornography by children and juveniles. Noting that the Parliament refused to disallow regulations permitting these circumstances to occur your petitioners therefore pray that:- A Joint Parliamentary Select Committee be established with the following terms 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 in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our wish to have the traditional place of Her Majesty The Queen as Head of State retained in our national and constitutional and democratic affairs and institutions and also strongly advocate the retention of our present Australian National Flag, standing for historic and loyal links with the United Kingdom, the nation which founded our Australian way of life. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr 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 on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a 'first strike' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that members and the House assembled will close Omega. by Mr Kent. 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. The global concern that any nuclear exchange could inflict on humanity unimaginable death and suffering; 2. The vulnerability that Australians could face in any nuclear conflict between major powers; 3. The low level of morale and equipment supply to Civil Defence services; 4. The public concern that the Natural Disaster Organisation is the responsibility of the Minister for Defence whereas allocation to the Special Minister of State would be more appropriate; 5. The public concern that Government should explore all avenues to ensure that the nuclear threat is eliminated. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament establish a Select Committee to investigate the creation of a Ministry of CIVIL DEFENCE. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Klugman. 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 humbly 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 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 of 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 that Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully show: WE are concerned that- (a) the Report of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission fails to recognise the important role and contribution of Workers' Health Centres in providing occupational health and safety services and information and (b) fails to include those organisations in its proposed national strategy. Your petitioners therefore pray that in considering the recommendations of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission the Commonwealth Government commit itself to a strategy which includes the continuation of, and support for, existing Workers' Health Centres in recognition of their critical role in occupational health and safety. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Willis. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we, the undersigned citizens of this district of Pioneer Valley, near Mackay, Queensland, view with great concern the matter recently before, the House, wherein your Government passed legislation which will facilitate the procuring of pornographic material of various kinds, including videos and literature. Most people seem to be convinced that pornography and bad videos are doing great harm to our young people, and we feel that we would be remiss in our duty to them if we did not voice out protest. Parents have already enough difficulty in protecting their children. Your new law will make their task impossible. We hope and pray that your Government will see fit to reverse its decision in this matter. by Mr Braithwaite. 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 $491 million over the next six years to 1988/89, of which Local Government could have expected to receive $58 million. This is a further denial of funds to Local Government, following $13 million 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 certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully show Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; Alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths; Alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; Alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the North-West Coast of Tasmania shows: That the local community wish to commend the value of a Christian broadcasting service in this area and therefore request the Minister for Communications or the appropriate Governing agency to grant to Christian FM broadcasters a permanent FM licence to broadcast in the North-West region of Tasmania. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: (a) We are shocked and disappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) This decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of the Wynyard Airport. (c) Closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) We urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. Petitions received. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that Hamilton Island- (a) won the resorts award in Australia's first national tourism awards, and (b) is one of the Whitsunday Islands, in the Electoral Division of Dawson on the Great Barrier Reef; (2) recognises the importance of the tourism industry to the Australian economy , and (3) commends the owners, manager, and staff of the resort for their initiative in earning the award and promoting the beautiful Whitsunday Islands. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) will second: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the Government's outstanding success with its First Home Owners Scheme; (b) that recovery is still evident in the housing industry, and (c) that recent trends in money market interest rates have been favourable, and (2) calls upon financial institutions to give early consideration to reducing housing mortgage interest rates for new and existing loans. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes that the Tasmanian authorities and the Tasmanian Government have finally come to their senses in once again using the apple as the symbol of the magnificent island State of Australia. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) expresses concern that- (a) a noisy minority are trying to break Australia's ties with the Monarchy and to make Australia a republic; and (b) this minority is attempting to change the Australian flag because of its connection with the monarchy; and (2) calls on members of this minority to demonstrate their sincerity by foregoing the Queen's Birthday public holiday. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the growing number of elderly and sick people being discharged from hospitals at the end of 35 days because Medicare stipulates they must be discharged unless they are acutely ill; (b) that a doctor faces a 6 month term of imprisonment or a $5,000 fine if, to allow them to continue in hospital, he certifies that a person is acutely ill, and it is later established the person is not acutely ill, but just very sick; and (c) the growing and understandable fears of this provision by the elderly and sick; (2) condemns the Government for its callous approach to the aged, and (3) affirms that Medicare socialism has no place in Australian society. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) a team of marine archaeologists will be leaving Brisbane on 3 November 1984 to undertake the second major excavation of the wreck of HMS Pandora, which was sent in pursuit of the Bounty mutineers and sank off the coast of Far North Queensland in 1791, (b) the excavation has been supported by the Australia Government in a number of ways, in particular, 2 grants from the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment for $60,000 in 1983-84 and $70,000 in 1984-85, and (2) Considers the Pandora to be the most exciting marine archaeological project in the world at the moment, and wishes the divers and archaeologists good luck in their historic enterprise. 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 their continuing and totally unjustified refusal to sign official documents to release $6m of Tasmanian money to be spent on upgrading Hobart International Airport. Mr GEAR(Tangney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates the Government for its assistance to small business by adopting policies that have resulted in lower interest rates, lower inflation, lower real labour costs, higher consumer confidence and spending and increased economic activity. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes reports from New Zealand that members of the NZ Labour Party have claimed to have detected covert and overt operations by the CIA to overthrow the NZ Labour Government and the planting of CIA agents in Wellington to prepare for the coup, and (2) expresses satisfaction at the continuing liveliness within the Labour movement of its world-famous paranoia. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the House- (1) notes the threat of the Minister for Primary Industry to allow the Wheat Board Legislation to lapse if the Opposition succeeds with its amendments, and (2) condemns the Minister for his economic stupidity in failing to recognise that this action would withhold $2 billion to $3 billion from the Australian economy before Christmas. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the attempt to reach the summit of Mount Everest by an Australian team and wishes them success, and (2) congratulates one of the best newspaper reporters ever in Parliament House, Mr Simon Balderstone, who is with the expedition, on his excellent reporting of the attempt. [COGNATE BILL: CHRISTMAS ISLAND ADMINISTRATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Young: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Christmas Island Administration (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1984, as they are associated measures? Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate on both of these measures? Mr Ruddock —Will the Leader of the House explain to the House in what way Christmas Island and the Commonwealth electoral provisions are related? Mr YOUNG —If the honourable member agrees to the suggestion we will go into the debate and explain it to him. He is only a young chap. He probably does not understand. Young lawyers from Sydney do not really understand. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate on both these measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(10.14) —My colleague the honourable member for Dundas ( Mr Ruddock) will have something to say, when he speaks in the debate, about the linking of these two measures, about which he has already asked a question on their introduction today. I shall confine my remarks to the matters concerning the electoral Act and the referendum machinery. The Opposition does not intend to oppose the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill, which is really one of those peculiar Bills in that it is to correct an overenthusiasm on the part of the Government in relation to the oversight of advertising standards in electioneering. The Joint Committee on Electoral Reform met at great length last year. The result was the large scale overhaul of the Electoral Act which took place subsequent to the report of that Committee. The machinery of elections in Australia was greatly changed and only in the last week or so have we come to the final conclusions about the boundaries of the electorates of the new enlarged parliament which is subject to redistribution-a matter of interest to all members in this House and to prospective candidates outside the House. The particular matter to which this small Bill relates is the removal of sub-section (2) of section 161 of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act. That provision placed a new discipline on those who accept advertising and who advertise on behalf of parties and candidates at elections. The initial report of the Joint Committee indicated that something should be done in relation to an injunctive power, but it would appear that the Government , in drawing up the new amendments to the new Electoral Act went much further than the Committee indicated. The provision that was included reads: A person shall not, during the relevant period in relation to an election under this Act, print, publish or distribute, or cause, permit or authorize to be printed, published or distributed, any electoral advertisement containing a statement- (a) that is untrue; and (b) that is, or is likely to be, misleading or deceptive. This introduced a new factor under the heading of 'Misleading or deceptive publications, &c.'. As honourable members know, it was clearly restrictive in the sense that it applied to the matter of the influencing of the casting of a vote or the matter of publishing or distributing material which purported to be or represented a ballot paper. This brought in a new factor in that it put severe penalties on those who publish the material. The representations to the Committee were direct about this matter. Representatives of the industry illustrated in some detail to the Committee how impossible it was for them during an election campaign to be able to run the rule over election material and to know exactly whether they would be breaking the new law. The representatives asked how such people were able to know whether a political claim was untrue. This was likely to be restrictive on the types of advertisements that would be accepted and would place an impossible burden on the representatives of the media responsible for accepting such advertisements. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), under whose able chairmanship the Committee sat, knows that the Committee studied the matter at length and recommended that the provision should be excised from the new legislation. It is unusual that the recently amended Act is now again to be amended to excise this sub-section. However, it is a good thing that the Government has recognised the Committee's assessment of the problems and is moving in this way. The Government is also seeking to remove the same prohibition from the referendum machinery. Therefore, the rules will be the same for both general elections and the process of referenda. The country will face a referendum which is an imposition on the Australian public. It represents a very much watered down version of what the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) first put to the Australian community as his and the Government's view of what amendments should be made to the Australian Constitution to facilitate better machinery in government and to facilitate a more solid base of activity from Parliament in that it would have a longer duration and be a more secure base for governing more democratically. We all know that the Attorney-General, in his first references to these matters , indicated that the Government would seek simultaneous elections on a fixed term basis. I remember the public chidings by the Attorney-General of the representatives of the coalition on the basis that they may or may not have supported that proposition. Honourable members will know that the coalition came to the point of supporting fixed term parliaments. But it is strange that, with the prospect of being able to carry the Australian people on a referendum on the matter of fixed term parliaments, the Government has resiled from that advocacy. It has given no real indication as to why it has done so and as to why it will not proceed with perhaps one of the most vital questions which affect parliaments. We all know that honourable members who sit in this chamber have been through an inordinate number of elections in latter years. This Government is contributing as much as, and perhaps more than, anyone else in breaking what I believe is a contract with the Australian people in relation to the duration of Parliament. So, within less than two years of its election, the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke), who promised in his election policy speech that soon after election he would have a referendum to secure longer term parliaments, is running back to the people in an unnecessary election. He need not have it this year. He need not have it before April of next year to achieve the very purpose for which he claims he will have it now, that is, to put back together the timing of elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives. Mr Ruddock —If he had had his referendum earlier it could have been over and done with by now and there would be no need for the election now. Mr STEELE HALL —He could have done so. As my colleague the honourable member for Dundas indicates, the Prime Minister promised in his election speech that within , I think, six months, if not just a few months, he would have a referendum to put this matter in hand. I believe that that was a compact made with the Australian people. He simply ignored, jettisoned, threw away that promise, along with many other promises, such as the promised Northern Territory rail link between Alice Springs and Darwin. There must have been some very vigorous discussions in Cabinet and in Caucus for the Attorney-General to turn around in his circular fashion in this matter so often and in the end to come out with a squib of a referendum which he now proposes to have on the same day as the election, which, I take it, is to be held on 1 December or thereabouts. In looking at these rather machinery provisions we have here, we are reminded of the bigger questions. The fact is that the Government is running scared to an election. It is going ahead of time, ahead of the necessity even of moving to achieve its own aim which is to put elections for the two Houses of Parliament back together. It is running four, five or six months ahead of time, scared of the retribution from the Australian public because of broken promises. Before those things show up in public opinion this Government is running to an early election. It is running to an expensive election. This legislation, which is being put through to meet the early election timetable, is all part of the rush. If the Government can rush this sort of thing through, if it can return again to the parliamentary draftsman and ask him at a time of great urgency in drawing up legislation to proceed with this, it could have done the other thing which the Prime Minister promised in his election speech, that is, to secure the approval of the Australian people to amend the Australian Constitution more effectively. As I said earlier, the Opposition does not oppose this Bill. I believe it is a sensible recommendation by the Committee, having been confronted with the Bill which passed through this House. I must say that this section was not particularly well debated here. I suppose the reason for that was that the House relied very heavily on the recommendations of the Committee at the time. The matters which were in dispute were basically matters of some principle- differences between the Government and the coalition parties on the type of list voting, the public funding of elections and using taxpayers' money to put members of parliament into their places. That sort of difference was under contention. But in many of the machinery matters the Parliament relied heavily on the Committee and I think it was wise to do so. I do not claim that that was wrong. But, with the House relying on the Committee in that way, and being confronted with a very large and complex Bill, this matter seemed to escape the attention of the House. I commend the industry, the representatives of the media and the advertisers in general in Australia for bringing to the attention of the Committee the difficulties which they saw. I believe that the Committee tested their protests effectively. The Committee was shown that those who advertise and accept the wording of advertisements would have been put in an untenable position if, in the rush of electioneering, they had to make an assessment each morning, upon the pain of a very strong penalty, as to whether this section would be contravened. The Government has the approval of the Opposition in making this move. I presume that in the forthcoming election this legislation will again be tested in practice. We will possibly see further amendments in the aftermath of the election as the new Liberal and National Party coalition government assesses the legislation on its return to office. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(11.27) —If I were speaking after the motion which will be brought before the House later today about the declaration and registration of members' interests, I suppose I would have to declare that I have a significant interest in the proposal before the House. As a member of parliament who will be standing again for election, I have a great interest in how the elections are to be conducted. In responding to what the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) said, one of the main reasons the Government is proposing an early election, following the story on the front page of today's Australian newspaper, is to help the Liberal Party of Australia and the Opposition in general to change their leadership. The earlier the election, the greater the chance of the honourable member for Boothby becoming either Leader of the Opposition or Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I would like to pay tribute to the honourable member for Boothby for his work as Deputy Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. I think all of us realise that he is much better on his own than when he is asking questions which are supplied by members of the staff of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) as they do not give him all the details concerning the questions which have to be asked. I would like to go into some detail as to why the Committee recommended that this section be deleted from the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Some people whom I consider to be quite reasonable and rational have attacked the proposition on the basis that it will exempt politicians from the general rules about untrue and misleading advertising under the Trade Practices Act. I usually have a fairly high regard for Yvonne Preston, a journalist with the Sydney Morning Herald. Some three weeks ago she took that particular line in one of her columns. I think there has been a misunderstanding on the part of people who generally agree-I assume that they agree-that the Australian electoral process should be unfettered as far as possible. I wrote a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald replying to that article, but it was not published because it dealt with the bread and butter issues, not with the usual gutter issues. Mr Young —They don't publish letters from Labor Party people. You know that. Dr KLUGMAN —That is not quite true, but we know what the Fairfax organisation is concentrating on at present-purely gutter issues. Let me come back to the proposals that we are dealing with here today. There is some difficulty with the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Act because sections have been renumbered, but I shall use the old numbers which are available in the Act as it is printed at present. Section 161 (2) now reads: A person shall not, during the relevant period in relation to an election under this Act, print, publish or distribute, or cause, permit or authorise to be printed, published or distributed, any electoral advertisement containing a statement- (a) that is untrue; and (b) that is, or is likely to be, misleading or deceptive. Arising from that there is the power of injunction if one feels that that section is being breached. My own view is that whilst the section is objectionable-I will try to indicate why in a minute-the injunction proceedings are particularly threatening to the normal electoral process because they would prevent the publication in the broadest sense of electoral advertising and to some extent the normal cut and thrust of political debate in any election. People who have not thought about it in great detail should be reminded that the original Act contained the proposition that a person could not publish anything untrue or incorrect which is 'likely to mislead or improperly interfere with any elector in or in relation to the casting of his vote'. That has been interpreted narrowly by the High Court of Australia-I think correctly-as referring only to the actual casting of the vote. It relates to, for example, putting an advertisement in a newspaper, and distributing it in areas which are likely to support one's opponents, that said that the election was to be held on a day different from the actual day on which it was to be held; or if one implied that the Liberal Party or Labor Party how-to-vote tickets ran in a particular way and this was untrue. In other words, the section was aimed at the actual casting of the vote. We were told at the Committee hearings-I think all of us were impressed by the submissions from the media in the broader sense-that the current content of the Act would in fact lead to continuing injunctions. We were told that because the placing of advertisements which are false and misleading or deceptive is a criminal offence, television stations, newspapers and radio stations would be extremely worried about the content of any political advertising and would have to have the facts checked. It would take days to get an advertisement from the point of delivery to the publishers. That is obviously unsatisfactory. The media proposed that the responsibility should be taken by the person supplying the advertisement. It really does not want to assume responsibility. It was the view of the Committee that this was not an appropriate solution because it would not deal with the question of injunctions. We had a significant amount of legal advice, but I suppose that the most important was that from Mr Michael McHugh, Queen's Counsel, of the Sydney Bar. He dealt at great length with the sorts of problems that would arise when considering whether 'false' equated to 'contrary to fact' and what 'objectively false' meant and so on, including whether the person publishing the advertisement would have to know that the statement was untrue. It was obvious to all of us that, whilst one could not necessarily predict the result of applications for injunctions before particular judges, broadly speaking there was a great risk that most injunctions would be granted. Basically what concerned us was this, and I quote from the Committee's report: Subsequent cases have established that the requirement to establish a 'prima facie case'- when applying for an injunction- does not mean that the plaintiff must show on a balance of probabilities that he will win on the trial. All he has to do is to satisfy the court that there is a serious question to try . In other words, he has to satisfy the court that there is something at issue. To continue: If an advertisement said 'X intends to introduce a wealth tax', Mr McHugh told the Committee that if X gave the evidence 'I do not intend to introduce a wealth tax' you would have proved the statement false. This would probably be enough to obtain an injunction. This is obviously unsatisfactory. All political parties, as soon as an advertisement appeared which they felt was hurting and was likely to be effective, would immediately try to obtain an injunction. We all know that in the political process the timing is important and that, if an injunction which prevents the publication of an advertisement during an election campaign can be obtained, that is really the end of the story. There is not much point in winning that challenge after the election and being told that the advertisement could have been run. It is a question as to whether political opinions concerning future events can be treated as potentially false and obviously able to mislead. I quote again from the Committee's second report to show how the Committee felt: While it is appropriate to entrust to a court, which is experienced in the process of examining evidence and adopting conclusions, the task of ascertaining the truth of the claims of commercial advertisers, such objective standards cannot be applied to political statements. A decision as to whether a political statement is 'true' seems necessarily to involve a political judgment, based upon political premises. The committee is of the view that it is undesirable, both from the point of view of the courts, and the participants of the political process, to require the courts to enter the political arena in this way. The High Court seems to have had these difficulties in mind in rejecting the broad interpretation of the old S.161 (e) . . . I quote from the Court's judgment in 1981. The Court said that the prohibition of misleading and untrue statements affecting a voter's choice of candidate would: . . . require an election campaign to be conducted in anticipation of proceedings brought to test the truth or correctness of any statement made in the campaign. Indeed any person who published an electoral advertisement containing an incorrect statement of fact might be exposed to criminal proceedings. In a campaign ranging over a wide variety of matters, many of the issues canvassed are likely to be unsuited to resolution in legal proceedings . . . It was our view that advertisements such as 'X Party will increase taxes' or 'Y Party is not concerned about unemployment' are statements which cannot be judged in the same way as ordinary commercial advertising. It was the Committee's view that the Act as it stands at present would interfere with the normal political process. Obviously, we all say that political advertising ought to be true and fair, but if everybody agreed on what is truth and fairness in politics we probably would not have political parties or factions within political parties. We all disagree on all kinds of matters in politics and I suppose that is what politics is all about. The Committee concluded: . . . that the injunction remedy could cause grave injustice to political parties or candidates and could disrupt the normal political process, if available at the suit of any candidate. We also rejected the proposition that the injunction proceedings should be open only to the Australian Electoral Commission as that would require the Commission to enter the political fray in deciding whether to seek such an injunction. Basically, we are recommending the repeal of the section, thus leaving the decision as to whether political advertising is true or false to the electors and to the law of defamation. Obviously, it is still important to have the defamation law in place so that people cannot make untrue statements about individual candidates. Some of my colleagues at least have benefited in a financial sense from the presence of that law. I know that the media would like to alter the whole defamation law so that they could say almost anything about politicians. I think those of us who have watched what has been happening in Australia over the last few months as far as the media are concerned would have grave reservations about changing the law to make it easier still for the newspapers and the media in general to make all kinds of allegations against individuals. I for one do not share the view-I admit it is the accepted practice in the United States of America-that people in public life for practical purposes cannot be defamed by the newspapers. I think it is wrong; I think it is degrading to the whole political process if we can say defamatory things about people. I think the question of privacy is an extremely important one. I strongly support the proposals before the House for the reasons I have outlined. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.44) —When this cognate debate commenced this morning I asked why the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill and the Christmas Island Administration (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill were grouped together. Madam Deputy Speaker, when you hear my speech I think you will understand that the relationship between the Bill relating to the Commonwealth Electoral Act and referenda and the Christmas Island Bill is really quite tenuous. In fact, the only relationship that I can see between the Christmas Island Bill and the other Bill is in terms of timing-the Government's early election timetable. I suspect that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), in his arrangements for having these Bills debated cognately, was, although perhaps a little obscurely, giving us the real reasons behind the Government's desire to see these Bills through at this time. The only relationship, and it is a very tenuous relationship, is the Government's desire to have amendments to the Electoral Act in place before the early election and the Government's desire to ensure that the people of Christmas Island are able to vote in the election, whenever it is held. It is for the purpose of the Government's political objectives that this legislation is being pursued in this way at this time. I think the Minister, in his determination to get it through, has signalled that more clearly than anything I could have done if the debate on the Christmas Island legislation had proceeded alone. I welcome the association, not because there is any real link but because I think it reveals very clearly the Government's motives. The Christmas Island Administration (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1984 has a number of purposes. The purposes of the Bill, as expressed in the explanatory memorandum, are as follows: The . . . Bill will extend Commonwealth legislation in the areas of health, social security, federal electoral representation and education to the Territory of Christmas Island, following the decision of the Government to bring living conditions in the Territory into line with those in mainland Australia. The Bill will amend the Christmas Island Act 1958 so as to enable the making of Ordinances of the Territory to regulate the use and occupation of land. A further amendment to the Christmas Island Act will enable Ordinances of the Territory to be made in relation to the Supreme Court of the Territory, that may have effect outside the Territory. The Bill will amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 so as to place residents of the Territory within the boundaries of the Northern Territory for federal electoral purposes. An amendment consequent upon the amendment of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 will also be made to the Northern Territory ( Self-Government) Act 1978. The Bill will also amend the Heath Insurance Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953 so as to make residents of the Territory eligible for benefits under that legislation on a basis equivalent to that for mainland Australians. The Bill will amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 so as to place residents of the Territory within the Commonwealth Electoral Division of the Northern Territory for the purposes of referendums. The Bill will also amend the Social Security Act 1947 so that a resident of the Territory will be treated as a resident of Australia for the purposes of that Act. Of course, there are also some amendments in the area of student assistance. The Student Assistance Act 1973 will be amended so as to permit certain institutions in Western Australia to be able to continue the courses of study that they offer on Christmas Island and to ensure that students are eligible for the purposes of section 10 in relation to the payment of tertiary education assistance allowances. That outline gives some idea of the breadth of this legislation. Honourable members will see that the electoral provisions are quite incidental to the impact that this legislation is designed to have in the Territory of Christmas Island. This legislation follows upon the Government's decision to bring into mainland Australia provisions relating to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. In some respects this Bill is different from that which operated to give much the same provisions of normalisation to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands situation. The fact is that in relation to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands there were no proposals such as are concluded in this legislation to enable the making of ordinances to regulate the use and occupation of land. Because there are certain proposals to dispense with the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act to enable the making of ordinances on the Christmas Island territory to regulate the use and occupation of land I will in the Committee stage be proposing an amendment to the Bill. The amendment is for the purpose of ensuring that to the extent to which the Lands Acquisition Act is dispensed with when there are dealings with land- particularly where land may be dispensed with and sold; I think it is envisaged that some land may be dispensed with and that industries might be encouraged to establish on Christmas Island-if the Government comes at a later point in time to acquire that land it will do so on the basis of just terms. The Lands Acquisition Act, which is to be excluded from operation on Christmas Island, contains procedures wherein the constitutional provisions that operate generally throughout Australia to ensure that the Commonwealth acquires land only on just terms will be excluded. The purpose of the amendment that I will move will be to ensure that any ordinance or other laws made pursuant to the Christmas Island Administration ( Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill when it is enacted will provide for acquisition of land only on the basis of the provision of just terms by the Government to those from whom land is acquired. It is a very important amendment. The Opposition regards it as an important point of principle. We will be pursuing this amendment strongly in this place and in the other place if the Government is not prepared to accept it in the debate today. I want to draw attention to certain other variations in relation to this Bill and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands situation. When we dealt with the Cocos (Keeling ) Islands (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill we found there was provision in it for the Commonwealth Grants Commission to make certain inquiries in relation to the financial arrangements for Cocos (Keeling) Islands. There is no similar provision in relation to Christmas Island. The argument that was put to me when I made some inquiries about this question was that it was not thought necessary in relation to Christmas Island because it was already a Territory of Australia and we were including the provision for a Grants Commission inquiry for Cocos ( Keeling) Islands because we were concerned that the-- Mr Uren —Mr Deputy Speaker, might I intimate to the honourable member that I do not object to the amendment. It conforms with the Lands Acquisition Act of 1955. We will accept the amendment proposed by the honourable member. Mr RUDDOCK —I thank the Minister for Territories and Local Government for his intimation at this stage. The Minister has said that the amendment which I have proposed is in conformity with the Lands Acquisition Act. The fact is that the Bill, as drafted and proposed and before the Minister intimated his acceptance of the amendment, would have excluded the provision for just terms. It is for that reason that I have drawn it to the attention of the Minister. I am glad he has given me that intimation but I hope that the advisers of the Government and the Government itself will be conscious of that when considering amendments of this sort in other legislation and will always be aware of the constitutional provision which does provide for compensation on just terms where an acquisition of land proceeds. The point I was making before I was interrupted by the Minister was that this legislation does not include provision for a Grants Commission inquiry. In the case of Cocos (Keeling) Islands provision for a Grants Commission inquiry was incorporated because the United Nations was involved and it was believed that it was important, from the point of view of our external presentation, for the people of Cocos (Keeling) Islands to have this protection. But where there is no external monitoring it is not thought necessary to have a similar provision for Grants Commission inquiries in relation to the Christmas Island situation. The student assistance scheme provisions that I drew attention to in my preamble are, of course, an important difference as well. Provision is made for the operation of the Student Assistance Act in relation to Christmas Island. It does not operate in relation to Cocos (Keeling) Islands because there are no external courses operating there, whereas there are at Christmas Island. That brings me to another important point. It is appropriate that this provision should operate but it serves to emphasise the fact that there is a very close association with Western Australia in the area of education. That serves to emphasise a point I made in the debate on the electoral arrangements for Cocos (Keeling) Islands. All of the substantial associations and contacts between Christmas Island or Cocos (Keeling) Islands and mainland Australia in the area of education and in each of the other areas in which there are mainland and territorial affiliations are with the State of Western Australia and not with the Northern Territory. Yet we have the Government persisting with the view that for Commonwealth electoral purposes the appropriate community of interest for the territorians of Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands is the Northern Territory. The Minister may tell me that for practical reasons-I accept in part that for practical reasons in terms of the election that is only months away-it is reasonably possible to incorporate electors in Christmas Island and Cocos ( Keeling) Islands only in electorates in either the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory. When the Cocos (Keeling) Islands (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill was being considered I pointed out to the House the desirability of a form of inquiry to establish where the people of the Territories thought their associations lay and that the Government should proceed to put in place electoral arrangements which reflected that community interest. The Government was not prepared to accept that amendment in relation to Cocos (Keeling) Islands and it is persisting with that attitude in relation to Christmas Island. The Opposition would not wish to disenfranchise the territorians on Christmas Island any more than it would want to disenfranchise the people of Cocos ( Keeling) Islands. For that reason we are not persisting with the amendment we proposed previously to delete the electoral provisions. It is not because we believe that those arrangements are appropriate; it is because we do not wish to see the territorians disenfranchised in this election. The Government should persist with an inquiry. I foreshadow that the Opposition would, in government, pursue inquiries that would permit the territorians to be affiliated in an electorate with which they had a genuine community of interest and associations. In a previous debate I suggested that an appropriate course would be for the Government to persist-I do not believe any reasonable person in Australia would want to resist the move-in a constitutional amendment to permit external territories to be attached to electorates on the mainland with which they have the greatest association and the greatest community of interest. In the case of Christmas Island that association, as with Cocos (Keeling) Islands, would be with electorates in Western Australia. This is important legislation because it brings about a situation in which the Commonwealth is extending its legislation in the areas of health, social security, education and so on to Christmas Island. Christmas Island has a community whose livelihood has been derived mostly from phosphate mining. The future of the island is a matter which I know the Minister has under very serious consideration. All Australians ought to be concerned about it. However, while the Minister may be giving very serious consideration to these matters, he does not take this Parliament and this House in any way into his confidence. A large number of decisions have been made by the Government which impact upon the island and its future. I have sought, by asking questions on notice of this Minister, information concerning the future of the island, and to date lengthy questions, which I would certainly like to read in the debate today if I had the time, remain unanswered. They concern the future of phosphate mining and the future of the people on Christmas Island. I draw the Minister's attention, just in case he has not noticed, to the questions that I have on the Notice Paper concerning Christmas Island. Mr Uren —I am aware of them. Mr RUDDOCK —The Minister says that he is aware of them. I would like to know, first and foremost, when he intends to answer those questions because they are very serious questions and go right to the future of the island. They do require an answer from him as to what he has been about. This Parliament deserves to be taken into his confidence. The Parliament deserves a statement on the matters about which I have asked questions because failure to direct attention to them and to answer them leaves many unanswered questions about which, I think, all Australians would be concerned to have answers and which the Christmas Islanders would be concerned to have answers. I have asked some questions, the first being when the Parliament resumed on 21 August. It is question on notice No. 1615. I asked the Minister whether he had been advised by the phosphate mining company that remedial action is required by that company to reduce costs to avoid a possible loss of $11.4m in 1983-84. One would think at this point in time that the Minister would be able to answer that question. I also asked him: What actions had been proposed by the company? Did the company make a profit in 1983-84 or, if not, what was its financial position ? I asked about the particulars of sales and for reviews of the long term viability of the Christmas Island operation. I asked the Minister whether any action was being taken to reduce costs, and whether redundancies were involved and, if so, what was the nature of the payments to be made if redundancies were being occasioned. I asked the Minister about proposals that might reduce the island's population and about the nature of the expenditure that the Commonwealth might incur as a result of any proposals dealing with reduction of population. I asked him for details of the cost reduction proposals. I asked about the negotiation of agreements between the company and its employees. I asked what the terms of the agreement were and who were signatories to it. I asked the Minister to give us information on his involvement in relation to those agreements. I asked about the circumstances in which there were changes in the directorate of the Phosphate Mining Co. of Christmas Island Ltd, and what were the circumstances in which certain trade union representation was added to the board of directors, because there were certain matters there on which we needed clarification, particularly having regard to statements made by a Mr G. Bennett in which he demanded certain changes. I asked the Minister whether the statements of Mr Bennett represented the Government's intentions in relation to the future of the island. When I became aware-not through any statements by the Minister-of the terms of the agreement, I sought certain information in relation to those agreements, particularly those made on 29 March, 29 April and 25 May 1984. These are documents about which the Parliament has not been told. I asked him about the level of financial assistance that had been provided by the Government to the company, the anticipated financial assistance to be paid this year. I asked about the circumstances in which unions were to receive financial assistance and compensation for reduced membership following redundancies, and the extent to which other unions might have been compensated in relation to such matters. The Minister has not provided information in relation to that. I asked the Minister about the nature of resettlement services to assist Christmas Islanders and whether any payments were being made. I asked about the nature of the payments to those who had been made redundant, and about the positions of those who had been made redundant. It is interesting to see that people are receiving redundancy payments and possibly leaving the island, and then shortly afterwards they have to be replaced. The Government is still advertising positions for people to go to Christmas Island. These things need to be explained. If the Minister answered the questions that were on the Notice Paper, we might have some satisfactory explanation. The fact is that it is preposterous that this important Bill, which goes to the very future of Christmas Island, is being debated in a cognate debate in which I suggest the Minister will not be able to answer these questions fully. Other members of parliament will not be given an opportunity to debate them either, because their preoccupation will be with the electoral matters. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(11.03) —I intend to confine my remarks to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill in this cognate debate. The second report by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform examined the 1983 amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 relating to political advertising. Recommendations were made to repeal those sections relating to ' untrue' and 'misleading' advertising in section 329 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of that section states: A person shall not, during the relevant period in relation to an election under this Act, print, publish or distribute or cause, permit or authorise to be printed, published or distributed, any electoral advertisement containing a statement (a) that is untrue; and (b) that is, or is likely to be, misleading or deceptive. From the report and certainly from many honourable members' own experience, it is obvious that by the very nature of political advertising, what constitutes an 'untrue' or 'misleading' statement is often hard to define. Because political advertising is more often concerned with intangibles, ideas and policies, and often involves conflicting view points, rather than dealing in hard facts, the conclusion of the Committee is that fair political advertising is not possible to achieve by legislation. The difficulty of trying to find effective legislation is reflected in the petitions brought before the High Court of Australia after the 1980 election. Section 116 (e) of the old Act made it illegal to publish an electoral advertisement containing: Any untrue or incorrect statement intended or likely to mislead or improperly interfere with any elector, in or in relation to, the casting of his vote. In its strict interpretation of the law, the high Court held that the particular advertisements in question did not breach the Act. At that time there were several candidates who petitioned the High Court claiming that the respondents had not been validly elected to office as statements in their election campaigns contravened section 116 (e) of the Act. The electorates concerned were as follows: Kingston, in South Australia, where the case in point was Gun v. Chapman, the defeated Labor candidate being the former member for Kingston in this House, Dr Richie Gun; in the seat of Lowe in New South Wales similar action was taken in the case of Muscio v. McMahon; and a third case was brought to court in Western Australia in respect of the Senate and concerning Evans v. Crichton-Browne. The Court did not consider that section 116 (e) referred to or reflected ' untrue' or 'incorrect' statements which might affect the formation of an elector 's judgment as to the choice which he would eventually make. It was not necessary to decide whether the statements complained of were untrue or incorrect. This strict interpretation was fatal to the three petitioners. In an effort to legislate to allow for a broader interpretation of the section, the 1983 amendments deleted the phrase, 'in or in relation to the casting of his vote'. The purpose of this amendment was to include statements which affect the elector in his or her decision of choice of candidates. It was hoped that the deletion of these words made it clear that 'untrue' and 'misleading' now referred to information about influencing the choice of candidates. However, on further examination the Committee found this statement too broad to be effectively used as legislation. There are difficulties in defining political truth. Electoral advertisements will frequently contain statements concerning the benefits that one party's policies will bring to the country on the election of that party to government, or the havoc which will be caused by the policies of an opposing party. Such statements are not capable of being true or untrue because the statement is a prediction and it is not possible at that stage to establish in advance whether the prediction will be fulfilled. Much political advertising contains statements of opinion and it would be difficult to decide whether the alleged statement is true or false. In determining whether a statement is misleading or deceptive, the courts may examine the alleged statements and the surrounding facts and circumstances. They would have to ascertain whether someone from the public made or formed an erroneous conclusion based on the alleged statements. This is an unworkable determination. This is because a decision as to whether a political statement is true seems to involve a political judgment based on political premises. It is undesirable, both from the point of view of the courts and the participants in the political process, to require the courts to enter the political arena. The argument for some form of control over political advertising is based on the premise that it is of fundamental importance to the democratic process that every voter is able to cast his or her vote in an informed way. A great deal of political advertising is clearly designed to mislead the voter by highlighting false claims with no other intention than to bring fear to his or her mind by suggesting that the election of a particular party or candidate would most certainly result in legislation or government action which would, to say the least, disadvantage that person. My concern, and that of the Government, is that almost without exception this type of advertising has, in the past, been directed against the Labor Party. There is no doubt that the Liberal Party advertisements which deluged the print and electronic media during the 1980 election campaign, particularly in its last week, had the desired effect of making a significant number of electors fearful of possible adverse effects on them personally of the election of the Labor Party. Those advertisements were the subject of the three petitions I referred to earlier. There remains a need to protect the voter from false or misleading political advertisements, but this is proving very difficult to do. It is easier to legislate against false and misleading advertising concerning consumer products because this involves facts that can be proved true or false. The argument against legislative control of political advertising maintains that the Australian electorate is itself the best body to decide the truth of political advertisements. This advertising involves statements some of which are true and some of which are false. It is up to the people to consider the claims of all parties and then to decide which statements they will accept and which they will reject. Fair political advertising is desirable, but unfortunately, or so it appears at this stage, it is something that cannot be controlled by legislation. Senator Macklin, a Democrat member of the Committee, has suggested-there may be some validity in the suggestion-that Parliament should look again at the possibility of introducing a form of legislation that would control political advertising. But we must agree and recognise the fact at this stage that it does not seem possible. The Committee's report showed that the original Act was subject to a restrictive interpretation and therefore did not prevent voters from being influenced in their choice of a candidate by misleading or false advertising. The Government has now come to the conclusion that the present amendments to the Act are unworkable. The legislation now before the House proposes that those amendments to the Act be repealed. The decision on whether political advertising is true or false should be, in the main, left with the electors and the law of defamation. With the repeal of these amendments, the onus for fairness and honesty in political advertising is put directly on candidates and political parties. I certainly hope that a sense of responsibility to inform the voter correctly about real issues will prevail in the forthcoming election campaign. We must not allow the situation to develop -as unfortunately we have seen in the past and indeed in recent weeks we have seen other clear signs-in which the Opposition, desperately short of policies, is likely to mount the same sort of slanderous campaign on this occasion. However, I appeal to the Opposition, if it has any semblance of good sense and honesty collectively as coalition parties, not to reduce the next election campaign to the same gutter level tactics in which the Opposition has indulged in past advertising campaigns. I refer most particularly in recent times to the 1980 campaign, to which I have already referred. I have a great deal of confidence in the Australian electorate generally to reject that type of advertising. If the electorate is given time to consider these matters, I know that it will do so. Certainly the Labor Party will refute any false claims. Another consolation is that the Australian voter, having seen again a Labor government in office for some 18 months or more, when the election campaign is under way will be in a much stronger position to make a judgment about the false claims which the party of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) is likely to make during that campaign. I repeat that I have a great deal of confidence in the Australian electorate generally to make the right sorts of judgments, to cast aside the suggestions that are likely to come from the Opposition parties. Mr Goodluck —Not from the member for Franklin. Mr KEOGH —I exclude the honourable member for Franklin. I hope that the electorate will make its judgment in an informed way and return the Labor Government to office. In the forthcoming campaign not only will we be looking to the political parties to do the right thing and to keep a high standard in the production of advertising, but also we will be looking to the controllers of the media. If and when the campaign gets down to the level to which it has been brought in the past by the Opposition parties, one hopes that those who are in control of the electronic media particularly, and of the print media, will, as they have done on occasions in the past, reject those advertisements and refuse to print them or to show them on the screens. As was said earlier in this debate , there will be much testing of this legislation in the months between now and election day. I hope, as I am sure does the Government and as do Labor members in general, that if this provision is repealed as proposed in this legislation the forthcoming campaign will not be reduced to the low, gutter, smear type tactics that have been used in certain political advertising in the past. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(11.18) —In common with the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh), I intend to confine my remarks in this cognate debate to matters relating to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) in his contribution to the debate said that the Opposition will not be opposing the Government's amendments. In fact we agree with the comments made by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who said in his second reading speech: Subsection 329 (2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, as it stands, prohibits untrue, misleading or deceptive political advertising. Those honourable members who have witnessed the realities of past elections will know that the provision is unworkable. We agree with that statement. While we agree with the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Bowman that political advertising should be above board and directed to informing rather than deceiving electors, we feel that to try to police the accuracy of that advertising legislatively is impossible and unworkable. On that basis we agree with the Government in removing that provision from the Act. It is significant that in this amendment the Government is removing those aspects of the Act relating to deceptive and misleading advertising at a time when it is proposing a referendum which in itself is deceptive and misleading. It is significant that those two matters are being coupled. As the House knows, the Government is proceeding to put forward with the coming election a referendum that will relate to what it misleadingly calls simultaneous elections . That title in itself is misleading and should be explained not only to the House but also to the people of Australia. The deception that is being put forward by the Government is that this referendum proposal will allow the Government to hold simultaneous elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate and will remove an anomaly that has created a situation in which elections for the two chambers are not held on the same day. That is misleading because the referendum is not about holding simultaneous elections but is designed to nobble the power of the Senate. Mr Hodgman —To castrate the Senate. Mr BURR —As my friend from Denison said, to castrate the Senate. The people of Australia have every right to be informed as to the intent of the referendum proposal. I assure the Government that in the weeks ahead we on this side of the chamber will be doing our very utmost to inform the people of Australia of exactly what this referendum proposal is all about. The proposal is that each time there is an election for the House of Representatives there will be an election for half of the numbers in the Senate, regardless of how long those senators have served. It will remove the fixed term of senators. At this stage they are elected for a fixed term of six years. Senators will be elected for two terms of the House of Representatives, regardless of whether the House of Representatives runs for one year, two years or whatever. To say that this proposal will lead to fewer elections is quite misleading. One of the restraints, one of the disciplines on any government at the moment towards moving to an early election is the fact that the term of the Senate is fixed. If governments decide to take the House of Representatives to a premature election it causes the two Houses to be out of synchronisation. If this proposal is passed by the people of Australia at the referendum that discipline will be removed from any government. In fact, rather than leading to fewer elections it must inevitably lead to more elections because the government will not have the restraint of having a fixed six-year term in the Senate. It will definitely lead to more elections, not fewer elections. The people need to be informed of that. If passed, this referendum proposal will definitely reduce the power of the Senate. That in part is what this referendum proposal is about. We are well aware that for a long time it was Australian Labor Party policy to do away with the Senate. The Labor Party has come to the conclusion that that simply is not possible; that it cannot do that. Now it is trying to nobble the Senate so that while it remains as a chamber of this Parliament it will not have the power to restrain any government, regardless of its political persuasion. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has made his views on that matter very well known in various publications and speeches. I can assure honourable members opposite that we will be reminding the people of Australia about some of the statements that the Attorney-General has made in the past. Adoption of simultaneous elections will mean that if the Senate as a chamber of review decides that it does not agree with a proposal being put forward by the government of the day, the government can hold a big stick over the Senate and say: 'Either you agree with our proposal or we will take you to an election'. That in itself, that power to hold a big stick over the Senate, will definitely reduce the capacity of the Senate properly to review legislation and properly to hold out against a government that may well be proposing something that is not in the best interests of Australia. Curbing the power of the Senate will mean that the smaller States of this country will not have the adequacy of representation that they presently enjoy and have enjoyed in the past. That is particularly pertinent in a small State such as mine, Tasmania. Tasmania presently has five seats out of 125 seats in the House of Representatives. After the coming election we will have five seats out of 148 seats in the House of Representatives. So Tasmania is always heavily outvoted in the House of Representatives by the numbers from the larger and more populous States. I agree with my friends on the other side of the chamber that while we may not have the numbers from Tasmania we certainly have quality of representation in this chamber and we certainly make our points of view very well known. But that still does not remove the fact that we are always heavily outvoted in this chamber. In the Senate, Tasmania, like all of the other States, has equal representation . It is on the Senate that Tasmania and the other smaller States rely for their interests to be protected. That was the whole purpose and intent of having a chamber such as the Senate, a chamber where the rights and views of the smaller States could be protected on an equal basis with the larger and more populous States. By taking away certain powers of the Senate, this proposal will also take away certain rights of the smaller States. We will most definitely be reminding people in Tasmania and in the other smaller States of that fact during the coming election campaign. In the past we have seen the capacity and the preparedness of not only the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) but also his Government and Party colleagues to undermine States' rights. Those people have shown in regard to the Franklin Dam issue and their pursuit of it through the High Court of Australia that they have no hesitation whatever in removing the right of the States to their own points of view and independence. This proposal is in part a further advancement of their determination to undermine the power of the States as well as the power of the Senate. I can assure honourable members opposite that we will be opposing this referendum with all the vigour that we can muster in Tasmania. We certainly hope that people in other States who have a mind to protect the power of the Senate, to ensure proper parliamentary representation and to see fair play will join us in that campaign. I remind the House that this proposal is not new. It was put to the people of Australia on two occasions in the past, in 1974 and in 1977. On each occasion the people of Australia very wisely saw the implications of the proposal and threw it out. I am confident that once again the people of Australia will show their wisdom and toss this proposal out. We cannot have the smaller States being completely outnumbered by the population base in the larger States, particularly Victoria and New South Wales. I remind honourable members once again of the deception that this referendum proposal incorporates. Simultaneous elections sound very attractive to people in Australia. Having fewer elections and less frequent obligation to go to the polling booths sounds very attractive. However, this proposal will not lead to fewer elections, as I have already said. It must inevitably lead to a greater number of elections. I remind the Special Minister of State, who unfortunately has left the chamber, that at the moment we have all the provisions that are required to have simultaneous elections. All that is required is to allow parliaments to run their full term. That automatically results in simultaneous elections. Whenever the House of Representatives goes to the people in an election campaign we go to the people on the basis that we will be elected for a three-year term in this Parliament. We take the Senate to an election campaign on the basis that senators will be elected for a six-year term in this Parliament. If parliaments are simply allowed to run their full term there must automatically be simultaneous elections. I remind the people on the opposite side of the chamber, as they, while they were in opposition, constantly reminded us, that there is only one reason why a government goes to an early election, why it takes the Parliament to the people before the term for which it was elected has expired, and that is because it thinks that it has a political advantage over its opponents. Mr John Brown —Thinks? Mr BURR —I remind the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism that, while governments may put forward all sorts of misleading propositions as to why they are going to an early election, in reality there is only one reason and that is because they think they have a political advantage over their opponents. That is not a justifiable reason for holding an early or premature election. When the people of Australia elect their Parliament for a three-year term, they expect that Parliament to serve the three-year term for which it was elected. This proposal will give the government of the day more ammunition and more opportunity than the Government has now to hold premature or early elections. The discipline that the term of the Senate is fixed in some way causes governments to allow parliaments to run for their full term or longer terms. By removing that discipline all the Government is doing is opening up the way for earlier and more elections. In the process it is undermining the power of the Senate, taking away the rights of the smaller States and taking away their right of representation through the Senate. I give this assurance: We in Tasmania and the people in the other smaller States will be opposing this Government as vigorously as we are able, during this election campaign, to ensure that this referendum proposal does not succeed. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(11.33) —I intend to address my remarks only to the Christmas Island Administration (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. This legislation gives effect to one part of the so-called normalisation process for Christmas Island. The normalisation process follows the recommendations of the report of the Sweetland Inquiry into the Long Term Future of Christmas Island. The whole process of normalisation has been going on now for many months. It involves a program of voluntary redundancies in the work force of the Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island Ltd. Some 400 to 500 positions are to become redundant as a result of that process. As part of the process this legislation will introduce social security entitlements, health benefits and voting rights to the people of Christmas Island. As I have said, the legislation covers only a small part of the process of normalisation. The process also involves the transfer from the company to Commonwealth departments of aviation, communications and other functions. The process also affects the delivery of education and health services on the island . Prior to the process the company bore the responsibility and financial burden for many of these areas. But, as I have said, the thrust of the legislation is part of an overall process aimed at ensuring the long term future of Christmas Island. I was amazed at the ignorance of the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) when he suggested that electoral considerations are the motivation for the timing of this legislation. As I have said, the process has been going on for many months now. The voting aspect of the legislation is only a small but significant part of it. A number of other very important parts in the process involve redundancy, as I have mentioned, and the introduction of social security entitlements, health benefits and so on. To suggest that electoral considerations are the motivation for the timing of this legislation is, I think , to be quite ignorant. The Government is concerned about the long term future of Christmas Island and its people. I think the attitude of the Government is in stark contrast with the approach being taken by my opponent in the forthcoming election. He suggested that the best long term future for Christmas Island would be to make it into a refugee camp. I had the opportunity to visit Christmas Island in June this year. It is certainly a very beautiful and remote part of Australia. It is literally a mountain peak sticking up in the middle of the Indian Ocean. To demonstrate that , from the side of the wharf, where phosphate is loaded on Christmas Island, to a distance of about 100 metres out from the wharf there is a drop of thousands of feet in the ocean floor. The Chinese-Malay people I met on the island were kind, genuine and very generous. I was impressed by the approach that these people are taking to the normalisation process. The process will be quite disruptive to that community. About a quarter of the work force will be leaving and long term friendships will be affected by it. Yet the Chinese-Malay people and the Union of Christmas Island Workers have approached the matter sensibly and sensitively. I think they deserve some praise for the approach they have taken to this matter. I condemn the attitude of the honourable member for Dundas in implying that there is some sort of sinister motive behind having representatives of the Union of Christmas Island Workers on the Board of the PMCI. I think they are entitled to a say in the overall process. Indeed, they are the ones who will be affected by it more than anyone else, with families having to move and leave the island and long term friendships being affected by it. I think the Government deserves credit for having decided to put additional representatives from the Union of Christmas Island Workers on the board of the PMCI. During my visit I found a close similarity between the problems on Christmas Island and the problems in the Northern Territory. Christmas Island and the Northern Territory have similar problems with communications, transport and the delivery of education and health services, just to name a few. While I am on the question of communications, the people on the island raised with me the question of the introduction of the new Vista satellite communication system. They were concerned that the matter was being delayed. I recently received a communication from the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) advising me that a contract is about to be placed for the supply of equipment with a delivery to the sites scheduled for mid-1985 and the consequent introduction of the service to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in July 1985 and to Christmas Island in October 1985. He said that the installation of the equipment requires specialist satellite skills and will necessarily be performed by technical staff of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. On that point there is some hope that the communications services on the islands will improve. The visiting judge to the Supreme Court on Christmas Island is a Northern Territory Supreme Court judge, so it is not as though there is no link at all between the Northern Territory and Christmas Island. I think there are other areas where the Northern Territory may be able to assist in the delivery of services to Christmas Island. I have written to the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) suggesting that he might consider whether health and education services could best be delivered from the Northern Territory rather than elsewhere. There is a large Chinese and Malay population in the Northern Territory, especially in Darwin. The people on Christmas Island were very interested to learn that Darwin had recently elected a Chinese mayor. As I said earlier, the object of the normalisation process is to ensure the long term future of the island. When I was on the island I was pleased to learn from the PMCI that it was doing its bit in assuring the long term future. That company is developing a process at present to allow it to use the lower grade phosphate on the island. I have been able to make representations to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) about possible assistance for research into the process that that company is developing. I have been advised by the Minister that financial assistance may be available to the mining company through the industrial research and development incentives scheme. I hope that the company will consider taking it up. The PMCI is also trying to expand its market into places such as China and to undertake other market expansion moves. It was concerned also at the time I was there to review the freight arrangements with the Australian National Line to try to get a cheaper freight rate, although that has its difficulties because the arrangements between the previous company and ANL will continue for about another three or four years. I was concerned to learn while I was there that there is some tension or feeling between the PMCI and the Union of Christmas Island Workers on the one hand and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service on the other. At that stage there was a feeling that the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service was too restrictive about clearing areas for mining. Of course, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service has a responsibility for the protection of the Abbott's booby bird. It also has responsibilities for various treaties on migratory birds. I understand that since then discussions have taken place between the various representatives from the company, the union and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service to try to sort out that problem. All in all, the legislation that is before the House today, as I have said on a number of occasions, is just a small part of a total process, a normalisation process, which will, I am sure, lead to a secure, long term future for the Christmas Islanders. I welcome the Christmas Island people into my electorate. I look forward to a close association with them in the years to come. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.41) —On 9 October 1936, a baby was born in Sydney and, after careful consideration, his parents decided to christen him Michael Jerome. That was back in 1936. In 1984 I put it to the Parliament and to the people of Australia that the Hon. Michael Jerome Young, MP, Special Minister of State, should be re-named and re-christened the Hon. Michael Gerrymander Young, MP, Special Minister of State, in other words, the Minister appointed to keep the Hawke socialist Government in power. Mr Reeves —What is wrong with that? Mr HODGMAN —There is a lot wrong with that, as the honourable member will find out very much sooner than he realises. In his second reading speech on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1984, the Hon. Michael Gerrymander Young , MP, Special Minister of State, used lofty and high sounding language. Let me quote one passage from the second reading speech on this Bill. The Minister referred to: . . . the continuing task of providing this country with a truly democratic electoral system. What cant! What hypocrisy! On 5 March last year, 49.5 per cent of Australians voted for the Australian Labor Party and it became the Government of this country. It is important to note that we have a minority government in Australia . I repeat: It was elected on 49.5 per cent of the votes. As a result of that, in this House the Australian Labor Party with less than 50 per cent of the vote won 75 seats; the Liberal Party of Australia won 33 seats and the National Party of Australia won 17 seats. Mr John Brown —What percentage? Mr HODGMAN —My very good friend, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, who is at the table, is interested in the percentages. Let me just give him some interesting mathematics. As at 5 March last year, the swing required to put the Hawke socialist Government out of office was 2.3 per cent. I repeat that figure: only 2.3 per cent would have put the Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, AC, MP, out of The Lodge and the Hon. Andrew Peacock, MP, into The Lodge as Prime Minister of Australia. Today, 4 October, just a few days before the forty-eighth birthday of the Minister, Mr Young, what do we find-the swing that is now required to remove the Hawke socialist Government from office has gone from 2.3 per cent to 3.2 per cent. That is indeed a sizable increase. We are entitled to ask a few questions as to how this came about. I would like to take up the line taken by the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) in a most entertaining and thoughtful speech. He pointed to the hypocrisy of this Government pontificating in this Parliament about misleading and false advertising when it has been more guilty than any other government in the history of Australia in misleading the people of this country and misrepresenting the position. As I said, in March of last year we required a swing of 2.3 per cent to regain government. Today it is 3.2 per cent. How did this come about? I would like to read to members of the Labor Party, the Hawke socialist Government opposite, a quotation which appeared in the Hobart Mercury just a few weeks ago. In fact, it was the very day after the new redistribution of boundaries. Mr Goodluck —What paper? Mr HODGMAN —The Hobart Mercury. This was the quotation which appeared following the redistribution which has been inflicted on the people of Tasmania and is known throughout our State as the Hawke redistribution. It states: This has been a shonky move by the Federal Government to gain more Labor seats. Hodgman looks like copping the brunt of it-- Mr Griffiths —That is a disgraceful statement. Mr HODGMAN —My very good friend, the honourable member for Maribyrnong, says: ' That is disgraceful'. He has walked right into the trap because that statement was made by a lifelong member of the Australian Labor Party and a former endorsed State Australian Labor Party candidate in the last Tasmanian election. My friend, the honourable member for Maribyrnong, has again walked into it. He is great for leading with his jaw. He says that it is disgraceful that the statement was made. The statement was made by a man who has been a member of his Party for longer than he has been on this earth. He has served the Australian Labor Party with great distinction; he has been a warden of one of the main municipalities in Tasmania and has stood as an ALP candidate. The point is made. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) is here in the chamber. He knows the gentleman to whom I have referred. The gentleman went on to say that he had campaigned against me and the honourable member for Franklin in the past but he and the Labor Party had been beaten fairly. There is no point at all in talking about the Australian Electoral Commission. I appeared before that body. Let me put it on the record once and for all: Whatever the boundaries of Denison , I think I am one of the few people in Australia who woke up the day after the redistribution to find that my electorate had suddenly shot 20 kilometres north- - Mr Gear —What about mine? Mr HODGMAN —I will not be drawn by the honourable member opposite. My electorate shot 20 kilometres north. I found myself 10 kilometres outside my electorate. What was more interesting was that when we looked at the figures we found that the new areas I have, which I will be very honoured to represent in this national Parliament, will increase by only 300 votes in the next three years. The areas which have been taken off me will increase by 2,300 votes in the next three years. What happens then? It is quite obvious that, having moved north, Denison will later have to move south. In other words, before either the next election after this election, or the one after that, Denison, having moved north , will suddenly have to go south. I repeat: I will fight for Denison. I believe I will hold Denison even on the new boundaries, but I have to say that we now see-I refer to Mr Malcolm Mackerras's excellent paper-on the new boundaries that the seats held by the Hawke socialist Government, on the vote it got last year, will jump from 75 to 88. That is a pretty handsome increase for a government which is still a minority government. It is a 49.5 per cent government. Its number of seats in the House after the redistribution will jump from 75 seats to 88 seats. What happens to the Liberal Party? The Liberal Party number goes from 33 seats to 41 seats. The National Party number goes from 17 seats to 19 seats. What it means in blunt terms-let us not equivocate on matters like this-is that the Australian Labor Party, the Hawke socialist Government, gains the lion's share of the redistribution. Mr Goodluck —Will you vote for me? Mr HODGMAN —Of course I will vote for the honourable member for Franklin. I will go further than that-- Mr John Brown —You have no taste at all. Mr HODGMAN —I have a lot of taste. The honourable member for Franklin is one of the greatest members this Parliament has ever seen. I will not only vote for him but also have a 'Vote 1, Bruce Goodluck' poster on my front fence. I would not need to resort to misleading advertising in relation to the honourable member for Franklin because his record of service to the electorate and to Tasmania is such that he will be returned and he will defeat none other than the State President of the Australian Labor Party in Tasmania, Mr John Devereux-one of the leading members of the socialist Left or, dare I say it, the pro-communist Left in Australian politics today. Mr Deputy Speaker, I suppose that because you have been very indulgent I should come back to the Bill. I want to address some remarks to the question of misleading advertising. The honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh), for whom we all have a very deep affection, bleated that in 1980 the people of Australia were very properly warned that if the Labor Party came to power we could expect a capital gains tax, death duties and gift duties. Mr Gear —You have not got them. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member continues to lead with his chin. Having been a State amateur boxing referee for many years, I have never seen more people prone to lead with their chins than the newly-elected members on the back bench of the Hawke socialist Government, and they do it over and over again. The short point in answer to the honourable member is, of course, that in the forthcoming election campaign we will warn the people of Australia that if this Government, the Hawke socialist Government, by any grotesque misfortune gets a second term in office the people of Australia can look forward, at the earliest opportunity, to the introduction of a capital gains tax and the implementation of death duties and gift duties. Heavens above, as we debated last night in the Parliament, we have in power a government which at one end of the body tackles the pensioners' gold teeth fillings and at the other end says to those who have had their legs amputated: 'We are going to put you out of the hospitals after 35 days. If you are not fit, if you are not ready to go, bad luck'. Mr Gear —That is misleading advertising too. Mr HODGMAN —Oh, it is not. I repeat the challenge I put to the Government last night, and I am going to do this every day between now and the final day of the sittings: Produce any legal advice which will contradict the opinion I have expressed that, as a matter of law under section 6AA of the iniquitous Hawke assets test legislation, gold fillings in pensioners' teeth are assessable property. If I am wrong, let the Government prove it. That is a very good example. The Labor Party is now demonstrating by the interjections of my friends opposite that it regards it as misleading advertising if the Liberal and National parties tell the truth. I have a message for those gentlemen opposite: We have always told the truth in the past and we will tell it in the future. The Labor Party will not succeed in the forthcoming election in conning the people, as it did with that great theatrical performance on the steps of the Sydney Opera House by the Hon. R. J. L. Hawke when he promised many things. Let us just remember three. If ever a man should be put in the dock in relation to this sort of misleading advertising, it is the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, for this statement: 'We will not take any money out of the pensioners' cheques'. Eighteen months later every pensioner in Australia is getting the message loud and clear, that is, to put Labor last at the next election, because they have seen a reintroduction of the incomes test on the poor old over-70s. They have seen a breach of promise in relation to the lifting of the tax threshold. They have seen the Medicare fiddle whereby the consumer price index has been rigged and the pensioners of Australia have been robbed of $250m. The Hawke assets test , supported by the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), has been brought into this Parliament and we are going to have 1,500 stormtroopers knocking on the doors of the pensioners of Australia and saying: 'We want to look at your assets and, while looking at your assets, we will look at your gold fillings as well'. What about the promise of 500,000 new jobs? Whereabouts are they? What a classic case of misleading advertising! Mr Burr —That is right. Mr HODGMAN —As my honourable friend the honourable member for Wilmot says, where are the 500,000 new jobs? I cannot find them. Mr Goodluck —Where are the 16 new industries in Tasmania? Mr HODGMAN —Exactly, as the honourable member for Franklin says. These were the promises. The Prime Minister came to Tasmania and said that there would be 16 new industries. He stopped the construction of the Franklin Dam. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! I suggest to the honourable member that he come back to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill. Mr HODGMAN —I will be delighted to. Mr Simmons —He has nothing to say. Mr HODGMAN —I have a lot to say, and I am going to continue saying it, I can assure the honourable gentleman. One of the Minister's advisers very kindly, with the assistance of the Minister, drew my attention to part of the report upon which the legislation before the Parliament is based. It raised a question that I had raised informally with the Minister as to whether or not the provisions of the Trade Practices Act were applicable in relation to advertising of a political nature during a Federal election campaign. My colleague the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) believes, and I think he is right, that there is probably a provision in the Trade Practices Act which indicates that it does not apply to political advertising. That would seem to be so, as the Act deals with commercial transactions. But what is interesting is that the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform by a majority accepted the proposition that we should not legislate on this matter and that the appropriate recourse for a victim or target of misleading advertising was either an action for an injunction or proceedings for defamation. I think that is fair enough, and, if I might say so, having looked at the provision as it originally went into the legislation, I think it would have been a legal nightmare to interpret exactly what was or was not misleading advertising. Fair enough; in some election campaigns the statements made are of such a nature that they are palpably and demonstrably untrue and, in that situation, the difficult job would not be as difficult as it would be in the case where it is a matter of shades of grey as opposed to black or white. Mr Goodluck —Bob Hawke's hair. Mr HODGMAN —The Prime Minister's hair; quite right. The point I want to make is the point made by the honourable member for Wilmot that this Government, which has developed into an absolute art form the technique of misleading and deception, in this Bill, in this debate, pontificates with a holier than thou attitude. The Minister is entitled to celebrate his birthday on the ninth of this month with very great pleasure because what he has achieved in the last 18 months in pursuit of his portfolio as Minister for keeping the Hawke socialist Government in power is very much to his credit. But it is a shameful and terrible thing that he has done to Australian parliamentary democracy. One of the first things that we will do upon our return to government is to go through the legislation that he has brought into this Parliament and that he effectively has wheeled through the Senate, seducing some senators who I would have thought would have been able to see through it. Nevertheless, he has set up a framework which makes me wonder whether his name is Young or whether he should be named after a former South Australian Premier, and I am referring not to the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) but to one before him. Mr Young —Thank God you are not. Mr HODGMAN —No, I am not referring to the honourable member for Boothby. We are in the few weeks leading up to a totally unnecessary, expensive and, in my view, improper Federal election. It is going to cost the people of Australia at least $50m if we take into account that this is the first election which , firstly is being called prematurely, secondly, will involve the public funding of political parties and, thirdly, will mean that this Parliament will have, as a result of the machinations of the Prime Minister and the Special Minister of State, an extra 35 Federal politicians foisted on it-23 in this House and 12 in the Senate . We have a monstrosity of an annexe being built across the road to accommodate these extra members of Parliament whom the people of Australia do not want. We can add to that that we are now going into an election on boundary changes which , as I mentioned earlier, have miraculously created a situation in which a 2.3 per cent swing becomes a 3.2 per cent swing. Let me just say on a bipartisan basis that two electorates which were certainly not missed by the Distribution Commissioners were the electorates of Denison and Casey. It is almost as though there has been a Hodgman-Steedman abolition conspiracy, and the reality probably is that both shots will misfire, although I cannot speak with any confidence about the future of the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman). It is therefore critical that in the next few weeks the Government abandon its conduct of misleading the people, its conduct of deception, and that it come out with the truth. I have some questions which I want to put to the Minister and which I hope he is prepared to answer in his reply. First, will the Government give a categoric assurance that no capital gains tax will be introduced if it succeeds at the next Federal election? Secondly, will the Minister, on behalf of the Hawke socialist Government, give a categoric assurance that there will be no introduction of gift duty in the event of the Government winning the next election? Thirdly, will the Minister, on behalf of the Hawke socialist Government, give a categoric undertaking that there will be no introduction of death duties? Fourthly, will the Minister give an assurance that the current Medicare legislation will be amended to remove the outrageous situation whereby elderly people who have been in a hospital 35 days are going to be removed from that hospital, whether or not they have had legs amputated, if they are not in a position to find a doctor prepared to give them a section 3B certificate? Fifthly, will the Minister give a guarantee on behalf of the Hawke socialist Government that if it is returned to power it will refund to the pensioners of Australia the $250m which has been robbed from Australian citizens as a result of the disgraceful action of fiddling the consumer price index under the Medicare fraud racket? These are the matters to which I think the people of Australia are entitled to know the answers. Mr Young —What happened to crime? Mr HODGMAN —This Government has conned. On the question of crime, will the Minister give an undertaking to tell the truth about what went on between Mr Justice Stewart and him in light of the statement by the Prime Minister that there was no request from Mr Justice Stewart that States must give reasons when they veto the National Crime Authority? I appeal to the Hawke socialist Government, in its last few weeks in office, to tell the truth, to give away the lies and deception that it has practised in the past. I assure the Minister that when we return to government we will correct this outrageous Michael Gerrymander Young racket. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(12.01) —in reply-The Hodgman theory, the theory of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), is quite different from the Peacock theory, the theory of the Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Peacock). I am not too sure now who is chasing the Peacock throne but contemporary history shows us that people who have chased the Peacock throne in recent years have not had a very bright future. In seeking assurances from this side of the House the honourable member for Denison directed to me many questions which ought to be directed to other members of the Ministry who have a responsibility for the matters involved. Politically speaking, I ask: In view of the comments by the former member for Wannon, can the honourable member give an assurance that when his Party is back in opposition after the next election it will not bring back the squire from Nareen to lead it-the person who announced three or four weeks ago that when the Liberal Party gets into real trouble he is prepared to come back? Honourable members opposite are going to get Andrew ready for the long jump. With the jump they have ready for him he will make Carl Lewis look like a real amateur. We will not see him within 24 hours of the next election; that is one assurance I can give the House. Of course, little John from Bennelong, who is sitting there quietly disassociating himself from the Leader of the Opposition and who wants to be the next leader of this once great party, the Liberal Party, is just biding his time. But hanging over all this is big Mal, ready to come back to lead the Liberals. He may be doing the same thing as the person who now wants to be the member for the Northern Territory is doing . He cannot make up his mind which political party he wants to lead. It just shows honourable members how fused the National Party and the Liberal Party have become when the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory cannot tell the difference. He does not know which party-the Liberal Party or the National Party -he wants to lead. In talking about the Commonwealth Electoral Act, I mention that I looked at the Liberal Party's campaign notes yesterday. They said that the honourable members for Denison, Boothby and Dundas (Mr Ruddock) will meet at the Prahran shopping centre, door knock three streets, go to the hotel for lunch-which is very unbecoming of Liberal Party members out campaigning-and then go to the local Returned Services League club and talk about the flag for a while. Next morning they will meet at another shopping centre. In this great campaign these great thinkers will be out there telling the world what is going on. But we cannot distinguish, even in the speech made today by the honourable member for Denison, what will be their great issue. He says that it will be gold fillings. As I have said before, when he starts talking about issues such as gold fillings he is representing the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair). The only undertaker that I know in this Parliament is the Leader of the National Party. Mr Shipton —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Hilarious as this may be, I ask you to bring the Minister back to the subject under debate. He is really in the land of fantasy and fiction. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —There is no point of order. Mr YOUNG —It is unfortunate that the honourable member was not here to hear the honourable member for Denison speak. I am really responding to all the issues that were raised by him. We are talking about political advertising. The honourable member for Denison raised many of the issues which he thought he would use some of the public funding to advertise. He got on to the question of gold fillings. I think the way in which he represents the Leader of the National Party on this issue is very subtle. He should not think that the sort of collaboration that is going on between him and the Leader of the National Party as to what will happen when Andrew gets the high jump has not come to our notice . The focus of attention of Opposition members is not the legislation; it is not the issues on which the people of Australia now have to make up their minds in determining how to vote; it is really about their first party meeting after the election. It will be a beauty. There will be some trench coats, army overcoats and sandshoes coming in then. They will look a motley group. Not many of them will be coming back, either. Mr Shipton —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is Wednesday and-- Mr Hodgman —It happens to be Thursday. Mr Shipton —It is Thursday and-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member for Higgins will state the point of order. Mr Shipton —The point of order is that the Minister is ranging far and wide in this debate and I would ask you to bring him back to order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order whatsoever. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Denison and the honourable member for Boothby both got on to the question that the Government was perhaps going to an election in less than the three-year term for which it was elected. They said how outrageous this was. It is only outrageous when a Labor government does it. It is never outrageous when a Liberal government does it. One does not have to turn the clock back too far to remind the Australian people that the Liberal Party did not have to win an election in 1975; it was given the government in 1975. Sir John Kerr, before he went to the Melbourne Cup and drank his couple of bottles of scotch, said: 'Here, fellows, you can have the government'. He actually gave the government of Australia to the Liberal and National parties. Within two years, in 1977, Malcolm had them back at the polls. The next time he took a three-year term, from 1977 to 1980. But again, what happened in 1983? Malcolm decided not to see out his three-year term. In spite of his majority and in spite of the numbers in the Senate he decided to go to an election 12 months earlier than he had to, in 1983. There is no criticism if a conservative government does it; there is criticism only if a Labor government does it. Why are we doing it? We are doing it to save the Australian people $30m. Instead of holding two elections over the next 12 months, we will hold only one- a half Senate and a House of Representatives election. By the holding of one election, the Australian people will be saved $30m, which will contribute greater welfare to the Australian nation. The conservatives say: 'We would not do it that way. We would do something different. We would do the honest, decent thing'. My God! Any observer of Australian politics would have to have noticed how decency has been squeezed out of the Liberal Party over the last decade in terms of its performance concerning the conventions and the constitutional standing of this Parliament. It has done every conceivable thing in order to get power and to stay in power. We are not doing what Malcolm did last year-closing the rolls in 24 hours so all the kids in Australia could not get on the rolls. Honourable members opposite closed the rolls within 24 hours last year. They were so desperate to get to the polls in 1983 that over 300,000 people in Australia were denied the right to vote. That will not be happening at the next election because the laws have been changed so that all people will have at least seven days notice that they are required to put their name on the roll. Honourable members opposite should not talk about all the rorts and lurks about electoral laws that have been brought to this Parliament. They sat there, with all the advantages they had, watching the voting system becoming unbalanced as it applied to the House of Representatives, and they did absolutely nothing about it. As to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill, the major parties represented on the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform unanimously agreed that the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act, in the way in which it had been structured in terms of political advertising, would have placed an enormous burden on the media in determining what was and what was not misleading advertising. That does not mean that we resile from the fact that other methods ought to be looked at by that Joint Committee in the future as to what may or may not be done in terms of political advertising. We have seen some pretty outrageous advertising in politics, particularly in the last 20 years, and particularly by the conservative parties in their presentation of the attitudes and the policies of the Australian Labor Party. Although on this occasion we take the advice of the Joint Committee in amending the Bill in order that chaos does not result in the forthcoming election, I think the Joint Committee has a responsibility to continue to look for avenues to see that these laws are brought into line with what the Australian people expect to be proper and acceptable standards of political advertising in this country. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government)(12.10) —by leave-I rise to reply to aspects raised in the debate on the Christmas Island Administration (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) was critical of the Leader of the House (Mr Young) for arranging for this Bill to be debated cognately with the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill. I think all honourable members are aware of the heavy work load that the Leader of the House and his Department have to bear. It was on that basis that the Leader of the House decided that the two Bills should be debated cognately. However, that should in no way have restricted the speech of the honourable member. If he had sought an extension of time I, of course, would have given it to him. If he was concerned that his time would be cut from 30 minutes to 20 minutes I certainly would have agreed to an extension. As the honourable member said, the Christmas Island Administration ( Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill is historic. It is important that I reply to certain aspects that the honourable member raised. First of all I intimate that we will agree to an amended amendment to be moved by the honourable member in the Committee stage of the debate. The honourable member for Dundas was particularly critical of aspects of the normalisation package relating to Christmas Island. Certain criticisms related to the fact that his questions on notice had not been replied to. The situation is that negotiations on Christmas Island have been at a very delicate stage for a number of months. The reason for that is the difficult financial circumstances we have inherited in relation to the island. As the honourable member well knows, the island basically is controlled by the Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island Ltd. It is a one economy island. Consequently the island has been going through a difficult period. For many years the old British Phosphate Commissioners had a certain colonial attitude to the majority of workers on that island who are mainly of Chinese and Malay extraction. Many of these workers are still employed by the present company. Therefore, it has taken some time for this Government to build up a relationship whereby both the company and the employees have been able to work together. In that regard the normalisation package has been a remarkable feat. Many Commonwealth public servants have done quite a remarkable job in relation to Christmas Island. I want to place on record that in the light of the present cognate debate it is ironical that the former head of the Australian Electoral Office, Keith Pearson, was the chairman of a very important task force established to work on the normalisation package. He worked in my Department as the head of that task force. I place on record here the very important work that he did. His was a really remarkable achievement. I have been to Christmas Island on two occasions in recent months. I had to do that because of the normalisation package. A study conducted by PA Management Consultancy had laid down that if we were to gain economic viability we would need at least 500 redundancies. Up to date we have been able to get something like 576 voluntary redundancies. As a result of those 576 voluntary redundancies there will in some cases have to be selective re-employment to replace certain people who left voluntarily. However, the honourable member for Dundas was very critical of the fact that we had to re-employ people. I wish honourable members opposite had been more frank, open and rational in their approach previously. Normally I do not make this sort of statement but in view of the fact that the honourable member was so critical I say that the sad thing about the two previous administrators of both the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island was that they were appalling appointments. The appointment of Mr Bill Yates, a former Liberal Party member, to Christmas Island was political. He in fact had no real understanding of the relationship between the union movement on one hand and management on the other hand. There was little respect for both those forces when he was there. To a great extent it was because of that that chaos developed on Christmas Island. We were able to transfer a first assistant secretary of the Department of Territories and Local Government, Tom Paterson-a man of great experience- to take the place of Mr Yates. I do not get great joy out of criticising Bill Yates who normally is a very honourable man. It is hypocritical of the Opposition to talk about the inefficiencies of the Department of Territories and Local Government under our Government when in fact the previous Government failed to meet those problems and caused chaos. In the short time we have been in government we have been able to bring forward a normalisation package, something which those opposite were unable to do in seven years of government when they controlled the administration of the island. The Commonwealth's responsibility for health, education and social security on the island is dealt with in this legislation. This will be a step forward. Taxation will commence from 1 July 1985 and will be phased in over a four-year period. I indicate to the honourable member for Dundas that I expect to be able to reply in detail to his questions in a very short period. However, in the interim I indicate today that there is a finite closedown date for major mining operations on Christmas Island. We believe that the date will not be before 1990 . We believe that the island will have a viable economic basis by that time. The financial viability of the PMCI operation over the closing down period appears assured. Therefore, the Government will not be involved in subsidising an uneconomic mining operation. PMCI has been guaranteed an assets base which will enable the directors now and in the future to meet the requirements of the companies legislation. The concern of PMCI that the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service was inhibiting mining and clearing plans seems to be resolved. There is now a working relationship between them. I am talking not just about the threat to the Abbott's booby bird but also about threats to other habitats and environments on the island. There is certainly a good relationship between the company and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. A phased wages and conditions package which is acceptable to the Government in terms of parity has been agreed to by the work force. The financial basis for some years to come for the provision of local services on the island has been established. The initial level of local charges has been agreed upon and an arrangement settled under which the PMCI will pick up the corporation's revenue shortfall. The functions for which financial responsibility will lie with the Commonwealth have been delineated. Vital to the success of the normalisation process will be the acceptance by the Union of Christmas Island Workers membership of the PMCI and administration awards. Also essential is the success of the restructuring program. As I said earlier, 576 persons have applied for redundancy. As I explained earlier, this is not a net figure. Only the other day it was revealed in a secret ballot that 97 per cent of the union work force on Christmas Island agreed to the redundancy proposal and to the phased-in equalisation proposal. Let me reply quickly to the criticisms of the honourable member for Dundas. He asked why we have not had a Commonwealth Grants Commission inquiry on Christmas Island as we had had such an inquiry on Cocos (Keeling) Islands. A different situation exists on Christmas Island from that on Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Conditions on Christmas Island can be made to be like those on the mainland more quickly than can the conditions on Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Thus, a Grants Commission inquiry on Cocos has been given priority. The Phosphate Mining Company and the Union of Christmas Island Workers have agreed on a wage parity package. As I said earlier, 97 per cent of the workers voted last Sunday in a secret ballot to accept that package. Income tax will be phased in over four years from 1 July. At present wage levels on Cocos are rising but they are at a much lower level than those on the mainland. As the Government stated last year, it will be 1986 before it would be sensible to even consider whether income tax should be introduced. The Grants Commission inquiry on Cocos will take five years of careful work and will result in a report in 1989 on how to raise the living standards of the people on Cocos to those of the people on the mainland and we believe that by 1994 we will achieve parity for the people on Cocos. We do not see that as the situation on Christmas Island because the people there are now living in a position of near parity. We shall look at the question of having a Grants Commission inquiry on Christmas Island. However, such an inquiry would need to fit in with the heavy work load of the Commission. I shall sum up on why the Government has decided that Christmas Island should be part of the Northern Territory electorate. My colleague the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) gave a detailed report on the comparisons and the similarities of the situations which exist in the Northern Territory and on Christmas Island. Let me make it quite clear to honourable members that the decision can be made in only two ways: Either we include Christmas Island in the electorate of Canberra or Fraser in the Australian Capital Territory or we include it in the Northern Territory. The honourable member for the Northern Territory, who went to Christmas Island, understands many of the social problems that now exist on Christmas Island. They are similar to some of the social problems that exist in the Northern Territory. The Government decided to put Christmas Island into the electorate of the Northern Territory. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(12.26) —I do not want to delay the Committee. I thought the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) made a very partisan speech in relation to advertising and the veracity of parties in their approach to election campaigns. I simply want to put on record some excerpts from the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which he gave in 1983 and which bear on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill. It is true that the legislation deals with paid advertising but the Special Minister of State, who is sitting at the table, brought into the subject matter under discussion, as I have said, the veracity of the parties in their campaigning. It is true to say that the Prime Minister clearly set out the view of the Australian Labor Party in his election policy speech. On page 3 of that speech, in relation to the 1983 election, he asked this question: Why was this election called eight months before time? Later in his speech he went on to state: . . . I am not in the business, and the Labor Party is not in the business, of making promises that cannot be fulfilled. On the specific point of the frequency of elections, he went on to state: And Labor in office will, as I have already said, put to a referendum within our first months of government a constitutional amendment proposal for fixed term Parliaments, which will do more than anything else to introduce stability and predictability into our political process. I put that on record because that was the basis on which, I expect, a number of people in Australia voted for the Prime Minister and the Party of the Minister who is sitting at the table. It was a clear undertaking, made on the basis that the Labor Party regretted the frequency of elections, that it would conduct a referendum for fixed term parliaments. Inherent in that undertaking was a promise to run parliaments as long as was constitutionally possible. The Minister has justified this rush to an early election by going over the Fraser years. That does nothing to justify his position in relation to the promises of his Prime Minister. I regret that the Government is acting on two levels. It has refused to proceed with the referendum which it promised and it has refused to live by the undertaking it gave and is rushing to an election some months ahead of the requirements set out by the Special Minister of State. He said that he would save the Australian public $30m by holding the elections for the two Houses together. I remind the Committee and members of the public who may be listening that that can be achieved by having an election as late as April of next year. The proceedings of this Parliament and the administrative work of government could proceed unhindered until that time. At that stage the Government could proceed, do exactly as it wants to do now and bring together the election of honourable members and honourable senators. Thus there is no basis for an early election and there is certainly no basis for the rejection by the Government of the promises of its leader to a public which voted for it last year. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(12.30) —The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) draws our attention to the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made in 1983 when he was the Leader of the Opposition. After we came to power, we found the circumstances to be quite different from those which we were being told by the Fraser Government existed, particularly in terms of the economy of this country; so circumstances change very radically. I also remind the honourable member that the last successful Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, the party of which he is now a member, Malcolm Fraser, said in his policy speech in 1975: 'Only under the Liberals will there be jobs for all Australians'-and he took unemployment from 6 per cent to 11 per cent. He said: 'Only under the Liberals will we get inflation down to the levels of our competitors'-and he took inflation up to record heights. He said: 'Only under the Liberals will we get interest rates down'-and when we came to power interest rates were at record levels. So, after seven and a half years, one can hardly say that Malcolm put the country into a condition in which it could start to contest the economic Olympics. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(12.32) —I have to say in response to some of the comments of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) that I thought it was remarkable that he was able to tell the House and the people of Australia that the reason for this premature election was the fact that when the Australian Labor Party got into power its members found that, in their opinion, the financial arrangements within Australia were not as they had been told. It is grossly wrong to say that to the Australian people when we have heard the Treasurer (Mr Keating) saying that all that has changed. That is no reason at all. Therefore, it should be rejected. The fact is that we are dealing with straight opportunism . The principal reasons for this election are the sorts of things that one might read in the Bulletin. In relation to the matters that have been debated this morning, I stress again that the referendum situation is one that can only guarantee more elections. I can agree with the Special Minister of State that Prime Ministers do not change. The main difference in this area between Malcolm Fraser and Robert J. L. Hawke is that one is a tall man and one is a short man; otherwise, they are both political opportunists, and the next Prime Minister of this country will be one too. When one reaches the level of political opportunism of the Special Minister of State, one really and truly must realise how many elections the particular synchronisation proposal will produce. The writers of our Constitution were very wise men. No doubt many of them, too, had Irish backgrounds. They were well able to realise the types of efforts that would be made by various politicians of the future, and they wrote a Constitution to protect the people of Australia. Of every attempt that has been made to change it, not one has been made in the interests of the people; they have been made for the convenience of politicians. The particular politicians who want to be convenienced now are the members of the Government. It is totally dishonest for the Parliament to go to the Australian people. It is interesting that in this cognate debate we have talked about misleading advertising. I sincerely hope that that will not be touched upon in terms of suggesting to the people, in some advertisement or statement, that the synchronisation proposal will reduce the number of elections, because that is patently untrue. The proposal removes the only inhibition that exists on a Prime Minister of today or of the future-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! We are debating the third reading of the Bill. I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to return to it. Mr TUCKEY —That is right; it has been a cognate debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member is ranging a bit far and wide in his remarks. Mr TUCKEY —I was unable to check the position as I rushed into the chamber after hearing the Special Minister of State. Perhaps you will advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, which of the Bills we are now dealing with at the third reading stage. I shall be quite happy to rise again on the third reading of the specific Bill to which I am referring. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —We are dealing with the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill. Mr TUCKEY —That is exactly what I thought I was talking about; the referendum. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member was ranging a bit far. Mr TUCKEY —I shall stick with the referendum legislation, because that is exactly what I thought I was coming up here for. I repeat: The reality is that this will be a referendum for more elections. Anyone who says differently is a political fool who does not understand, and who lacks the pragmatism to understand, that every time Prime Ministers of the future see an opportunistic reason for having an election, knowing that they no longer have the inhibition of throwing the elections of the two Houses out of kilter, they will be just that more inclined to have an election. Government members interjecting- Mr TUCKEY —Anyone who cannot understand that and who wants to interject on that point has no political knowledge at all. Mr Hand —We said: 'That's right'. Mr TUCKEY —Honourable members should be able to represent themselves to their electorates as being a bit smarter than that. That is the situation. I make only side reference to the political advertising factor. It would be challengeable under the legislation for anyone to suggest to voters that they would have fewer elections if they supported the proposal to have synchronisation. I also support the other members who have pointed out the huge and terrible burden that the proposal will place on the small States that have very low representation. There will be a three-hour time difference in the election this year between Western Australia and the eastern States. As has occurred in the past, we could have a situation in which the Government of Australia is known before the ballot boxes in Western Australia have been opened. That is of great concern to Western Australians. They know, as did our forefathers who negotiated our entry into the Federation, that protection had to be granted to the small States. It was granted through the way in which the Constitution was written. I am pretty sure that Western Australians, Tasmanians and South Australians are concerned. It is amazing that the Special Minister of State, who carries the trust of South Australians in his electorate, is prepared to sell out his people in this fashion. It is a sell-out of the people of the smaller States, particularly on the part of the man who is putting this proposal through, because those people are clearly disadvantaged by any pressure that the Prime Minister can put upon the Senate. As has always been agreed, the Senate is undoubtedly the protector of the smaller States. It was designed under the Constitution for that purpose. It is funny that one of the principal interjectors earlier was a member for the small State of South Australia. Such people have betrayed the trust that has been placed in them by these proposals. I can see that you are concerned, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the debate should be closed, so I shall conclude my comments. However, I feel deeply about this matter. I feel that those people who have been prepared to support and promote this proposal are to be condemned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 September, on motion by Mr Uren: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.40) —I thank the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) and his advisers for suggesting an amendment to give better effect to what I am proposing. I move: Clause 5, page 2, at the end of proposed section 21A, insert the following sub- section: '' '(2) Any ordinances or other laws of the Territory referred to in sub- section (1) which provide for the acquisition of land shall provide that such land shall not be acquired otherwise than on just terms.'.''. The purpose of the amendment, as I stated at the second reading stage, is to ensure that where, by way of ordinance, laws can be made on Christmas Island for acquiring and disposing of land-and for that purpose we are repealing the relevant section of the Commonwealth Lands Acquisition Act-the Commonwealth shall not acquire land other than on just terms. It is a fundamental principle of our Constitution, and is well understood, that the Commonwealth will not go about expropriating land of individuals without paying proper compensation. It would be quite inappropriate where a territory is involved for the Commonwealth to remove the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act and not have in place provisions to compensate the people from whom land is acquired. That is a very important principle, and I am glad that the Government has indicated its willingness to support it. If the Government had not taken that course it would have poorly judged. This is not to say that I am expecting acquisition of land on Christmas Island, but it is something that might occur at some time. For that reason my colleagues and I insist that this matter be put right. I foreshadow to the Government and its advisers that we regard this matter as particularly important. Further, if it arose in other legislation we would equally pursue this approach. I thank the Minister for Territories and Local Government for the additional information he gave the Opposition in his reponse to my speech. I am still disappointed that a number of questions are outstanding, particularly my question No. 1653. The Minister has given some information today, but the questions were particularly detailed and complex. I asked for information on the redundancy arrangements. I asked for particulars of the package and the costs involved in the compensation arrangements relating to a trade union receiving funds. That information needs to be made available and understood. The Minister gave us information about the number of redundancies that have occurred and indicated that they are in excess of the number required. The fact is that the Government has paid for redundancies and has then had to recruit people to fill some of the positions which it has paid other people to leave. That matter needs to be understood. The Minister was ungracious in his comments about former administrators, distinguished former members of this Parliament, namely the former members for Indi and Holt. I think the Minister gave grave offence to the electors of those constituencies, who returned members with qualities that deserved their being elected to this place. In that sense the Minister's comments are to be regretted. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government)(12.44) —I have intimated that the Government accepts the amendment. It was always our intention to acquire land on just terms. It has always been the case that all Australian governments have sought to follow that principle. I shall reply quickly to the points made by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). I should like to have replied to all the questions asked of me before Parliament rises, but there are some matters that the Government cannot finalise because we do not yet know the net figure. There are still problems on the subject of negotiations with individual workers because of voluntary redundancies. I want to point out that the former coalition Government used political appointees as administrators in this delicate and important area. Not only Bill Yates-- Mr Ruddock —The Minister has given offence to the electors of Holt and Indi by reflecting on the quality of their members. Mr UREN —The former member for Indi, Mac Holten, also was an inefficient administrator. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Uren)-by leave-read a third time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Standing order 158 provides: If a Member is not in his place when the notice of motion given by him is called on, it shall be withdrawn from the Notice Paper, unless another Member, at his request, thereupon fixes a future time for moving the motion. As the honourable member for Gwydir was not in his place when his notice was called on and no member fixed a future time for the moving of the motion, the motion shall be withdrawn from the Notice Paper. Bill presented by Mr Peacock, and read a first time. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(12.49) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Today I present a private member's Bill to take the initiative which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has steadfastly refused to take, namely, to put some teeth into the National Crime Authority to make it strong so that it can be effective, to give it the power to fight organised crime and the criminals who live off it. It is extraordinary that the Opposition has had to resort to a private member's Bill on this matter, but the extraordinary spinelessness of the Hawke Government in its approach to crime and corruption justifies this action and our offers to the Government to discuss strengthening the Crime Authority have been totally ignored. It is no use the Prime Minister continually quoting Mr Justice Stewart' s most recent views on the Authority's powers. It is understandable that Mr Justice Stewart wants to get on with the job, but the reality is that the powers of the Authority do not meet the requirements that he himself laid down when presenting his 1983 report. The fact is that it is the Government's responsibility to provide the best framework to ensure that the fight against organised crime is effective, and the fact is that the Hawke Government has done everything to avoid making it effective. Let me prove that by briefly tracing the history of the Crime Authority legislation. The previous coalition Government acted to develop the type of body which had the powers and resources to be fully effective and to carry on from Costigan. We steered legislation through Parliament in our last months in office and because of us the Prime Minister had legislation on the books when he came to office. He could have got cracking straight away. The present Prime Minister said he would continue the fight against organised crime. On 19 May in this House he said he would 'ensure that everything that can possibly be done is done to smash organised crime in this country'. He even said that he would promulgate the Act. Then something went wrong and his actions failed to live up to the rhetoric. In November 1983 the Hawke Government introduced legislation for a substitute crime authority which would have made such an authority a toothless tiger. That is not solely the conclusion of the Opposition. I quote again Labor Senators Tate, Crowley and Bolkus, who supported the conclusions of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs: 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. We concluded that the suppression of organised crime and official corruption is an attainable goal , but if the Authority is to play a significant role in such suppression it must be given a fighting chance. They were the Government's own experts saying that. Despite changes achieved by the Opposition and the Australian Democrats in the Senate the National Crime Authority still suffers the following grave weaknesses: Firstly, it cannot use its coercive powers except by a reference from a Minister. As the exercise of the powers is the basic reason for the Authority's existence, this is clearly a fundamental weakness. Secondly, although as a result of Senate amendment the Federal Minister can give the Authority the reference to investigate a purely Federal matter without State veto, the process of obtaining such a reference is cumbersome and can cause delay. The reference for investigation into a State law can still be vetoed by the Minister for the State concerned and any reference desired by a State requires the support of the majority of the Ministers. Thirdly, the functions of the Authority are circumscribed by an elaborate definition of relevant criminal activity which excludes the consideration of offences committed in the course of a genuine industrial dispute or punishable by imprisonment for less than three years. Fourthly, the Authority comprises an independent chairman and only two other members, one appointed on the nomination of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and the other appointed on the nomination of the Police Ministers. With the present Chairman still engaged as a royal commissioner into some aspects of the Mr Asia syndicate and into Nugan Hand, this means the Authority is clearly underpowered at the top. Fifthly, the Authority is subject to directions from the Minister in specific cases. My Bill, the private member's Bill presented by the Opposition, is directed to the five weaknesses that I have outlined. Let us turn to relevant offence. Under the legislation the Authority can only investigate relevant criminal activities which are activities in relation to relevant offences. We say that the definition of 'relevant offence' is presently too restrictive because there are limitations which exclude offences taking place in relation to industrial disputes and all offences punishable by less than three years' imprisonment are excluded. Our amendment gets rid of those exemptions. Let us consider industrial disputes. Why should criminal activities by a trade union or unions, albeit to pursue industrial disputes, be outside the ambits? The Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union has proven that at least one trade union is actively organising crime in Australia and there is no genuine demarcation point between that union's industrial activities and its criminal activities. Offences punishable by less than three years' imprisonment are excluded. Car theft, for example, does not carry a punishment of three years' imprisonment or more. However, if a gang is actively organised in widespread car theft its activities should be investigatable by the National Crime Authority. The point is that this section was put into the National Crime Authority Act to ensure that the Authority was not chasing after trivial crime. In fact, the limited resources of the Commission will ensure that that does not occur. What our National Crime Authority Amendment Bill does is recognise that when we are talking about major crime which engages in a range of criminal activities limitation of investigation on the basis of offences is both counterproductive and irrational. What about the functions of the Authority? The present National Crime Authority Act contains a dichotomy between the Authority's special and general functions. The special functions-those functions using coercive powers-can only be exercised upon a reference to the Authority by the Federal or a State Minister via the Inter-Governmental Committee. We aim to get rid of that dichotomy, which will allow in effect the Authority to investigate any matter of its own motion and using its full coercive powers, because we are really at getting teeth into this Authority. This would mean, of course, that the Authority would be like a policeman; it would be able to investigate not only those matters which are referred to it for investigation but also those matters which come to its attention in the normal course of its operations. With respect to either type of matter the Authority could investigate, using its full coercive powers, to summons witnesses, to call for documents, to execute search warrants; indeed, to execute every power which is granted to it by the terms of the Act. The major advantage, of course, of this is that it completely removes the Authority from political manipulation or even the criticism that it is liable to political direction. What about reference of State matters. At present the Federal Minister can refer a matter concerning offences against Federal law to the Authority after merely consulting the Inter-Governmental Committee. A State Minister can refer a matter to the Authority concerning breaches against the law of his State only after he has gained the unaminous-stress, the unaminous-approval of the Inter- Governmental Committee. This means that no State can stop the reference of a Federal offence. However, to give an example, the Minister from South Australia could be thwarted by the Minister from Tasmania from referring to the Authority a matter concerning breaches purely against the laws of South Australia. The amendment would ensure that a State Minister, like a Federal Minister, need only consult the Inter-Governmental Committee to refer a matter to the Authority. The amendment in our Bill relating to members of the Authority would increase the number of members from a chairman plus two others to a chairman plus four others. At the present time the Chairman is still engaged as royal commissioner inquiring into some aspects of the Mr Asia syndicate and into the affairs of the Nugan Hand Bank. The Authority is clearly underpowered at the top. A consequential amendment contained in a Bill I will present after this Bill- provides that the Federal Minister shall appoint the two new members, hopefully on the basis of their expertise. I refer to directions from the Minister. At present the Federal Minister is able to give to the Authority not only general directions and guidelines but also directions with respect to a particular case, although he may only do that with the unaminous approval of the Inter-Governmental Committee. This means that criticism might be levelled at the Authority that it is subject to political manipulation and that its conduct of a particular case has been subject to political interference. As Lord Denning once remarked: Justice should not only be done; it should manifestly and absolutely be seen to be done. That is certainly not the case as far as the Authority is concerned at the moment. It should be noted that this amendment would not stop the Federal Minister from requesting the Authority to seek from a State Minister a reference to investigate a State matter. He can always ask. What it does seek to stop is the Federal Minister directing the Authority to seek such a reference. Let me focus on the most fundamental weakness; that is, the inability of the Authority to initiate its own inquiries using its coercive powers. This, after all, is the major weakness in the existing legislation. It means that the Authority has not been able immediately to pick up the Costigan investigations. This is a primary reason why the trail which Costigan was on may well have gone cold for all time. It means that there will be delays in investigations of even Federal offences. The Prime Minister knew the restrictions when he cut the Costigan Commission off at the knees because, after all, it was the Prime Minister's legislation. He knew it could be used to stop Costigan's investigation. Commissioner Costigan continually warned the Prime Minister what the consequences would be. As long ago as 15 March 1983 Commissioner Costigan warned the Prime Minister: What is required for the efficient and necessary continuation of the investigation of the Commission is that there should be a body in existence (at least 3 months prior to demise) vested with the appropriate powers and able to maintain without interruption my work. I want to go on and quote a couple of other remarks of Commissioner Costigan to remind the House that the pleading was there, not only to go on but to have an effective authority in place, which is what our amendments in this Bill today would do. That is why the Government ought to pick up these amendments without delay. On 5 March 1984 in a letter, which of course the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) forgot about conveniently yesterday-selective amnesia coming to the fore-Costigan referred to the damaging effects of a lengthy hiatus between his investigations and those of the new Crime Authority. He said: My investigations would cease at that time. They would be recommended at the earliest many months later and then only if the new Authority had the powers and decided to do so. Even if it did, the breach in investigations is likely to be fatal to their success, particularly the current drug investigations. On 5 March Commissioner Costigan also warned: 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. It would be almost like a baton change, for those sports minded people, so that the Authority is up and running when Costigan winds up. That, of course, did not occur. What could be clearer and what could be more damning than the deliberate actions of this Prime Minister and the Government? The Prime Minister has spoken of his hatred, his abomination, of the cancer of drug trafficking and its devastating effect on individuals and families-we all share his stated feelings on this evil-but why did he act to wind up Costigan's drug investigations before they were brought to a conclusion? On 3 July 1984 Commissioner Costigan warned the Prime Minister 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. Costigan was totally explicit about the consequences of what the Prime Minister was doing. I recall that the Prime Minister, in his statement of 20 September, tried to dismiss the Opposition's references to Commissioner Costigan's correspondence as 'selective and tendentious quoting from tabled correspondence'. Anyone who reads these letters in full will not come to that conclusion. This is another example of the twisting and the turning of this Government. The Prime Minister is now stuck with the consequences of his deliberate and his systematic undermining of Costigan's investigations and capacities and the capacities of the National Crime Authority, consequences which he is now trying to deny. The fact is that if the Authority had been able to initiate its own inquiries using its coercive powers the long hiatus in investigations need never have occurred. This does not deny that there still would have been a major interruption in the Costigan investigations. As Commissioner Costigan wrote to the Prime Minister on 3 July, his Commission had ceased investigations on 30 June. Yet on 3 July he said: . . . the new Authority has no investigations under way. Indeed, it presently comprises only the Chairman. This Bill, of course, cannot overcome that problem. It cannot overcome the problem that only one person-I stress, one person-Phil Cummins, QC, is working full time on sifting through the Costigan material to prepare references for the Inter-Governmental Committee. One person alone is sifting that material. Of the great team of lawyers who were allegedly working full time on this matter, Phil Cummins is the only one now doing that with some part time help, and he only moved to do some full time work very recently indeed. No wonder Mr Justice Stewart was forced to write to the Special Minister of State on 6 August this year and to say: . . . the Authority considers at this stage that it will not be ready to approach the Inter-Governmental Committee on the subject of references arising from current Royal Commissions investigations before late September. Even then only a limited number of matters may be ready for consideration. The only information we have been able to get from the Minister is that the next meeting of the Inter-Governmental Committee will be held on 19 October. We have been given no indication of how many of the 42 Costigan references may be ready for further investigation by the Authority. I have confined most of my remarks to the Bill that I have introduced. The amendments contained in the Bill would be directed at strengthening the Authority. Not just the Opposition but Mr Justice Moffitt, Mr Justice Woodward, the Australian Federal Police-I could go on-have pointed to the weaknesses in this Authority. It has taken the Opposition to come in here and move amendments, as we moved them in the Senate when the original legislation went through. The teeth that the Authority has today it has only as a consequence of amendments moved by the Opposition and the Democrats in the Senate. We seek, by way of this Bill, to give it the powers it so desperately needs. The changes in my Bill are directed towards mounting an effective fight against the cancer of organised crime and corruption in the days to come. These changes, which will strengthen the hand of the Crime Authority, are of course directed to the future. Nothing can be done to address the monumental failure of the Hawke Government in past months-indeed for more than a year-to maintain the fight against organised crime ; nothing can be done to resurrect the Costigan investigations into the financing of drugs, pornography and other evils; nothing can change the fact that Commissioner Costigan gave warning after warning that the Government's actions and inactions were destroying his chances of completing the vital investigations he had commenced. On previous occasions I have outlined in detail the history of the Government's systematic and deliberate destruction of the fight against organised crime and corruption. I have sent the Government question after question asking why it prematurely terminated the Costigan Commission, about why it stuck with a toothless body such as the National Crime Authority. I have reminded it of the criticisms of the present Authority by such eminent figures as Mr Justice Moffitt and Mr Justice Woodward. As with all matters relating to organised crime, and extending into the Government's handling of the Age tapes, there has been no action. Well, let us have action today by supporting this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Is the motion seconded? Mr Sinclair —Madam Deputy Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my right to respond. Debate adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peacock, and read a first time. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(1.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I simply say that the remarks I made in relation to my previous Bill relate to this legislation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr Sinclair —Madam Deputy Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my right to respond. Debate adjourned. [COGNATE BILL: NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Orders of the Day for the resumption of the debates on the second readings of the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 1984 and the National Crime Authority (Consequential Amendments) Amendment Bill 1984 being called on forthwith and the debates being continued until 2 p.m. this day. Second Reading Debate resumed. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 1984 and the National Crime Authority (Consequential Amendments) Amendment Bill 1984 as they are related matters. If there is no objection to that arrangement I shall allow that course to be followed. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(1.10) —I wish to respond to some of the matters that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in this debate. Mr Shipton —Where is the Prime Minister? Mr YOUNG —The honourable member should go and put an apple in his mouth. It is lunch time, so he should go and put an apple-- Mr Shipton —This is a serious matter. Get the Prime Minister. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for Higgins will cease interjecting. Mr YOUNG —Many of the amendments contained in the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill and the National Crime Authority (Consequential Amendments) Amendment Bill presented by the Leader of the Opposition today concern matters that have been considered by the Parliament. They were considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and they were rejected in the Senate, where this Government does not have a majority. I want to take the Parliament back over a couple of matters. It is unfortunate that we have reached the stage where we are expected to accept the extremes in fighting crime. It is like the debate about patriotism: We are not considered to be as patriotic as others unless we wave the flag every day. I think what has to be taken into account in a debate of this nature is that not everybody conceives the fight against crime as it is conceived in the package that is presented to us today by the Leader of the Opposition. I draw the attention of the Parliament to some very notable people who came before the National Crimes Commission Conference held last year in the Senate and put their views about the models that were proposed at the time in regard to the then proposed National Crimes Commission. I think the views of some of those people ought to be taken into consideration when one finally settles and has a look at the National Crime Authority Act, which is now established and sets up the National Crime Authority . First of all, let me quote what Mr Justice Michael Kirby said last year at the Conference on a National Crimes Commission: I remain with an uneasy feeling that with a National Crimes Commission we will end up with the worst of both worlds. Whatever model we choose of the two proffered, we stand the risk of creating either the cosmetics of an ineffective agency or a too powerful institution unaccountable in practice to the courts and to our democratic institutions. The hard business of real law reform is to tackle the problems of our criminal justice system. It is not, I fear, to create new institutions, the need for which is doubtful and the real alternatives to which have not been tried. Let me also look at what Mr Ian Temby, representing the Law Council of Australia , said in relation to the establishment of a National Crimes Commission, before the National Crime Authority Bill was presented to the Parliament. I quote from page 63 of the report of the proceedings of the Conference: The onus must be on those who propose a radical solution, such as a National Crimes Commission, to demonstrate the need. That cannot be done by newspaper headlines, by argument by assertion, by unproved generalisation or by arguing from the particular to the general. There is a special danger in both rumour and anecdotal evidence. Later he said: The second major premise put forward by the proponents of a statutory Crimes Commission is that the problem, assuming that it exists, cannot be met by improving existing methods of law and law enforcement. That is a doubtful proposition. I suggest that it is wrong. I very briefly quote the Australian and New South Wales Councils for Civil Liberties: For those reasons- which they had already laid out- the Australian and the New South Wales Councils for Civil Liberties oppose the establishment of a crimes commission. Mr Justice Nicholson, in the paper he presented to the National Crimes Commission, said this: Unlike my fellow former inquisitors, I seem to fall into a minority of one because I strongly oppose the concept of a standing commission of either model exercising any form of compulsory powers. I draw the attention of the Parliament to these matters because, on the one hand , we had people who were taking a totally gung ho attitude of saying 'All powers , whatever the risk, to a national crime authority' and, on the other hand, we had people saying 'No national crime authority, irrespective of the powers it may be given'. The Government had to listen to all of these people to determine the model that it was going to adopt taking, on the one hand, the national crisis that exists in terms of fighting crime and, on the other hand, the concern of people who were worried about and the representations they made about civil liberties in Australia. We had to run the gauntlet of the legislation being introduced into the Senate where, let me reiterate, this Government does not have a majority-the Liberal- National Party and Australian Democrats senators make up the majority in the Senate. The National Crime Authority Bill was introduced there. It was not debated immediately but was sent off to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to listen to this because the time when there was confusion about the period for which the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union may live was when the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee of the Senate was determining what recommendation it would make to amend the Bill. We did not know at the end of 1983 how soon that might be. We were hoping that the National Crime Authority would be set up in early 1984, much earlier than it was, and that was the hope of the former Fraser Government. When we look at the life of the Costigan Commission we see that it has had seven extensions: Four by the Fraser Government, I think, and three by ours-it may be four now with the October extension to finish the final report. Certainly the Costigan Commission has had at least seven extensions. No one in the Fraser Government in his wildest dreams believed that when the Costigan Commission was established it would run for four years. When the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee brought its recommendations back to the Senate it took some time for the Bill to be passed. It went through in May and it went through the House of Representatives in June. It was the amalgam of ideas that came from all the political parties that gave the legislation its life. When it came to the House of Representatives we accepted it and we established the National Crime Authority. I again say to the Opposition, in terms of the final agreement that was reached with Commissioner Costigan about how long the Costigan Commission would remain in order for the transition to be made to the National Crime Authority, that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was not even present when I negotiated with Commissioner Frank Costigan about the life of the Commission. When I met him in March this year we discussed the workload he would have. I indicated to him what I thought the timetable for the establishment of the National Crime Authority would be. We agreed that the Costigan Commission would end on 30 June, that there would be approximately four weeks for the transition from the Costigan Commission to the National Crime Authority and that then he would require eight weeks to write his final report. That was agreed upon between Commissioner Costigan and me and a Press release to that effect was put out. That is the history of what has occurred with the Costigan Commission. The other charge that members of the Opposition raise is that somehow someone is going to disappear as a result of the transition from Costigan to the National Crime Authority-if not some person, some investigation. A couple of weeks ago I read in the Press that someone in the Opposition said: 'The closing down of the Costigan Commission meant we weren't going to get Mr Big in Australia'. We are really talking nonsense in this Parliament if we believe that criminal investigation in this country is all about chasing a Mr Big, because that is not what anyone-Moffitt, Woodward, Williams or Costigan-has said it is about. None of them has ever said we are chasing a Mr Big. In terms of the investigations, let me quote what Max Bingham, now a member of the National Crime Authority, said: 'Of course there will be a hold up of a couple of weeks in the transition, but we are talking about attacking problems that have been with Australia for years'. We are not talking about something that we have just recently discovered. The Costigan Commission investigations that have been handed over to the National Crime Authority were not going to be brought to a conclusion. No matter when the Costigan Commission was wound up-be it June 1984 or June 1994-there would have been investigations under way that needed further investigation and had to be handed over to some other authority. That is all that has occurred. Every conceivable investigation that Commissioner Costigan is presently undertaking and he wants handed over is being handed over to the National Crime Authority. The Opposition would have a case if in some way the Government had interfered with that material, if we had said 'Look, there are certain cases which might embarrass the Government. We'll take them out; we won't hand them over', or ' There is a particular paragraph in this case that we don't like. We'll take that out'. However, the Opposition knows as well as we do that every word contained in the very large document that was handed over to the Government on 16 July this year by Commissioner Costigan was immediately handed over to the National Crime Authority-no interference, nothing missing. Mr Hodgman —But he did say that investigations would be finished for ever. Mr YOUNG —No. Mr Hodgman —Yes, he did. Mr YOUNG —Investigations have been handed over to the National Crime Authority. The Leader of the Opposition said that things have gone cold because the National Crime Authority has to go to the Inter-Governmental Committee to get its additional powers. Just last week, in the Press conference given by the National Crime Authority people-Justice Stewart, John Dwyer, Max Bingham-they were asked whether they were conducting investigations, and they said yes. Mr Spender —But not with the coercive powers. Mr YOUNG —That is right, not with the coercive powers, but the point should be made because the Opposition keeps making the charge that the National Crime Authority cannot do anything without its coercive powers. It can do a great deal without its coercive powers, and without any veto. Without any veto at all it can investigate things and disseminate the information obtained to other law enforcement agencies. The Opposition seems to take the view that co-operation with the States in this sort of thing is not something that we should consider as being terribly important. Let me tell the House, it is vitally important to have the co- operation of the States. It involves a whole range of matters. I will just give an illustration. Earlier this year, when the home of a Family Court of Australia judge was bombed in what was an outrageous act, we immediately called on the States to protect Family Court judges. It is a responsibility of the Commonwealth to do that, but we did not have the resources at hand to put into place the sort of personal protection that was required by Family Court judges and we asked the States to do it until we could, and the States all co-operated. It is not a light thing to ask the States to co-operate in fighting crime. People in here talk about drugs. Drug importation is a Federal offence, but once it hits the streets it is not a Federal offence, it is a State offence. Most of the criminal offences in this country are State offences. We cannot talk about fighting crime and take it upon our shoulders to do it all at the Commonwealth level if most of the law enforcement has to be done in the States. So we really need the States to co-operate to give us the most effective weapon against organised crime in this country. We can be enormously successful. When we talk to Commissioner Grey of the Australian Federal Police about the AFP 's effectiveness and to Federal agencies, such as the Australian Customs Service , about picking up drugs that are coming into this country they say with good cause, that they are more effective now than they have ever been. They will also say, to be perfectly honest, that probably more people are trying to get more drugs into this country now than previously, but that is in common with what is happening in the Western world generally. Of course, they will not be able to stop it all, and once it hits Australia we really are talking about the State jurisdiction. We consider this matter important. Not only did we go through the National Crimes Commission Conference, not only did we go through the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee of the Senate and through the Senate itself; we talked with the States about what they thought was important with this sort of agency, a National Crime Authority. They had lots of ideas about it. Some States, in the first instance-not only Labor States but some conservative States-were totally opposed to the establishment of a National Crime Authority. They said 'What you are trying to do is take over the role of our local State police forces', and they argued against it. Of course, with arguments, as with everything else in politics, we take the best we can from them to give ourselves the best chances of success. Let me repeat what we have been saying: When we talk about law enforcement we are talking about 30,000 policemen in Australia. Of that 30,000, 3,000 are Federal policemen. The other 27,000 policemen carrying out law enforcement in Australia belong to the State police forces, and we need those sorts of resources if we are going to be successful. I suggest to the Opposition that what we have done and what we have got before this Parliament, what has been accepted by the Senate and what was accepted by the Government is deserving of a trial. As the members of the National Crime Authority themselves say, it is worth giving them a trial. If they feel-- Mr Hodgman —The verdict will be guilty, and you know it. Mr YOUNG —Max Bingham happens to have a better name in law than the honourable member does. As a former Liberal Attorney-General-- Mr Hodgman —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: On Tuesday the Prime Minister again endeavoured to impute to the Opposition criticism of members of the Authority. The Minister now does it. We have never criticised any member of the Authority. What we have criticised is the Government not giving them the power to do their job. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) interjects that the National Crime Authority will fail. I said that Mr Bingham, QC, the former Liberal Attorney-General from Tasmania, had a better name at law than the honourable member for Denison. I do not think that will be argued against. Max Bingham says they do have sufficient powers to do the job. What he also says, as do Justice Stewart and John Dwyer, is that if they feel their Authority needs greater powers they will come to the Government and tell it so. The Opposition and people outside ask whether members of the Authority can be trampled upon or whether they can be silenced. Yesterday's Melbourne Herald carries the headline: 'We won't be muzzled, says NCA chief'. Why should they be? They have nothing to be ashamed of in carrying out their duties. They have been given a very major responsibility. Nevertheless, lots of groups will be looking at them, and not just the people they are chasing in their criminal investigations. As I said, people who were at the Conference last year and said that the Authority should not exist at all because of the danger it presents to civil liberties in this country will also be looking to see how the Authority operates and to see whether their criticisms last year were justified. Mr Peacock —Have they had any briefings from Costigan? Mr YOUNG —If the Leader of the Opposition has a look at the correspondence from Frank Costigan, which I think he has been through rather thoroughly over the last few weeks, I think he will find in the specific reference to the briefings that have been done by Max Bingham and John Dwyer in Melbourne. The Leader of the Opposition talked about the staff and the fact that not all the staff are available to the National Crime Authority. That is true, at the moment, because what we have said is that any staff required by Commissioner Costigan in writing his final report will remain with Costigan until he concludes. In the meantime, those who are not required will shift over to the National Crime Authority. In terms of the resources of both bodies, let me remind the Leader of the Opposition that on 25 April 1983 the Prime Minister and I had the first opportunity of meeting Frank Costigan at the Costigan Commission. We were briefed by him in general terms, not specific terms, about his investigations. Commissioner Costigan said: 'I need greater resources; I need more manpower; I need to shift premises'. The Prime Minister did not argue one iota. Everything that was required by Commissioner Costigan in terms of new siting, new offices, new resources, new manpower was given. We took his staff ceiling from, I think 69 to 120. Mr Peacock —We don't deny that, but you changed your mind later. Mr YOUNG —I ask the Leader of the Opposition to let me finish. The amount of money that was allocated was doubled. I am not saying the previous Government would not have done it if Costigan had come to them, but we did it, and that was after the first briefing that was given by Commissioner Costigan to the Prime Minister and me about the level of his investigations and what he hoped would come out of them. No challenge to the credibility of the Government can be made on what we did. Of course, the staff ceiling of the National Crime Authority is not 120. Because the three commissioners can all act separately three major inquiries can be going on simultaneously-not just the one Costigan inquiry. Mr Peacock —But we do not have any at the moment. Mr YOUNG —Yes, we have. The Authority is going to have a staff of 200 people. The Leader of the Opposition said-there has been some confusion in the Parliament and the public about this-that what Frank Costigan had done on 16 July was to hand over 42 references to be made by the Inter-Governmental Committee to the National Crime Authority. That is not what he did at all. He handed over a table listing 40 major investigations on that day and a couple of weeks later he handed over another two, making a total of 42. John Dwyer has already made public that Commissioner Costigan believes that some 20 of the 42 investigations may be made references. That means, I presume, that the other 22 still require a great deal more investigation before the National Crime Authority would need its coercive powers. We have been attempting to fix a date when the Inter-Governmental Committee can meet to deal with these references. This goes back to the letter which the Leader of the Opposition read out from Justice Stewart about how long it might be before the Authority will be able to deal with them. It was felt at first that the Authority might need the final report of Commissioner Costigan before it goes to the Inter-Governmental Committee to get its references. That has now changed. It has been indicated that they will be ready in a couple of weeks. Yesterday I was not totally correct when I gave the Leader of the Opposition the answer I did. It is not the week commencing 19 October that I have asked the States to meet; it is the week, I think, commencing 17 October. I have told them that I think 19 October would be the most appropriate date for us to meet to do these things. That will be done. Within a week of that date, according to my latest discussions with Commissioner Costigan, the final report will be handed over. I conclude by saying this about the final report, because I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is not serious in the suggestion he put to the House on Tuesday, if my understanding of it is correct. The Leader of the Opposition told the Parliament and the people of Australia that it would be all right to table the complete final Costigan report, which will be I do not know how big, but many volumes-perhaps up to 12 volumes. I do not believe that the Leader of the Opposition, having been a senior member of the former Government, believes that even Commissioner Costigan would recommend that all of the volumes be tabled. From his experience in government he knows that Commissioner Costigan made a number of recommendations about material that should not be published-whole volumes in fact-and that the Government itself also took decisions, in addition to Commissioner Costigan's about other material that it did not want made public . On Tuesday I said about 25 per cent-I think it is probably 25 to 30 per cent- of all the material that was handed to the Fraser Government by Commissioner Costigan was made public by the Fraser Government and no more of the material has been made public by this Government. We are going to face the same problem. Obviously in a report of that nature there are a lot of things that should not be made public. I think our experience of the last week or so shows us that names cannot be just bandied around so that people think that all those named may be guilty of crimes or that they already have been found guilty. Governments receiving reports of this nature have to act in the best interests not only of the royal commissioner whom they have appointed, but also of the people who may be named where investigations are being carried out. As the Prime Minister has said, the Leader of the Opposition will have access to the full report of Commissioner Costigan. Other people, such as prosecutor Temby, Police Commissioner Grey, people from the National Crime Authority, Commissioner Costigan himself, should sit down to determine what can be made public in the interests of this country. I suggest that if the Leader of the Opposition still maintains that it can all be made public perhaps he should take the opportunity of talking to Commissioner Costigan about what he has in mind, the way it has operated in the past, and the way it may operate in the future in relation to these sorts of matters. I would be very surprised if that is the attitude that Commissioner Costigan is taking in relation to his final report. A number of the amendments contained in the Bills that have been introduced by the Leader of the Opposition may one day come back before this Parliament via the National Crime Authority, which itself after it has gained some experience in the field and has conducted investigations, may feel in some cases are necessary. However, it is not the Government's intention to alter the legislation or the powers that have been given to the Authority until such time as the Authority has had an opportunity to conduct its affairs under the present laws which have been given to it. I suggest to the Opposition that, in the interests of this country, it should now give the National Crime Authority an opportunity to prove its worth. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(1.36) —Let it be clear to everybody who is listening: What we have sought to do today is introduce two amendments to the piece of legislation that establishes the National Crime Authority; that is, the somewhat strengthened but still very much modified form of the Bill that was originally passed by this Parliament in the days of the previous Government. In those days, back in 1982, we introduced and passed a Bill that was known as the National Crimes Commission Bill 1982. The National Crimes Commission in fact had not come into place at the time that the Hawke Government assumed responsibility for the affairs of this country. As everybody will know, the National Crime Authority Bill was subsequently submitted to this Parliament. It was significantly amended as a result of consideration by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. The powers were strengthened and that there are more teeth in it now than there would have been is a distinct product of the intervention by the coalition opposition parties in the Senate. Our concern remains that, sadly, in the course of the crime debate in this place and in the other place over the last month to six weeks there has been by the Government a total failure in two areas, and I will address those in a moment. The purpose of these amending Bills today-the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill and the National Crime Authority (Consequential Amendments) Amendment Bill-is to help to correct one of those significant deficiencies. Nothing that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has said in any way alleviates our concern that the National Crime Authority Act in its present form is unable to address the continued worry as to whether or not there is an effective means of pursuing major organised crime in Australia. First let us look at what the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill seeks to do. We are looking at two essential changes to the present functioning of the National Crime Authority. The first is to try to ensure that the State vetoes provision is removed and the second is to try to ensure that there is an independent initiating responsibility in the National Crime Authority that will ensure that it can pursue whatever investigations it sees fit. I will address those in a little more detail in a moment. The important thing that we need to remember is that the two areas of concern over the last few weeks have been: First, why the Government wants prematurely to wind up the Costigan Royal Commission into the activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union; and, secondly, why and how the National Crime Authority is going to be able to pursue organised crime if it has inadequate capability to do so. Obviously this Bill is addressed to that second question. The Bill and the complementary measures that go with it in the second Bill, the National Crime Authority ( Consequential Amendments) Amendment Bill, are designed specifically to strengthen the teeth of the National Crime Authority. There is no doubt that everyone in the community is worried about the extent to which organised crime seems to exist in this nation of ours. There is little doubt that the day by day saga of the individuals associated with the manipulation of major crime is such as to give every concerned Australian due and proper cause for concern. What we have sought to do in our debates in this place is to highlight what we see as a premature determination by this Government to wrap up the Costigan Royal Commission. We do not believe that the transition from the Costigan Royal Commission to the National Crimes Authority is adequate. We seek, therefore, to ensure that the National Crime Authority finally is adequate to pursue its task. Let there be no doubt that there was common ground between this side of the Parliament and the other that we should seek to wind up, in due course, the Costigan Royal Commission, but only by means of an effective transition. Indeed, in the days of the Fraser-Anthony Government we had agreed that there would be a period of about six months while the Costigan Royal Commission continued and the National Crime Authority took its place, progressively assuming responsibility for investigating organised crime. Reasons for this not having happened are bandied around. We are told, for example, that in London one of the individuals named in the National Times had been running around saying that the Prime Minister, while absent from this country, had undertaken to close up the Costigan Royal Commission. We are told the day-to-day stories by the Prime Minister and by the Special Minister of State: 'Look, we really have given extensions to Mr Costigan time after time'. But let us be honest, what has happened is that Mr Costigan has been called on on each occasion to justify being given an extension of time. The Victorian Premier was prepared to give him 12 months. This Government was not prepared to accede to that, and as of 30 June 1984 there has been no pursuit of those who, in Mr Costigan's own words, seem to be behind financing major crime in this country. There has been no investigation and there has been no continuation of the inquiries into those who, if Mr Costigan's correspondence is followed, honourable members will see he believes to be in most instances behind most of the major criminal events in our society. This Government, for reasons that we have sought to find out, wanted to close down the Costigan Commission and has failed to allow the proper consultations that we believe are necessary between the new National Crime Authority and Mr Costigan in the transition. Certainly Mr Justice Stewart has come out and said that he does not believe that consultations are necessary. Frankly, we believe that briefings from Mr Costigan can best be assessed by the man who has been making the inquiries, that is, Mr Costigan. I think it quite strange that in the different character of the Costigan Royal Commission which, let us face it, has been computer-oriented, the man who is to take over the National Crime Authority finds it unnecessary to get fully briefed on the way and form in which that investigation of his is being pursued and on those individuals against whom we feel the investigation is now running cold. It is in that light and in light of the criticisms that we have spoken of in this place in the course of the last few weeks, by Mr Justice Moffitt, by Mr Justice Woodward and by the Federal Police Association, that we see it as absolutely essential that the National Crime Authority be given a wider power and that its numbers be increased and that there be an opportunity for a proper investigation by that National Crime Authority even though it is now going to be impossible to pick up those trails which have gone cold as a result of the Costigan Royal Commission being wound up , as we see it, in haste, and for reasons that we suspect. Let us have a look at the two Bills. As we see it, the first weakness of the National Crime Authority is that the Authority cannot use its coercive powers except by reference from a Minister. As the exercise of such powers is the basic reason for the Authority's existence, this seems fundamental. Section 5 of the amending Bill removes the distinction between general powers and specific powers which require a reference from a State or the Commonwealth. It would enable the National Crime Authority to use its coercive powers at any time. The second weakness is that although as a result of the Senate amendment the Federal Minister can give the National Crime Authority the reference to investigate a purely Federal matter without State veto, the process of obtaining such a reference is cumbersome and can cause delay. Furthermore, the reference for investigation into a State law can still be vetoed by the Minister for the State concerned and any reference desired by the State requires the support of the majority of the Ministers. For example, New South Wales could veto an investigation proposed by the Queensland Minister into investigations under Queensland laws. Section 7 of the amending Bill removes the right of veto of a State Minister into investigations proposed by another State Minister at the Inter-Governmental Committee. There is no doubt that co-operation with the States is required. The Minister, when he addressed this Bill a moment ago, admitted that. We certainly do not deny the necessity for co-operation. But consultation is one thing, veto another, and there is no reason in this area to provide an opportunity for veto in the way that this Act now provides. The third area of weakness is that the functions of the NCA are circumscribed by an elaborate definition of relevant criminal activity, which excludes the consideration of offences committed in the course of a genuine industrial dispute or punishable by imprisonment for less than three years. This could mean that a string of minor crimes, for example, car theft, which were part of a major criminal activity could be excluded from investigation. Section 3 of the amending Bill opens up the definition of 'relevant offence', with the aim of allowing the National Crime Authority to decide for itself how it will allocate its resources. The fourth weakness is that the Authority comprises an independent chairman, and only two other members, one appointed on the nomination of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, and the other on the nomination of State and Federal police commissioners. With the present Chairman still engaged as a royal commissioner into some aspects of the Mr Asia syndicate and the activities of the Nugan Hand Bank-a fact that we have made similar comment on in the past few weeks in this place; we fear he is so busy it is impossible for him to pursue his NCA task-this means that the Authority is clearly underpowered at the top. We believe it essential that the Authority not be underpowered, but be able to pursue properly its inquiries and be able to undertake whatever inquiries it believes fit. Let us face it, there has been condemnation from both sides of the House at the way in which the Costigan inquiries have been able to reveal much of the machinations in the criminal area as a result of an initial inquiry which , after all, was directed at the painters and dockers, not at matters that have widened into revealing and bringing prosecution as a result of the efforts of the special prosecutors in something more than 600 individual cases. Of course, the remedy to that weakness, that is, the inability of the present number of commissioners to undertake the range of work necessary, is that through the amending Bill we are increasing the size of the NCA from a chairman plus two members to a chairman plus four, the two additional members both being appointed by the Federal Attorney-General, and, through section 15 of the amending Bill, increasing the size of a quorum for the NCA from two to four. The fifth weakness is that the Authority is subject to directions of the Ministers provided they are unanimous. The remedy, as set out in section 8 of the amending Bill, is to delete this power, thereby removing any threat of political influence. There are so many criticisms of the National Crime Authority that it is no use the Minister coming into this place and saying: 'Look, all is well, let us give it a trial, these amendments might be introduced later'. Mr Braithwaite —He would know, wouldn't he? Mr SINCLAIR —He probably would. Frankly we are worried that in the character of the National Crime Authority, the premature closure of Commissioner Costigan's Royal Commission and the failure of the transition, the new Authority will indeed let all these criminal trails run cold and the major inquiries that we are told by Commissioner Costigan were on the point of finality, will not be concluded. Therefore we seek to extend the NCA's authority. Mr Justice Moffitt who, honourable members will remember, conducted the royal commission into allegations of crime in New South Wales clubs, said: 'The way the NCA has been set up I don't think it will work'. Mr Justice Woodward, who, honourable members will remember, conducted the royal commission into drugs, said: 'I believe the new Authority will have no effect because it lacks teeth'. We certainly know that as far as the police association is concerned it too has criticised the Authority. Today's Age said: The National Crime Authority asked the Federal Government in mid-August to legislate to guarantee that the Authority was given reasons for any State vetoing an investigation. The Authority, in a letter dated 21 August, also requested a series of machinery changes to its legislation. So our call for changes to the legislation is not unique; it is not just those outside the NCA who are seeking changes to the legislation, it is even those within the NCA itself. We frankly believe they should be introduced and these two Bills accepted. There are any number of areas for concern. We see these amendments as a way by which the community concern can be allayed and the Government act properly. Frankly, we believe the House should endorse both measures. We are extraordinarily disappointed at the Minister coming in and treating criminal investigations as something that can be done tomorrow; manana is not the way by which this Government will overcome the problems of criminal investigation. Mr Costigan has been able apparently to get to the source of a number of major instances. We are concerned that those investigations should be properly pursued and this is the only way by which the National Crime Authority can be allowed to do so. Finally, I think it essential that we consider properly what we are requesting in terms of the tabling of the Costigan report. Of course, as the Special Minister of State has said, the full report cannot be tabled in this place, but there is no reason why those parts Mr Costigan believes proper to be tabled and those that have individuals' names deleted if civil liberties are not to be prejudiced should not be tabled. Certainly there must be such a document presented and available to the Australian public before this Government runs off prematurely to the Australian electorate. I commend these two Bills to the House and recommend to the Government that the changes in the power and structure of the National Crime Authority which they represent be endorsed. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(1.50) —The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) ranged far and wide in support of his view that the existing powers of the National Crime Authority were not adequate to discharge the function of fighting organised crime within Australia. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) came into this House and sought to put the same submission. It is of benefit to the Australian community to note that neither of those two members of this House sought to involve himself at all in the initial discussions on the constitution of the National Crime Authority when that was brought before this House some months ago. Of course, at that stage there was not an imminent election in the wind and at that stage there was no perceived political advantage to be gained by either member in the context of a pre- election situation whereby neither has been able to put up any credible policies across a broad range of policy areas. The Leader of the National Party indicated in essence two major flaws in his perception of the National Crime Authority legislation. He adverted to the private member's Bills before the House seeking to remove the rights of States to veto any course of investigation before the National Crime Authority. It is incumbent upon the Australian community to assess what weight it is to attach to the thoughts of the Leader of the National Party. When doing that, Australians ought to compare for a moment his views and the views of a very highly regarded member of the Australian community, Mr Justice Stewart himself, the Chairman of the National Crime Authority, and also the views of Mr Max Bingham, QC, a former Liberal Attorney-General. In this context my colleague from Tasmania indicates that the latter is a good fellow and that he implicitly supports the proposition that I will put. Where we have Mr Bingham not agreeing with the Leader of the National Party or the Leader of the Liberal Party in this context, of course his is a non-partisan comment and a greater degree of weight ought to be attached to his views. Yesterday's Melbourne Herald had a report of an interview of Mr Bingham by Mr Peter Game. In answer to a question about how independent the three commissioners felt, Mr Bingham said: Entirely. There is no political control. We put that on two bases-first on the basis of the legislation itself, and secondly on the basis of our discussions with the Government. We are assured with the utmost conviction all around it is just plain political common sense that they can't muzzle us. In the same interview Mr Justice Stewart is reported as saying: We have made it absolutely clear that we are not the lackeys of any government. We are independent and we intend to remain independent. Prior to that interview, Mr Justice Stewart had indicated his preparedness to go into public session and to indicate publicly where any particular government sought to veto any course of investigations. It seems to me that anyone engaging on that course of activity would be doomed, in the context of the politics of reality in this country, to massive failure. There would be nothing more damning to any State government than to have a public session indicating that the party in power in that particular State was attempting to thwart the investigations of an independent statutory authority set up to pursue organised crime in this country. The second major area of concern indicated by the Opposition is the independent initiating powers of the NCA. I will briefly go through and compare some of the relevant powers of the Costigan Royal Commission vis-a-vis the National Crime Authority. It will give some indication to the Australian people of how far this Commission is able to go in pursuing the issue of organised crime in this country. The Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union had 108 staff based in Melbourne. The National Crime Authority will have 200 staff based in both Sydney and Melbourne and by definition it will have a much greater ability to pursue the problem of organised crime in this country. First of all, of course, we have Mr Justice Stewart, a distinguished Australian with a long involvement in the investigation of organised crime in this country. In addition, we have Mr Max Bingham, Q.C. and Mr John Dwyer, Q.C., both of whom will be invested with the same powers as the National Crime Authority Chairman. So we have a multiple factor of three in terms of the head of that body compared to Mr Costigan with his Royal Commission . It is worth adverting briefly to the terms of reference of the Costigan Royal Commission. Limited always by the terms of reference initially vested in the Costigan Royal Commission, it is circumscribed to investigating matters in a quite narrow range within the Victorian jurisdiction and also the Federal jurisdiction. It is not, and never has been, vested with the powers to pursue matters in States other than Victoria and in areas other than the Federal jurisdiction. The Stewart Royal Commission similarly was confined significantly in that its powers to investigate were circumscribed to the State of New South Wales and the Federal jurisdiction. Conversely, the National Crime Authority may investigate a whole range of criminal matters throughout the States and Territories of Australia and also in the context of any Federal laws. For example, it may investigate matters involving theft, fraud, tax evasion, currency violations, drug dealings, financial benefit from vice, extortion, company violations, harbouring of criminals, passport forging, arms dealings and illegal trade in fauna. It may co-ordinate investigations by taskforces and it may collect and disseminate criminal information and intelligence with the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. Of course that is one of the strengths of the National Crime Authority-its role is more integrated with existing investigatory mechanisms at both the Federal and State level, something that the Costigan Royal Commission was relatively limited with. I have already adverted to its power to initiate investigations, but of course it is important to note that the National Crime Authority may request a committee reference. Once again, any refusal to agree with that reference has been indicated publicly as a matter which the National Crime Authority would feel no hesitation in bringing before the public of Australia. There is a whole range of additional powers. There is also the watchdog role instituted by the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. I will be a member of that Joint Committee and I say publicly in this House that I would not be prepared for one minute to countenance any veto from any State or any other source that in my view prevented the adequate discharge of the responsibilities vested in me by this Parliament. The powers of the Costigan Royal Commission, vis-a-vis those of the National Crime Authority with respect to matters such as self- incrimination, failure to appear and court appeals to the Federal Court of Australia are essentially the same. With respect to matters of arrest and search warrants, again, they are substantially the same. With respect to hearings, the Authority, compared with the Costigan Royal Commission, has slightly different powers but in the end result substantially the same effect. Across that whole range of areas there is no doubt that the National Crime Authority has vested in it very important powers. But let me say this: In the final analysis, it will be the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority and it will be the Authority itself which will decide the appropriateness or otherwise of the powers vested in the Authority. There is no hesitation on the part of this Government in terms of listening to those recommendations if they come about and acting upon them. For my part, I give an unequivocal undertaking that, in terms of the discharge of my duties on the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, I will attempt at every turn to ensure that those duties are properly discharged. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 104, as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence of General Business has expired. The honourable member for Maribyrnong will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next day of siting. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) left Australia today to visit China and to lead a high level construction industry trade mission to Asia. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) is Acting Minister for Housing and Construction until Mr Hurford returns. Mr PORTER —I refer the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to reports in last Saturday's Age and the Sydney Morning Herald and to proceedings in the House yesterday where the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs refused to indicate whether an unequivocal statement as to the Government's proposals for uniform land rights would be made before the election. I ask the Minister: Will the Government make a pre-election announcement about its proposals for land rights? Mr HOLDING —Mr Speaker-- Mr Porter —Yes or no. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member might have got away with asking young ladies yes or no when he was an undergraduate. He would be well aware of the processes which we have put in place in the preparation of land rights material. That preparation involves discussion with Aboriginal people. There is an Aboriginal Land Rights Steering Committee and it met again this morning. Work on the preparation of the principles involved in that legislation is proceeding. When that work is done and when all relevant interest groups, including all States, have been consulted we will be in a position to make a statement. I find it interesting that a shadow Minister who is so concerned about Aboriginal issues has asked only one question about them since May. That is the depth of his concern. Our policy will be announced when we are ready and not to suit the ill- contrived performances of the honourable gentlemen opposite. Mr LINDSAY —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. The Minister told the House yesterday that the Government was examining a proposal to buy helicopters for the Navy and that the choice was between the Sikorsky Seahawk and the Westland Lynx. Will the Minister inform the House whether he has considered the alternative of converting a merchant ship to carry the Navy's Sea King helicopters? Questions without Notice Mr SCHOLES —I thank the honourable member for his question and for his continuing interest in defence matters. I have examined the proposal he mentioned. It was considered as part of the process of formulating recommendations which were made to me and the Government. Conversion of a merchant ship would not result in savings and in fact, over the projected life of the helicopters, would add significantly to the cost of providing capabilities. The Sea Kings have a limited life span and have to be replaced in the early 1990s. The conversion of a merchant ship does not meet the problem of providing helicopters for the FFGs which are designed to operate with helicopters. A great deal of the advantage of the design would be lost if they were not equipped with helicopters capable of exploiting the full potential of the vessels. I asked for a report on the question of the conversion of a merchant ship prior to agreeing to a submission to go to Cabinet. The proposal certainly has been floated. Should an emergency arise where additional capacity is required, the Royal Australian Navy has contingency plans to place in train the conversion. However, it is a secondary rather than a primary solution to a problem and certainly does not address the needs of the Australian Defence Force at this time. Mr PORTER —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. How does the Prime Minister reconcile the response of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to my earlier question with his statement at his Press conference on 2 October, last Tuesday? In that statement he said: We will be making quite clear before the election what the position of the Government is. He also said: By the time we go to the election we will have a very clear and I believe acceptable position to put to the people of Australia. How does the Prime Minister also reconcile the response of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs with his memo to the Prime Minister, dated 2 October, after that Press conference, which stated that a co-ordinated Press response to questions relating to his comments would not involve a major pre-election announcement about land rights? Mr HAWKE —It is rather pathetic that honourable members opposite cannot understand clear English. We will try, slowly and deliberately, to make the position clear to them so that even they may be able to understand it. There is no doubt that when we go to the people, whenever that may be-I assure honourable members that I will not keep them in suspense for very much longer-not only on this issue but also on all other issues of relevance to the Australian electorate our position will be clear. I cannot say the same for the Opposition. But on this issue, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and I will be having discussions and consultations with all those who have a clear entitlement to be consulted. Let me list who they are. They are the Aboriginal groups, the mining interests, the farmers' groups, the States and anyone else who appears to have a legitimate interest. The Minister and I, in some respects, will be consulting with all those groups, including the Premier of Western Australia. Indeed, we will be having discussions with the Western Australian Premier in Canberra tomorrow. As a result of all those discussions, the process of consultation and discussion-- Mr Tuckey —What about the Leader of the Legislative Council in Western Australia ? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, how long does one have to put up with that fellow over there? Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor receives considerable latitude. He should cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —The process of consultation, which characterises the approach of this Government to the responsibility of decision making and distinguishes it from the approach of those opposite, will mean that by the time the election is held this Government will have a very clear position of principle that it will put to the Australian people. There will be no doubt in the minds of the Australian people about our approach. Because these issues are so important we will not rush into legislation. There will be no legislation on this issue this year. However, all the Australian people and the Australian States, including the people and the Government of Western Australia, will clearly know our position. The Opposition hopes to whip up in this country feelings based upon this issue of trying to set white people against black people, to promote fear and hatred. As it has failed in every other attempt when it has been down in the sewer, it will fail in this one too. Mr GEAR —Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of reports that most of the growth in employment opportunities in Australia is occurring in the public sector? Could the Minister inform the House what the most recent official statistics reveal about which areas of the economy are contributing to the strong growth in employment opportunities in Australia? Mr WILLIS —I thank the honourable member for Tangney for his question. I am aware of statements that have been made by Opposition spokesmen and other people, including representatives of the Confederation of Australian Industry, that the Australian economic recovery is not widely based and that employment in particular has stemmed largely from growth in the public sector. Statistics which have been released recently indicate that that is simply untrue. Statements made by persons such as the honourable member for Balaclava, the Opposition's spokesman on employment and industrial relations, that up to 50 per cent of the job growth has been in the public sector are completely incorrect. He also described public sector jobs as unproductive. Perhaps he was thinking of his own job or that of his Leader. From the August labour force figures we can see that there has been widespread employment growth and especially strong employment growth in the private sector. Overall employment growth over the year to August was three and a half per cent which, by any standards in our history, is very strong growth indeed. In the manufacturing sector, which has been an extremely sick part of the economy, we are starting to see employment growth. In the year to August we saw very small growth, just under 10,000; but at least it was growth compared to the enormous job loss which was occurring in previous years. This growth resulted particularly from very strong employment growth of almost 18,000, or 1.6 per cent, in the three months between May and August. That indication is very encouraging indeed. Let us look at other sectors of the private part of the economy. In the construction sector employment grew by over 9 per cent during the year to August. In the wholesale and retail trade employment has grown by 4. 5 per cent. In finance, property and business services employment has expanded by 7.8 per cent and in recreation and personal services it has increased by 7.5 per cent. In a wide array of private sector parts of the economy there has been very strong employment growth. If we look at the three areas of the economy which are predominantly in the public sector-that is, community services, public administration, and electricity, gas and water-we will see that growth overall has been 5.8 per cent . So it has been much less than that which has occurred in a number of the predominantly private sector parts of the economy. Overall, those three sectors of the economy which are particularly related to the public sector have accounted for just over 36 per cent of the growth in employment or 80,000 jobs out of about 230,000. Overwhelmingly the job growth, therefore, has been in the private sector. In other words, the economic recovery which is occurring in this country, and the job growth which is occurring because of it, is widespread. It is occurring across a wide array of industries. It is occurring particularly in the private sector. The Government is therefore confident that the employment figures which are contained in the Budget Papers and which show growth in employment of another 160,000 in the course of 1984-85 will be achieved and that that employment growth will continue to be across industry as a whole. Mr PORTER —I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs whether he stated in his address to the Australian Trade Union Training Authority: While we are happy to negotiate with the States in an attempt to produce consensus on these matters but in the final analysis no negotiation will involve any reduction in that program. Those five basic principles to that extent are non-negotiable. In light of the Prime Minister's reported assurance to the Western Australian Premier that the Commonwealth would take no action to prejudice decisions by the State Government on the sensitive Aboriginal land rights issue, what action does the Government propose to take over the decision of the Western Australian Government to reject that aspect of the Seaman Aboriginal Land Inquiry report that recommends Aboriginal control over mining on Aboriginal land? In the light of that assurance by the Prime Minister, does the Government continue to adhere to the Minister's five non-negotiable principles? Mr HOLDING —Although it is some time since I made the speech to which the honourable gentleman refers, I believe that the substance of it is accurate and in principle it is probably correct, although I have not checked the terminology . The honourable member asked me a question regarding the Government's position on the proposals before the Western Australian Parliament. I thought I made that clear to the honourable gentleman last night. In respect of the outline of principles made by the Premier of Western Australia, based upon the recommendations in the Seaman report, the Premier of Western Australia has stated publicly-I agree with him and support his view-that his approach to what can be developed as a land rights parcel in Western Australia is, to use the terminology of the Premier of Western Australia, a pragmatic approach. The reason it is a pragmatic approach is that the control of the Legislative Council in Western Australia is very much in the hands of the political colleagues of those gentlemen who sit opposite. Although the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in this Parliament have said that the Liberal Party of Australia stands for land rights, its members in Western Australia, to a man, are committed, and have publicly said so, to voting against any concept of land rights. That is why the Premier of Western Australia, determined to try to raise the socio-economic status of Aboriginal people in that State by conferring land rights, finds himself in the position where the Government is likely to be stopped in its tracks so far as giving effect to its intentions is concerned, by virtue of the fact that Mr Hassell, the leader of the Liberal Party in Western Australia and spokesman for the coalition, has hawked himself around Australia, saying on the eastern coast to anyone who will listen that land rights threaten private property and nobody's backyard is safe. Mr Shipton —Answer the question. Mr HOLDING —I am answering the question. The honourable member does not like the answer; that is his problem. While Mr Hassell has been making these statements, which he knows are completely false, he has not been rebuked once, nor has there been any attempt by the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to say: 'You are not telling the truth. That is not the policy of the Liberal Party'. Why not? Because this limp, weak and thoroughly discredited Leader of the Opposition and his political wimp, the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, do not have the courage to stand up and say to the Aboriginal people: 'If any racist argument is put, no matter how low, if there is a possibility of us getting a vote out of it we will live with it'. When Opposition members are able to come to this Parliament and say that their policy in respect of land rights will be supported by their State leader in Western Australia, they will have some credibility. They will be able to ask-- Mr Lusher —Tell us about your non-negotiable principles. Mr HOLDING —I will tell the honourable member. The Premier of Western Australia has my full support, my confidence and my encouragement in his endeavour to provide land rights for the Aboriginal people of Western Australia. If the Leader of the Opposition would discharge any sense of moral obligation to what he says is the policy of the Liberal Party, he would advise his State leader that the Liberal Party of Australia says that it believes in land rights. When the Opposition stops talking with a forked tongue on this very important principle, there may be some land rights achieved in Western Australia. The Opposition members' problem is that they have a non-negotiable leader and they do not know what to do with him. We know what little John would like to do with him. The position in Western Australia is that the Premier is endeavouring to do his very best with our support. I do not make any apology for that. He will get all the support we can give him to get land rights into place. The Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia is committed to voting against land rights under any circumstances. Could the Leader of the Opposition here and the shadow Minister please stand up and tell the people of Australia which policy represents the policy of the Liberal Party? Mr REEVES —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that the Northern Territory Chief Minister and Minister for Police has before him two police reports on abuses and fraud in the administration of the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign in the Northern Territory? When were these reports given to the Northern Territory Government? What action has been taken by the Northern Territory Minister for Police as a result of the police reports? Has the Minister discussed the findings of the police reports with the Northern Territory Minister for Primary Production? Is he satisfied that the Northern Territory Government can administer the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign without abuses or fraud? Is he concerned that the Northern Territory Minister for Police has engaged in a cover-up with respect to the findings of his own police reports? Mr KERIN —I will be quite precise about this answer. Unlike the Peacock fascist Opposition I will not make claims of guilt by association or innuendo, but we are dealing with a hill-billy Government in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory has the Country-Liberal Party and the Chief Minister straddles both limbs of the Party and disowns both when it suits him. The answer to the first part of the honourable member's question is yes, the Northern Territory Chief Minister has before him two police reports. The investigations were instigated in December of last year following allegations made to the Commonwealth Government and they were completed by about the middle of this year, 1984. There was an earlier report in about February or March. I do not know what action, if any, has been taken by the Northern Territory Government as a result of the police reports. Mr Tuxworth, the Minister for Primary Production, has not discussed the contents of the police reports with me . It is my understanding that he has not been given the reports even though they relate to his administrative responsibilities. But of course he has discussed his general concern about the administration of that scheme in the Northern Territory because it is his clear responsibility. The administration of the scheme is the responsibility of the Northern Territory Government and is now subject to a formal agreement between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory Government. The agreement, which is legally binding, provides for the safeguards referred to by the honourable member. The last part of the honourable member's question could only be answered by the Northern Territory Chief Minister. But I do not think one can be sanguine about the hill-billy management of the Northern Territory Government by the Chief Minister as evidenced yet again very recently by his pre-dawn casino takeover. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Whilst recognising that, in responding for the Government today to the Bills that I introduced into the Parliament relating to the National Crime Authority, the Minister referred to the question of references to be determined by the Inter- Governmental Committee, I ask him: How many references arising from Costigan's areas of investigation will be going to the Inter-Governmental Committee meeting on 19 October? Do those references for the probable 19 October meeting include a reference based on the four sentences deleted from the letter of 5 March 1984 from Costigan to the Prime Minister? How many people are working full time preparing the references? Mr YOUNG —Let me correct an answer I gave yesterday for a start. I did say that the Inter-Governmental Committee would meet in the week commencing 19 October; it is actually the week commencing 17 October and I recommended that 19 October would be the most appropriate date. Secondly, the National Crime Authority has not indicated to the Government on which matters it would seek a reference. I am informed that 80 per cent of the staff from the Costigan Royal Commission are working for the National Crime Authority. Mr Peacock —Are they working full time on the references? Mr YOUNG —They are working full time for the Authority. Dr CHARLESWORTH —My question is directed to the Minister for Aviation. The people from Western Australia are naturally very concerned about aviation as an issue. Can the Minister advise the House of the future outlook for the Australian aviation industry? Can he indicate the initiatives undertaken by the Government to assist this industry? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his searching and complicated question. I am pleased to be able to report, like all other Ministers with an industry responsibility in this Government, that as a result of the initiatives of this Government and as a result of the recovery in the economy, largely based on the initiatives of this Government, a process of recovery is under way in the aviation industry. In 1983-84 the passenger kilometres flown increased by 3.5 per cent and we are anticipating a further growth for 1984-85. This contrasts dramatically with the situation in the final year of the Fraser-Howard Government in 1982-83 when domestic airline activity fell by over 8 per cent to below the levels that existed in 1978-79. To a very considerable extent, the bottom fell out of the aviation industry in that period. From that very bleak and difficult time and as a result of the initiatives of this Government and the recovery in the economy there has been an improvement in the aviation sector. However, I say that with a degree of caution. Other factors are involved in the decline of the aviation sector in that earlier period other than those simply related to the economy. Alternative means of communication were also involved. I do not anticipate that the recovery in the aviation industry will be as fast as the recovery in other sectors. Nevertheless, the fact that the recovery is there is extremely important and has been reflected in the performance of the various airlines. From the urging of this Government the initiatives taken by the airlines to improve their airfare situation has been extremely important in that recovery. In 1980, 1981 and 1982, increases in airfares ranged between 16 and 20 per cent. Since we have been in office the airlines have undertaken a number of initiatives. Most importantly in my mind has been the introduction of the 45 per cent flexi-fare which thousands of Australians have taken advantage of and, as a result, many more Australians are flying. In addition, the recovery in the aviation industry has been seen to a very marked degree in the recovery of Qantas Airways Ltd and Trans Australia Airlines. The Qantas operating profit of $59m for the year ending March 1984 is in outstanding contrast with the $34m operating loss for the year ended March 1983. A similar turnaround in operating profit has occurred with TAA. Our contribution to that has been considerable. Also the Government has done its utmost to reduce the passing on of government charges to the industry. The air navigation charges have been unchanged in the two Hawke Government Budgets, and that again contrasts with substantial increases in the previous years. The adjustments made to the aviation fuel excise have not led to very substantial changes in overall cost recovery burdens . In addition, we have determined to introduce efficiencies in the Department of Aviation over the next several years, the first fruit of which was experienced in this Budget. In the staff salary, administration and operations side of the Department, all of which of course is cost recovered from the industry, there has been a reduction in real terms of about one per cent in the costs to be recovered from the industry. I conclude by mentioning three major policy initiatives which we have undertaken and which will completely revise the way in which the aviation infrastructure is provided by the Government and paid for by the industry. Those are: Our decision to establish a national airports authority, our decision to revise ANCs to separate airports and airways charges and the cost recovery inquiry which we have initiated and which will be making recommendations to us as to how to improve efficiency. The combination of these three major reforms will maximise efficiency in the commercial returns on major airports, thereby reducing the amounts to be recovered. It will spread costs to among the different categories of users far more fairly than they have been in the past. They have been a major burden in particular on general aviation. Finally, the procedures that we have put underway will base charges more than they are at the moment on the user pays principle. In all these areas we have provided considerable assistance to the aviation industry. We will supply more, and I think the aviation industry has begun to respond well to the way in which this Government has conducted both its relations with the industry and its management of the economy overall. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. I remind the Special Minister of State-- Mr Steedman —Give the back benchers a go. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Casey. Mr Cadman —Warn him. You have warned us. Why don't you warn him? Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Mitchell. Mr PEACOCK —I remind the Minister that at the end of the last question I asked him I asked how many people were working full time preparing the references. The Minister inferred that 80 per cent of the staff were working on them. Mr Hawke —He implied. You inferred. Sort it out. Mr PEACOCK —He implied. Sorry, yes, I accept that. He implied that 80 per cent of the staff were working on them. Is it a fact that the Attorney-General has indicated that only one person is working full time preparing the references? Just what is the situation? I ask again: How many people are working full time preparing the references? Mr YOUNG —I did not mean for the Leader of the Opposition to misunderstand what I said. I said that 80 per cent of the staff of the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union have now transferred to the National Crime Authority. I did not want to leave him with the impression that 80 per cent of the staff were working on the preparation of the references. Mr Peacock —As the Prime Minister said, he thought you had implied that also. Mr YOUNG —I am aware of the answer given by Senator Evans. I have not been given any further information by the National Crime Authority as to the number of people working on them. As I said in debate this morning, I am not sure how much work had to be done on the 20 matters that Commissioner Costigan felt could be made references before they went to the Inter-Governmental Committee, but I will find out for the Leader of the Opposition from the National Crime Authority how many people are working on them and give him an answer later in the afternoon. Mr CHYNOWETH —Is the Minister for Communications confident that the definition of 'radio transmission' in the Radiocommunications Act is satisfactory, having regard to the recent technological developments? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for Flinders for his question. I should inform the House that the Radiocommunications Act which has already passed through the House has not of course been proclaimed at this stage as there is a large body of subordinate legislation to be prepared prior to that time. I expect the Act will come into force early next year. In relation to the specific question that the honourable member raised, the definition of 'radio transmission' in the Act, of course, covers all radio transmissions up to 3 terahertz, which is just into the infra-red region of the spectrum, and also all laser transmissions in the infra-red and visible light regions. The exact definition is as follows: Any transmission or emission of electromagnetic energy of frequencies less than 3 terahertz; or any highly coherent transmission or emission of electromagnetic energy of frequencies not less than 3 terahertz and not exceeding 1,000 terahertz without continuous artificial guide. It is important to note that the difficulty not foreseen at the time of drafting is that there are in existence transmission systems in the infra-red spectrum on a frequency around 360 terahertz which are not lasers and which therefore could not be licensed under the new Act. A few of these systems are currently licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act and further applications are to hand. These systems are generally used for communications over very short distances, particularly in the offices of municipal councils or business firms, and they are not well adapted to communications over distances and are subject to disturbances by rain, fog or similar climatic conditions. Nevertheless, they are useful and economic devices for their own limited purposes and they leave to other users some valuable parts of the spectrum, such as microwave frequencies, which could be used as an alternative to infra-red. A very simple amendment can correct this problem and that is what the Government will be doing by expanding the definition to include transmissions or emissions of electronic energy of frequencies in the range 3 terahertz up to 420 terahertz. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the honourable gentleman to his statement in the House on 5 September that he had tabled 'the departmental papers' concerning the Customs declaration of the Special Minister of State. As well as-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr HOWARD —I will start the question again. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I can appreciate a certain amount of movement amongst honourable members because of the two late nights but I think it is getting beyond reasonable action. I suggest that they remain quiet . Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to his statement in the House on 5 September that he had tabled the departmental papers concerning the Customs declaration of the Special Minister of State as well as those papers leading to the establishment of the Black Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister for Industry and Commerce wrote to me on 7 September, two days later, advising that all documents relevant to this matter were tabled in the Parliament on 5 September and are now documents of public record. Is the Prime Minister aware that my request under the Freedom of Information Act for access to all documents contained in his office or Department concerning the Young affair has been refused in respect of a departmental minute dated 23 July 1984 because its release allegedly would be contrary to the public interest? Why did the Prime Minister imply to the House on 5 September that he had tabled all the departmental papers concerning the Young affair and the establishment of the inquiry? Will he now instruct his Department to release the minute dated 23 July 1984, the day before the Prime Minister claims to have received the new information that led to the establishment of the Black Inquiry? Mr HAWKE —I thank the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party for his question. The practice that was followed at the time when I tabled the papers was strictly in accordance with what was required. Everything that was put before us by the departments was put before this House. As to the question raised by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the situation is quite clear. Mr Sinclair —Yes, you did not table it. Mr HAWKE —No, wait a minute. The freedom of information request would have been handled, as I am informed, in my Department in accordance with the usual practice in these matters. The decision in response to that freedom of information request to withhold material would have been made by a departmental officer on the basis-- Opposition members-Ah, ha! Mr HAWKE —Just a minute. I know that honourable members opposite are desperate with their 'Ah, ha's' to grasp hold of any straw but they do not even have a straw here so they may as well be quiet. This was done, as I am informed, on the basis of the exemption provisions in the Freedom of Information Act. I simply say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that if he wishes to appeal against that departmental decision he obviously should follow the procedures set out in the Act. This Opposition has got itself into so much trouble so far by imputing improper motives to people on this side of the House that I would have thought- and I would have thought any reasonable person would have come to the same conclusion-that honourable members opposite would have been very well advised not to try again to go down the path of suggesting some improper action on the part of this side of the House. The position is quite clear. There has been no misleading of the House. I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition follow the course of action that is available to him. It is openly available to him. We on this side of the House tabled all the documents put before us that were relevant to these matters . Everything that was put before us for tabling was put before the House. We have the position that if a decision has been taken by a departmental officer to refuse a request and if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not agree with that decision he has the process to follow under the Act and I suggest that he do so. Let me say this: I do not know what the outcome of such an appeal would be, whether the request would be granted or not, but nothing will emerge in this matter which will revivify this issue for the Opposition. It is as dead as are the Opposition's chances in this and the next five elections. Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I table the letter from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not have the call. Mrs DARLING —I direct my question to the Minister for Transport. Now that the Minister has received the report of the May Inquiry into the National Road Freight Industry, what action does he intend to take to pursue its recommendations? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for her question. Let me remind the House that when this Government came to office in March of last year we had seen seven years of neglect of the national transport system in this country. In particular, we had seen a record rate of bankruptcy of road transport operators and an almost deaf ear turned to the problems of the road transport industry by the previous Government. The major priority we gave to transport at that time was the establishment of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry to look for the first time at the problems of the industry and its relationship to the rail industry. I am pleased to say that that inquiry received the support of each of the State and Territory governments, the trade union movement and industry. I take the occasion to congratulate the Chairman of the inquiry, Mr Tom May, and his associates, Jim Scully and Professor Gordon Mills, for the work that they did in travelling throughout Australia talking to industry and users of road transport services and finally submitting the report. I propose to take that report for initial consideration to the next meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council. I hope that the respective governments will examine the 98 recommendations in that report as a package and not select individual recommendations from within the package. The road transport inquiry relates to only one aspect of the transport industry 's problems that this Government has addressed. We also looked very quickly at the needs of the shipping industry. Legislation has now been passed to give Australian shipowners the same kinds of tax arrangements that our overseas competitors have. We have initiated reform and restructuring of the Australian National Line. We have instituted increases in the productivity of that organisation. We have seen the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd enter into arrangements for the purchase of three new bulk carriers for the carriage of new business, coal traffic to Japan and Korea. We have implemented an inquiry into and a review of shore based costs related to the shipping industry. That task force is being headed up by the Managing Director of Mayne Nickless Ltd, Mr Ian Webber. Only last week at the Australian Shippers Council symposium-- Mr Lusher —I suppose this is all relevant to the question, is it, Mr Speaker? Mr SPEAKER —The Minister will proceed. Mr PETER MORRIS —Road transport is a major means for the people whom the honourable member claims to represent of getting their product to the ports. Mr Lusher —Well, talk about it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr PETER MORRIS —I know that the National Party is not interested-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Minister to return to the answer to the question and to ignore the interjections. Mr Lusher —Just get relevant! If you want to make a statement-- Mr SPEAKER —I name the honourable member for Hume. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, there have been a number of instances today-- Mr Young —No, just a minute. Mr Speaker, I do not think this requires the intervention of a person from the same Party as that of the honourable member who has been named. If we are to get over this problem this week-and we are at the end of Question Time today-I think the honourable member for Hume could be given the opportunity to apologise to the Chair. If he does so we will not proceed. Mr SPEAKER —I have during Question Time tried to make allowances for the circumstances of the sittings this week. Some members, when I have indicated to them, not necessarily by warning but by a bit of body English, that they were reaching the limits of tolerance, have taken some notice and ceased. The honourable member for Hume has not shown that wisdom. But, in view of the appeal made by the Leader of the House, I ask the honourable member for Hume to apologise; if that happens, I will not ask that the matter be proceeded with. Mr Lusher —I thank the Special Minister of State for his intervention. I withdraw and apologise. Mr PETER MORRIS —I was saying that last week I announced the establishment of a task force to review our overseas commercial shipping arrangements. I would have thought that the National Party would be interested in a review of the effectiveness of the regulation of our overseas commercial shipping, particularly in light of the changes that have occurred since the 1960s. In addition to that-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask honourable members on my right to take some notice please of the appeal to keep the level of conversation down. It is their own Minister who is answering a question. Mr Goodluck —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been waiting 12 months to ask a question and my opportunity is wasted by this action. I do not get a chance to ask a question. When the Minister for Transport gets up he goes for about an hour. He did this the other day. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. I call the Minister for Transport. Mr PETER MORRIS —In addition to that we have seen a review of the Australian National Railways Act, greater independence and responsibility for the Australian national system, an increase in Federal road expenditure and an increase in Federal expenditure on road safety. Therefore, across the spectrum of shipping, rail and road we have addressed the major problems, and we are setting about making the national transport system of this country work more efficiently and making our products more competitive in the essential overseas markets. Mr SPEAKER —I present, pursuant to statute, the report of the Auditor-General for the year 1983-84, together with certificates of exempt accounts in respect of prescribed departments and organisations, accompanied by the statements of the Minister for Finance. I also present, pursuant to statute, the reports of the Auditor-General, dated 4 October 1984, upon efficiency audits of the administration of the offsets policy and of the administration of the Australian industry participation program in relation to overseas procurement carried out under the provisions of the Audit Act and other Acts. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provision of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General for the year 1983-84 and the reports of the Auditor-General on efficiency audits , 4 October 1984. (2) That the papers be printed. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of Qantas Airways Limited for 1983-84. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation) —For the information of honourable members, I present a paper entitled 'Outlook for the Aviation Industry-an Information Paper'. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —Pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970, I present the Australian Industry Development Corporation annual report for 1983-84, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Industry and Commerce relating to the report. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Science and Technology annual report for 1983-84. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Queen's Fellowships and Marine Research Allocations Advisory Committee on marine sciences and technologies grants and Queen's Fellowships for 1983-84. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Interim Council of the Institute of Freshwater Studies, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Resources and Energy relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to section 61 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, I present the reports of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner for the year ended 30 June 1983 and for the year ended 30 June 1984. The reports are tabled in A4 format and limited copies are available from the Bills and Papers Office, Senate Records and the Parliamentary Library. Further copies of the reports in the required format will be sent to all honourable members as soon as possible. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Personal Explanations Personal Explanations Personal Explanations Personal Explanations Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MACPHEE —I do, Mr Speaker. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) today implied that I had misled the public by saying on 6 September, at page 738 of Hansard, that over 50 per cent of jobs created in the past 12 months were in the public sector. Indeed, I was relying on the Government's own document, Budget Paper No. 1, which shows on table 6, page 26, the May on May figures. I chose electricity, gas and water, public administration, defence and community services, all of which are in one or other of the three tiers of government administration. I could have added communications, which also is a highly public sector. I also make the point that the table shows that adding the three categories that I have identified together , 113,800 out of the 217,700 jobs created, more than 50 per cent of those jobs are in the public sector and that my position is correct. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr WILLIS —Mr Speaker, I do. The fact is that the figures given by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) relate to May this year. The reality is that we now have figures for August this year, three months later. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister must explain where he personally has been misrepresented. Mr WILLIS —The honourable member has accused me of misrepresenting him. I am saying that I have not misrepresented him at all. The fact is-- Mr SPEAKER —I cannot hear the Minister's personal explanation. I am surprised that honourable members are able to hear the Minister with the noise they are making. Mr WILLIS —The honourable member for Balaclava has accused me of misrepresenting him. I am saying that I have not misrepresented him. The figures he used related to May this year. We now have employment figures for August this year which show that only 36 per cent of the job growth in the last 12 months has been in the public sector. That is what I said. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, I do. Mr Keating —Every day! Mr HOWARD —This time I claim to have been misrepresented not by the Treasurer ( Mr Keating) but by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his answer to my question during Question Time. Mr Keating —You are the most sensitive bloke in the Parliament. Mr HOWARD —Oh, relax! The Prime Minister incorrectly claimed that I was impugning his integrity. I was not. I was seeking information which I think I am entitled to seek when there is a conflict between what the Prime Minister has told the Parliament, and which he confirmed again in the answer that he gave-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition realises that when he is granted indulgence it is to correct where he has been personally misrepresented. If he wishes to make statements, there are procedures other than taking advantage of the indulgence of the Chair. Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, I am establishing that it was a misrepresentation by the Prime Minister. To complete establishing the point that there is a conflict between what the Prime Minister told the House and what his Department has told me, I table a letter from Sir Humphrey-I am sorry, Mr Loy. Mr Keating —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr HOWARD —Ah, ha! The sorcerer's apprentice is back. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the Treasurer. Mr Young —The honourable member for Bennelong has finished. Mr Keating —Well, if he has finished, I will not-- Mr HOWARD —Junior Marmaduke is back. Mr Keating —If he is not finished, Mr Speaker, on a point of order-- Mr Young —He is finished. Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the Treasurer had not risen-- Mr Keating —He is finished in more ways than one; I can assure you of that. Mr HOWARD —Mr Thin-skin himself. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Treasurer and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to resume their seats. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that when making a personal explanation he has to show how he has been misrepresented. He has evaded that. The indulgence is withdrawn. Mr HOWARD —Can I finish tabling the document? Mr SPEAKER —No, you cannot. Mr HOWARD —You will not allow me to put the letter in? Mr Keating —No. Sit down. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr HOWARD —I am amazed, Bob. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Hodgman —The Prime Minister is walking out. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The longer honourable members delay proceedings, the later they will sit. I am quite prepared to wait. Mr Hodgman —I am concerned that the Prime Minister has walked out while you are on your feet, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I am concerned that honourable members do not observe the standing order that requires silence when the occupant of the Chair is on his feet. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1984 Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1984 Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1984 Medicare Levy Bill 1984 Bank Account Debits Tax Administration Amendment Bill 1984 Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill 1984 Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The prospect of new and increased taxes in 1985 resulting from the Government's pre-election Budget. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(3.03) —Mr Speaker, I think it would have been more appropriate if this matter of public importance had been raised not by me or somebody on the Opposition side but by the Minister for Science and Technology ( Mr Barry Jones). As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) well knows, because he is embarrassed every time we bring up the matter, the Minister for Science and Technology gave it all away about two or three days after the Budget when he was interviewed on the World Today program. What did he say in answer to all the criticism from the scientific community? He said: 'You are not game enough to put up taxation three months before an election but if we get back we will have the courage-- Mr Barry Jones —That was always the practice in the past. Mr HOWARD —If I had any doubt about it being more appropriate for him, rather than me, to raise this matter of public importance today, he has just removed any of those doubts. He is very sensitive. He has now become the Minister Assisting the Treasurer as well as being the Minister for Science and Technology . We all know that immediately he made that statement he was dragged into the corner office and junior Marmaduke was summoned and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ) and junior Marmaduke said: 'From now on, Barry, we are the people who make the statements on the economy. We are the people who will talk about taxation. We are the people who will talk about the Budget policies of the Hawke Government if we are lucky enough to be re-elected and you should keep your mouth shut. We do not want any more outbursts of honesty from you between now and the election. We do not want any more breast baring disclosures about the Budget policies of the Government. We want you to button up and keep quiet. If you are a really good boy we might, if we are re-elected, give you a bit more money for science'. That is what the Prime Minister and the Treasurer said to this Minister. They are very embarrassed because what the Minister has done is to confirm what every respectable financial commentator in Australia knows darn well, that is, that the Budget policies of this Government constitute a time bomb which will explode next year. This Budget, the second Keating Budget or the first Cliff Dolan Budget, has been built upon a once only, never to be repeated, surge in revenue. What will happen next year is that an enormous gap will open up between the expenditure commitments of this Government and the expenditure commitments into which it has locked future governments of this country and the revenue receipts. There is no way on earth that this Government, if it is re-elected, will be able to avoid the odium and difficulty of bringing down a mini-Budget in March or April of next year. The Queensland Premier put his finger right on the point the other morning when he was speaking on the AM program. He said that if the Hawke Government were re- elected there would be a mini-Budget in March or April. Over the weeks leading up to the election the Australian people will want to know from this Treasurer and this Prime Minister where the Hawke Government stands on a capital gains tax . They will be saying: 'Are you or are you not going to bring in a capital gains tax? Answer us yes or no. Are you or are you not going to bring in a wealth tax? Answer us yes or no. Are you going to reintroduce Federal death duties? Answer us yes or no. What is your position on indirect taxation? What is your position on all the other matters that impinge upon taxation?'. It will not be good enough for the Prime Minister and the Treasurer simply to say: 'Trust us. We will look after it. We will talk to the Economic Planning Advisory Council about the matter and work out an equitable change to the taxation system'. The Australian people have been put on notice by the Minister for Science and Technology that if the Hawke Government is re-elected taxation will go up. Everybody knows that if the Hawke Government is re-elected there is no way on earth it can possibly deliver on the commitment the Prime Minister has given twice in the last few weeks that any restructuring of the tax system under a re- elected Labor Government would not involve an overall increase in taxation. There is no way on earth, based upon the Budget policies that were put down by the Treasurer a couple of months ago, that the fiscal problem that will be faced next year can be avoided other than by, firstly, living with an unmanageably large deficit or, secondly, breaking the expenditure commitments that have been made by this Government this year and the previous year or, thirdly and the most likely alternative if we have another Labor government, a major increase in taxation. The Australian people will hear a great deal about taxation over the weeks ahead because we will come clean on our taxation policy. We will tell the Australian people where we stand on a capital gains tax and the reintroduction of death duties. The farmers and the small business people of Australia will not have the Damoclean sword of a reintroduction of death duties, capital gains taxes or wealth taxes hanging over their heads so far as our policies are concerned. We will come clean; we will tell the Australian people where we stand ; we will tell them what will be done in these taxation areas under a Peacock- Sinclair government. The Australian people will not be treated to the vague, misleading, trust me comments of the Prime Minister. We will come clean on all of these taxation areas. In a couple of weeks we will release the details of our taxation policy and that will add a new urgency to the questions of the Australian people. They will want to know: 'Do you or do you not stand by the views that you, Prime Minister, expressed before you became Prime Minister about a capital gains tax? Do you or do you not support your colleague the Minister for Science and Technology, who says that it is okay to put up taxation after an election but you must not put it up before an election because if you do you will be very, very unpopular?' What the Australian people will increasingly realise over the weeks ahead is that this Government has delivered to us the highest taxing Budget since the end of World War II. The second Keating Budget is the highest taxing Budget since the end of World War II and this can be found on page 264 of the Budget Papers. I know that the Treasurer will say: 'A tax is not a tax'. One cannot talk about the Medicare levy and one cannot include Medicare; one must leave Medicare out. He does not say anything about that. Unfortunately for the Treasurer, the facts are there. The Treasury has laid them all down in the Budget Papers. When the Treasury does that, we all know that it is giving the objective information. Of course, the Treasurer is embarrassed, because he knows that he has also brought down the highest taxing Budget since the end of World War II. But to top that, he has brought down the biggest spending Budget since the end of World War II. For seven years, the rate of expenditure increase under the Fraser Government averaged 2 per cent a year in real terms, which is the best record of expenditure restraint of any government-Liberal or Labor-in this country since the end of World War II. What is the record of the present Treasurer? In two Budgets, he has chalked up an average rate of expenditure increase of 6.5 per cent in real terms. In other words, spending is rising under the present Treasurer at treble the rate at which it rose in the seven years of the Fraser Government. We remember the promises. We remember very well the glowing promise of tax cuts for 99 per cent of Australians. But for 18 months we have been treated to all this lying propaganda about inherited deficits and all the nonsense which has been totally disproved by the figures that have been revealed and have totally discredited the person who made those promises. However, the real embarrassment of the Treasurer is that he has presided over the biggest taxing Budget in Australia's peacetime history, and he has presided over the biggest spending Budget in Australia's peacetime history. That is not a bad record to chalk up in the same Budget. He must live with that and explain that. But worse than that, over the next two months he will face the embarrassment of having to say to the people where his Government, if re-elected, stands on the question of the taxes that I have mentioned. The Treasurer will know where we stand on those taxes, because we shall tell the people in our taxation policy what we shall do. We shall tell them that under a Peacock Government there will not be any capital gains tax; that under a Peacock Government there will not be any reintroduction of death duties. The people will want to know who is right. They will want to know whether, under a re-elected Hawke Government, there will be a capital gains tax, as the Prime Minister once believed there ought to be. The people will want to know whether there will be a reintroduction of death duties. They will want to know whether Senator Button's views will prevail. Every few weeks he sparks forth and says: ' I believe in a capital gains tax; I believe in a reintroduction of death duties' . The people will want to know whether the view of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) will prevail. He believes in those measures also. They will want to know whether the Treasurer's views will prevail. I do not think that he really believes in such measures. But most interestingly of all, the people will know which of the views of Bob Hawke will prevail, because at one stage he was in favour of capital gains taxes -when he was campaigning to become the Leader of the Australian Labor Party-and then he had a sudden change of mind. We all remember that change of mind before the election when he said: 'I want to make it perfectly clear so that everybody can understand it and there is no ambiguity about it: We are totally opposed to the introduction of a capital gains tax'. Yet within a few weeks of being elected, that promise was back in the melting pot. The ambiguity had returned. We all remember the confusion of the Queen's Birthday weekend last year when, in South Australia, we had Mick Young saying: 'Yes, I am in favour of a capital gains tax', we had Senator Button saying the same thing in Melbourne, but we had the Treasurer, who was overseas, saying: 'Oh no, I am against it-and they have no authority to make these statements'. The Australian people will not be satisfied with vague, generalised, evangelical assurances from the Prime Minister during the forthcoming election campaign. It will not be enough to say: 'Trust me and leave it all to me. I will talk to the Economic Planning Advisory Council about it and I will produce a nice interesting taxation policy if I am re-elected'. The people will want hard and specific answers. On behalf of the Opposition, I give notice that during the election campaign we shall be pressing the Government to say exactly where it stands on these taxation matters. The public will want to be reassured by the Labor Party as to where it stands. They will want to know whether the doctrine of Jones will prevail if the Hawke Government is re-elected. They will want to know whether the high taxing, big spending policies of this Government will be exceeded by another Hawke Government. Everyone who observes politics knows well that, if the Hawke Government is re- elected, the fiscal problem that it will face next year will be enormous. There will be a mini-Budget in March or April next year if the present Government is re-elected. That mini-Budget will need to contain major increases in taxation. There can be no real doubt about that. All this notion that, if the Hawke Government is re-elected, somehow or other the Left and the Centre Left will wither away on the vine and go over into a little corner-- Mr Steedman —Oh, come on. Mr HOWARD —Of course they will not do that. The honourable member for Casey makes it perfectly clear that there is no way that the socialist Left, after it has rubbed the noses of Landeryou and Evans in the dirt in Victoria, will wither away and retire into a corner. Its members will be in there with their bids. They will be in there behind the Minister for Science and Technology-- Mr Barry Jones —That is the independents. Mr HOWARD —The honourable member is an independent, I know, but sometimes he is on their side, is he not? Particularly when it comes to pre-selection, he is very much on their side. When it comes to a bit of Budget-making, if the Hawke Government is re-elected, he will be on their side again, because at heart he is a big spender, too, just like all of those. Most of his mates are big spenders. They will have had enough of all this so-called formal commitment to economic responsibility and economic rationalism. If the Hawke Government is re-elected, the big spenders will be out again putting in their bids. They will be saying: ' Look, 31.1 per cent of gross domestic product might be the biggest percentage since the end of World War II, but that is not a great deal'. Mr Lusher —What is wrong with 35? Mr HOWARD —'What is wrong with 35 per cent? After all, if you want more money and you are worried about the size of the deficit, you can always increase taxation, can you not?'. That is the good old Labor Party fall-back. It has been demonstrated again, because the second Keating Budget is the biggest taxing Budget since the end of World War II. We shall be after the Government for those answers but, more importantly, the Australian people will demand from it clear unequivocal answers on where it stands on taxation, whether it believes in a capital gains tax, whether it believes in a wealth tax, and whether it believes in death duties. If the Government's answers are not satisfactory, it will be out on its ear. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.18) —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the screaming skull, who is in here every day, thinks that as many words per minute and as much noise as one can get is a substitute for real argument. It is highly significant that this tired Opposition, now discredited for the dirt and filth campaign that it has been trying to mount for weeks, comes back for the third time with the same matter of public importance as it has mounted on two previous occasions-not about this year's Budget but about next year's Budget. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition would make a cat laugh. He is in here every week talking about next year's Budget. This matter of public importance is what one might term the Clayton's matter of public importance-the matter of public importance that is raised when the Opposition has nothing important to talk about. We are back here again talking about next year's Budget, because right from Budget night the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was so impressed with this year's Budget that he found hardly a word of criticism about it. We had a little fling on television up on the floor above for half an hour after the Budget was presented; we have heard no basic criticisms of it from that moment to this. The day after, the whole attack was on next year's Budget. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows as much about next year's Budget as any other person in this country knows. The only thing he would know is that with a Budget one year away, with the performance in the economy and other factors which are yet to be accounted for over the course of the year, it becomes an impossibility from this distance to make any judgment about next year 's Budget. It is an impossibility, which he well knows. That is why the Treasury , which is still the best forecasting body in the nation, will forecast only about one year hence, because it is simply crystal ball gazing to try to forecast otherwise. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition takes a Simple Simon view. Once he is away from a Treasury minute he is almost mute. The decline in his knowledge base the further he goes from the Treasury Department is astounding and startling. He has the simple view that the revenue surge that the Government had, coming out of his recession back into the days of growth and hope, is somehow a one-off revenue surge that will not be repeated. He goes on to contend that in some way it will go back out again. He sees it like the tide; the tide is in this year and it will be out next year. The fact is that the tide is in but next year it will be in further-that is the analogy. It will be in further, the normal growth in the economy will produce growth in revenue, and that growth will pull down Budget deficits. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition rabbits on about the size of the Budget deficit. This year the Budget deficit is 3.3 per cent of GDP. The Budget deficit in prospect that he left me was 4.8 per cent of GDP. But the Budget deficit outcome in 1976-77, in his first year as Treasurer, was 3.3 per cent. In 1977-78 it was 3.7 per cent; in 1978-79 it was 3.4 per cent of GDP. Mr Howard —What about the next two years? Mr KEATING —The next two years were down, and I will tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition why they were down. In the former Treasurer's first three years in office he had a Budget deficit of this size but did not have a recession on his hands. I remind the former Treasurer that we have had a recession on our hands. The difficulties we have had with outlays growth, which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not honest enough to mention, mean that I am carrying the burden of a massive level of growth in unemployment benefits as a result of the former Treasurer's recession. I am carrying a massive load in public debt interest in funding Budgets because of his fiscal mismanagement. However, he now has the indecency to come into the House to talk about the size of Budget outlays. What is more, the former Treasurer has the rabid indecency to talk about the size of tax collections in relation to GDP without being honest enough to recognise the fact that in regard to the Medicare levy, which is simply a substitution for what was formerly a private charge, once that adjustment is made we find, as we found before, that he was the highest taxing Treasurer ever. In 1982-83 tax receipts-let us get this on the record-were 27.2 per cent in the former Treasurer's last Budget. In 1981-82, the figure was 27.3 per cent, and in the present Budget it is 27 per cent. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition takes the cake as the highest taxing Treasurer in this country, and that is the fact. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a great one for making predictions. His predictions in the 1982 Budget were that there could be some decline in overall gross domestic product. In fact, this country had its first negative growth in 30 years. The economy declined by 2.9 per cent. He went on to predict that unemployment beneficiaries would average 395,000 during that year. They ended up at 540,000, nearly 40 per cent higher. He went on to predict that the consumer price index rise would be 10.75 per cent. It ended up by being 11.5 per cent. The former Treasurer's prediction for the Budget deficit in 1983 was $1.6 billion, and it ended up at $4.4 billion. So much for his predictions. Anyone with any shred of shame would not come into the House and propose any matter on the economy if he had the record of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. But, like a lot of snotty-nosed Libs, he has no shame; he comes straight in here and tells us how we should manage the economy-when he pushed this country into the worst recession it has seen since the Great Depression. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition talks about what would happen under a conservative government. The fact is that he will not even be Treasurer in a conservative government. He has made it quite clear that he will never take the Treasury portfolio again. One may well ask: If Australia had to suffer the indignity of a conservative government, who would be the Treasurer and who would be able to make pronouncements? At the moment the Opposition trots out this discredited member for Bennelong because at least he is somewhat au fait with the jargon. But there is no one else in those raving incompetents on the Opposition front bench who could even talk about a credible economic strategy. One of them will be the nominee, if they ever win, for Treasurer of this country . Little Johnny is not going to have the job again. He has said that he is not going to be lumbered with that job. He is not going to carry the load and has made that very clear. He will go into the land of milk and honey and take a soft job, like foreign affairs or something like that. That is his view of the world. He will not go into the boiler room any more. He also speaks about a capital gains tax. He was on the record a couple of weeks ago supporting a capital gains tax. Mr Howard —I did not say that. Mr KEATING —Yes, you did. You would like to think that we forget the things you say, but we remember them. We remember some of your more memorable quotes. We shall be reminding the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of his views on the capital gains tax. We shall also be reminding him of his Party's view published recently about how, if there is to be any major change in the Australian taxation system, there will have to be a capital gains tax. That is a very interesting view from the coalition parties. We have been hearing a little more about that. We might be hearing some of his views, and I assure him that he will be hearing some of ours. The most interesting aspect which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition never mentions relates to the promises of the coalition parties. For instance, he never mentions that his leader has said that the coalition would build the Darwin-Alice Springs railway, which the Hill inquiry said would cost $1 billion. He never mentions that it would re-establish the bicentennial water program, which would cost $350m a year. He never mentions that the coalition would abolish the assets test, which would cost another $50m a year. He never mentions that it would increase the investment allowance, which would cost $600m in a full year. He never mentions that the coalition would abolish the new oil levy, which would cost $317m in a full year. He never mentions that it would abolish the lump sum tax arrangements and the wine tax, which again would cost substantially. Just those few promises-and it is not a comprehensive list-would cost $3 billion. I am reminded that the coalition would provide an extra $312m for primary industry. Therefore, the figure would be $3.3 billion. Let the Deputy Leader of the Opposition tell the House where that $3.3 billion would come from. Would he simply let the Budget deficit blow out, or would he raise another $3 billion in revenue? He is very silent about that. The House will not hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition making a personal explanation after I speak, as he does in respect of every other speech, using that device to tell us how he would raise that $3 billion. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition takes out his handkerchief to mop up his crocodile tears when talking about those people who are moving into the 46c bracket. He said that he would like to raise the 46c bracket to cover full time adult male average weekly earnings so that no one on full time adult male average weekly earnings would be caught in the 46c area. It would cost a further $2.1 billion in a full year to guarantee that no one on full time adult male average weekly earnings would pay tax at the 46c rate. If the coalition did such things-involving the railways, the bicentennial water program, the assets test, the investment allowance and abolition of the new oil levy-it would involve an extra $5 billion. In the politics of economic credibility, is there any credibility in the Opposition's policy? Does anyone really think the Opposition could manage the economy? Does anyone really think the Opposition would get the Budget deficit down from that disastrous inheritance? Another piece of dishonesty that is also proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as he tries to wriggle off the hook of the $9.6 billion deficit which he left this Government, is in relation to the outcome of the Budget, $7.9 billion. That occurred because this Government tore into the outlays with expenditure savings, means tested over-70s pensions, brought in superannuation tax changes, and in those ways produced a $7.9 billion outcome. He says that that outcome would have happened under his Treasurership. He gives the Labor Government no credit. He attacks all the things we have done in reducing that deficit and says they are deplorable, but at the same time he wants to embrace the outcome, a deficit of $7.9 billion rather than $9.6 billion. There is not a shred of credibility left for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I said this yesterday and I shall say it again. I have just come back from the International Monetary Fund in the United States and from New York City. The fact is that in the northern hemisphere the coalition parties are a joke. People ask: 'How did they mess up a country like yours?'. How could any government have gone in there and made such a mess with the mandate it had and the promise held for it in 1976 with the mandates it secured in 1975, 1977 and 1980? How did the former Government end up with 12 per cent inflation and 2.5 per cent growth, year in year out, despite a massive mineral boom and a massive period of accelerated investment in mining? I will tell honourable members how that Government did it. It did it through rank incompetence and no courage. The feature of the last Government was that it had no courage. It took no measures which hurt, no measures which displayed any leadership or comprehension. The fact is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was run around the Cabinet room by the former Prime Minister who kept his eye firmly on the next election. The Deputy Leader could not get a piece of wrapping paper through the Cabinet, much less a Cabinet submission. This great reformer, who wanted to float the exchange rate, let the foreign banks in, deregulate the financial markets and fix up the outlays, this man of great hope, never had the courage to go with it. The outcome was a squandered opportunity. He had five years as Treasurer, five years of failure. We on this side of the House will not be deterred one bit by him. It is a measure of the Opposition's embarrassment and the fact that it has not one idea left that, after weeks of throwing muck and filth at the Government, it is back in this chamber with a matter of public importance about next year's Budget which it has submitted three times since the last Budget. That is the quality of the Opposition's commitment. The fact is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has no policy. He has no policy on wages and no fiscal policy. He would not be the Treasurer in a coalition government anyway. It is about time the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) told us whom he would nominate as Treasurer were Australia to elect him to office. It is time we found out who would be the Treasurer. Mr Howe —Tuckey. Mr KEATING —Yes, the honourable member for O'Connor, perhaps, or one of the other epsilon-minus cretins on the other side with IQs of under 90. Perhaps it would be that great man of principle, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall)-good old sleaze himself. Perhaps he could take over the mantle and try to fit someone else up with a Nugan Hand charge. Perhaps he could take over the mantle as accountant and run the economy. Honourable members opposite are a great little lot, are they not? That once great party! We reject its matter of public importance absolutely. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(3.33) —There is no such thing as a free lunch. I do not know from which philosopher that remark originated. I know that the former Prime Minister made it popular and I know that it is absolutely true. Every Australian knows that there is no such thing as a free lunch. That is what is at the heart of this matter of public importance. In spite of the centrality of taxation measures to every Australian, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has the audacity to address this matter of public importance as a Clayton's matter of public importance. The Treasurer has the audacity to claim that this matter of public importance is not important and to be critical of the Opposition because it is the third time we have raised it. Nothing is as significant to Australian voters as the reality of their tax bill and the consequent performance of the Government. Every Australian knows that every service costs someone something. What is of most concern to the Opposition is that day after day we witness in this place an unprecedented parade of vanity and self-opinionated diatribe from the Government . The economic recovery that this country has witnessed has been largely as a result of the rain, the wage pause and, because I wish to be constructive and bipartisan, the economic confidence generated by the Government. But those factors cannot be repeated. It is because they cannot be repeated and because the Government has spent money as if it were water that we are so concerned about what the future must hold for Budgets for Australian taxpayers. This Government is so obsessed with its own measure of self-importance and is so immodest about its achievements that it is prepared to acquire the resources of other Australians and redirect their funds, believing that it alone knows best where those funds ought to be spent. In this euphoric atmosphere we have a government of bigger spending and bigger taxing. We witness an astonishing extravaganza that we have not seen since the days of the Whitlam Administration. Indeed, the average of the three Whitlam Budgets was a real increase in Budget outlays of 9.9 per cent, while the average of the Fraser Budgets was a real increase in Budget outlays of 2.2 per cent. Compare that with what we have witnessed in the last two Keating Budgets-a real increase in Budget outlays of 7 .7 per cent in the first Budget and of 6.1 per cent in the Budget that has just been before the House. This sort of action is causing Australians real concern. I quote from the Australian newspaper of June this year: In 1966, the average weekly wage was $58.50 and the tax on it was 15.6 per cent . Honourable members should note the figure 15.6 per cent. The article continues: Remember a middy of beer was 14c. In other words, one could buy 345 beers. In 1983 the average wage was $365.60 and the tax on that a whopping 23.4 per cent. A beer cost 83c. In other words, you could buy only 328 beers. Senator Button plans to make the car industry more competitive with imports, but before he does he should put the Government's house in order. How can Australia's industries compete with the Japanese? We have to support a Government employing 25.4 per cent of the work force while the Japanese carry a featherweight 6.6 per cent. It is the reality of that 25.4 per cent, which figure is growing, that has prompted us once again to raise this matter of public importance. The shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), has said that a review of the Budget Papers shows the largest increase in revenue collections since World War II. The real concern is that this increase has been to the tune of $9 billion. Nine billion dollars has been taken from all Australian taxpayers and redirected at the whim of the Government. The real concern is that that $9 billion, which is a once-only windfall, has not been used effectively to reduce the astonishing deficit that this Government has. In fact, it has been used to reduce nothing more than $1.3 billion of that deficit. It is that action that commits this Government to being a high taxing future government if it wins the next election. It is precisely that concern that prompts the shadow Treasurer to raise this matter of public importance and speak to it and that prompts me to support him. The real thrust of this deficit is that it impinges basically on the farmers, the small businessmen and the professional people of this community because they carry the burden of this excessive borrowing. They are the people whose opportunity to generate export income is eroded by the monetary policies of this Government. It is those people whose provisional tax payments for this year have risen by 45 per cent when the average over the past 15 years has been a mere 8 per cent. That is not due to the fact that they have huge incomes but because their incomes are so much larger than they were in the last of the drought years . It is those people who have generated much of this $9 billion deficit and who expected the windfall that this Government has received to have been used to reduce the deficit that the Government currently has. Sadly, that has not resulted. The drought will break only once. What are we going to do to fund the next drought if we do not remove the deficit that the last drought caused during what are relatively good years? Hawke outlays in 1982-83 increased by 15.6 per cent. In 1983-84 they increased by 13 per cent. In two years there was a 30 per cent increase in actual dollar terms. What do we witness? We witness a self-righteous government that comes into this House and parades before us what it has done in areas such as employment and housing and what it has done about job creation. We witnessed today a dorothy dix question from the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear), who wanted to know whether it was true to say that all these jobs had been created in the government sector. We witnessed the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) assiduously avoiding that question and saying: 'Some of them have been created in the private sector'. But the truth, as we eventually wheedled it out of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, is that over 30 per cent of these jobs have been created in the government sector. Over 30 per cent have to continue to be re-funded from tax revenue. It is the re-funding or the re-creation of those jobs that has caused the shadow Treasurer to express all this concern about future Budget deficits. What we would like from the Government is a commitment that there will be no capital gains tax and none of the other taxes that we so fear Labor governments will introduce, particularly as land tax, estate duties, income and company tax, wealth tax, entertainment tax, sales tax and gift duties are all feared thanks to periods of Australian Labor Party government. I am not sure that I want from the Government a commitment that there will be no capital gains tax. I recall having a commitment from this Government that there would be no tax on wine. That commitment meant nothing at all. There is good reason for the Australian electorate to be speculating about where this Government will go next to seek the revenue it needs to fund its extravaganza. There is good reason for that sort of concern. We know that we simply cannot continue to pursue the line that is being pursued by this Government without generating additional tax revenue from somewhere else. We know, as honourable members opposite know, that there will not again be the windfall that has made it possible for the Government to have $9 billion this year and yet carelessly not reduce the deficit. Why are we so obsessed about capital gains taxation? Because it would be so disastrous for the rural sector, which currently earns less than 2 per cent on its money invested. Introduce a capital gains tax of one per cent or 1.5 per cent and what do we have left for the farmers of Australia to live on? There is real concern in rural Australia about the tax direction this Government is taking. It is the voicing of that concern that has prompted the Opposition to raise this matter of public importance and has prompted me to rise to my feet. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(3.44) — Has there ever been a matter of public importance brought before this chamber at any time in the past that started off with such a roar and finished with such a whimper? Let us be perfectly clear about what has motivated members of the Opposition in bringing forward this matter of public importance today. This week they failed dismally in the shameless, crude, despicable and disastrous attempt that they made to smear the Government. What they have attempted to do today is to bring their campaign back on to the rails. Unfortunately for them, they have proved to be just as ineffective in relation to questions of the economy and economic policy as they have in relation to those other matters that they raised earlier this week. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the former Treasurer, said, baring his breast, to use his own term of earlier today, that before the next election the Opposition, the coalition, will come clean. That will be a remarkable experience for the Australian people. I do not think for a moment they will be able to take it, particularly an undertaking coming from the former Treasurer, who is renowned for that remarkable incident a few days prior to 3 March 1983 when he became aware of the $9.6 billion projected deficit for 1983- 84. We well remember how clean members of the Opposition came on that occasion. We remember the response from the then Prime Minister's office: 'Do not disclose that figure. Make no statement to the Australian people. Do not take the electors into our confidence. Do not come clean'. Of course, it is admirable for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer, to give us an assurance now, before an imminent Federal election, that on this occasion, for the first time ever, the Liberal and National Party coalition will come clean to the Australian people. He said as well: 'The Australian people will know where we stand'. The Australian people will indeed know where members of the Opposition stand, but not from their mouths. The Australian people will know where they stand as a result of their experience and the experience of their fellows, those people who have suffered the privations associated with rapidly climbing inflation, the families which have suffered, as a result of growing unemployment, from a government which, in 1975, promised explicitly to bring down unemployment and inflation. Both of them soared. In the last 12 months of that disastrous Government unemployment in Australia grew by another quarter of a million. Let us not forget that in the first year of this Government, as a result of the remarkably successful, competent economic policies that have been introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and by the Government, employment grew by 230,000. What a remarkable turnaround! Members of the Opposition now have the gall to come into this chamber and bring forward a matter of public importance with such gross cynicism as far as the Australian people are concerned. It represents their state of absolute panic. It represents their state of absolute desperation. Every direction in which they turn fails them. They have attempted to smear this Government. They have attempted to smear the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). They have attempted to smear the national Treasurer knowing, when that mud was thrown, that there was no substance in those smears. They have been absolutely discredited in the eyes of the Australian community. How can they hold their heads up with any pride? The only people in Australia who admit now to being members of the Liberal Party of Australia are those gentlemen who sit on the other side of this Parliament. Mr Scholes —And Tony Eggleton. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The Minister for Defence interjects: 'And Tony Eggleton'. Tony Eggleton probably has as little pride as those honourable gentleman who sit on the Opposition benches of this Parliament. I can understand well why people should recoil from the suggestion that they are either supporters or members of the Liberal Party. Which respectable, responsible and reputable person in Australia would want to identify or associate with members of the Liberal Party? Who would want to? Which reputable person would want to get down into the sewers with them? Let those people declare themselves. If there are people within this Parliament, either within this room or in this building, or if there are people within the Australian community who want to identify with the members of the Liberal Party who got themselves down into the sewers, let me hear those people proclaim it again. Mr Tuckey —They will. Mr ROBERT BROWN —One just did. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member will speak through the Chair. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. I advise you that the lady now occupying a seat in the public gallery acknowledges that she wants to identify with members of the Liberal Party who this week got down into the sewer. That is a decision that that lady makes of her own initiative. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Hunter return to the matter under debate. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Madam Deputy Speaker, I will, and I thank you for that advice. We had a lecture this afternoon on questions of economic management. The suggestion has been made that, as a result of the Budget that was adopted this year, there would be concern about a Budget which may occur next year. Let me make this point and let me make it as clearly as I can: We only need to achieve a real rate of growth in Australia of 4 per cent to ensure that, in nominal terms, the Budget deficit for 1985-86 remains the same. So if we achieve a rate of growth of 4 per cent and the nominal deficit remains the same, it means that in real terms the Budget deficit will be reduced. I hope this point is being understood by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew). The next point I want to make is this: By every one per cent that we can increase real economic growth in Australia the cyclical component of the Budget deficit will be reduced by $500m. The question that the Australian electors need to ask is: Which Government is more likely to achieve and maintain the rate of economic growth which is necessary in order to bring down that Budget deficit and to provide the opportunity for all those people who are currently unemployed to be brought back into employment? Which political party or coalition is most likely to do that? Let me provide this evidence: In the last year of the previous Government-that is in the last year of the Liberal-National Party coalition which now occupies the Opposition benches-economic growth in Australia was negative. I emphasise that economic growth in Australia was negative for the first time since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It came in the last year of the seven disastrous years in which Opposition members were in government. That was their record. In the last year of their government economic growth was negative. In the first year of the present Government there was a remarkable turnaround and a remarkable transformation. Economic growth reached 6 per cent in real terms. Gross domestic product in real terms is up 6 per cent. June quarter on June quarter, economic growth in real terms reached 10 per cent. Nowhere in the Western world has that rate of economic growth been surpassed. Australia leads the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. What a remarkable tribute to the great competence of the national Treasurer, the chief architect, the gentleman who very largely has been responsible for many of these economic policies which he and this Government have put in place. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired, but I suggest that the honourable member for Hunter should withdraw the comment he made about a person in the public gallery. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Madam Deputy Speaker, on the contrary, I-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair would like the honourable member to withdraw the remark he made about a person in the gallery. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say this-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr ROBERT BROWN —Unless I have an opportunity to explain what happened, I will do no such thing. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair is handling this. The Chair requests a withdrawal. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Madam Deputy Speaker, a certain level of conduct is expected of people who prefer the hospitability of this Parliament. I have certain rights and I intend to exercise those rights. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair does not wish to debate-- Mr Peacock —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr ROBERT BROWN —It was not only a nodding of the head; it was an exclamation that was made about a point that I was making while fulfilling my responsibilities as a member of this Parliament. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hunter will accede to the Chair's request. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Madam Deputy Speaker, I am afraid I am unable to do that unless you give me the opportunity to explain the context in which the exclamation was made. I cannot be misrepresented in those circumstances. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable gentleman may explain. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I will do this as calmly as I can. Madam Deputy Speaker, as a result of your indulgence and out of my great admiration and respect for you, I extend my deepest and genuine apology to the person in the gallery against whom I directed those remarks. Since you have given me the opportunity to explain them, I would not wish to cause anyone any further embarrassment by doing so. Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence and unqualifiedly, and with the greatest sincerity, I withdraw the comments that I made. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member for Hunter. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes. During the debate on the matter of public importance, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) misrepresented a statement of mine and sections of my speech by alleging that under the Budgets I had brought down the level of Budget receipts was a higher proportion of gross domestic product than that projected for the 1984-85 Budget. That statement of the Treasurer is wrong. It is based upon the entirely hypothetical assumption that somehow or other one could exclude from the calculation of receipts a portion of those receipts, namely, the Medicare levy. Such a procedure would be a surprise to the seven million Australian taxpayers who have to pay the Medicare levy and regard it like any other form of taxation as part of their taxation liability. They are not my words and they are not the words of the Liberal Party of Australia. They are verified on page 364 of the Budget Papers which, under the heading 'Budget Receipts', records the fact that it is anticipated that, by 1984-85, as a proportion of gross domestic product Budget receipts will be 27.9 per cent. By quick reference to that table it can be seen that that is clearly the largest proportion of gross domestic product-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable gentleman getting to the end of his personal explanation? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I am. It needs to be put in context. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I hope the honourable member will keep it succinct. Mr HOWARD —It is the largest proportion of any Budget since the end of World War II. No amount of hypothetical assumptions by the Treasurer which are not verified by the experience of the Australian taxpayer can alter the unassailable fact that the second Keating Budget is the biggest taxing Budget since World War II. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —I do. I was misrepresented during the speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) as to my ability as an administrator. To correct that misrepresentation , I remind the Treasurer and the House of my 30 successful years as a self-made small businessman and also my local government experience at shire and State executive level. My personal wealth has been achieved by hard work and initiative and is certainly more explainable than that of the present Treasurer. Finally, if the House needs any further evidence of my understanding of devious figuring, I remind it of my exposure of the Dawkins tax scheme. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr KEATING —Yes. The point I made in the debate about the ratio of receipts to gross domestic product was simply this: The Medicare levy is a substitution for what was formerly a private payment by people to a private health fund. It is not a discretionary increase in the tax burden. It is simply the financing of a public health scheme through the Commonwealth taxation system. Therefore, it is not a discretionary increase in tax. Medicare adjusted, the figure provided to me by the Commonwealth Treasury is that Commonwealth receipts this year are 27 per cent of gross domestic product. That is below the 27.3 per cent which the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) presided over in 1981-82 and the 27. 2 per cent which he presided over in 1982-83. I might add that the 27 per cent is a reflection of receipts growth in a growth economy. The 27.3 per cent which obtained in Mr Howard's time was in a contracting economy and, therefore, the burden of tax receipts was very much heavier upon taxpayers in his time than it is in this Budget. It is a valid point and, as I have indicated to the former Treasurer, it is the Department of the Treasury's figure. That 27 per cent is the official figure for receipts of GDP, Medicare adjusted, as it is reasonable to do. That makes the point which the former Treasurer was trying to make-that he, not I, presided over the highest taxing Budgets in recent memory. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The discussion is concluded. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, I present the report of the Committee entitled '''Ringing in the Changes'': Telecom's Zonal Charging Policies', together with the minutes of the proceedings , the transcript of evidence, the submissions authorised for publication and correspondence between the Committee and the Department of the Treasury. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr LEO McLEAY —by leave-At the outset, I commend the Sub-Committee Chairman, the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Free), for this excellent and timely report. In the short remarks I would like to make on the report, which will be followed by a speech from the honourable member for Macquarie, I would like to say a few words on Telecom's social obligations to the community. Telecom's charter is embodied in section 6 of the Telecommunications Act 1975 which states: The Commission shall perform its functions in such a manner as will best meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian people for telecommunications services. There are inevitably difficulties in the satisfactory reconciliation of the social, industrial and commercial needs of the community. Striking the appropriate balance is the challenge for Telecom. We have seen in yesterday's tabling of the Telecom annual report for 1983-84 that Telecom is satisfactorily meeting its revenue requirements. Telecom made a record trading profit in the last financial year of $309m. This would have been $447m but for a change in Telecom's accounting procedures. The Expenditure Committee's report has recommended extending local call zones for capital and provincial city areas. The cost has been estimated by Telecom at $l7.6m capital costs, $20m revenue forgone per annum, together with operating and maintenance costs of $3.08m. The capital cost of $17.6m must be seen against the background of Telecom's anticipated capital expenditure for 1984-85 of $1.92 billion. Therefore, implementation of the Committee's recommendations would involve Telecom in a cost of less than one per cent of its capital budget. These costs must also be measured against the benefits of reduced charges for the more than one million people who are presently just on the wrong side of Telecom's existing zonal boundaries. Outer metropolitan communities are also the most rapidly growing. These areas also have the highest proportion of young people. Future population growth will continue to be concentrated in outer metropolitan communities which are presently outside the existing local call zones. Population growth has been dynamic in the outer suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth while Telecom's boundaries have remained static for the last two decades. The community demands a high degree of social responsiveness and accountability from the nation's largest publicly owned enterprise. The Expenditure Committee in its report has concluded that Telecom has not been sufficiently responsive to the needs of the Australian community in the 1980s. I believe that the implementation of the Committee's recommendations would improve that responsiveness and be of great benefit to a great number of Australians. I also advise the House that the Committee intends to follow up this report with an examination of Telecom's rural charging policies. I commend the report to the House. Mr FREE(Macquarie) —by leave-In preparing this report the Expenditure Committee set out to examine Telecom's zonal charging policies for capital and provincial cities, given the changes in population growth and distribution since the original policies were established in the 1960s. The essence of the inquiry was to examine the adequacy of Telecom's response to the massive shifts in population to the outer metropolitan areas of the capital and provincial cities in the last 20 years. The inquiry focused on the social and economic consequences of Telecom's response to population growth and made a number of recommendations on action designed to improve Telecom's responsiveness. The public demands a high degree of accountability and responsiveness from the nation's largest public enterprise. The community is entitled to expect that Telecom will carry out its charter effectively to meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of all the people of Australia. Community needs centre on the provision of effective telecommunications services at reasonable prices. Developments in telecommunications technology have substantially reduced the real cost of the provision of telephone services. The benefits of these developments should be passed on to subscribers in the form of reduced prices. Most people are more interested in having a cheap and efficient telephone service than a service that provides a multitude of sophisticated attachments. I believe in the old maxim that people really want from the telephone system three things: Firstly, a telephone; secondly, a telephone that works; and, thirdly, a telephone that works all the time. Basic community requirements have been central to the Committee's examination of Telecom's charging policies. Telecom's existing charging policies have their origin in the 1960 community telephone plan. For capital cities the zonal arrangements resulted in local call zones of 40 kilometres from the General Post Office in Sydney and Melbourne and 32 kilometres in Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Hobart. These arrangements have remained unchanged for more than 20 years. A local call zone in the form of a circle centred on the GPO is totally inappropriate on two grounds: Firstly, the circle bears little relationship to technical considerations and secondly, communities of interest have developed along development corridors which have expanded way beyond the original circles drawn in 1960. In Sydney, for example, the circle centred on the GPO allows local calls, theoretically at least, for large expanses of ocean while development in that city of course has extended out to the west. The effect has been to establish a barrier between the growth areas of capital and provincial cities and the inner city commercial areas. High telephone charges have served as an impediment to a basic community need for those in the new growth areas, that is, the need to communicate. The social problems of isolation and loneliness have been made worse by an arbitrary line drawn on a map in 1960. The existing telephone charging arrangements have also affected the Government' s economic policy objectives. Governments at all levels have introduced a range of measures designed to reduce the existing high levels of unemployment. High unemployment rates apply in areas outside capital city local call zones. Submissions to the Committee indicated that expensive telephone calls to potential employers are an added burden on job seekers in outer metropolitan areas. From a business viewpoint, new businesses trying to establish in outer metropolitan growth areas argued to the Committee that telephone costs affect competitiveness and serve to prevent decentralisation of industry. The Committee concluded that Telecom's charging policies had not been sufficiently responsive to the needs of the Australian community in the 1980s. The Committee in its report has made a series of recommendations designed to improve that responsiveness. These include that Telecom should extend capital city local call zones to take account of rapid population growth in outer metropolitan areas; that reduced rates should be granted to subscribers adjacent to local zones; that charges should be reduced for short distance calls up to 50 kilometres; and that charging policies for provincial cities should be reviewed. Local call zones should be extended for provincial cities with high population growth, for example Gosford-Wyong, the Sunshine Coast and the Gold Coast. Reduced rates should apply for provincial cities linked with adjacent capital cities, for example, for calls between Wollongong and Sydney and Geelong and Melbourne. The Committee does not favour the introduction of timed local calls. The Committee believes that all costs associated with extending local call zones should be financed from Telecom's internal sources. The Committee further believes that subscriber trunk dialling charge steps should be reduced to reflect the declining importance of distance in telecommunications. We believe the time of day rates should be adjusted to take into account congestion in the network at particular hours and days of the week. We recommend that telephone directories should be simplified and amalgamated to better reflect communities of interest. We recommend that Telecom should accelerate the introduction of systems to provide itemised accounts and that a complaints bureau should be established in each Telecom State office. We recommend that information on zonal charging arrangements should be more readily available to the public. We recommend, as the Chairman mentioned in his remarks, that Telecom should undertake more social research. Finally, we recommend that the Prices Surveillance Authority reviews should be used to inform the community of the basis of Telecom's charging policies. The Committee was conscious that Telecom's charging policies for metropolitan and provincial cities cannot be viewed in isolation from those for the rural community. The Committee took the opportunity during the public hearings to invite representatives from rural organisations to present their views. In the course of the inquiry the Committee was made aware of the considerable dissatisfaction among rural people with Telecom's charging policies in rural areas. Rural organisations stressed that the introduction of Countrywide Calling in 1983 led to timed charging for many calls which had previously been untimed. While Telecom extolled the benefits of the scheme, particularly for longer distance calls, the major beneficiary appears to be Telecom itself which, while losing an estimated $1m per annum in revenue, managed to avoid $30m in capital costs. The Committee recognised the special needs of rural subscribers who are highly dependent on the telephone for personal contact. Many of the Committee's recommendations in this report will benefit rural people. For example the Committee is of the firm view that Telecom should continue to subsidise loss- making rural services. Cross-subsidisation is consistent with Telecom's social obligations. Indeed, Telecom has a statutory duty to have regard to the special needs of those outside the cities. Telecom should vigorously pursue its obligations to the rural community. Given the serious concerns of the rural community, the Committee has decided that it should institute an inquiry into Telecom's charging policies in rural and remote areas. The terms of reference and invitations for submissions are expected to be announced in the near future. In conclusion, I thank the 67 individuals and organisations who made submissions to the inquiry and the witnesses who gave evidence at public hearings in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Canberra, Penrith and Mornington . The Committee wishes to acknowledge the co-operation of the Australian Telecommunications Commission. We are particularly grateful for the assistance of Mr Keith West, the Manager of Trunk Network Services, who was made available by the Commission to assist the inquiry. As sub-committee Chairman, I thank my fellow committee members and the honourable member for Canning (Ms Fatin) and the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Chynoweth) who co-operated and assisted in the inquiry, and all those who made time available to fit the inquiry in with their busy schedules. Thanks are also due to the inquiry staff-Adrian Scott, David Worthy, Anne Hazelton, Peter Ratas, Betty Williams and Christina Brauer- for their work. They worked very long hours and displayed a professional enthusiasm in the preparation of the report. I am particularly grateful to Ross James, who was seconded from the Department of Communications to the Committee for the duration of the inquiry. I believe that this report will make an important contribution to the development of a more responsive attitude by the Australian Telecommunications Commission to the needs of the Australian community. The report highlights the inadequate response by the Commission to population growth and distribution since the 1960s. Implementation of the Committee's recommendations would make a substantial improvement in Telecom's responsiveness to community needs. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, I present the report of the Committee on Bushfires and the Australian Environment, together with the transcript of evidence and extracts from the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MILTON —by leave-The report which has just been tabled is the Committee's second report in the Thirty-third Parliament and the twenty-fourth since the Committee was first established in 1973. As far as the Committee is aware, this has been the first national inquiry into the problems of bushfires. The Committee is well aware that bushfires are mainly a State problem and that the Commonwealth does not have a primary role. However, we found that there are a number of aspects of the problem in which the Commonwealth can co-operate with State and local governments to ensure that sound ecological management approaches are followed and that loss of life and property damage are minimised. The report is particularly relevant to my responsibilities as a parliamentarian because my electorate of La Trobe contains the Dandenong Ranges which is one of the most bushfire-prone areas in the world. In 1962 the huge fires which ravaged the Dandenongs swept through my own block in Montrose and again during 1983 the Ash Wednesday fires swept through part of the Dandenongs. I have accordingly been conscious over the years of the concerns of the city of Knox and the Lilydale and Sherbrooke shire councils about the increasing need for more bushfire protection for local residents. We have made some 23 recommendations relating to a number of matters covering land use planning and subdivision control, housing design, public information, education and training and research needs. We have also looked closely at the specific responsibilities of the Commonwealth and have made a number of recommendations in this respect. Fire has long been a part of the Australian scene and has played a significant role in shaping the evolution of the flora and fauna. It is important to recognise that in many areas of Australia fires are inevitable and a natural part of the environment and they will continue to occur whenever there is a lethal combination of strong winds, hot weather and fuel loads. It is essential that Australians living in fire-prone rural and semi-rural areas come to grips with this problem and develop an understanding of their environment. The Committee admires and respects the bushfire fighters but emphasises that situations will develop in which these skilled and dedicated people will not be able to confine bushfires to unoccupied bushland. It is imperative that property owners recognise the inevitability of bushfires and take proper action to protect their own property. Planners and developers must also act responsibly to ensure that land use zoning and subdivisions take account of bushfire risk. As members of an environment and conservation committee we were particularly concerned about the role that fire plays in the natural scheme of things and how this role was being affected by fire prevention and suppression techniques. Fire stimulates the regeneration and reproduction of many plant species, but it is not the presence of fire in the environment that is important to those species; rather, it is the frequency, intensity and seasonal timing of the fires that are important. If fires occur too frequently or if they are not sufficiently intense the plants will in time fail to regenerate and survive. It is for these reasons that we have some environmental reservations about control burning. It involves an unnatural pattern of comparatively frequent, low intensity fire at a time of the year when fires do not usually occur. Unfortunately, many of our plants and animals are not able to adapt to this artificial fire regime. Our inquiries indicate that a cycle of one moderately intense fire every 10 to 15 years is most advantageous for certain vegetation types. However, most control burning programs involve a low intensity fire every five to eight years. We do not know enough about the long term impacts of these types of changes to natural fire regimes and we believe that this is an aspect of fire prevention on which more work needs to be done. We heard some evidence to suggest that fuel reaccumulates more quickly than previously thought. This may lead to changes to control burning techniques involving the more frequent lighting of low intensity fires than practised at present. Whilst we do not believe that control burning is totally effective, we recognise that in many situations hazard reduction burning to reduce fuel accumulation is the only effective and efficient technique available, and it must be used to reduce bushfire hazards. The Committee stresses, however, that wherever it is used there is a need to assess the environmental impacts so that, where appropriate, alternative protection and suppression methods must be considered. In some cases we saw that control burning was being used unnecessarily and we believe there is a need for some authorities to review their programs and to take a more rational approach. We also found that there is scope for the authorities to take more care in their fire fighting activities. Of course, when a fire is burning out of control and threatening life and property there is no time to spare. Fire trails must be constructed rapidly and environment protection measures cannot be considered in such emergencies. However, we believe that, as a matter of priority, the authorities should return to the area as soon as possible after the fire is extinguished to undertake post-fire rehabilitation work, particularly in the area of soil conservation. Our report has stressed the need for more effective control and regulation of land subdivisions and building construction practices in bushfire-prone areas. However, the problem of inadequate building design, poor location and fire-prone construction would be easier to overcome if people took notice of the public awareness campaigns conducted by the authorities. There is some evidence to suggest that lives and property would have been saved on Ash Wednesday if the community had been more knowledgeable. In fact, the Australian community has largely ignored or is apparently ignorant of the advice given by the authorities about bushfire survival and property protection. For these reasons the need for better public awareness campaigns and research into the failure of previous campaigns are two of the matters we have stressed in our report and we have identified ways in which the Commonwealth can assist in this regard. There are two other matters I would like to discuss and draw to the attention of the Government. I turn first to the question of research. My Committee found it very difficult to estimate the cost to Australia of bushfires. This was because in each of the States there are a number of different authorities collecting statistics. The information is incomplete and cannot be aggregated on a national basis. However, recently I received some figures which indicate that the total bushfire bill to the Australian community could be at least $23m a year. This does not include the loss of primary production while the landscape and forest recover from the fire devastation. It should be borne in mind that this is just an average figure which tends to hide the fact that in some years the cost is very much higher. We heard one estimate which put the cost of the Ash Wednesday fires at over $600m. It is likely that the bushfire bill and loss of life could be greatly reduced by further research into such things as fire behaviour and fire fighting techniques. In recent years we have seen the Commonwealth make a major contribution to research through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's Project Aquarius. Unfortunately bad weather has dogged this project so that they have not been able to complete their experiments. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has advised me that some more work will be done on Project Aquarius this summer. I understand that the CSIRO has allocated some $300,000 from its own limited funds for this purpose. However, it is estimated that some $1.2m will be required to allow the study to be finalised. The funds to be provided will not be sufficient to allow the project team to carry out further trials using aircraft to drop fire retardant chemicals and water on bushfires. The Minister has also told me that the CSIRO will continue to be involved in bushfire research but that its efforts will be on a reduced scale. There is an expectation amongst bushfire researchers in Australia that the overall research effort will be greatly wound down. If this happens it seems likely that we will be without a significant national bushfire research program. We must not ignore the events of Ash Wednesday because the history of bushfires indicates that fires of that magnitude will occur again. To restrict research in this area is short-sighted and probably foolhardy, particularly when the likely benefits are so great. I ask the House: Must we have another Ash Wednesday before sufficient research resources are provided? An adequate and effective research program could be maintained for only about $1m a year. Given the annual cost that fires represent and the almost inevitable loss of life and damage to property that will occur, $ 1m is a small price to pay. We recognise that it is a question of allocating priorities for the research dollar but the threat that bushfires pose to the Australian community was vividly demonstrated on Ash Wednesday. The Committee believes that researchers in this area should not have to compete for a share of restricted funds. The Commonwealth Government, along with State governments, should consider establishing a special fund for bushfire research. I particularly urge the Government to take note of the following recommendations: Firstly, that the Commonwealth review its research priorities to determine the feasibility of increasing the funding for CSIRO research into the ecological impact of fire, secondly, that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation maintain a significant bushfire research program after the completion of Project Aquarius and thirdly, that the Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for bushfire matters jointly discuss the establishment and financing of a national bushfire research fund. I now turn to the question of meteorology. Weather is a major factor influencing the outcome of bushfires. Time and again lives have been lost and millions of dollars of property damaged because fire fighters and communities received inadequate advance warning of weather changes or did not understand the seriousness of developing weather situations. It is clear that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology provides the best service possible, given the resources available to it. However, we believe that this could be greatly improved and that lives and property could be saved if the Bureau's fire weather forecasting capability was expanded. To this end we have recommended that special purpose funds be provided to enable the Bureau to employ specialist fire weather meteorologists in each State and to establish a network of remote weather stations. The ongoing cost of providing the fire weather specialists would be of the order of a few hundred thousand dollars a year. The establishment cost of the remote sensing network would be a few million dollars a year. Finally, I emphasise for the record the admiration of the Committee for the bushfire fighters, particularly the volunteers who at times appear to be confronted with an almost impossible task. Australia owes these people a great debt. We should do all we can to support them. I wish to thank the staff of the Committee for the valuable assistance they gave during the inquiry. I thank Bjarne Nordin who was secretary to the Sub- Committee during the planning and public hearing stages of the inquiry. I thank Ian Dundas who replaced Mr Nordin and who assisted so ably in the drafting of the report. I thank Richard Cavanagh who provided research and administrative assistance and I thank Carol Lam, the Committee's steno-secretary. I am sure that all honourable members who serve on committees realise the important contributions which committee staff make. I commend the report to the House. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —by leave-I think the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation on bushfires and the Australian environment is one of the most important reports tabled by that Committee in recent years. The memory of the holocaust of Ash Wednesday is still vividly impressed on our minds . I am sure that no Australians would want to see their fellows or parts of their community ravaged in the way we saw on that occasion. Unfortunately the lesson of past fires in Australia demonstrates more than clearly that we have very short memories and that we tend not to learn from the experiences of our failures and from the past. Therefore I hope this report will be given very wide currency, especially by State and local government authorities which ultimately have a very large role to play in fire suppression and prevention. The report covered a very wide range of areas, as was expected from the terms of reference. I quickly run through the major findings of the report to emphasise that it is a co-ordinated report in that it covers environmental factors as well as human factors in relation to the suppression and prevention of fires. We emphasised the somewhat historical obvious fact that the Australian environment has played an important role in shaping both Australia's flora and fauna and that fire has long been a part of that. Secondly, we emphasised that European settlement resulted in significant changes to fire regimes and also to plant and animal communities which are affected by the impact of European settlement. We emphasised that flora and fauna are generally well adapted to natural fire regimes and that populations generally recover to pre-fire levels in a comparatively short period, provided the impacts of the fires are not excessive and that they do not come too often. We discovered that bushfires can have a more major impact particularly in relation to soils if there is a breakdown of the fibre and content of the soils affected. In terms of bushfire prevention and suppression we also noted that they have major environmental impacts, especially in terms of low intensity hazard reduction burning which reduces fuel accumulation. That is something which now is being applied fairly generally, especially by local government authorities, and which is tending to cause concern, especially among environmental bodies. In many situations hazard reduction is seen as being the only effective and efficient technique that is available and it must be used. However, there is a need to consider whether there are any other alternatives to this as well as the need to consider the environmental impact of the number of times hazard reduction burns are applied to the same area of ground. Consequently, alternative protection and suppression techniques should be considered. In some cases it may be appropriate that no action be taken to prevent or contain bushfires, especially in areas where there is no likely loss of property or human life. However, authorities need to take more care in fire prevention activities and should do more in terms of post-fire rehabilitation, particularly in relation to soil conservation, which I referred to earlier. We noted that extensive damage to property and loss of life undoubtedly will continue to occur, especially in south-eastern Australia, unless property owners and authorities recognise the inevitability of bushfires and that they are part of Australia's nature and take proper action to protect their own property and to prevent unsound land use. As I noted earlier, we pointed out that the Australian community has generally ignored or been ignorant of the advice given by the authorities about bushfire survival and property protection and apparently does not appear to wish to learn the lessons of situations such as Ash Wednesday. The volunteer rural brigades make a very significant and, in many instances, essential contribution to the welfare of the Australian community. The Committee was very conscious of the role they play. We emphasised in our report the need to take the view that while professional bushfire authorities are available, as are the armed forces under certain circumstances, essentially in many smaller communities it is to the volunteer bushfire brigades that the future protection of both people and their property ultimately falls. Therefore the maximum effort possible must be made by State and local authorities in particular to ensure that local bushfire brigades are well trained and well equipped to enable them to carry out the essential task which those people, as volunteers, have been prepared to take on in relation to the welfare and protection of the community. The Committee also noted that the type and amount of training given to bushfire protection professionals as well as volunteers is inadequate in a number of specific and important areas. We believe this matter should be given further consideration by the appropriate authorities. There is also scope to improve our knowledge of bushfires and the part they play in the Australian environment. In that context, therefore, as the Chairman of the Committee very rightly pointed out, there is a need for the continuation of a major research effort in that field. In terms of the Commonwealth's involvement-some people may take the view that the Commonwealth has no role to play-I venture to suggest that there are two very important elements. Firstly, the Commonwealth is a major landholder across Australia and therefore has a prime responsibility for the protection and suppression of fires within its land holdings. In addition to that, however, because it is essentially a national problem, there is a role for the Commonwealth to play in both providing resources and assisting the States in the overall suppression and control of this issue. In the Ash Wednesday fire the damage was estimated to be in excess of $500m. We were told that in Tasmania fires cost the State at least $9m in 1983. In Victoria the State Government's disaster insurance premiums soared by over 1,000 per cent because of the 1983 Ash Wednesday fires. The Australian Forestry Council estimates that reinsurance premiums for south-eastern Australia as a whole include about $6m per year to cover such disasters. Unfortunately, this type of insurance does nothing to prevent the next disaster or reduce the toll on life and property. There will be a next time because bushfires are part of the Australian natural environment. How we handle the next time will surely be based on a sound and worthwhile investigation of the reasons for fire and a scientific analysis of the best means by which people can be protected. The real problem we are facing at the moment is that sufficient funds are not being provided for research into fire prevention. I will go into this matter in greater detail later. The current fire fighting bill is estimated to be some $ 13m per year. The fire damage losses, even in a non-disaster year, are estimated to be $4m a year. The total of insurance premiums-that is, fire fighting and losses per year-is now around $23m and is still rising. It makes no allowance for the added value forgone when fire prevents the processing of timber and destroys crops and grazing land. At this stage the major element is the cost to life, family homes and possessions or natural heritage. However, none of these factors are considered in that cost of $23m. It is quite clear that the total cost to the nation of fire losses is well in excess of $30m and perhaps as high as $40m a year. Consequently, preventive measures are obviously of extreme importance and research into fire prevention must therefore be a national priority. The Australian Forestry Council's fire management working group estimates that approximately $1.5m per year should be spent on an Australia-wide approach to fire research. The working group states: This is a small price to pay for the saving of an estimated $13 million per year in the annual fire bill of south east Australia, for the saving of many lives and homes, and for the increased primary products input into the economy. The Committee's report on this matter is worth quoting and is as follows: The lack of information about the costs and expenditure involved with bushfires prevents the Committee from identifying the likely cost and effectiveness of research, but the indications are that research would be comparatively inexpensive and highly beneficial. One researcher for example suggested that a continuing annual program of $800,000 was required and this would lead to a fifty percent reduction in loss of life and an eight percent reduction in building loss. The damage done on Ash Wednesday was probably in excess of $500 million. The Committee considers that a research budget of less than $1 million could therefore be easily justified. In fact, it would be money very well spent. In terms of prevention and fire suppression, the Committee noted that the main research program into fire behaviour and suppression was and is Project Aquarius. The primary aim of this project is to compare the cost effectiveness of large air tankers with that of conventional bushfire suppression techniques. Some years ago, at the time of the Fraser Government, I had a role to play in initiating this inquiry. Therefore, it is a matter of some concern that, as the Chairman of the Committee has pointed out, there is now apparently a lack of funds available to see that this project is carried out to its logical conclusion. The research program was due to finish in 1983-84 but due to adverse weather conditions-it will be noted that we had two years of almost constant rain through two summers-experiments using chemical retardants on high intensity fire were postponed and no conclusive results have therefore been achieved. Over that period some millions of dollars have been spent. As yet we do not have a conclusion to that research. We are on the last leg of the program and the question is now being raised whether sufficient funds will be made available to enable it to reach its obvious conclusions. Naturally, therefore, the Committee considers that the successful finalisation of this research is imperative so that the proper role of aircraft can be identified. There were numerous submissions about aerial fire fighting but we considered that it is inappropriate to make any conclusions until the Project Aquarius reports are completed. The report from Project Aquarius that was due to be published in the first quarter of 1985 has been postponed because of incomplete experimentation. It was emphasised to the Committee that the future of the project is in question due to the lack of funds to finalise the experimentation period. Therefore, it is essential for the project to finalise it and to reach a data collection which is meaningful so that results can be obtained from that. The Committee considers that immense benefit is to be gained from the project. The benefit will lie especially in the increased ability of land use managers and fire control officers to determine the effectiveness of control and suppression techniques. This will undoubtedly allow for the better planning and deployment of resources. The impact of bushfires could be substantially reduced and environmental considerations could be more easily incorporated into fire control plans. In terms of other research, the cuts to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation budget have affected not only Project Aquarius but also research the CSIRO is currently funding at the Chisholm Institute's National Centre for Fire Research. It has been forced to cancel a $110,000 grant to the Centre this year, which obviously will have a major effect on the ability of the Chisholm Institute to conduct its operations. The Committee discovered that that Institute was possibly the foremost body of its type currently involved in fire research throughout Australia. Consequently, the Committee is particularly concerned that the development of fire management prescriptions will be hampered by the lack of ecological research being conducted through the CSIRO and indirect organisations such as the Chisholm Institute. The question must be asked whether the current Hawke Government's action on bushfires to date is a responsible one. The most important action the Hawke Government has taken since it assumed office in 1983 is to refuse to upgrade research into bushfire protection. Although this report emphasises the need, at a Federal level, for the continuation of a significant bushfire research program after the completion of Project Aquarius, this Government has cut all funding to CSIRO by 3 per cent in the 1984-85 Budget, which represents a real cut of some 10 per cent. Not only that but also it has not committed itself to any other research programs, which obviously cuts back the capacity of the CSIRO to play its national role in this most important area. The effect on bushfire research is obviously disastrous. Project Aquarius is unable to complete its program as it has not been given enough funds to pay for the air tanker used in water bombing experimentation. Some $1.3m was allocated in last year's Budget for operating funds. This was underspent by $500,000 due to the termination of projects because of weather conditions. However, this $500 ,000 was not passed on to operating expenditure for the period currently under review. The report emphasises a national approach to fire fighting and fire prevention. One of the main themes in the report, and it is reflected throughout, is that bushfires and the impact and prevention of them cut across departmental boundaries and Federal, State and local government levels of responsibility. I believe that it is the role of the Federal Government to make a national commitment and to co-ordinate all work being done, and not to reduce the national commitment, as the Hawke Government is doing. It also requires political will at a national level which has not been demonstrated by this Government. For example, a range of authorities is involved. There is local government, which needs Federal and State Ministers to encourage, at a local level, better land use planning and flood and bushfire mitigation, as well as home design and land utilisation programs which protect areas which are subject to regular fires . In terms of science and technology, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Bureau of Meteorology are involved. The Minister for Housing and Construction needs to improve housing protection standards throughout Australia through co-ordination and consultation with his State counterparts. Between the Federal and State Ministers for environment we would also anticipate a high national awareness campaign and the protection of environment and heritage areas of national and international importance. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs should assist with the production of education kits for secondary schools and with a review of the teaching of bushfire science at tertiary levels. Primary industry has a major role to play in terms of soil protection through soil conservation programs which are also related to post-fire soil reviews. There is a major role for the defence services in supporting local government and civilian authorities in the reduction of national disasters, whether they be from fires or from other sources. Overall, this is a very important report. I commend it to the House. I sincerely hope that it will be distributed throughout Australia and that it will encourage a greater degree of consideration by all levels of government and the community as a whole of the fact that it is a problem not just for governments but for all people, especially those who live in fire-prone areas, to be prepared to protect their interests and their property and to work together for the safeguarding of the community as a whole. Mr CHYNOWETH(Flinders) —by leave-It was indeed an honour for me in my first year as a member of this House to be a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. The members of the Committee have spent many hours working together to gather evidence, discuss it and reach conclusions. Parliamentary committees are examples of members of all parties working together harmoniously for the good of all Australians. Many outside this House believe that what they hear over the wireless is how Parliament runs all the time. I can assure them that it is not so. Constructive debate within the Standing Committee has produced a report which I am certain will be well received by all people concerned with bushfires. Before I comment on the report, I must thank those people who made it all happen. First, I thank those people who presented submissions and gave evidence. Without their genuine interest in bushfires and their consequences, this report would never have been possible. Some of these people have put in many hours at their own expense to prepare their submissions and travel many kilometres to give evidence and show us examples to support their point of view. I believe that they should be thanked by us all for their dedication to do something to assist our nation. I must also thank those members of the secretariat, without whose help and guidance this report would not be possible. They are: Carol Lam, Richard Cavanagh, John Cummins, Ian Dundas, and Bjarne Nordin. We as politicians often claim the accolades for reports such as this one. However, if it were not for these people, there would be no reports. I thank them all. I would like to comment on some of our recommendations. Recommendation 2 states : The Minister for Housing and Construction requests the Housing Ministers' Conference to consider adopting and publishing a housing bushfire protection standard. One of the first pieces of evidence the Committee received was a report from a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation scientist concerning a bushfire at Beaumaris, Victoria, in January 1944. In 1979 I resided in the exact area where the bushfire took place so the report took my attention immediately. The recommendations that the report put forward are very relevant today. The recommendations were forgotten. People left the area, houses changed hands, and the report was tucked away in the archives somewhere, and the great Australian apathy took over. Ash Wednesday brought home to us the fact that recommendations made approximately 40 years ago are still very relevant today. Houses in bushfire zones must be constructed and maintained to standards set by relevant authorities. People who elect to live in bushfire-prone areas must be prepared for the fire which will inevitably come. They should also be prepared to shoulder some of the extra cost which comes with living dangerously. Recommendation 4 states: the Department of Home Affairs and Environment co-operate with State Departments to develop a national awareness campaign dealing with bushfire survival, building protection, fire prevention and the role of fire in the Australian environment. We must have a continuing campaign to educate our nation to the dangers of bushfires and how we can survive in a bushfire. It is no good having inquiries, producing reports, spending thousands of dollars, and then one or two years after a bushfire wind down the campaign because we did not have a bushfire last year. It is important that people are reminded of the dangers constantly. Recommendation 16 states: the Commonwealth review it research priorities to determine the feasibility of increasing funding for CSIRO research into the ecological impact of fire regimes . Research is vital. We have the CSIRO which has provided invaluable information on bushfires and related problems. More research must be done immediately. Chisholm Institute has established the National Centre for Rural Fire Research. These bodies must be funded as soon as possible so that we can gain the enormous benefit that is acquired through their research. Recommendation 21 states: (i) the Bureau of Meteorology continue to provide free fire weather services during the bushfire season, (ii) special purpose funds be provided to enable the Bureau to employ specialist fire weather meteorologists in each State, (iii) special purpose funds be provided to establish a network of remote weather stations. It is imperative that during the fire season accurate weather forecasts are obtained frequently and quickly. Many lives have been lost due to wind changes, which can occur quite rapidly. Those people managing fire fighting must have weather data which are accurate. I trust that this recommendation will be acted upon very quickly to enable us to be prepared for the coming fire season. Our report makes many recommendations which I feel if put into practice will save lives, save property and therefore make our beautiful countryside a safer place to live and work in. I commend the report to the nation. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to implement the Government's decision announced on 29 May 1984 to establish an Automotive Industry Authority. The establishment of this Authority is an integral part of the Government's strategy for the development of the motor vehicle industry in Australia. The basic role of the Authority is to encourage development of the industry along lines consistent with the Government's objectives, and in particular to encourage changes designed to improve the efficiency of the industry and reduce its dependence on government support. As a necessary part of this role the Authority will conduct investigations and monitor the performance of and the outlook for the industry. It would be helpful in putting the Authority's role in perspective if I were first to reiterate the elements of the Government's motor vehicle industry policy. The Government's policy has two fundamental objectives-to preserve a substantial vehicle manufacturing industry in this country, and to place the industry in a better competitive position against imports. The Government believes that it is imperative that a substantial vehicle manufacturing industry is preserved in Australia. We feel that the expectations of Australian consumers are more likely to be realised if there is a strong vehicle manufacturing industry able to compete vigorously with imports. To achieve this we consider that the local industry must become more competitive in all aspects, particularly price. One of the Government's policy aims is to reduce production costs. With this aim in mind the Government announced on 29 May 1984 that it would be modifying the export facilitation scheme to place greater emphasis on the export of high value added components, putting the industry on notice that the number of models produced locally must be reduced, and changing the motor vehicle plan to enhance the ability of plan producers to supplement their local product range with imports. The change to the motor vehicle plan will enable companies to avoid the need to manufacture small volume models which cannot be produced economically in Australia. We also decided to provide $150m over five years to assist the industry in upgrading design capabilities and to establish the Automotive Industry Authority as proposed by this Bill. These measures are aimed at overcoming the underlying causes of the industry's competitive problems. Their purpose is to reduce the industry's dependence on high levels of import protection by encouraging the industry to concentrate on its strengths and by promoting greater integration and co-operation within the industry. I particularly want to emphasise the latter point. Some of the barriers to the industry's progress can be effectively tackled only through co- operative action. The proliferation in component specifications is an obvious example. Efforts are being made within the industry to come to grips with this problem. These have been welcomed by the Government, and we have given practical support to these endeavours. But there are other areas which also need attention . I refer again in particular to the question of model rationalisation. The Government realises that the changes needed in the industry will take time. We are confident, however, that the policies we have adopted will enable the industry to lift its international competitiveness and bring vehicle prices in Australia more into line with those overseas. This confidence can be seen in the arrangements for the gradual reduction in the barriers restricting access opportunities for imported vehicles. Reduced barriers against import competition will serve to ensure that the industry vigorously pursues the opportunities that are available to reduce production costs and that consumers will share in the savings achieved. The Government's policy has been the subject of considerable consultation with interested parties. It has been well received both in the industry and in the general community. Plan producers in particular have welcomed the Government's measures as a practical and appropriate response to overseas developments. Component producers, through the Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers , have commented: The new policies are for the component sector a vast improvement on those adopted by the previous Government. Some sections of the union movement have questioned aspects of the policy, but the Federal Secretary of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation, Mr Len Townsend, spoke I believe for the majority of informed opinion when he commented : . . . the plan was a commonsense policy that would benefit everyone, including consumers. The widespread endorsement of the Government's policy rests on the recognition that the policy is a real attempt to come to grips with the basic problems facing the industry. The policy sets a framework for constructive change which will provide a more secure future for the industry. There can be no security in the industry if its products become increasingly uncompetitive in the market. I now turn to the Automotive Industry Authority as proposed by this Bill. The Authority is an integral part of the Government's policy framework. Its central role will be to promote desirable rationalisation and co-operation in the industry. Establishment of such an agency with this responsibility was recommended by the Car Industry Council in its report to the Government in December 1983. The Council included representation from all sections of the industry. The functions entailed in this role were foreshadowed in the Council's report, and I quote from that report: The Council recommends the establishment by the Government of a small say, three person Automotive Industry Authority, with statutory powers allowing it to encourage rationalisation of model ranges and sharing of production facilities and product amongst the plan producers. The Council envisages regular and confidential discussions between this Authority and each producer. With the Authority becoming fully privy to each manufacturer's plans as to how he will maintain or achieve profitability and viability. Specifically, the Authority should discuss with each producer the future of low -volume product lines. The Authority should assess whether or not there are national benefits in continuing the low-volume production. If not, the Authority should discuss with the producer the future of the line and if necessary put the producer on notice that volume must be increased within a reasonable time or the line closed. The Authority should also play the role of a marriage broker. Encouraging the sharing of product (including vehicles) among the five producers and the joint use of production facilities. It will be apparent from those comments that the concept of the Authority envisaged by the Council was of an honest broker acting primarily through persuasion. But the Council also recognised that the Authority should not be reliant on persuasion alone. I quote again from the Council's report: While rationalisation may well be in the national interest it might equally, in many of its forms, be against the interest of individual plan producers. The Authority should have the power, therefore, to recommend to the Government incentives to encourage a particular rationalisation. Such incentives might take the form of minor variations to the rules of the plan, adjustments to tariff quota entitlements and so on. Sanctions would also be needed to ensure that firms acted to the benefit of Australia. The Council considers that a set of such sanctions should be drawn up , that the producers be informed of their content and that they then be set aside, to be invoked when necessary. The concepts suggested by the Council are reflected in this Bill and in the Government's decisions on the assistance regime for the industry. The motor vehicle industry is a significant part of manufacturing industry in this country and receives high levels of government assistance. The Government expects the industry to make real efforts to improve efficiency and reduce its dependence on public support. There are sanctions that can be invoked if the industry fails to co-operate with the Authority's efforts to progress necessary rationalisation. These sanctions will not be available to the Authority direct, but the views of the Authority will obviously have an important bearing on judgments by the Government in these matters. As part of its monitoring function, the Authority will be required to provide an annual report to the Minister on developments in the industry and the outlook for the industry. The reports, which will be tabled in the Parliament, are to include an assessment of the industry's progress in achieving the Government's objectives. The reports are also to identify the basis of the Authority's assessment, including where appropriate identification of instances where members in the industry have failed to co-operate with the Authority. The annual report is not the only medium available to the Authority to bring such instances to the Government's attention. Provision is also made for the Authority to report to the Minister either on its own initiative or on matters which the Minister refers to it. In particular, instances of failure by any part of the industry to act consistently with the Government's policy will be brought to early attention. The matters likely to be referred by the Minister were foreshadowed in the Government's 29 May statement on its automotive industry policy. That statement indicated that the Authority would have an advisory role in relation to the operation of the export facilitation arrangements, and the arrangements put in place to safeguard against transfer pricing. Prime responsibility for the administration of the arrangements will, however, remain with the Department of Industry and Commerce. Provision is made in the Bill for the publication in whole or in part of the reports I have just mentioned. Other reports may be made by the Authority on the effect of Commonwealth regulatory policies on the achievement of the objects of the Authority. All of these reporting requirements are an important element in the Government's overall strategy and have considerable significance for the relationship between the Authority and the industry. It is important that I mention that any information given to the Authority on a confidential basis is required to be treated by the Authority as confidential. One of the Authority's functions will be to provide or support services that could contribute to the improvement in management efficiency in the industry. The extent to which the Authority develops this aspect of its role will be a matter for its own judgment within the funds available. New assistance measures to encourage the industry to give greater emphasis to local design of vehicles and components are being introduced. The Authority will have a role in the administration of these arrangements but details have not yet been finalised. The Authority's precise role in the administration of the arrangements will be settled in conjunction with the taking of final decisions on this matter. There will be an opportunity for debate on this when the necessary legislation on the arrangements comes forward. While the Authority will have an advisory role in the administration of aspects of assistance arrangements for the industry, there is no intention that it will substitute for the Industries Assistance Commission in the policy review process . The requirement for a report from the Commission before making changes in the assistance arrangements for the industry is unaffected by this legislation. The Government wishes to have the Authority operational as early as possible. Appointments to the Authority and arrangements for recruiting staff will proceed as quickly as possible following passage of the legislation. The operation of the Authority will require close contact with those in the industry. For this reason it is planned to locate the Authority in Melbourne. Clause 28 of the Bill is a 'sunset' provision terminating the Authority as from 31 December 1992. This provision reflects the principal task for which the Authority is being established, that is to promote necessary rationalisation and co-operation within the industry. The Government believes that this can be achieved within the eight-year time frame. The Government's policy for the automotive industry beyond 1992 will be determined following a further review by the IAC, to be initiated in 1989. The explanatory memorandum is not yet available and will be issued to honourable members tomorrow. Financial Impact Statement The Budget allocation for the Authority in 1984-85 is $0.5m. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. [COGNATE BILL: TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1984, as they are associated measures? Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the two measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(5.06) —This legislation will have calamitous consequences for Australia if it is allowed to pass through this Parliament. It is legislation bitterly opposed by the entire business community of Australia. Its sole purpose is to further the pre-eminence and power of the trade unions by exempting them from laws which apply to all other Australians. If section 45D of the Trade Practices Act is repealed, the one effective constraint on the abuse of trade union power will be removed. It will effectively give the Government's seal of approval to secondary boycotts as a legitimate industrial tactic, despite the fact that the essence of secondary boycotts is that they are an attack on innocent third parties. That will not only be a shameful day for industrial relations, but also it will be a disaster for our exports and for Australia's reputation as an international trading partner. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) only last week returned from Japan where his purpose was to reassure Japanese businessmen and the Japanese Government that Australia would be a reliable supplier of raw materials. I regret to say that in view of this legislation, which he introduced on the eve of his departure, those assurances can be seen only as the gravest deceit. The Minister knows as well as I that it is the transport sector, and international shipping and aviation in particular, which is most vulnerable to secondary boycotts. The shipping industry has been most vocal in its pleas to the Government, but to no avail. The Minister has refused to listen. If section 45D of the Trade Practices Act is repealed, it will only be a matter of time before ships are tied up around Australia by militant transport and maritime unions, who then face employers who are powerless to do anything but capitulate to demands. Vital exports such as coal and wheat will pile up on wharves and in silos. Delivery dates will be missed, contracts cancelled and markets lost. Then indeed will the Japanese and our other trading partners judge this Government harshly. Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) The secondary boycott is an abhorrent industrial tactic. It has no place in civilised industrial relations. It involves a denial of human and commercial rights and decencies. It is a restrictive trade practice of the most serious kind, perpetrated through the abuse of monopoly union power. It is anti- competitive, it is illegal, and it should remain illegal. The essence of the secondary boycott is that it is picketing, bans or other industrial action taken by employees of one company to pressure a third-party or 'target' company, for example, by preventing the 'target' from obtaining goods from its suppliers or delivering goods to its customers. It does not involve a dispute between employer and employees. It is for that very reason that it is not a dispute capable of resolution by the normal processes of negotiation or conciliation and arbitration. It need not involve an industrial matter at all. In fact, it is increasingly used to advance some organisational, social or political objective of the boycotters. The secondary boycott strikes at the very heart of our modern industrialised society, for it is action which strikes at the complex and interdependent processes of production and distribution in the economy. As a result, boycotts cause sudden and often disastrous financial losses to the companies involved, not only the 'target' employers but the innocent bystanders, such as the suppliers or customers whose trade with the target is disrupted or curtailed. Furthermore, not only is the boycott extremely damaging, but it can be imposed without any risk of hardship by the boycotters. As the employees who are doing the attacking are not employed by the victim, there is a minimal risk of being stood down. On September 7, the editorial in the Australian Financial Review gave an indication of national opinion on this measure: For all intents and purposes, the Government is promoting a situation where it will be open slather for any militant union groups determined to pursue demarcation disputes, coverage claims or other industrial issues by widening a dispute and causing as much economic damage as possible . . . The whole package adds up to a deliberate agreement to remove the sanctions against injuring third parties, and to eliminate an effective technique whose effect to date, far from exacerbating industrial disputes, has been to limit their effect and reduce the economic damage incurred. The secondary boycott tactic can be used to cause severe economic damage to a target, with little economic inconvenience to union members. Its obvious attractions for those who see economic life primarily in terms of continued guerilla industrial warfare are no reason for the Senate to concur in this foolish policy action by the Hawke Government. That is the view expressed by the Australian Financial Review and echoed throughout Australia. This legislation is not simply foolish; it is unjust and it is dangerous. It is an ugly excursion into industrial apartheid. Far from concurring with the repeal of 45D, the Opposition will fight it clause by clause and word by word until the last full stop. I hope and trust that the Australian Democrats will join the Opposition in the Senate and prevent this disgraceful discrimination and potential disaster from occurring. The Government has failed abjectly to make a case for the repeal of section 45D . Neither in the Green Paper on the Trade Practices Act released early this year , nor in the Minister's second reading speech, is any justification advanced for raising unions beyond the reach of the laws applying to other members of the community. That is because there can be no justification for any such step. It is offensive to every sense of reason, decency and justice aspired to by any modern democratic society. Instead of reason, the Government has trotted out a series of unsubstantiated assertions, most of them incorrect or untrue, and quite unworthy of the Minister concerned. The Government claims that section 45D of the Trade Practices Act must be repealed because, and I quote from the Green Paper, there is a need 'to broaden the legal area of exemption or ''zone immunity'' for trade unions'. One must ask why. What possible reason is there for unions to be exempted from the law, to be placed in a special zone of immunity? How can the Minister make such a statement? Other reasons which the Government has advanced for this legislation include the allegation that sections 45D and 45E are potentially highly disruptive to Australia's industrial relations; that they only serve to exacerbate a dispute and resort to them may result in a worsened industrial relations climate; that they frustrate the bargaining power of trade unions in their industrial relations activities; and that pecuniary penalties have never been imposed and damages are not the principle objective, therefore there appears to be no justification for the retention of these remedies. I quoted from extracts of statements of the Minister and other Government statements. The reasons, as alleged, go on: Injunctions have caused delays in the lifting of boycotts; sections 45D and 45E are not designed to resolve the underlying issues which give rise to the secondary boycott activity; and secondary boycotts are not so different from other industrial action that they should be affected by separate legislation. Another reason advanced is that unions are increasingly disregarding the 45D provisions. To the extent that they do, it is because of the statements of this Government; but I do not find the evidence to support even that disregard. Finally, it is said that section 45D has proved generally ineffective to employers. Of course, that is what the Government alleges, but is the Government so naive as to really believe that or to imagine that the Australian people will believe it when universally the employers disagree entirely? This Government makes great play of the fact that it has support from business. It is most significant that, on this occasion, business unanimously opposes, and opposes very strongly, the measures proposed in this legislation. The real reason for this legislation, as the Minister well knows, is that the trade union movement demanded the repeal of section 45D as part of the price extracted when the prices and incomes accord was negotiated. The unions are demanding the repeal of section 45D not because those sanctions have failed, but because they have worked as an effective restraint on trade union power and its abuse by militant unions such as the Builders Labourers Federation, the Seamen's Union of Australia and the Transport Workers Union of Australia. I remind the House that the Government is irrevocably committed-again I quote from many statements of the Government-to exempt unions from the provisions of the Trade Practices Act, to repeal all penal provisions directed at union members, and to the provision of a limited immunity for unions, their officials and members against common law actions in tort brought in respect of industrial action. This is the Government's hidden agenda of industrial legislation. The business community and the community generally ought to be well and truly warned of that. These are the plans which the Government has to give the trade union movement, which is already a very influential pressure group in an unparalleled position of privilege and immunity in our community. Each of those commitments is a direct quotation from official Australian Labor Party policy. The Minister, in his second reading speech, has misrepresented the nature of the trade practices legislation. He has tried to confuse the issue by using inadequate and meaningless statistics. He has tried but failed to obscure the essential point which is evident to all-that section 45D has been a remarkable success in getting secondary boycotts lifted. That is why employers have resorted to it, and that is why they are so vociferous in their condemnation of the Government's proposals to repeal it. There is no doubt that secondary boycotts involve a restraint of trade, and that the monopolistic position of trade unions enables them to interfere significantly in fair trading and free competition. The Swanson Trade Practices Act Review Committee stated clearly some years ago: We believe it to be extremely important that the Trade Practices Act should start from a position of universal application to all business activity, whether public sector or private sector, corporate or otherwise. Only in this way will the law be fair, and be seen to be fair, and avoid giving a privileged position to those not bound to adhere to its standards. The Committee then considered a substantial body of comment on the question of anti-competitive conduct by employees and employer organisations and concluded unequivocally: Anti-competitive conduct by employee organisations should not be excluded from the application of the Act. As if that were not enough, more recently the Business Council of Australia, with which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) claims the closest of working relationships, submitted to the Government: An important element of trade practices legislation is the principle that persons should be able to conduct their business activities in Australia unimpeded by the conduct of third parties acting in their own interests. To deny persons access to the injunctive and other relief provided by the secondary boycotts provisions because industrial action was involved, would be to deny those persons a fundamental right shared with all other members of the Australain community. It is very clear that there is nothing which the Government could do which would be more calculated to weaken the application of justice in this country and undermine confidence in the law than to place a powerful institution or institutions, in the form of trade unions most likely to abuse their power, in a position which is above the law. Australians have a strong sense of fairness and justice. It is vital that the law should be seen to be equitable and fairly applied to all elements in industry. For this reason alone, regardless of all the other objections which the Opposition has to this legislation, we believe that the repeal of section 45D should be rejected. I wish again to quote another key finding of the Swanson Committee which is of the utmost importance to this legislation. That Committee said: In the usual case, secondary boycotts do not involve a dispute between an employer and employees which could be brought by either party before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I believe that this statement remains as true today as it was in 1976, when the report was presented. It underlines the essential dishonesty of the Government's claim to be transferring anti-secondary boycott provisions from the Trade Practices Act to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. There is already legislation in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which should enable the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to deal with secondary boycotts. But it is a dead letter. It has proved totally ineffective and of no assistance to businesses under attack. I emphasise to the House and to the nation that the essential nature of a secondary boycott is that it attacks an innocent enterprise not in dispute with its employees. It is because of the absence of the traditional employer-employee dispute that no amount of negotiation or conciliation, before the Arbitration Commission or anyone else, can provide the affected company with relief. There is unanimity about that. There is unanimity that the current provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act have proved useless in the field of secondary boycotts. Yet the Government is proposing to replace those provisions with almost identical legislation which is certain to prove equally inappropriate and ineffective. The key feature of this legislation is that the Arbitration Commission will only be able to conciliate, not arbitrate, on secondary boycott disputes. In other words, it will be able to conduct informal negotiations and discussions. Under the proposals now before us it is expressly prohibited from arbitrating in a binding or enforceable way. The Arbitration Commission is given absolutely no power to take a meaningful role in resolving secondary boycotts. Because of that it will clearly have no meaningful part to play. Another body with which the Government claims a close working relationship is the Confederation of Australian Industry. What did it have to say? It said: Conciliation proceedings will offer an innocent employer no protection whatsoever, and will deny him the right to an immediate remedy. While ' conciliation' is proceeding, the Government proposes that innocent employers be left to suffer damaging secondary boycotts. 'Conciliation' is almost identical to private negotiation, and presently is available without the Government amendments. It is significant that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will not be able to insert a bans clause in the award of a union to prohibit it from continuing boycott action. The ability to insert a bans clause in respect of a primary boycott, a strike, will, in effect, promote the use of the secondary boycott as the preferred means by which unions will exert industrial pressure. Unions will face a clear choice: If they take strike action, their employer could in fact have a bans clause inserted against them by the Arbitration Commission; but, if they arrange for another union to place a secondary boycott on their employer, no such bans clause is possible. So obviously the better option for the trade union movement is to use secondary boycott. This means that the way will then be open for unions to circumvent and undermine the entire system of conciliation and arbitration. The Government's action is calculated to ensure that the secondary boycott rivals the strike in industrial action. It does expose as deceitful the claim of the Government through the Minister that: 'The Government does not, in any way, condone the industrial tactic of a secondary boycott'. That is what the Minister has said, but it is not what the effect of this legislation would be. The Arbitration Commission is also specifically denied a role in conciliating on non-industrial secondary boycott disputes. As I said earlier, an increasing number of political, social and other non-industrial disputes are being raised by way of secondary boycott. Despite the fact that boycotts are increasingly directed towards achieving those other objectives-the non-industrial ends-the Minister said in his speech: It may be unrealistic, for example, to expect the Commission to play a role in overcoming a boycott which has an explicitly political basis such as a ban in protest against aspects of Government policy. I put it to the House that by repealing section 45D of the Trade Practices Act the Government is consciously and deliberately removing the only means of countering boycotts conducted against government policy and, at the same time, it is ensuring the proliferation of those boycotts. I really do believe that is a very serious consequence of this legislation. Just as absurd is the fact that the Arbitration Commission will only be able to conciliate on secondary boycott disputes involving employers covered by Federal awards, or involving members of Federal unions. In many cases small businesses have been complaining the loudest about this action. The vast majority of them came under State awards which are beyond the reach of this legislation. Not only are these businesses to be denied the straightforward and speedy relief which section 45D of the Trade Practices Act gives but also they will now be denied access to even this far less effectual proposal of the Government for conciliation by the Federal tribunal because they are not in fact respondents to Federal awards. Is it any wonder that Australian industry and commerce perceives that these measures are a most unfair attack on the rights of industry and commerce its ability to operate in a free and favourable economic environment? Yet time and again the Prime Minister continues to talk about the importance of a stable economic environment for economic growth. Most insidious of all, the Government is planning to remove from employers their traditional rights under common law; so now they will be deprived of their rights under common law to seek protection against union boycotts. This proposal is a gross denial of natural justice as well as a quite unwarranted attack on the rights of employers to protect their businesses. I hope that the community contemplates very clearly the issues that are at stake in this legislation. That prohibition, on seeking an injunction in the civil courts, will remain while a secondary boycott is under discussion in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. All efforts are made to try to resolve a dispute before a conciliator, commissioner or a presidential member sitting as a conciliator. One can envisage that cases will drag on for a considerable time. There will be adjournment after adjournment while parties say: 'Yes, it is possible. We would like to keep talking; we would like to take this back to our members to consider ', and so forth. This means that while the trade union continues to impose the secondary boycott massive economic damage can be done to the employer and no common law rights, no expeditious trade practice provisions and no arbitration provisions are available at all. Therefore, employers will not have recourse to section 45D; common law action is prohibited to them and the Arbitration Commission will continue to preside powerless over what are called negotiations while the employers bleed to death. It is hardly surprising that the employers are already talking in terms of a High Court challenge to what is, in every way, offensive and constitutionally dubious legislation. I find it almost beyond comprehension that the Minister can claim of section 45D that: 'There is not much reason to conclude that the injunctive process has been particularly speedy or that using this legal remedy will help to resolve a dispute'. The only explanation for such a ludicrous and wrong assertion could be that the Minister has steadfastly refused to listen to the views of the employers, who have spoken to him, the various business organisations, lawyers, judges, academics and all others with personal knowledge and experience of secondary boycotts and the record of section 45D actions in getting those boycotts lifted. The Minister totally misconstrued the facts when he stated: ' Not necessarily a particularly quick or effective course of action is occasioned by section 45D'. I challenge the Minister to name one single occasion on which a section 45D application has failed to lead to a lifting of the boycott or to assist business which is under attack. As I said earlier, so effective indeed has the provision been that damages or fines under section 45D have never had to be imposed; that is how effective it has been in lifting the boycott. Indeed, no injunction has had to be made absolute. The granting of an interim injunction has, in every instance, been sufficient to see that the secondary boycott is lifted. It is a most effective and expeditious procedure. In the vast majority of cases-this is why the Minister's so-called statistics are misleading-the mere threat or suggestion of section 45D action leads to the abandonment of the boycott without an injunction even having to be sought, let alone granted. I repeat: No fines and no damages have been imposed. There is no substance in the union claims that this legislation has been punitive or that it has worsened industrial relations. The Minister said that his Department had examined 25 boycott disputes in which action was initiated under the Trade Practices Act. As I understood his claim, he said that section 45D injunctions 'appear to have been of direct effect' in only three of those 25 cases. I regret to say that those figures did not ring true with me and so I made some inquiries about them. As a result, the Confederation of Australian Industry contacted all of those 25 companies and asked them the following question: 'Do you believe your action in initiating trade practices proceedings materially assisted in the resolution of the dispute ?' Eighteen answered unequivocally 'yes'. One answered with a qualified 'yes'. One did not answer, because the company is in receivership, and five replies are still awaited. I leave it to the public to judge the accuracy of the Minister's figures. I seek leave to table the summary prepared by the Confederation of Australian Industry of the inquiries made of those 25 companies. Leave granted. Mr MACPHEE —I ask that it be noted that the responses have been edited only to maintain anonymity of the companies because they are concerned at the possibility of retaliatory action from trade unions if they were identified in that document. It is quite beside the point to claim, as the Government does, that section 45D fails to resolve the underlying cause of a dispute. That was never its purpose. Section 45D is designed to provide assistance to an innocent third party caught up in somebody else's dispute. The Arbitration Commission has the responsibility of dealing with any employer-employee dispute which may give rise to the boycott, and that will remain the case even under this proposal. But it must be emphasised that section 45D is not a remedy available to employers who are in dispute with their employees. Conduct which is substantially related to the remuneration, conditions of employment, hours of work or working conditions of employees is specifically exempted from the provisions of the Trade Practices Act, and the employer cannot resort to section 45D as a means of getting his or her employees back to work. It is my understanding that in response to its Green Paper the Government has had over 50 submissions from companies or organisations expressing views about the Trade Practices Act and, as I understand also, with the exception of three slightly ambiguous submissions, all are strongly in favour of retaining section 45D. Furthermore, it is clear that the Government has not sought the advice or opinion of the judges of the Federal Court who sit on section 45D applications and who observe the effect on secondary boycotts. I confidently assert that, if the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), who is entitled to talk to Federal judges, did so, he would find not a single judge who had the slightest doubt about the fairness and effectiveness of section 45D or who would believe that the cause of industrial relations would not be seriously harmed by its repeal. I have already referred the House to the disastrous impact which I believe the repeal of section 45D would have on Australia's international trade. One has to look back only to the shipping dispute, which I have referred to in this House and which I know the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) will refer to again, to recall the damage that can be done and, therefore, the misleading which I believe there could have been of the Japanese Government in particular as a result of the assurances the Minister gave on his recent visit. The Minister said in his second reading speech: The Government has carefully considered all the views expressed by employers and their representatives. But I put it to the House that in fact he has ignored them. There was an extensive submission from the Australian Chamber of Shipping which again I know the honourable member for Hume will quote from. That makes it abundantly clear that the people most involved in our export trade and in our international credibility as exporters are most fearful of the consequences of the passage of this legislation. Likewise, I have quoted before extracts from the submission of the Australian Retailers Association and other extracts from the Business Council of Australia. I should say that the Business Council of Australia said most emphatically: If bans are imposed on the loading or unloading of US ships because of present US Government policies, how can conciliation resolve the dispute, unless it means the Government is to change its policies, or Australian business cease dealing with the USA? That is the kind of political dispute which can arise, and once this legislation is passed there will be no remedy available. The Confederation of Australian Industry, in a submission to the Government headed 'The Effect of Secondary Boycotts on Imports and Exports', says: A substantial number of industrial disputes involving secondary boycotts occur in the Australian waterfront and maritime areas, causing delays and added costs to both imported and exported goods. In the past, section 45D proceedings have often played a positive role in the resolution of those disputes, as an examination of the history of the use of these provisions would reveal. It must be stressed that not only do delays on the waterfront cause expense for carriers , and delay fulfilment of specific contractual obligations, but they also damage Australia's image as a reliable and competitive trading partner. In view of the importance of our export trade to Australia's long-term future, it is essential that prompt and effective mechanisms be available for dealing not only with issues giving rise to disputes but also where necessary with the industrial action being initiated by maritime and waterfront unions. In the light of these submissions it is no wonder that the business community is alarmed, angry and most apprehensive about the consequences of this measure. Everyone in this House knows that I am a supporter of trade unionism. I am certainly no union basher. But I support also the rights of business and the rights of employers particularly, and it gives me grave concern that a government should introduce legislation which at one and the same time provides trade unions with immunities and privileges denied to the rest of the community and denies employers rights accorded to the rest of the community. Debate (on motion by Mr Griffiths) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —I table a consultancy paper prepared by Hugh Stretton of the University of Adelaide. There are not at this moment sufficient copies for all honourable members, but they will be available later this evening. Mr Shipton —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I would like to move that the debate on the paper tabled by the Minister for Finance be adjourned, or I will accept his undertaking that the Government will allow debate on that paper. Mr Young —If we have time in the next week or so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I understand that no motion has been moved in relation to the paper. Mr Young —I give you that undertaking because it is something we would like to discuss. Mr Shipton —The Leader of the House has given the Opposition the undertaking that he will provide the opportunity for discussion if circumstances permit. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(5.36) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill gives effect to the historic decisions of the Government announced in the guidelines to the Commonwealth Schools Commission on 14 August 1984. Those guidelines set out policies for the implementation of a comprehensive long term scheme for the funding of government and non-government schools in Australia. The policies embodied in this Bill are designed to produce, for the first time, a rational system of Commonwealth funding for schools and an accompanying redefinition of the respective roles of the Commonwealth, States and non- government school communities in providing financial support for schools. We have defined a new partnership between the Commonwealth and the States which will ensure co-operative relationships and planning through the medium of education resource agreements. It will not be a matter of the Commonwealth imposing its will on the States or riding rough-shod over their priorities. We hope, through these resource agreements, to produce a new era of improvement in resources and outcomes for government schools. Commonwealth agreements with non- government school authorities will ensure that Commonwealth funds are directed to raising standards and will require a partnership with non-government school authorities in pursuing this objective. In the case of non-systemic non- government schools, the Commonwealth will not be requiring individual schools to enter into a formal resource agreement, but schools will provide the Commonwealth with prior notice of how Commonwealth funds will be applied and will account for these subsequently. Similarly, with this funding scheme, we believe that we have buried for good the futile debate on state aid which has proved so debilitating in our society over many generations. We have recognised the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government in assisting in the achievement of satisfactory educational opportunities for all children. While expressing in practical terms the primary obligation of government to public schools, we have formally acknowledged the existence of a dual system of education in this country, and established mechanisms to ensure that the two systems can exist in an harmonious atmosphere. It is in the spirit of these sentiments that I put forward the provisions of this Bill. The Bill appropriates an estimated $1,385m for schools programs in the States and the Northern Territory in calendar year 1985, subject to final enrolments in per capita programs. Grants will be supplemented retrospectively in subsequent amending legislation for further relevant cost increases, in line with approved cost supplementation arrangements. Funds are appropriated for the Commonwealth's new special purpose programs for basic learning in primary schools, with $6.7m per annum for the triennial period 1985-87, and for early special education, with $3.9m in 1985, together with a two-year forward commitment capacity of 70 per cent per annum of these funds. The legislation fully maintains the Government's other major program initiatives in 1984, including the triennial program for computer education, as well as all other special purpose and capital programs for schools. For the new long term Commonwealth general recurrent program, the Bill appropriates grants on a per capita basis for the four years 1985-88 for both government and non-government schools. The grants for government schools provide for significant real increases each year and include a special 10 per cent supplement in recognition of the obligation of government schools to provide services to students in a variety of circumstances and locations. Per capita grants for non-government schools are being provided on the basis of the 12- category scheme, recommended by the Commission, which will ensure a greater differentiation in the needs of schools than the previous four group scheme. Categories 1 and 2 on the new scale will provide annual grants at the same real levels as in 1984 for schools with the highest incomes. Categories 3 to 12 will generally provide for significant annual real increases in grants for schools with progressively lower incomes. As foreshadowed in the recent guidelines to the Schools Commission, the increases in general recurrent grants for 1986-88 will be subject to satisfactory resource agreements with State and non-government school system authorities on the application of these additional resources to national objectives in education, to be established on the basis of the report of the Quality of Education Review Committee, under the Chairmanship of Professor Peter Karmel, which is due in April 1985. The Commonwealth would also expect the States to make a contribution towards the achievement of these objectives from their own resources. It would also wish to be satisfied that the increases in Commonwealth grants are not being used to substitute for State expenditure. The Bill makes provision for the transfer of any increases in general recurrent grants for which there are no agreements to special purpose programs. Grants are appropriated for non-government schools which would be operating below the community standard on the condition that they will adequately maintain their private cash recurrent expenditure. Schools which fail to maintain their private effort, and which have no justification for failing to do so, may be assigned to a lower grant category. Schools will need to explain satisfactorily to the Commonwealth any circumstances in which they are unable to offset any declines in the value of contributed services. Schools which are able to operate from private sources at or above the community standard are expected to avoid imposing additional charges, or taking any other steps which further widen the resources gap between themselves and other schools. The Commonwealth would welcome moves by schools operating above the community standard to use their Commonwealth grants to ensure greater access for students from lower income families, as many of them have said they are committed to doing, by the introduction of differential fee structures. The Commission has been asked to monitor and report on schools' responses during the 1985-88 funding period. The Bill implements the enhanced provisions for accountability by non- government schools which were approved in principle in the recent guidelines, as recommended by the Schools Commission. The Government did not accept the Commission's proposal for public registers. The Government has given an undertaking that the Schools Commission will consult with non-government school authorities on the details of the information to be sought by the Commonwealth. The Commission intends to explore ways of simplifying the details of requirements on schools and systems for information relating to Commonwealth funding of both government and non-government schools. To facilitate the streamlining of the administration of the Schools Commission's programs, this Bill makes provision in a number of programs for the payment of grants on a block grant basis, rather than requiring the Commission to seek detailed proposals from school authorities for decisions by the Commonwealth Minister. The Commission reports that it will be undertaking consultations with school authorities on the further devolution of appropriate responsibility for the administration and allocation of Commonwealth funds to school authorities, subject to agreed administrative procedures being developed for the achievement of Commonwealth objectives. In this legislation, the Government has provided for new criteria for assessing applications for assistance for new non-government schools which were announced in the guidelines. The legislation also makes provision for prescribing subsequently in regulations other possible criteria, following receipt of advice from a special committee of the Schools Commission which has been established to consult closely with States and non-government school authorities on further proposals for co-operative arrangements for the notification and assessment of applications according to a negotiated set of priorities. The Government's objective is to improve the capacity of Commonwealth, State and non-government school authorities to plan a more equitable and efficient approach to new schools. Consistent with the Government's policy to provide for retrospective cost supplementation of all programs from the beginning of 1984, this Bill also amends the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1983 by providing supplementary grants for 1984 programs totalling $16.8m, consisting of $11.7m for government schools programs, $3.9m for non-government schools programs and $ 1.2m for joint programs for all schools. Provision for this increase was included in the Budget. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(5.46) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. On 5 July 1984, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) released the guidelines to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for the 1985-87 triennium. The Commission responded with detailed recommendations in Volume 2 of its report for the triennium. The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1984 has been prepared following consideration of the Commission's recommendations. The purpose of the Bill is to provide the legislative basis for the distribution of Commonwealth funds for tertiary education in the States and the Northern Territory for the 1985-87 triennium, and to provide cost supplementation for 1984 grants. The funds to be appropriated under this Bill are allocated on a fixed triennial basis for all elements of higher education. The funding provisions being legislated for 1986 and 1987 under this Bill are minimum amounts only. Final allocations will be determined after a further report from the Commission due in March 1985. For the tertiary and further education sector, funds are appropriated for 1985 only. The Government has, however, announced its intention to extend full triennial funding for TAFE if the States also indicate resource commitments for the three years. Discussions with the States on this matter are continuing. I remind the House that the Commonwealth has a supplementary role only in the TAFE sector. This Bill provides $1,911m for the higher education sector for 1985 and $1,937m and $1,956m for 1986 and 1987 respectively. The distribution of these funds is as recommended by the Commission. The key features are: an increase in general recurrent funds of 2.3 per cent in real terms in 1985 with further increases of 1.3 per cent and 1.0 per cent in 1986 and 1987, respectively, to fund a further increase in intakes in 1985 and to provide for the pipeline growth in enrolments over the triennium. An additional 15,000 student places will be created by the end of the triennium; an increase in capital funds in 1985 of 20.4 per cent in real terms to be maintained over the triennium at least at that level. This will enable 57 higher education projects with a total value of some $230m to be commenced or completed during the triennium; an increase in funds for equipment to be directed to those institutions where enrolments are increasing; $3.1m over the triennium for pilot projects and investigations aimed at promoting equity in higher education; $3.1m over the triennium to establish new key centres of teaching and research. These centres will have an applied research focus and will be located in both the university and advanced education sectors; $4.5m over the triennium for proposals to increase participation of Aborigines; $10.5m over the triennium to be reallocated from existing subsidies for collegiate style residential accommodation to a special assistance scheme for needy students to help meet accommodation costs or other emergencies; additional funds over the triennium towards the increasing costs of superannuation. In TAFE a total of $272m will be available under this Bill in 1985, an increase of 3.8 per cent in real terms. Increased funding will be provided for fees reimbursement grants, designated grants for special course provision, college services and equipment grants to assist the TAFE system to respond to technological developments. This Bill also gives effect to the Government's decisions on recommendations by the Commission for changes in the legislation providing grants for tertiary education. Accordingly, this Bill enables the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, on the advice of the Commission and after consultation with the States, to vary amounts payable to institutions, sectors and States subject to certain limitations prescribed in the Bill. This provision provides flexibility for the efficient and effective management of programs over the triennium in accordance with the Government's objectives. Any determinations which have the effect of increasing or decreasing a State's allocation under the Bill are required to be tabled before each House of Parliament. Other changes incorporated in the Bill include authority for the Minister to approve advance expenditure on the construction of approved capital projects, the removal of the existing limitation of one per cent on the amount of funds that a college of advanced education may apply to continuing education programs and provisions for the automatic carry-over between years, up to prescribed limits, of amounts of under or over expenditure of an institution's recurrent grants. Consistent with the Government's policy to provide for retrospective cost supplementation of all programs from the beginning of 1984, this Bill also amends the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1981 by providing supplementary grants for 1984 programs totalling $11m. Provision for this increase was included in the Budget. The measures that the Government has announced and the substantially increased funding allocations that are given effect to in this Bill are evidence of this Government's commitment to the rebuilding of the tertiary education sector and fulfil our commitment to return tertiary education to a period of steady planned growth funded on a fixed triennial basis. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(5.52) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Education Assistance- Participation and Equity) Act 1983 to: Firstly, allocate the bulk of 1985 funds to the States for participation and equity programs in government and non- government schools and technical and further education institutions; secondly, provide an additional $4m to TAFE institutions in 1985 and 1986 as previously announced in the Guidelines to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for the 1985-87 triennium; thirdly, reserve some 1985 funds specifically for projects related to Aboriginal education as recommended by the Commonwealth Schools Commission; and fourthly, supplement for cost increases the grants available to government and non-government education authorities in the States and the Northern Territory to conduct projects and programs under the participation and equity program in the years 1984, 1985 and 1986. The cost supplementation proposed is in accord with the Government's undertaking to provide retrospective cost supplementation for this program. The adjustments are consistent with those being made to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill which are also before the House today. This supplementation plus the additional $4m being provided for TAFE will involve a further appropriation of $1.23m in 1984 and $6,403,000m for each of the years 1985 and 1986. Provision for these increases was included in the Budget. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. [COGNATE BILL: TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(5.54) —The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee ), in the course of his contribution to the debate on the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2), referred to the so-called 25 companies on which some research was conducted into the efficacy or otherwise of section 45D or 45E procedures of the Trade Practices Act. He said that employers, after having their relevant employer body contact them, indicated overwhelmingly that in their view the proceedings led to an early resolution of the industrial problem. That seems somewhat of a furphy to me. The original research was conducted impartially. I think it is fair to say that when an employer body gets on the phone and asks one of its constituent members questions in relation to these matters it is unlikely in the extreme that those company people would give an answer other than that provided. Of course, the honourable member for Balaclava added some drama to the situation by indicating that the companies preferred to keep their anonymity because of a perceived threat of retaliatory action by trade unions. One does not need to be a Philadelphia lawyer to identify the 25 companies involved in these matters since 1983. That really clarifies the element of drama associated with their professed claim to anonymity. When we talk about legislation of this type there are a couple of important points to bear in mind. The first is that this legislation definitely formed part of the mandate received by the Hawke Government in 1983. During the election campaign it was one of the areas on which the now Opposition argued strongly. There is no doubt that the Government has a mandate. It has a mandate not only in its own right but also in the context of wide public debate concerning the precise contents of the prices and incomes accord. Whilst there may be argument about the precise reason for the drop in the level of industrial disputation, it is worth noting that to the year ending June 1984 the level of industrial disputation was one-third lower than for the previous year and two-thirds lower than the two years previous to that. In fact, to the year ending June 1984 we enjoyed the lowest level of industrial disputation for some 16 years. It seems to me that when the Opposition wants to engage in debate on matters that touch on the level of industrial disputation in the community it will have some difficulty because of that record. It is a very enviable record and it will be put before the Australian people within the next few weeks. In the context of the proposed changes it is worth adverting briefly to the Green Paper relating to the Trade Practices Act and proposals for change. Of course, the proposals were not only confined to section 45D and section 45E. In the context of the honourable member for Balaclava's comments about the need to protect small business, it is worth adding that the review also looked at section 46 of the Act, which relates to monopolisation, section 49, which relates to price discrimination, and section 50, which relates to mergers. All those sections of the Act are to a very large extent predicated on the desire to protect small business. To the extent that small business may be less than enamoured of these proposals, to be fair they would, I think, accept that the corollary of the matters before the House today are the areas that would significantly enhance their ability to maintain business in a predatory environment of larger companies. It is also worth noting in the context of this legislation that the repeal provisions relate not only to sections dealing with secondary boycotts. Some primary boycotts affecting interstate and overseas trade fell within the scope of section 45D. As such they constituted an anomaly that needed to be addressed in any event. Of course, the Swanson Trade Practices Act Review Committee had no trade union representation. It was established at a time when the climate was one of union bashing. It seemed to me that the Government at that time was embracing a course of union bashing simply because its economic policy was falling to bits around it. That government moved against trade unions because it was very much in an economic policy vacuum. The terms of reference required the Swanson Committee to give particular attention to the application of the Trade Practices Act to anti-competitive conduct by employees and also by employer and employee organisations. The Committee did not take the view that the Trade Practices Act should have that extended application. It made no recommendation as to whether the Trade Practices Act or the Conciliation and Arbitration Act should be used. The proposals purported to take an even-handed approach to secondary boycott problems, that is, they purported to apply the same thinking to organisations representing both employees and employers. However, it has transpired that most of the litigation has occurred against unions and unionists. As I have indicated , it has simply become an arm of the previous Government's anti-union industrial relations policy. The extent to which it is heavily involved with industrial relations matters sits oddly in legislation that relates to trade practices matters. While section 45D (3) of the Trade Practices Act provided in broad terms that this section would not apply where the dominant purpose of the secondary boycott was substantially related to matters such as remuneration and conditions of employment, it was not of much use because it was interpreted very narrowly by the courts and in practice trade unions simply could not rely on it as valid protection. In that context it is worth noting that the fines involved pursuant to this legislation were in the vicinity of $250,000. Those fines were never levied. That lack of action speaks much louder than words. Obviously it was believed that that would not do anything to solve the industrial relations problems that were current at any particular time. The Fraser Government saw difficulties with its own legislation because certain amendments in 1980 to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act established a mechanism to allow the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to deal with the boycott disputes involving federally registered unions and work under Federal awards by conciliation. This is similar to what the Government is now proposing but, of course, it had a number of defects. Firstly, a party to a boycott dispute could notify the Commission only after proceedings for a contravention of sections 45D or 45E of the Trade Practices Act were instituted in the Federal Court of Australia. Only a Minister could refer a dispute involving a possible contravention of sections 45D or 45E of the Trade Practices Act to the Commission before that time. The Commission could act of its own motion when it became aware of such a dispute but this is only of practical value where a secondary boycott within the scope of the Trade Practices Act is ancillary to an industrial dispute before the Commission. Secondly, the Commission was, in effect, being called upon to deal with boycott disputes in an atmosphere of considerable industrial tension, with the stakes often being raised considerably by the taking of legal proceedings against the relevant union. Thirdly, although provision was made to allow the Federal Court to stay an injunction while the Commission was dealing with a matter, this was not automatic but discretionary. Often judges simply refused to stay the injunction, thereby adding to the difficulty of the Commission's task in seeking to resolve a dispute amicably. Practical experience, contrary to that indicated by the survey conducted by the honourable member for Balaclava, has shown that these provisions have not been particularly effective. Since 1977, 79 applications have been made under sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act for interim injunctions. On the information available to me, an examination of 25 of those disputes which have occurred since 1983 reveals that the procedures were not particularly effective. That is, one cannot, on the basis of the impirical data available, draw a correlation between the commencement of injunctive proceedings and the ending of any industrial dispute. I have already commented on the status I believe ought to be given to the survey results of the honourable member for Balaclava. The Government is convinced that the sanctions provided are inimical to the interests of industrial relations in this country and that the $250,000 fine is obviously unrealistic. Perhaps as evidenced by the fact that it has not been applied, there is not a trade union in Australia which would be able to bear the $250,000 fine arising out of actions of this nature. Overall the interests of the economy are best served by pursuing the widely debated and widely accepted provisions of the prices and incomes accord that in return for strong co- operation from the trade union movement some aspects of industrial relations legislation ought to be changed. It is apparent when we talk about legislation of this nature that the implied theme of the Opposition is that small businesses and large businesses are left naked against a potential onslaught of trade union secondary boycott activity. That seems to imply that the employers have no other legal mechanisms that they could embrace in the event of secondary boycott situations arising which affect them. The reality is that Australia has a rich history of the use of the so- called industrial torts. Unlike the Swanson Committee's finding that 'there are some common law actions in tort which might, in theory, be available but are in most cases dead letters in practice', the reality is that the industrial torts are alive and well in the Australian context. I notice that my time is rapidly running out. I will simply mention for the purposes of the record in the Supreme Court of Western Australia the recent case of Trident Construction Pty Ltd v. the Australian Builders Labourers Federation Union of Workers. I would never recommend that the industrial torts be used in this context but nevertheless they are alive and well. They certainly provide adequate protection to employers who believe that that course of action is the one which they ought to embrace. It has not been all that successful in the past and is not one that I would recommend. In summary, the Government has a clear mandate for this legislation. It is central to the prices and incomes accord and that, of course, is central to the maintenance of economic recovery. Our economic record stands on its own and the low level of industrial disputation-the lowest level for some 16 years-speaks for itself. I recommend to the Opposition that it leave these matters in the hands of those who demonstrably are capable of fulfilling the obligations imposed upon them by the Australian community. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(6.08) —At present we are debating amendments moved by the Government to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the Trade Practices Act. The amendments to sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act and supplementary amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act put unions in a privileged position before the law in this country. The Government proposes to repeal the prohibition of secondary boycotts in the Trade Practices Act; the Government proposes to allow the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to conciliate on certain secondary boycotts, which it can do at present; and the Government proposes to prohibit employers from obtaining an injunction under common law while conciliation is proceeding. This legislation is a complete sellout by the Government to the union movement. Currently, employers under attack from secondary boycotts have three avenues for obtaining relief from the crippling financial losses and burdens involved in these disputes. Firstly, employers can obtain an injunction against the union under sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act prohibiting the continuation of the boycott. Secondly, it can take action to obtain an injunction under common law. This avenue is rarely resorted to but would be absolutely vital in the absence of section 45D. Thirdly, employers can also at present obtain conciliation under the existing Division 5A of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which deals with secondary boycotts. This provision is ineffective and is not used. Generally the purpose of a secondary boycott by unions is to put pressure on a target business or firm by denying goods and services to that business or firm or by precluding it from delivering its goods and services. This pressure by unions is usually achieved through threats to or industrial action against the employing establishment which has dealings with the target firm. By the imposition of selective bans and limitations, trade unions can inflict severe economic damage on the target company. The imposition of such bans and limitations can also have severe economic consequences for those firms or customers dealing with the target who are simply innocent victims of the action. I want to look at the broad nature of the legislation and at the environment or climate in this country within which it is being introduced. These amendments to the Trade Practices Act and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act effectively put trade unions above and beyond the law. They give trade unions special immunities and privileges that none of us as an individual has and that companies and firms do not have. The abuse of monopoly power by unions is now no longer to be subject to the trade practices law. If companies, firms or businesses abuse monopoly power or engage in restraint of trade in their commercial dealings, they are subject to the law. At present, under sections 45D and 45E, so are the trade unions. But, by these amendments, unions will be able to engage in restraint of trade and in secondary boycotts, and there will be no effective legislation to stop them from so doing. It is interesting that the climate or environment in which the amendments are being introduced is one of a government that gives preference to the trade union movement and, at the same time as it is doing that under this legislation, in other pieces of legislation before the House, such as amendments to the taxation laws during this week, directors and managers of companies can be presumed guilty before they are deemed to be innocent. Every small business director or manager in this country under amendments to the tax law is deemed to be guilty before he or she is deemed to be innocent. So we have amendments to the taxation laws attacking the corporate sector and attacking managers and directors of companies, and in the legislation before the House today we have a preference being given to the union movement. This legislation is being introduced at the behest of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It is being introduced as part of the prices and incomes accord. It is worth repeating, as I often do, that the Australian Labor Party is the parliamentary wing of the trade union movement; so the Labor Party is a trade union party. We are now at the high point of trade union power in the history of Australia, because there is an agreement, called the prices and incomes accord, which is a formal document of agreement between the Labor Party and its constituent parent, the trade union movement. That is most frightening to the people of Australia when they stop and think about it. The trade union movement is running the country. Through the prices and incomes accord, which has resulted in the legislation before us on section 45D and section 45E of the Trade Practices Act-removing those sections from the Act to give the unions carte blanche-the union movement is setting the agenda for the Government. We know that the union movement determined the nature of the Budget. The Government had to consult the unions as to the tax cuts. But worse than that , the union movement is telling the Government what it ought to do under the accord in relation to legislation. It is quite frightening, as I have said, that in Australia we are at the historical high point of trade union power. The union movement has a written agreement with the Government, limiting the Government's freedom to act on behalf of all the people of Australia. No other country in the Western world is in this position. Overseas, the situation is reversed. Trade unions in the United States operate in a proper perspective. Like the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), I am not engaging in trade union bashing for the sake of trade union bashing. Trade unions have a legitimate role to play. It is just that in this part of the century they have gained too much power. The pendulum has swung, and they are exercising far too much power. They have monopoly power over the community, and, through the prices and incomes accord, they are exercising that power in telling the Government that it will remove sections 45D and 45E from the Trade Practices Act-or else. The situation in the United States is balanced. In the United Kingdom the union movement is in its death throes through the actions of Mr Arthur Scargill of the coal miners union. In Europe union power is becoming irrelevant and unions have been burnt out. But in this country we have this frightening position of trade unions being all-powerful. Under the accord, the trade union movement is placed in a preferred position. It is historical, because it is an abdication by a government to Kelty, Crean and their puppets. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), Kelty, Crean and Mr Dolan are the real Caucus running the country. It is strange that this legislation has been introduced at the same time as they are allegedly making Mr Gallagher sign an agreement. That has happened for two reasons. One is that an election is coming. Secondly, it suits other unions in the trade union movement, such as the Australian Workers Union and the Federated Ironworkers Association, to take action against the Builders Labourers Federation. Let us not be fooled. In reality the BLF will continue as always. It will engage in secondary boycotts, as it has done. The BLF is one of the worst offenders under this legislation. This action gives unions such as the BLF carte blanche to do whatever they like under the prices and incomes accord. The BLF will continue to hit and hurt small businesses all over Australia-small businesses being those unable to protect themselves, those least able to protect themselves from union bullying and the abuse of union power. This legislation gives the union carte blanche. It is part of a continuing litany of neglect by this Government of the small business sector. From time to time the Government pays lip service to small business; but, at the end of the day, trade unions, socialism and small business are not compatible, because entrepreneurship, diligence, profit and the creation of wealth, which small business means and is all about, are threats to the union movement. The legislation before the House on sections 45D and 45E proves that point beyond all doubt. I have talked about the BLF and about sections 45D and 45E. Let me refer to the scissor lift case-a section 45D trade practices case in which the BLF was involved. In this case the BLF had sought to prevent construction companies from using a piece of equipment known as a scissor lift on building sites unless the equipment was operated by a member of the BLF-a typical BLF tactic. Few scissor lifts were owned by construction companies and the lifts were usually hired as required. Following a Trades Hall Council decision in Victoria that the equipment could be operated by any union on construction sites, the construction companies-as was their right-refused to give the BLF the exclusive right to operate the equipment. The good old BLF then banned the equipment-as it often does-from being used on building sites or going on to construction sites. However, when these bans appeared ineffective and because the BLF was unable properly to police all the sites, the BLF then placed picket lines and put its bully boys outside the yards of three hire companies. These hire companies together hired out about 80 per cent of the total supply of scissor lifts in Victoria. They did not employ builders labourers who were members of the BLF, nor would builders labourers be required by any of them in their operations; but the yards of these companies were picketed by the BLF for 24 hours a day, stopping not only the supply of scissor lifts but also the supply of other equipment and all business of those companies. Notwithstanding negotiations and in view of the Trades Hall Council decision, neither the companies nor the unions would agree to deny the right of members of other unions to use the equipment. The BLF then demanded that hire companies restrict the hire of scissor lifts only to people who, at the time of hire, produced a current BLF membership ticket-another typical BLF tactic. The hire companies refused this demand, there being no reason whatsoever for them to agree to this proposal other than to accommodate the BLF. Proceedings under section 45D were instituted and interim injunctions were obtained by the hire companies against the BLF and its pickets. The BLF pressed its claims for exclusive use of the equipment. The trial came before the Federal Court, but before the case of the hire companies had been fully put before the Court, and therefore before the Court made any orders, the BLF abandoned its demands and withdrew its bans and pickets. This proves to me and must prove to the House that this legislation is effective. In effect, the BLF in the lift case consented to a permanent injunction against it and its members under section 45D. What was the result of this bullying action? I read from the Australian Financial Review of 16 December 1983: Kwikform sold its Kwik Access division at a $242,000 after-tax loss following the dispute, during which the Builders Labourers' Federation placed bans and picket lines on companies which hired the lifts. That is the sort of activity on which the BLF will continue to engage. It will send companies to the wall. Protection was given in sections 45D and 45E, but that protection is now being removed. One can only assume that more and more companies will be forced to the wall, the pickets will be placed against them, and the unions will rampage against the corporate community. I turn to the provisions of the Bill and the role of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Commission is able only to conciliate. It can talk, it can have discussions, but it can take no action. The Commission has no power at all. This proves that unions are placed above the law. There will be a field day for unions and for the union movement. In a normal industrial dispute unions can face a bans clause; that is, a clause which is in the award or which can by application be inserted. If people breach such a clause, they face serious action under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Under its own awards bans can be placed at the behest of the employer. However, under this legislation the union concerned will arrange for another union to place a secondary boycott on the employer because no bans clauses are available under the secondary boycott provisions as amended by this legislation. Obviously secondary boycotts will be the growth area of union activity. They will grow day by day because unions will organise their activities so that other unions will place secondary boycotts on the firm in question. Such a firm cannot resort to sections 45D and 45E as can happen at present, and discussions will go on before the Arbitration Commission- and we all know how such discussions go on and on and on. Meanwhile, the business of the firm will have gone and the company will have gone to the wall. Neither the union movement nor the Government appears to care about that. These secondary boycotts will proliferate and grow if this legislation is passed. Another absurdity in these amendments is that the Commission can only conciliate-I have pointed to the weaknesses in conciliation-in relation to Federal awards. The present position is that the Trade Practices Act, which is an exercise of power by the Commonwealth under the corporations and other powers , can protect people under State and Federal jurisdiction. One does not have to go into the question of whether it is a State or Federal award under the Trade Practices Act; the remedy existed under sections 45D and 45E. But under these amendments there is no protection at all for all the small businesses, and large businesses too, under State awards. They are left helpless by these amendments to the legislation. Worst of all, under these amendments that are now before us the Government is removing from employers their traditional rights under the common law. Again, privilege and preference are being given to the union movement. Under this legislation unions can and will be able to impose massive boycotts and cause great economic damage to firms just by delaying discussions and employing delaying tactics before the Arbitration Commission. In that way no injunction can be obtained by the employer while discussions are proceeding before the Commission. In the meantime, the firms will go to the wall. I turn to what some employers have had to say on this subject. The honourable member for Balaclava referred to a number of such comments, but I wish to draw attention to what was said by the Victorian Employers Federation. Its statement proves beyond doubt that consensus is dead once and for all by the introduction of this legislation. The VEF, in its Employers' Report of 7 September this year stated: Secondary Boycotts strike out Consensus. The document continued: Consensus can only survive in an environment of trust and fairness. But that trust and fairness will be destroyed by repealing these sections- that is sections 45D and 45E- of the Trade Practices Act, and remove any rights which employers may have to protect themselves from secondary boycotts. The document continues: By repealing sections 45D and 45E, and by denying the third party businesses access to common law, the Federal Government is pandering to the radical and extreme sections of the trade union movement . . . . In fact, if the Government proceeds with this action it will be condoning or even encouraging the use of secondary boycotts in industrial disputes. Clearly, if the legislation is passed, it will be a green light to all irresponsible sections of the trade union movement to use secondary boycotts. The VEF concludes: By removing any penalties, unions can undertake this action at will-and employers will be unable to either protect their businesses, or the jobs of those people who work for them. So much for consensus. As I said, consensus is dead once and for all by the introduction of this legislation. Secondary boycotts will rage throughout the community. The prices and wages accord obviously takes preference over the so- called consensus. At the end of the day business becomes the prisoner of the trade union movement. This legislation contains another example of the Government doing the will of the trade union movement and giving it preference. Above all, this legislation puts small business at the mercy of the trade union movement. Let us remember that this Government is of the trade union movement, by the trade union movement and for the trade union movement-and this legislation proves that beyond all doubt. Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(8.00) —The Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1984 and the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 represent one of a number of points of significant departure between the Hawke Labor Government and the failed Fraser Government. The Australian public is very much aware of the points of departure between basically what this Government is about and what its predecessor was about. Some very dominant characteristics of the Fraser Government were reflected particularly in the conciliation and arbitration area and the trade practices area. I will spend a moment talking to those characteristics because I believe they are very important indeed. The first characteristic of the Fraser Government was that it tended to promote conflict at all times to suit the narrowly defined interests that concerned it as a government. So with respect to conciliation and arbitration and the Trade Practices Act there was a tendency for people to see legislation in that area in terms of its use towards the promotion of conflict, not towards its resolution. I make that point very clearly and will develop it further. The second characteristic of the Fraser Government was its search for victims in the political arena. It did not search for solutions but sought out victims whom it could blame. The third characteristic I want to elaborate on was the Fraser Government's tendency to blame problems caused by that Government on the victims of its policy. It blamed unemployment on the unemployed, poverty on the poor and homelessness on the homeless. There was a tendency in the industrial relations area to blame conflict on the workers and their unions. That was very much reflected in legislation. The fourth characteristic was to use legislation emanating from this Parliament, particularly from the House of Representatives, as a weapon against offending groups. In that case the offending group was deemed to be the trade union group. Speeches by honourable members opposite who have preceded our speakers tonight still tend to reflect the sense that there are people out there who are seeking to offend and destroy society come what may . The fifth characteristic of the Fraser Government was to gradually isolate the Government-it did become isolated in its latter stages-from the real concerns of the Australian community. We saw that reflected in two areas. One was the taxes area about which there was a great build up of anger in the community. The second area was the industrial area where industrial policy became more and more isolated. The five dominant characteristics of Fraserism, such as the tendency to use trade practices law and industrial law as weapons against offenders, modelled the legislation we are amending. In that case the offenders were always narrowly defined as the trade union movement. Clearly, there has been a significant point of departure. The change of government-one does not want to overdo this and guild the lily-saw a changed approach to industrial relations, a crucial factor of which was the aim to resolve conflict, to involve people in the process of decision making, to treat them as though they were mature parts of society and to build a broad consensus. That was done by means of the National Economic Summit Conference. It was also done in terms of leadership of the Party and the role of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations ( Mr Willis). In other words there was a tendency to treat groups in society as though they were mature and could be brought into the process of industrial relations. It might be all very well for some honourable members opposite to make claims about the threats of marauding trade unions but clearly the score is on the board very simply in terms of reduced industrial conflict. Whilst there is an enormous pre-occupation by speakers of the other side with the threat that unions represent to society, I notice that there has not been any attention, nor might I add any praise given to the fact that the reduction of industrial conflict has been a major solution to many problems in Australian society. In subsequent speeches from honourable members opposite-one can anticipate it because the theme is always the same-we will hear that if we are not careful we will be overrun by hoards of marauding unionists. The only problem is that those marauding unionists are ordinary Australians who are also responsible people, who have responsibilities to their families, to the community, to their jobs and to the possessions that they have. They also make decisions. Those decisions are sometimes political. In recent times those decisions have not been very helpful to those opposite. So as I have said, there are some differences in the dominant characteristics of the previous Government and this Government. The dominant characteristics are philosophical, that is, a tendency on the other side to search out victims and to lay blame, and a tendency on this side to reduce conflict and to try to treat people as though they are mature. That marks the point of departure. What are we doing in terms of these Bills? We are saying very simply that if we are to resolve secondary boycott problems, rather than using the penalty provisions of the Trade Practices Act, sections 45D and 45E, we should seek to resolve them in the conciliation and arbitration area where they properly belong . Clearly, that is a commitment of this Government. Clearly, we are honouring that commitment with respect to these Bills. We recognise that disputations occur. We also recognise that secondary boycott problems arise. Because we have our feet grounded in reality we recognise that. However, we also recognise that if we are to resolve those problems there is an appropriate arena for doing so. That is the industrial arena where the role of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is to reduce industrial conflict. Why might we choose to move from the trade practices area, using sections 45D and 45E, into the conciliation and arbitration area? The answer in terms of the impact on industrial relations is very straightforward. When injunctions were taken under the Trade Practices Act to deal with secondary boycotts all we got were two levels of conflict. There was the original conflict which was industrial. That was still there and still needed resolution. Another level of conflict was added to it, the conflict about the application of trade practices law to the behaviour of unions and employers. So, as I have already anticipated in my opening remarks, another problem was simply laid on to be resolved in terms of trade practices law without necessarily paying any attention to the problem of industrial disputation. Are we right in saying that that was what happened? We were exactly right because if one looks at industrial disputation during the latter years of the Fraser Government one sees that it was an absolute shame and scandal. We had such a terrible performance. Clearly, as I said at the outset, we had a government that was pre-occupied with laying the blame and taking harsh action against the offenders that it sought out in the community. Logically mature adults were going to say: 'We will react against that'. Thus there was a very high level of industrial disputes. No mechanism was effectively used, despite all the protestations, to reduce industrial disputation because the very body that was crucial to the resolution of industrial conflict, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, was whittled down by the previous Government in terms of its importance and role. It attacked and belittled it. We have moved away from that. We have said that there are responsible parties to industrial relations in Australia. The centrepiece of industrial relations in Australia is the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, but three other parties play a role. There are the employers, the unions and the Federal Government. All our behaviour has hinged around that concept. The consequence of that behaviour has been a remarkable improvement in the level of industrial disputation. So despite whatever else is said in the debate tonight, when one looks at the historical circumstances, and we are talking now about recent history, we see that the performance in the recent past was disgraceful. We had a very sorry record in industrial relations. There was a tendency for those in the Federal Parliament to treat unionists, particularly, but also employers, and there are instances of that, as though somehow they were not mature members of society. We have moved away from that. We have said that they are mature members of society. Might I add another point which I think is very crucial and which underlies the whole discussion we are having here. Why does there have to be a pre-occupation with offenders in the debates in this place? Why do we not pay some attention to the law abiding people in the community? All we heard from honourable members on the other side of the chamber in their contributions was an obsession with a very small number of unionists. We know the problems. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations spoke yesterday in the House about the problems involving the Builders Labourers Federation, so we are well aware of them. What we get from honourable members on the other side is an excessive pre- occupation with that problem area. Meanwhile they are treating the rest of the trade union movement as if somehow it is infantile and incapable of playing a responsible role. We do not hold to that view. Our position is very different. We say that the Australian trade union movement is a very important part of our society. We want to involve it in the conciliation and arbitration process because historically that is the one that has been successful. We do not want to use the trade practices arena because we believe that all that does is lay on a second level of dispute and all we are doing is trying to resolve two disputes. We must get back and resolve the first dispute. So I am very clear in terms of the shift in direction of this legislation. What we are about is resolving disputes where they ought to be resolved, which is in the arena of conciliation and arbitration . As I have said, our performance in the last 18 months is on the board for people to see. Despite a lot of the comments that might be made by subsequent speakers from the Opposition, they cannot overrule that performance. The Australian community is aware of that. Incidentally, the research that one does in talking to businesses, in talking to unions and in talking to the rest of the community, indicates that they recognise the prices and incomes accord and the approach to industrial relations as satisfactory. Mention should be made of the person who led the debate for the Opposition, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee). I see him as presenting the human face of the Liberal Party of Australia with respect to industrial relations. Clearly, he does not have the support of all the people in the Opposition. That is a pity because in some respects he has an intelligent contribution to make. The problem is that he has behind him a thumping authoritarianism which is determined to get its own way. Some of those people belong to the National Party of Australia and some belong to the Liberal Party. But the whole approach to industrial relations is the same as that we left behind in March 1983-threats being made and blame being laid in the community. I wish to make another couple of points before I close. What we are saying with respect to this legislation is that we believe we can more effectively resolve industrial disputes through the conciliation process, particularly those involving secondary boycotts. I remind honourable members opposite that most of the time most of the industrial disputes are resolved by conciliation anyway. Again there is an obsession opposite, where people are saying: 'But you do not have an arbitral power'. Honourable members opposite have to be reminded that the arbitral power is used in a very small number of cases in industrial relations. In fact, in most cases there are sensible, mature people on both sides dealing with one another and getting a resolution of disputes. The other point to make is about the claim, which is really a sham, by the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) that somehow the unions will be beyond the law if we remove the provisions of sections 45D and 45E. Again that is a nonsense. We are saying that there is a very effective body of law called industrial law. We are moving the union movement and the employers into that arena. But there is also the resort to common law. The honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) spoke very eloquently about that. What those opposite have to understand is that there are very clear arrangements for dealing with industrial relations and arrangements. We recognise that. What we are doing is putting them in their right place. Let me use an analogy to show just how things can become distorted. I will speak very briefly about the area of professional sport. In recent times we have seen an enormous number of cases being taken, particularly in the area of professional football, by sportsmen seeking to resolve their employment disputes in the trade practices area. The very simple solution to those disputes is to move them back into the industrial commission area. Those disputes really are about the terms and conditions of employment of footballers vis-a-vis employers who happen to be football clubs. Here is a clear analogy: Let us move industrial disputation into the area where it belongs. In respect of professional footballers it lies in the area of industrial commissions. Those disputes over football players transfers could easily be resolved in the arena of industrial commissions. In Western Australia, under section 28 of the Industrial Act, that certainly could be the case. I am saying that here is an analogy. Let us not get the wrong legal structure to deal with industrial relations. We on this side of the House have a very clear goal. That is to handle industrial relations in a humane and sensible way, recognising that there will be people who will promote conflict, but also recognising that it is not the job of government to promote conflict. That marks the significant departure between the discredited Fraser Government and the effective Hawke Government. I close by saying that both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations practice what they preach; that is, sensible industrial relations. It is a pleasure to commend these Bills to the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(8.16) —I listened with some interest to the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards). I must say that he put forward what seems to be a very plausible point of view. I have no reason to think that the view he puts forward and the views on industrial relations put forward by a lot of the honourable members on the other side of the House are anything but genuine, but they are not views to which I am persuaded. I want, as clearly as I can tonight, to state an alternative point of view. We are talking about the removal of the provisions of sections 45D and 45E from the Trade Practices Act to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I believe, as the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) outlined at the beginning of this debate, that this will be disastrous to the future of industrial relations in this country. Before I deal with the legislation I want to make some general remarks about trade unions and the power of trade unions in this country because that is what this debate is really all about. We have seen in the last 18 months an extraordinary growth of union authority in this country. We are talking about a very cosy relationship between the Government and the unions in many fields. We are talking about the extension of that trade union power to the extent that it seems to a lot of people in the community that trade unions are really telling the Government what to do. I intend to oppose at every opportunity this growing strength of the trade unions in this country. It is quite fashionable for politicians on my side of politics to say: 'I am not a union basher, but . . .' Let me make it quite clear that I am quite prepared to be a union basher if I do not think it is in the interests of this country as a whole. Many people say: ' Yes, unions have their place. I am not against unions, but . . .' So the arguments goes on. My view is quite clear. While unions have done a remarkable job over the last 50 or 60 years or more in bringing some sensible conditions to employment in this country, they have long overstepped the mark and are into areas in which they have no reason to be. I heard the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) earlier in the day castigating my side of politics and saying: 'They seem to be floundering around looking for an issue'. Let me make it quite clear that, as far as I am concerned, in the coming election, trade unions and trade union power will be one of the fundamental issues wherever I am speaking. There is no doubt that men and women should be free to come together and form a free association of labour. I would hope that the emphasis in Australia is still on freedom. There should be no compulsion in that association. It should not be argued that one cannot get a job or one cannot do this or that unless one joins a union. I have heard all the arguments about the unions having fought for the conditions and therefore one has to belong to them. To me those arguments have long since ceased to have any relevance. Some unions have become powerful and arrogant in this country and they have become very dangerous to the future of our country. I firmly believe that a stand must be taken. If a stand is not taken they will devour the reasonable relationship between all the community interests in this country. People should be free to opt in or to opt out of these organisations. It is very interesting to see what has happened in the United States of America in recent years. Unionism-the number of people who belong to trade unions-has declined. Above all countries in the Western world, America has been the country which has generated the jobs. The same cannot be said in countries where union membership has been maintained. If we look at the position in Australia, there are something like 320 unions in this country. The country is littered day by day with demarcation disputes. It seems to me that the problem is not only that we have so many unions but also that we have so many union presidents and so many members of each union executive who are all vying for power and for position. They want to stay there. Many of them do not give a damn what happens to their members-whether their members are unemployed. Many of them said to me, face to face: 'I do not give a damn for the unemployed. My position depends on looking after those who are employed'. It does not seem to me that that is a reasonable basis on which union leadership should be sustained. There is another point that disturbs me as I go around this country and talk to people who belong to unions. The great majority of them do not want to belong to them, but they have to be members to get a job. I object to the pressure that unions place on employers. I suppose one of the most glaring examples in recent months has been the case that has been put to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission called the job security case. If ever there was a misnomer, that is it. What is happening in small business and I suspect in large business is that employers are putting permanent employees off wherever they can. They are employing temporaries and casuals so that they will not have to meet the bill if business turns down and they have to put off permanent employees. A small employer who is looking at up to $3,000 to put someone off at the very time when he can least afford it will be getting rid of his permanent employees and putting on casuals. To call the case before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission a job security case is a great misnomer indeed. One of the other matters I object most strongly to about growing union power in this country is their attitude to junior wages. In this country we have 25 per cent of the under 19 year olds unemployed. One of the basic reasons for this unemployment is simply that the unions and the Australian Council of Trade Unions have pushed the level of junior wages to a limit which many employers cannot sustain because the productivity is not there. It is very interesting to see that the great push for the increase in junior wages occurred in 1972. It all began when the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was the president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I do not know the position of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) when the Prime Minister was in the ACTU. It was between these two men that the push started. That is one of the reasons why so many youngsters in this country are unemployed right now. I think what is coming home to most Australians is the cosy little relationship occasioned by the prices and incomes accord between the Government and the unions. What is happening and what people are afraid of is that unions are getting on top. They have the Government by the tail. It is no secret as we go around the country and read the newspapers as to what happened during the negotiations leading up to the last Budget. The ACTU and the Government were closely closeted, deciding what the ACTU would accept in relation to budgetary decisions. It is no secret that Mr Dolan speaks out almost daily on what the ACTU will accept or will not accept in terms of tax revision in the coming months. It is no secret that Mr Dolan seems to spend more time in the Prime Minister's office than he does in his own. The ACTU is being given special consent in Budget considerations, special information which has not been available to the country as a whole. In the last few days we have seen the ACTU delaying Cabinet decisions about what sort of helicopter this country will have. Certainly there are some industrial relations matters in terms of Australian industry participation, but what have the ACTU or the unions got to do in the decision making process as to what should be the best helicopter for the Australian defence forces? I understand that this matter has been to Cabinet three times. It is commonly accepted that the ACTU has forced the delay. An article in the Australian Financial Review today states: A meeting between the Defence Minister, Mr Scholes, and ACTU representatives last night on the choice of new helicopters for Australia's naval frigates . . . What sort of government do we have when the ACTU is making the decisions as to what helicopter will be accepted in the Australian defence forces? The article continues: Cabinet ministers have now been juggling for three weeks the pros and cons of the two remaining contenders for the . . . helicopter-- This is because of union pressure. Let us look at the Builders Labourers Federation's place in this whole sorry saga. I presume from recent remarks that the BLF is regarded as a renegade union even by the Australian Labor Party. Statements made recently by the Government concerning the BLF are to be applauded, but we have heard a lot of these statements before. We have seen the Government withdraw the deregistration case. Statements have been made by the Victorian Government, the Federal Government, the ACTU, the Building Workers Industrial Union and the Master Builders Federation expressing great reservations, and well they might, about whether the BLF will keep to the agreement which was apparently signed yesterday. We have heard these threats before. What happens when the BLF steps out of line again? That is what people want to know. They have seen the BLF get away with all this nonsense that has been going on for years. They have seen the Government make threats and they have seen statements made again and again against the BLF. What is going to happen next time they step out of line, which is inevitable? Talk is cheap. One would have to ask why those deregistration proceedings were not proceeded with last time they were threatened. In 1975 the Fraser Government was given a very big mandate. Part of that mandate was to do something about growing union power in this country. In 1977 it put these provisions into the Trade Practices Act that we are discussing tonight. Australians generally applauded when that happened. They were looking for something more. It is a great tragedy in this country that something more never eventuated. One reason that we are sitting on this side of the House right now is that the Fraser Government did not proceed along the path that people expected. People ask: 'Why did you not proceed?' As far as I am concerned, that is the path that we are going to take in the future. We have a responsibility to millions of Australians to expose this growing authority of the unions, take a stand against it and put the unions in the context of the community in which they belong-not a special group that has direct access to government and is telling government what it will and will not accept. That is not the way in which I see the future of this country developing. Let me turn now to some of the details of this legislation. It will place the trade union movement in a privileged position. It will remove some of the most effective constraints on union power in this country and it will actively encourage attacks by the trade unions on third parties. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has recently returned from a trip to Japan where, according to Press reports, he assured all the Japanese that Australian industrial relations were going well. But we have to ask: Why over recent years have the Japanese in particular turned to other countries for their raw materials? The removal of these provisions will increase pressure on shipping out of Australia more than ever before. In July of this year more than 100 ships were tied up around this country. Section 45D proved effective in that area. The Australian Chamber of Shipping, amongst many others, is totally opposed to what the Government is doing. I quote from the Chamber's comments: Legal redress of the kind afforded by section 45D is without question the single most important piece of legislation in Australia relating to overseas cargo shipping. Mr Steedman —They want the serf system brought back. Mr WHITE —It is better to have a shipping line. Mr Steedman —You like the serf system, you little born-to-rule boys. Mr WHITE —I might just take that up. I have no intention of ever supporting the return of the serf system, but I must say that, if there was someone in this chamber I would like to have under my control, perhaps just for a week or maybe even a day, it would be that honourable member. Mr Steedman —Would you like to put me in a strategic hamlet? Mr WHITE —No, I would make a man of you; that is what I would do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that honourable member for McPherson return to the Bill. Mr WHITE —I was distracted for a moment. The opportunity was too good. This is not only an industrial matter; it is also in my view legal economic vandalism. We are not talking just about wages and conditions. The Government is encouraging outright union thuggery in this country. The legislation is opposed, as far as I can gather, by every section of the community, including the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Business Council of Australia, which the Government prides itself on having such a close relationship with. It is opposed by most media commentators and by over 100 organisations that have written to the Minister on the matter. It is opposed by the judiciary, by the Australian Shipping Council and by the Australian Retailers Association, and so on. Why is it happening if everyone is against it except the Government and the unions? Mr Steedman —And the three million workers. Mr WHITE —Most of them do not want to be in a union. It is happening because it is part of the accord. It is part of the pay-off. It is part of the promise by the Government to the unions. To take these provisions out of the Trade Practices Act and put them in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which has no power, which has proved a failure in this country in recent years and which is the very Commission that introduced the so-called job security provisions, seems to me to be the most disastrous move of all. It is denying rights to employers, the people who create jobs in this country. They cannot now seek protection under the common law. By law they have to wait until discussions have finished. In that time, which could be weeks, they face the prospect of going broke. It is a pay-off for the accord. It gives unions protections which they do not deserve and it gives employers no protection at all. Above all, it creates extensive powers for the unions. In political terms it is a plus for the Opposition but it will prove an absolute disaster for the future of Australia. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(8.35) —I would like to begin by making reference to that section of the accord which deals with industrial relations policy. The key paragraph for the purposes of this legislation is: The ALP and the ACTU agree on the following priority areas: The Government will endeavour to create a better industrial relations climate by itself adopting and encouraging other employers to adopt a rational and less confrontationist approach to industrial relations. The Government will encourage the settlement of disputes between employers and unions by conciliation and without recourse to legislative or common law penal sanctions. That is a central part of the prices and incomes accord. The repeal of sections 45D and 45E and the establishment of some mechanism to deal with secondary boycotts within the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is clearly consistent with that section of the accord, and there is no doubt the trade union movement regards the repeal of sections 45D and 45E as an essential part of the fulfilment of the terms of the accord. I would go so far as to say that were that action not taken the viability of the accord would be seriously threatened. Having said that, it clearly comes down to a question of what weight we place on the preservation of the prices and incomes accord framework. As all honourable members would be aware, the accord is the very basis of the Government's approach to economic strategy. So one has to make a decision as to whether one regards that as a valuable approach or whether the undermining of the accord is something one can tolerate. That is a very broad issue obviously. Sections of the Opposition favour reverting to a decentralised form of wage fixation and are opposed to and regard an anathema any kind of prices and incomes accord. Obviously if one adopts that viewpoint one does not worry about it so much. But if one takes into consideration the record of this Government, the turn-around in economic conditions that has occurred since the change of government, the substantial growth of employment, the very substantial real economic growth, the decline in inflation and, coupled with that, the very low level of industrial disputation-the number of man days lost in the most recent financial year being the lowest for some 16 years-it would seem plausible to suggest that the accord framework provides a better way of approaching economic policy than that proffered by the Opposition parties. Certainly I regard preservation of the accord as a key matter, and repeal of those sections of the Trade Practices Act is a key part of the fulfilment of the terms of the accord and, I suggest, a necessary condition of its survival. If one accepts that kind of thinking, clearly the onus is very much on the Opposition parties to establish that real benefits flow from the existence of sections 45D and 45E and real disbenefits would flow from the repeal of those sections. They have to show not only that that is the case but also that the alternative mechanisms that the Government is proposing to establish within the framework of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act will be inadequate for the purposes being put forward. We have all been deluged with correspondence from business and other organisations arguing that the repeal of sections 45D and 45E indeed is a calamitous development. For example, we have all received correspondence from the Business Council of Australia which contained a letter signed by some of its senior executives together with a short paper outlining the grounds of objection. It lists the three basic objections. The first one listed is: It will mean that a very large and powerful group will no longer by subject to laws applying to the rest of the community. That sort of statement is patently ludicrous. This legislation does not ultimately remove the right of target groups subject to secondary boycotts to take a civil action under common law, invoking industrial torts. That power still exists. It is only being restricted for a period while the conciliation process is going on. In other words, it is not possible to seek or grant an injunction while the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is conducting a hearing into a secondary boycott. There was some talk earlier in this debate about how cumbersome and long winded such a process would be, but I think it is possibly worth reminding members of proposed new section 88DE of the revised legislation which obliges the Commission to deal with disputes expeditiously. Such a requirement is very explicitly built into the legislation. When we take into consideration the delays that have existed in a large number of cases where secondary boycotts have occurred, even on getting the machinery in place to seek an interim injunction-typically, that might take two weeks or longer-and when we consider that this framework is intended to come into force immediately a secondary boycott is notified, it is not at all clear that this machinery will be inferior to what existed before in terms of resolving such disputes. I return to the Business Council of Australia document, which I think is probably fairly typical of the type of argument being put forward. We all received a letter from the Council, from which I quote: We have attached a list, which is incomplete, of actions taken under sections 45D and 45E since they became law in 1977. This list, which was originally published in the 'Business Council Bulletin' of May 1984, illustrates the extent to which the present provisions have been used. We also attach a summary of our objections to the repeal of the sections. In seeking to argue that the existing provisions have been effective, all the Business Council really does is simply state that it has been effective and proceed to list instances where those sections have been invoked. That is a complete non sequitur. It does not follow that because those provisions have been invoked in a certain number of cases industrial disputes have been sorted out earlier than they otherwise would have been. Ultimately, all industrial disputes are resolved. What has to be established is that the existence of those sections and the invocation of those sections resulted in an earlier resolution of industrial disputes than would otherwise have been the case. Those arguing against the repeal of sections 45D and 45E have singularly failed to do that. In fact the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in his second reading speech made reference to some work done by his Department in analysing all of the cases that have occurred since early 1983. It seems that in most instances resolution of the dispute has been delayed rather than accelerated as a result of the granting of interim injunctions. The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) earlier in this debate sought to disparage the figures that have been given by making reference to his own survey, carried out through the relevant employer organisations, of the firms that were involved in those industrial disputes. I think that is a fairly laughable approach. The fact is that at the moment a major debate is going on in the community about the repeal of these sections of the Trade Practices Act. All the major employer organisations are in opposition to it. I do not believe for a minute that we will get an objective reply from individual firms asked by their employer organisations whether they think sections 45D and 45E have been effective. In this present climate, with the legislation before the Parliament, obviously we will not get an objective answer under those sorts of circumstances . Mr Lusher —Why not? Mr BALDWIN —That is a matter of common sense, is it not? Obviously, if a member of an organisation which is currently in the throes of conducting a political campaign is asked a question by an executive member of that organisation he will give the right sort of answer. There may be some exceptions to that. I revert to my initial proposition. I argued that the accord framework has provided a far better prospect of long term economic recovery and long term reduction in the rates of industrial disputation than would the alternative framework put forward by the Opposition. The preservation of the accord is essential to the future economic well-being of this country and the repeal of sections 45D and 45E. Indeed, a more broad ranging reform of the whole industrial relations framework is an essential part of the accord. I am saying that the Opposition parties would need to be able to demonstrate pretty powerful grounds for thinking that the repeal of sections 45D and 45E would have a deleterious effect on the industrial relations climate in this country. They have not even begun to do that and therefore I think this legislation ought to be supported unreservedly. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(8.45) —My honourable colleagues opposite misunderstand my intentions on so many occasions. The people whom I attack happen to be their friends but they are also the most disruptive people in the Australian community . A number of workers and unionists with whom I have a close and friendly contact-there is a very wide range-would not particularly support the very narrow and militant views of those who sit opposite at the moment. The proposals before the Parliament take away from the Trade Practices Act applications of law which apply to business for restrictive trade practice and to unions in the same sense. Restrictive trade practices under the current legislation apply to businesses in regard to agreements and covenants affecting competition, monopolisation, resale price maintenance, exclusive dealing, price discrimination, mergers, statutory exemptions, authorisations, unfair practices and other matters regarding trade in general where the consumer and the public at large may be affected. The Government puts to the House with this legislation the contention that the union movement is exempt from its effect on the community, from unfair practice or trade, from provisions which cover the principles on monopolisation and from factors that affect prices, obtainability and the public interest. I think that proposition as it now stands is unsound and untenable. If one looks at the definition of a secondary boycott, one comes to the conclusion that it is a process that is used to assist a friendly brother union to affect a third party who is not in any way involved with the person or group applying the secondary boycott. Residents of New South Wales and Australia generally will remember the dreadful, staggering and disruptive effects of boycotts and secondary boycotts which have applied to the petrol industry over a long period. They will be aware of the Leon Laidely case and the disruption, loss of jobs, loss of productivity and loss of capacity that was caused by that dispute. The boycotts that were applied by oil workers to assist the Transport Workers Union were completely outside the ambit of any industrial relations matter connected with oil workers. They were completely outside any claims the workers had against their employers. A process of corruption and bribery was applied to force a conclusion that the TWU particularly wanted. I point out to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) that it is possible to divorce these secondary boycotts from normal industrial practice. He knows that. He himself has had some experience in these matters. I refer to the 7 September issue of the Australian Financial Review and to the Minister's lack of success in regard to certain matters dealing with the Sydney ink production plant of Collie Cook Consolidated, where a ban was applied. He has had no effect. He is unwilling to apply the Trade Practices Act and to call the dispute a secondary boycott. Indeed, he is going to apply conciliation and arbitration legislation of the type that we have before us tonight. It will be singularly unsuccessful. The Minister is aware of that but he is bound by commitments made by this Government before the last election. The Parliament has tended to split and take sides on this matter, which is appropriate and proper I suppose. However, there has not been a moderate or balanced look at the justice of the situation for ordinary members of our community, those people who wish to continue in their place of work and not be affected by disputes of this type. During my speech I will quote from various articles as well as the agreement between the unions and the Government-the notorious wages and incomes accord-in my endeavour to explain to the House why I believe that these processes of secondary boycotts are different and discreet and can be separated from normal industrial law. My first quote is I believe an objective comment in the Business Council Bulletin. I believe it is objective in the way that it seeks to define a secondary boycott. I will read only the defining passage. The Business Council of Australia states: The secondary boycott situation must be distinguished from industrial disputes per se. The former involve a tactic developed by the trade union movement both in England and Australia over the last 50 years, the purpose being to put pressure on a target enterprise by denying goods and services to it or by precluding it from delivering its goods and services. This pressure is achieved through threats of, or industrial action against, the employing establishments who have dealings with the target. By the imposition of selective bans and limitations, trade unions can often achieve in this manner severe economic consequences for the target without subjecting their employers to the problems associated with direct industrial action. That was the case that applied in the oil industry. It has applied in many instances to the Transport Workers Union of Australia, the Federated Storeman and Packers Union, and the most militant elements of the industrial movement. The impotence of industrial laws really can be assessed when one looks at the words of Mr John Macbean, the New South Wales Labor Council's acting secretary, in July last year, when referring to problems of the coal industry in New South Wales and the bans and limitations that were being applied in that State. In New South Wales we are now bearing the effect of those problems warned about at that time by Mr Macbean. Mr Macbean, the Acting Secretary of the Labor Council of New South Wales, warned: . . . that the rejection of the settlement terms 'will inevitably lead the union to a situation of virtual isolation from the rest of the trade union movement' The Acting Premier of New South Wales, Mr Ferguson, said that the secondary impact of that dispute was that 15,000 State Rail Authority employees would be stood down within the next few days unless the train drivers returned to work. The destruction of our coal export industry was as a result of action by train drivers to effect a target which was a secondary boycott. The Government is reluctant to use the measures that apply when the third party is separated from the target and is now taking it into the conciliation and arbitration area. There was a similar situation in the oil tanker drivers dispute of late 1983. I can run through a huge number of cases where over the last year or so the Government has been reluctant to take action or to support action in situations where secondary boycotts apply. However, the use of muscle by militant unions in disputes in which their own employees are not affected in order to bring about a conclusion that would not otherwise apply is a matter of great seriousness to this nation. One has to look only at our loss in export earning capacity, our incapacity to deliver to markets as we want and the lack of interest among foreign buyers to be able to appreciate the long and lasting damage wreaked on Australia by some elements of the trade union movement. I quote now from the IPA Review of the summer of 1984. This is a passage from 'The Constitution of Liberty' by F. A. Hayek; 'Public policy concerning labour unions has, in little more than a century, moved from one extreme to the other. From a state in which little the unions could do was legal if they were not prohibited altogether, we have now reached a state where they have become uniquely privileged institutions to which the general rules of law do not apply. They have become the only important instance in which governments signally fail in their prime function-the prevention of coercion and violence-- It cannot be stressed enough that the coercion which unions have been permitted contrary to all principles of freedom under the law is primarily the coercion of fellow workers'. That is the tragedy of the situation. People are being stood down, laid off and put aside. Their families are the ones who suffer. The employers do not suffer in these situations. When a company folds or goes broke everybody loses their job. The benefit does not flow to too many people outside those employed. The margin of profitability means that in modern business today the profits that are made are restricted, limited and beneficial to few. The real sufferers, the people who really feel the loss in circumstances such as these, are the employees of the company closing down and the employees of organisations associated with that company. The Government tonight is deleting section 45D from the Trade Practices Act. The Government has the responsibility of balancing economic interest through law and it should discharge that responsibility properly. That requires effective legal sanctions. Section 45D does apply effective legal sanctions. It is a civil action for a civil matter. Government members claim that these matters fall within industrial relations but that cannot be substantiated if one closely investigates the whole series of activities that have taken place in this area. I believe that industrial sanctions are needed in Australia. The Government's policies contrast sharply with the trends to restrain union power in other developed countries. With our policies in regard to other community groups and with the success of section 45D in moderating union excesses, I believe Australia has been outstanding. Following the decisions of the current Government we are now moving in the opposite direction. The Government is on a promise that is bound up in the accord. The Government is delivering its promises to the union movement. I will come to some of those deliveries and the effects of those promises shortly. Unions have demanded emasculation of the Trade Practices Act too not because sanctions have failed but because section 45D has worked as an effective restraint on union power. The current recession has tended to obscure the inability of concensus industrial relations to cope with unions which refuse to recognise interests other than their own. That is one of the tragedies of Australia today. The Australian Labor Party could do nothing more effectively ultimately to destroy the arbitration system than what it is doing today. The Government is encouraging abuse of the conciliation and arbitration system. There is no firm attitude and no firm application of what the ground rules and the laws should be in the industrial relations area. The public interest in this matter is being affected. There should be a proper balance between unions and employers. I quote now from an article titled 'Industrial Relations: Sanctions Do Work' by Alan Stockdale. I agree with Stockdale's conclusions when he said this: The public interest in a proper balance between unions and employers requires- introduction of significant penalties for unlawful strikes and other forms of unlawful industrial action- he said that these have an impact- legislation for effective sanctions against breaches of awards and agreements, provision of power for courts to grant injunctions (including interim and interlocutory injunctions) restraining breaches of contracts, awards and agreements, and enactment of provisions giving courts power to award damages promptly where unlawful union actions cause loss or damage to others in the community. I believe that that summary in fact is the sort of summary that successful world organisations are moving towards. That is obvious from the way in which their economies are working. The reliability and capacity of employers and employees to share their objectives and to work for those objectives is the most important factor in the whole of the Australian industrial relations area. Rules and sanctions of a very strict and damaging type can be applied under the Trade Practices Act where employers seek to affect the public interest through monopolisation agreements, covenants and all sorts of measures. Similar actions by the trade union movement will be dealt with from now on in a completely different way. That means one law for the jungle and another law for the law abiders. That will be the tragedy of Australian industrial relations when these measures pass both Houses of Parliament. One needs only to assess what this Government has done over its term in office to be able to understand the ultimate effect of this shift. If one looks at a series of decisions the Government has made one can recognise the power of the union movement. I instance the way in which the Budget of this nation was exposed for approval to Mr Dolan, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, before the Government could bring it down. Add to that the current dispute over the purchase of a replacement helicopter for the Royal Australian Navy by the Department of Defence. It seems a great shame that the defence requirements of this country will again be decided by the ACTU. Mr Hollis —That is rubbish and you know it. Mr CADMAN —The honourable member should check with his colleague to see whether I am right. The requirements of the experts and skilled people in the defence area are being held up week after week while the ACTU makes a decision on what type of helicopter will be purchased by the Navy. I can go on and on but I need refer only to a statement in the Australian of 5 February 1983 in which Paul Ellercamp, hardly a friend of the Liberal Party of Australia, reported: The de facto Opposition Leader, Mr Hawke, and his ALP supporters moved successfully yesterday to resolve a series of industrial disputes which have been threatening the ALP chances in the Federal election. Of course the disputes were settled. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, who is sitting at the table, knows the way in which they were settled . They were settled by the Labor Party agreeing to an 8 per cent wage rise immediately after the election. There is no doubt that that deal was done by the current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Over the last few weeks the Minister has attempted to do a number of deals with Mr Norm Gallagher and has been unsuccessful. I would like the Minister to indicate categorically once and for all whether or not part of the current settlement is the withdrawal of civil charges against Norm Gallagher following the inquiry- Mr Willis —What! Mr CADMAN —The Minister knows that it was up for grabs and it has been up for grabs for three weeks. Gallagher's demand was that the charges placed against him about secret commissions be withdrawn. I want to know whether the Minister or the Victorian Government has done a deal to settle this current dispute before the Federal election and whether those charges will be withdrawn. I want it right on the line because in the past the Minister has said one thing in this House and has done different deals with Gallagher to keep things quiet. It does not matter whether it involves the Melbourne Cricket Ground, superannuation, or coercing employers to renege on their commitment to deregister his union, an action the Minister now-a few weeks later-considers to be a feasible one. It is one that he has espoused, one to which he has agreed in the Press and one which he is encouraging. Does he fear that people will suspect his capability coming up to an election? Is it feared that there will be a dispute with a notorious crook, and he has been found to be a crook by successive commissions? Inquiries have indicated very strongly the exact nature of the man whom we are talking about. Mr Reeves —Why didn't you deregister him? Mr CADMAN —One would expect that comment from the honourable member for the Northern Territory. Indeed, he does not have a feather to fly with. He comes here and criticises secretly and quietly the Government of the Northern Territory hoping that he will win marks back in the Northern Territory. The only trouble is that the people there never hear what he says in Canberra, otherwise he would know that he will be even more strongly rejected. However, the decision by this Government to remove section 45D from the Trade Practices Act is a tragedy for Australia the result of which we will have to reckon with over the years to come. The Minister knows that this is part of a deal done with the ACTU before the election. The Government has kept its promise but I guarantee that the union movement will not live up to its. The Minister knows that. Gallagher and others will abuse the Conciliation and Arbitration Act despite the provisions the Government is proposing for it and they will not recognise their responsibility to the people of this nation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(9.06) —The legislation before the House-the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Trade Practices Amendment Bill-is particularly critical legislation. It is principally concerned with the removal of Section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. It is legislation which was introduced by the previous Government and which has been proved to be very effective legislation over a long period. What is particularly saddening about this debate is that the legislation before us is based totally on ideological considerations. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and the Government have clearly honoured a deal with the trade union movement which was forged in the period when they were in opposition. They have now brought before the Parliament legislation which will remove sections 45D and 45E from the Trade Practices Act, sections which properly belong in the Trade Practices Act and which have been effective in controlling irresponsible trade union activity and the exercising, on an irresponsible basis, of industrial muscle. Mr Blunt —A pay-off for union donations. Mr LUSHER —It is suggested by the honourable member for Richmond that it is a payoff for donations to the Australian Labor Party from the trade union movement . Mr Hollis —He would know as he is such a great authority on the union movement! Mr LUSHER —Maybe when the legislation of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young ) about publicising donations is effective we will see far more than we have in the past the nature of the donations that flow from the trade union movement to the Labor Party. We already know of the $750,000 that was donated to the ALP by the Teachers Federation but no doubt there are bigger and more significant amounts than that which the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) would know about, may have been party to and would obviously support and which have gone to fight the campaigns in his electorate. This legislation is a payoff for union donations. I do not think anybody ought to be in any doubt about that. Mr Reeves —The tax avoiders are giving donations to you. Mr LUSHER —Of course the honourable member for the Northern Territory would understand the importance of the funds that flow from the trade union movement to the fighting of campaigns such as his. We heard him ask his last question in the Parliament this morning. It will be a very great pleasure for all of us when he does not come back after the election, whenever that might be. The election promise which is being honoured here tonight is one of a few election commitments that have been honoured by this Government. It is interesting to note that the Government cannot honour any of its other election commitments but it is able to carry through the undertakings which have been given on a totally ideological basis to the trade union government, the trade union movement of Australia. Mr Carlton —The same thing. Mr LUSHER —That was a Freudian slip which, as the honourable member for Mackellar points out, really amounts to the same thing. The Opposition is determined to show up this legislation for what it is. The people of this country need to understand that this Government has given a commitment to the trade union movement, based on an ideological opposition to this legislation, and that is why it is in the Parliament at the moment. It is interesting to note that this matter is being debated in the chamber where, in April of last year, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) invited the captains of industry of Australia to debate, to consider, and to try to arrive at some sort of consensus on the problems that were facing this nation and to try to achieve some solutions as to what ought to be done about those problems. Yet most of the responsible people who were in this chamber on that occasion have opposed the legislation that the Minister has brought before the Parliament. It is interesting to note that the responsible and concerned sections of the business community and employer groups in this country have expressed their opposition to the withdrawal of sections 45D and 45E from the Trade Practices Act. The Government is moving to withdraw these provisions in the face of serious concern and the eloquent and compelling arguments that have been put forward by responsible sections of the business community. Yet, despite that, the Government proceeds to move down the track of eliminating the effective sections 45D and 45E from the Trade Practices Act is simply because of the ideological opposition which has been put forward by the trade union movement and which is now being translated into legislative effect by the Labor Government. It is not only in the face of opposition from the business community that this legislation is before the House. It is also in the face of opposition from this side of the House and in the face of opposition from the Australian Democrats in the Senate. I venture to ask whether the Government is putting this forward in the knowledge that it will be defeated when it reaches the Senate, because it has been made clear by the Democrats that they will join with the Opposition in defeating the proposals to withdraw sections 45D and 45E from the Trade Practices Act, because even the Democrats can see, and have been prepared to argue publicly in the forums available to them, that this legislation has been effective and that they are not prepared to see it withdrawn from the Australian legislative framework without there being beforehand some effective and appropriate replacement for it which the Government has not yet been prepared to produce. It is interesting to note that the Government is bringing forward this legislation as a pay-off to the trade union movement, to honour a promise to the trade union movement. One of the very few election promises that it has been prepared to honour. It has been introduced in the very clear knowledge that it will run into a stormy opposition in the Senate and that it has no prospect of being accepted in the Senate. There is no reason for it other than the intransigent opposition from the trade union movement, which wants the right to ride roughshod over anybody and for any reason, free of any legal redress. That is why this legislation is in the Parliament. It needs to be understood by all who are interested in these matters that it is a clear pay-off to the trade union movement, which did so much to deliver government to the Labor Party and did so much to bring down the former Leader of the Opposition and to install the present Prime Minister as the head of the Labor Party just prior to the last Federal election. This is the pay-off. The trade union movement insists upon its right to be above the law. Mr Gear —Yes. Mr LUSHER —Ah! The honourable member for Tangney acknowledges it. The people of Australia ought to understand that the honourable member for Tangney sits in this Parliament and says: 'Yes, of course it does; it is appropriate that the trade union movement insists upon this privilege of being above the law'. He concurs with the view that the trade union movement ought to have that right and privilege of being above the law. Opposition members do not accept that the trade union movement has any particular privilege or any particular right to be above the law. We believe that it ought to be subject to the law of the land in the same way as anyone else is. If the trade union movement had to live under the sort of constraints that exist under the Companies Act and the corporations and securities provisions that apply in this country, there would hardly be anyone in this country holding office as a trade union official today. That is the sort of equality that ought to apply. It is the sort of redress that is available under sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act, which this government, in concert with the trade union movement, is seeking to withdraw. This legislation has clearly been effective. It has been effective more as a deterrent than as an actual weapon against industrial chaos and industrial disruption. The fact that the trade union movement has known that this remedy has existed has meant that, in more circumstances than not, it has not been necessary for action to be taken under section 45D or section 45E. When one starts to look at the instances in which sections 45D and 45E have been invoked, one finds that there have been very few. But from an awareness of current affairs in this country, one knows the number of times that corporations and employer groups have been forced to threaten the use of these sections. On those occasions the trade union disruption, the arrogance and the above-the-law attitudes that have been expressed by the trade union movement have evaporated. My colleague the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) referred to the survey that had been taken in which corporations were asked to express their view. The honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) and the honourable member for Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) say: 'You cannot take any notice of that'. This is a survey that was taken of the same people who sat in this chamber in April 1983 at the invitation of the Prime Minister and who were praised by the Prime Minister for their co-operation in trying to achieve economic recovery. When they are asked about their attitude to sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act and they express an honest view, honourable members opposite say: 'Of course, they are lying. How would you expect them to express an objective point of view?' I ask honourable members to listen to some of their responses. They are interesting. One of the corporations said: Yes, in that we believe the action hastened the decision that eventually led parties back to the negotiating table. Another said: Trade Practices proceedings did help settle the dispute because it brought pressure to bear on unions, highlighted their determination to fight no matter what other individuals were involved. Showed strikers that they not only had to take the company 'on' but also other parts of society, such as the legal system, and the rest of the community. Another said: Definitely yes. Another said: It was the only thing that resolved the problem. Yet another said: Section 45D action was the one and only way to have the boycotts lifted. Another said: The interim injunction was the only instrument that materially assisted in a resumption of normal operations. And another said: We believe that institution of the section 45D proceedings was a significant factor in the cessation of the BLF's actions. We do not believe the other steps referred to would have brought about the same resolution as the Trade Practices application. Another said: Section 45D resulted in the boycott being lifted. Another said: The only reason the boycott ceased was the perceived imminence of an injunction being granted. Yet another said: Again, the only reason the boycott ceased was the institution of Trade Practices action. Yet the mugs on the Government side of the Parliament want to say: 'This sort of stuff has been written under duress. People are answering phoney questions'. Mr Carlton —Under duress from one side. Mr LUSHER —Yes. Let that be clearly understood. Mr Hollis —Have you any names to them? Mr LUSHER —Let it be clearly understood, even by people such as the honourable member for Macarthur, who ought to understand better than most the realities of industrial relations, coming from where he comes that these corporations are not being phoney in their attitude. They are expressing legitimate concern about the inevitable chaos that will follow in the industrial relations in this country once these provisions have been withdrawn from the Trade Practices Act. Let it be clearly understood that that is the situation. I want to comment on the shipping industry. My shadow portfolio responsibility is transport. The shipping industry has benefited perhaps more than most industries from the application and the threatened applications of sections 45D and 45E. The shipping industry, perhaps more than most industries can be subject to intransigent and unfair trade union activity, whether it be port activity through the use of tugs, pilots or stevedores, or some actions from the maritime -related industries; whether it is under the campaigns that have been going on against flag of convenience shipping or campaigns to try to have Australian crews put on the ships of traditional maritime nations; or whether it is in relation to campaigns to have more ship building or more ship repair work carried out in this country. It is the shipping industry, with its enormously high daily costs, that can be held to ransom by the trade union movement in an effort to obtain sweetheart deals or pay-offs; to do anything that may be required to get a ship out of port because it is costing tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars per day to have the ship tied up. Government members interjecting- Mr LUSHER —The honourable member for Northern Territory, in his totally unsophisticated way, says: 'Why don't they settle it?' One of the reasons for our incredibly inefficient and uncompetitive shipping industry is the deals forced upon the industry by the trade union movement over the years. Why the devil does the honourable member think that we have a shipping industry that no companies in this country or around the world will use unless they are forced to use it? It is simply because the trade union movement has priced it out of the market. It is so totally uncompetitive. It costs between $1m and $2m per year more to operate a ship under Australian crewing conditions and Australian maintenance and repair conditions than it does to operate the same ship under any sensible European or other maritime flag. That is the sort of thing that the trade union movement has done. It has nearly destroyed that industry. It is seeking to destroy it even further by making Australia a totally unreliable supplier to the world. If ships coming to Australia's ports are subjected to the sort of activity that will take place if these provisions of the Trade Practices Act are removed, nobody will come to Australia with their ships because shipowners are not prepared to take those risks. We have already seen that the international strike club is paying out more than half the claims it has to meet on disputes relative to Australian ports, Australian union activity. That is the kind of stupidity Labor members want to promote and that is what will happen if these provisions are removed. The trade union dominance of the maritime industry is so complete that the vulnerability of the shipping industry is greater than in other industries. The cost of holding up shipping is monstrous. What are shipowners supposed to do in seeking to obtain some legitimate legal redress if no section 45D remedy is available to them? They are left with no effective redress. It is essential that there be some effective protection for the shipping industry against the political use of trade union power or industrial action, which in most cases is totally unrelated to working conditions and the legitimate concerns of the unions in those industries. These are things that people need to understand. There must be some appropriate and effective remedy. The criminal provisions contained in the Crimes Act and civil actions which could possibly be instituted are not effective because they do not provide speedy remedies. It has been proved over the years that those provisions are not effective. It has become almost impossible to prove the circumstances that need to be proved if such provisions are to be effective. Because of that, the record shows that they have been infrequently used and have rarely if ever been successful. In dealing with the shipping industry, the time factor is critical and delays unacceptable, costs are prohibitive, and there must be effective and speedy remedies. If these provisions are to be moved into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act or some other civil remedy and are taken away from the Federal Court where they are at present, the procedure will not be effective. It was acknowledged by Mr Justice Sweeney in his report of the Royal Commission into Alleged Payments to Maritime Unions back in 1976 that this is not effective and that there are no ways in which the situation can be handled. The suggestions that we should move secondary boycotts into industrial relations are not satisfactory. They are not enforceable and will simply not be effective. I wish to read to the Parliament, for the information of honourable members, a couple of things that have been said on this subject by the Australian Chamber of Shipping on this legislation. If Labor members had any concern about Australia's reputation in the international arena and were concerned to do something to promote Australia's interests, they would be concerned about these things. The Australian Chamber of Shipping said: Legal redress of the kind afforded by section 45D is without question the single most important piece of legislation in Australia relating to overseas cargo shipping. . . . . Ships are singularly vulnerable to industrial action. The simple withdrawal of labour of a tug crew can be effective to delay a ship indefinitely. It is unfortunately a fact that the ship cannot move until the trade union concerned is prepared to allow it to do so. The cost of delay to a ship accrues at a heavy and inescapable daily rate. In the absence of legal right of the kind provided by section 45D, there is virtually no, or no effective, legal redress. The maritime trade unions as a group are able to exercise power to an extent matched by few other trade union groups. . . . . Industrial action of a political kind has been taken, for example, in relation to the prior Government of Greece and the Government of Chile. Action has also been taken in respect of the carriage of Australian resources and, in particular , energy resources such as coal. . . . . In the absence of legal redress of the kind provided by section 45D, shipping companies are at the mercy of the maritime trade unions. What does the honourable member for the Northern Territory propose to do about that? Nothing. He can sit there, lie back and be massacred by the Chief Minister . We have seen the last of him in this Parliament. His contributions have been meaningless. When the House is dealing with a matter that affects the Northern Territory and that is concerned with providing effective and reliable shipping, he sits back and treats the removal of these provisions as some sort of joke. We do not treat this matter as a joke; we take it most seriously. The view of the Australian Chamber of Shipping is: There is no viable alternative legal redress. The cost of delay and the damage to Australia's international reputation as a trading nation, caused by industrial action rendered unlawful by section 45D, are costs which inevitably substantially fall upon the whole Australian community. I would have thought that anybody, even members on the Government benches, would be prepared to stop to take a responsible minute to think about these matters. Surely they would agree that these provisions be left in the Trade Practices Act . That is the submission of the Opposition. It is supported by the Australian Democrats. We believe that this legislation is headed for failure. It deserves to head for failure because these provisions should remain on the statute book if this country is to have a meaningful and effective system of trying to keep intransigent trade union muscle under control and to maintain Australia's reputation as a viable exporting nation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(9.26) — in reply-In the course of this debate we have had an array of contributions from the Opposition which have basically adopted a union bashing approach, and predictably so. Insofar as Opposition members addressed themselves to the detail of this legislation, they have shown a remarkable lack of understanding as to what it contains and little grasp of what the Government is doing. It has been said that the Government is placing unions above the law and that this is the price of the accord. I say emphatically that is simply not true. The Government is proposing to enact a speedy, fair and effective means of dealing with basic issues underlying disputes involving boycotts. It is not part of the accord, but the Government has a general non-confrontational approach reflected in the accord which has significantly improved the industrial climate, as various Labor members have explained in this debate. That is an undeniable fact that is most embarrassing to the Opposition. The Government is removing the prohibition on secondary boycotts from Commonwealth legislation, but the common law will continue to apply, subject to a sensible restriction on injunctions while the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is confident of ending the boycott or of settling the underlying dispute. That is a basic underlying reality to this whole debate which Opposition members have tried to ignore but which remains an absolute and undeniable fact. I shall elaborate on it. I point to two elements of the argument about placing unions above the law. Firstly, it has been said that this has been done in relation to the repeal of sections 45D and 45E. The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) introduced the somewhat extraneous arguments about the zone of immunity in relation to the Trade Practices Act. I shall say a few things on that aspect. With regard to the abolition of sections 45D and 45E, what we are doing requires the dispute to be dealt with in conciliation and voluntary arbitration proceedings before the Commission. In other words, it is not just a matter of abolishing sections 45D and 45E and leaving no procedures at all. We are providing procedures through the Commission by which these matters can be dealt with and we are not leaving a vacuum, so to speak. It is not a matter of just washing our hands through the abolition of sections 45D and 45E and leaving no procedures to deal with these disputes, or of leaving no place for affected employers to take their cases. It has been an important part of what we propose that employers do have a place to take their cases, and they can take them to the place which exists to settle industrial disputes; that is, the Arbitration Commission. The underlying rationale of the Government's approach is that the settlement of industrial disputes should occur through the industrial disputes settling machinery and not through mechanisms in other Acts which have nothing to do with the settlement of industrial disputes. Measures put in other Acts, such as the Trade Practices Act, which have the effect of imposing on dispute settling procedures, serve only to disrupt those procedures rather than assist in their settlement. Mr Howard —Because it works you want to get rid of it. Mr WILLIS —I will elaborate on that, particularly for the benefit of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Another underlying rationale for what we are doing is that we are removing the impossible situation which now prevails, which is that two sets of proceedings occur in relation to one dispute. Those matters come before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission at present only after action under sections 45D or 45E has been initiated. Therefore, the Commission is placed in the impossible position of being asked to try to conciliate a dispute when at the same time that dispute is before the Federal Court of Australia, where action is being taken to seek injunction proceedings against the union involved. Of course, that simply exacerbates the level of aggravation, heightens tensions and makes it extremely difficult for the Commission to conciliate and settle a dispute. So two sets of procedures are going on in relation to the one matter. That, of course, is absurd. It makes a mockery of the Commission's position. What we are saying is that if we are to deal rationally with these disputes firstly we must put them in the area where the dispute settling machinery is provided, that is in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission area. If the Commission is unable to deal successfully with the disputes it can issue a certificate which will enable common law injunction proceedings to be taken out, but that may happen only after the dispute settling procedures have taken place. That is an extremely rational and sensible approach. Indeed, the previous Government recognised the rationality of that approach. In 1970, the Liberal- National Party Government built exactly that type of procedure into the proposals for undertaking penalty in relation to a breach of a bans clause for an ordinary industrial dispute. Until 1970, when a bans clause was in an award an employer could proceed virtually straight away to seek an injunction and then penalty for contempt of court. In 1970 the Liberal-National Party Government said: 'That procedure has been wrong'. It realised that it had to build in the sort of system we are now providing; that is, a system under which the Commission has to undertake a procedure to try to settle the dispute, to prevent the continuing breach, and until it does that no action can be taken to pursue a penalty for breach of a bans clause. In other words, the penalty action has to hold while the conciliation procedures take place. That is what the previous Government put in the law in 1970. It is still there. Of course, it is pretty much a dead letter but it is still there. If one is to go down that course of bans clauses that is a sensible way of doing it, because at least one has the chance of settling the dispute through conciliation proceedings before one goes on to allow penalty proceedings to take place. That is exactly the type of thing we are building in now. We are saying that one cannot go to a penalty approach through the common law until one has been through the dispute settling procedures in the Commission. If they fail-I will come to the point about that being dealt with expeditiously-the other procedures can take place. They are quite analogous. All this carry-on from the other side that we are doing something which is a terrible tearing up of the law and are putting unions above the law is an absolute and utter nonsense. Absolutely no element of fact is involved in that assertion. Nothing that I have heard from anyone on the Opposition indicates any real understanding of the way that the industrial law in this country operates. I believe that it is important for this House to understand what we are doing in relation to this matter and that we are not putting unions above the law. We are simply providing a very rational set of procedures under which, at the end of the day, if unions are still pursuing a course which is leading to non- settlement of a dispute, employers have the right to pursue penalty action under common law. In regard to the zone of immunity, the honourable member for Balaclava seemed to criticise there being under the Trade Practices Act any general exemptions, or any zone of immunity as it is sometimes called, for unions. This is quite a new revelation. The previous Government thought it was okay to have a very substantial zone of immunity or general exemption for trade unions under the Trade Practices Act. It existed all the time that the Fraser Government was in office. I would have thought that it was agreed that there should be a substantial general exemption. Now it seems that the Opposition does not want any exemption, that it wants trade unions who are not pursuing their normal activities to be subject to the full array of the provisions of the Trade Practices Act. This is indeed a departure. I will be interested to see whether it gets developed by the Opposition as part of its general industrial relations policy. It would certainly be a gigantic step beyond anything that the Fraser Government contemplated. In this legislation we are providing specifically that trade unions are very much non-exempt from one type of trade practice. We are saying quite specifically that trade unions will be non-exempt from resale price maintenance, that if trade unions engage in that practice they will be in breach of the Trade Practices Act. That is one of the elements of the legislation which is now before us. We do that because we regard retail price maintenance as being absolutely beyond the pale. If anyone engages in it he will be undertaking an action which is anti-social in its effects and therefore should be subject to the Trade Practices Act. So we are specifically providing for trade union coverage in that area. That is a change from the exemption which currently applies, although in effect under the Trade Practices Act at present there is a prohibition on unions which engage in retail price maintenance through the application of sections 45D and 45E. With the removal of sections 45D and 45E we are making sure that trade unions cannot engage in retail price main- tenance. The second line of argument which came from the Opposition in this debate was that sections 45D and 45E have been very effective in resolving secondary boycotts. We have been told what a tremendously effective weapon those sections have been and how every time they are used they resolve disputes overnight. Indeed, the honourable member for Balaclava even challenged me to name one occasion on which section 45D failed to achieve the lifting of the boycott. I can name quite a few. Let me make a general point in this regard. Mr McGauran —Well, we are waiting; name them. Mr WILLIS —The honourable member should be patient. In my second reading speech I said that sections 45D and 45E had been very ineffective in resolving secondary boycott disputes. I made the point that since the beginning of 1983 there had been 25 boycott disputes, that interim injunctions had been granted in 15 of those disputes and that in five cases action under the Trade Practices Act had led to escalation of the disputes. In other words, all that pursuing action under section 45D and 45E and getting an injunction did was to extend the dispute to increase the bans to widen the dispute. Is that a great way to resolve industrial disputes? Is that evidence of some kind of dispute settling mechanism which is magnificently effective and which resolves disputes overnight ? I would not have thought so. It just has not had the success that is claimed for it. I have been asked to name some cases. Let me do so. Firstly, there was Co- operative Bulk Handling Ltd v Waterside Workers Federation which occurred in September last year. Very briefly, in that case there were rolling strikes over the breakdown of award negotiations which led to dismissals for failure to sign a no-strike agreement. Picket lines were mounted at Geraldton and Esperance. Bans were placed on the loading of grain as a consequence of dismissals. Section 45D action was taken by the company, which resulted in members of unions other than the Waterside Workers Federation employed by that company, CBH, walking off the job for 24 hours in protest at the use of secondary boycott legislation. Bans continued at Esperance and Geraldton despite the injunctions and the pickets remained at Kwinana. The dispute was finally settled in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It was not settled in the Federal Court. The point we are making is, that these disputes should be settled in the Commission, that the use of sections 45D and 45E simply makes it more difficult to bring that about and extends the time taken to bring about that kind of resolution. Let me mention the Continental Airlines case. A ban was imposed by the Australian Council of Trade Unions at the request of the United States union in dispute with Continental Airlines. It was due to begin at midnight on 18 February this year and to continue for four days. Continental was granted an injunction against the ACTU and a number of individual unions on 18 February. The injunction was not observed by the Transport Workers Union. On 21 February nine other unions voted to continue the bans. There is more evidence. There are many examples. Another example is the Hamburg-Suedamerikanische. Originally there was a 48- hour ban against ships in the west coast-North America trade by the Seamen's Union of Australia, the Merchant Services Guild and the Firemen and Deckhands Association in protest at attempts to remove the only Australian flag vessel, the Allunga, from that trade. This occurred in July this year. A threat was made by Columbus Overseas Services Pty Ltd, the Australian operators of Hamburg- Suedamerikanische. This led to a 48-hour ban on all overseas flag container ships by the same unions on 17 July. Following the granting of injunctions by the Federal Court to Columbus the bans were expanded to include all overseas flag shipping for a further 48 hours. There is a whole host of such examples. It is quite clear that the point I made in my second reading speech is absolutely right. Resort to these kinds of measures does not resolve disputes. In many cases it exacerbates them or simply does not have any effect. In only three cases have these measures apparently been effective. That was the view of the Department making a cold analysis of the 25 cases. The Opposition response to this, the knock down response, has been the Confederation of Australian Industry survey. It asked my Department for the names of those 25 cases. It was given them. It then asked the CAI to do a survey of those companies to see what they thought about the effect of sections 45D and 45E. It is amazing that the companies said they thought they had been quite effective. One would have been staggered, knowing what use this survey would be put to, if the companies had given any other answer. The test of veracity of the Opposition would have been for it to ask the ACTU to survey the unions involved in all those cases to see whether they thought that sections 45D and 45E had been effective in the settlement of disputes. Then we might have been able to put forward a more balanced survey and make some conclusions about it. It is absurd to trot out this knock down response. It simply cannot be taken seriously. However, we can take seriously the opinion of judges. The honourable member for Balaclava said that judges should have been asked for their opinions. He said the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) ought to have consulted the judges of the Federal Court for their opinions. It would not be appropriate for the Attorney-General to ask the judges of the Federal Court for their views on policy matters which would involve the judges commenting on proceedings on which they had sat. The judges would have advised the Attorney on questions of procedure only and not policy. However, the Federal Court judges have commented on the inappropriateness of section 45D proceedings in secondary boycott disputes. I will quote some of their comments. Mr Justice Beaumont, in the Continental Airlines case to which I referred earlier, said: . . . if I grant an injunction am I going to make things worse? At the moment you have a four day ban limited to your airline. If I grant an injunction in the dying stages of this section, is the matter going to be aggravated? He was obviously terribly concerned about it. In the end he granted the injunction and what happened? The bans were extended. In other words, his fears were fulfilled. The same thing happened to Mr Justice Gray in his judgment on an application for an interlocutory injunction in the Epitoma Pty Ltd case. He said : One thing that does appear clear to me, however, is that the dispute is one which ought to be dealt with by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which is equipped with the expertise and the powers to perform the function of settling the dispute, either by conciliation or by arbitration. He quite clearly said-he refused the injunction-that the matter should be in the Commission. It is the place where these disputes should be settled. That is an opinion with which we strongly agree. I do not have time to quote other judges but others could be referred to. How can one conclude that section 45D has been effective? It has exacerbated disputes and has not helped to resolve them. Judges have expressed real concerns about its effectiveness. It has also been said that we are depriving employers of their rights at common law while a hearing is dragging on before the Commission and employers are suffering. This clearly misrepresents both the effect and purpose of the restriction on common law injunctions. The Bill will restrict the granting or enforcement of injunctions in actions in tort for a strictly limited period. That period is between the formal finding of a boycott dispute and the granting of a certificate which will end the restriction. The certificate has to be granted where the Commission considers that it cannot promptly end the boycott or settle the dispute. The certificate is to be issued on the application of any party or intervener. This process, like all the proposed Commission processes, is required to be performed expeditiously. We are not letting the thing drag on. There is a whole set of requirements on the Commission to deal with matters expeditiously. As under section 45D provisions at present, it often takes weeks before a matter gets before the Federal Court anyway. So it cannot be said that by going to a conciliation proceeding we are holding up the rush to a court. That simply does not occur in practice. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Gayler, J. Staples, P. R.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Gorman, R. N. J. Tickner, R. E.Griffiths, A. G. Uren, T.Hand, G. L. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J.Jones, Barry Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.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. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Fry, K. L. Newman, K. E.Hayden, W. G. Wilson, I. B. C.Hurford, C. J. Drummond, P. H.Humphreys, B. C. O'Keefe, F. L.Blanchard, C. A. Hunt, R. J. D.Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C.Theophanous, A.C. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clause 1 agreed to. Clauses 2 and 3-by leave-taken together. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(9.55) —I will not detain the Committee very long but there are some things I wish to say in response to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). First of all, the Minister said that under the existing law and, therefore, under the proposition of the Opposition there was an impossible position because there were two sets of proceedings. In fact that is wrong. We have two quite different situations, one involving the traditional industrial relations position of employer and employee and the other involving an innocent third party who is the victim of a collective boycott. That has been characterised by the Trade Practices Act and the Federal Court of Australia proceedings. The two do not necessarily run concurrently but it is very often the case that, where there is a collective boycott, there is perhaps a traditional case of a direct industrial relations dispute and there may be cases before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Federal Court. Were it not for the pressure exerted on the parties by the existence of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act and were it not for the commencement of injunctive proceedings in the Federal Court, the pressure would not be there to resolve the other aspect of the dispute in the Arbitration Commission. There is not always that other aspect of the dispute in any event. So the mere fact that it may be said that some disputes ended up being settled in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is really beside the point. They may have been settled there because of the attrition and the pressure imposed by the Federal Court proceedings as a result of section 45D which would not be possible , and is not possible under the law proposed to us today, by giving powers to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Indeed, even as currently constituted, if it were given powers to arbitrate it would not be an effective pressure point to end a secondary boycott. The Minister referred to the question of the zone of immunity and he, I am sure unwittingly, took out of context the remarks which I made so I will make them clear again. I acknowledged in my speech, as he will see when he reads Hansard, the zone of immunity that extended to the traditional industrial relations situation. I made it quite clear that section 45D is not a remedy available to employers who are in dispute with their employees. These were the precise words I used: Conduct which is substantially related to the remuneration, conditions of employment, hours of work or working conditions of employees is specifically exempted from the provisions of the Trade Practices Act, and the employer cannot resort to 45D as a means of getting his or her employees back to work. I made that quite clear. What we are opposed to is the extension of that zone of immunity to the circumstance of the innocent victim of a collective boycott, somebody who is not in dispute with his employees. The Minister expressly referred to some cases in response to the challenge I extended to him. One was the bulk handling matter, which he said was settled in the Arbitration Commission-I maintain again that it was a good example of a case settled because of the pressure of section 45D-and he referred to the Continental Airlines case. I make the point, first of all, that that case involved a situation in which the employer and the employees were not in Australia but, as a result of a secondary boycott, the Federal Court had jurisdiction which the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission did not have. Perhaps as a consequence of the Bill proposed by the Government, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission would now have jurisdiction in respect of conciliation but it certainly would not have jurisdiction in respect of arbitration, which is so important in cases of substantial disputation. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations made great play of the fact that in the Continental Airlines case the injunction was not observed by the Transport Workers Union and that nine other unions voted to join and continue the ban. Why did they do that? They did that because this Government was in power. It was in power on a mandate to repeal section 45D. They knew they could afford to defy it and they knew that by defying the law they could in fact put pressure on the Government to honour its election promise. Had the Government not had that mandate, or had we still been in government, they would not have defied it as they did not defy it before when we were in government and when we were determined the law would be obeyed. Indeed, in the very extract from which the Minister quoted, Mr Justice Beaumont makes that point. The Minister quoted the phrase: 'In the dying stages of this section'. That proves the point. The judge could not see the point of proceeding with this matter when it was the dying stage of this section and the unions were defying it because the Government was committed to repealing it. In the same way, the other quotation from Mr Justice Gray which the Minister cited said that the conciliation and arbitration could settle it but under the Bill now before it there is no arbitration; there is mealy-mouthed negotiation which is called conciliation. Finally, I come back to the point which the Opposition has made throughout this debate. We do not accept that there is justification for this measure. The only element of submission to the Government which I do not think has been highlighted in this debate is in respect of the retail industry. Especially because of its reliance upon transport and its vulnerability to the Federated Storeman and Packers Union and the Transport Workers Union, it made this submission to the Government: In an era where Government in Australia is endeavouring to encourage increased trade with other countries and to demonstrate the responsible attitude of the Australian trade union movement generally, it is submitted that it would enhance the confidence of US, Japanese and other companies if this legislation were to remain. From the Australian Chamber of Shipping-the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) quoted its submission at length-the Business Council of Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry and all the other bodies, including those representing small business specifically, we have representations that, in respect of all aspects of our industry and commerce, the provision ought to remain. In my final contribution I will repeat the comment I closed on at the second reading stage. We have here a point of grave concern in the business community. But, at the same time as the Government is extending the zone of immunity, if we want to use that phrase, granting immunities and privileges to the trade unions it is in fact imposing further penalties. The penalties under the Trade Practices Act on employers have been increased to $500,000. So the zone of immunity, the privileges, the exemptions of the trade unions from this law are being granted under this legislation and, in fact, penalties under the Trade Practices Act on employers are being increased. It is that kind of double standard and that kind of industrial apartheid which we are opposed to. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(10.05) — With the Leader of the House (Mr Young) breathing down my neck, I do not want to speak for more than a minute or two. I simply say that nothing that the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) has said impinges adversely on the points made by me in winding up the debate at the second reading stage. The fact is that I was not at all wrong in saying that, with two separate sets of proceedings on the one matter, we had an impossible situation under the present provisions of section 45D. The procedures in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission were occurring at the same time as the section 45D or 45E action in the Federal Court of Australia. That is a matter of fundamental conflict and one which is clearly not conducive to the settlement of industrial disputes. The honourable member for Balaclava has tried to say that this is conducive to the settlement of disputes because there is a pressure on the parties, because of section 45D, to settle in the Commission. The reality is quite the opposite. With the application of section 45D bans being extended and widened the whole matter is infinitely more difficult to settle. I will turn to one other matter which I was not able to cover in the course of winding up the second reading debate. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) in his contribution to this debate challenged me to say whether this Government and/or the Victorian Government had done a deal with Mr Gallagher in regard to the secret commissions case and whether the reason for his signing was that we had agreed to pull off the prosecution under the secret commissions case . This has nothing to do with the Federal Government. I say to the honourable member for Mitchell and the Committee that the answer to this question is an emphatic no. We have never contemplated, nor was it in the power of the Commonwealth, withdrawing any such prosecution. The Victorian-- Mr Groom —What stage is that matter at? Mr WILLIS —I will tell the honourable member in a minute. The Victorian Government has likewise not contemplated such a withdrawal. The fact is that yesterday that case came before the court in Victoria and a date for a substantive hearing of the charges was set. From recollection, the date is 5 February. I stand corrected on the exact date, but it is early February next year. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.07) —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in his reply at the second reading stage made great play and placed great emphasis on the fact that sections 45D and 45E had failed, in the cases he cited, to resolve industrial disputes. The Minister has portrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of sections 45D and 45E which do not have, as their primary aim, the resolution of industrial disputes. Instead, those two provisions of the Trade Practices Act have as their primary aim protection from and restraint against secondary boycotts. It is for that reason that the Opposition opposes, in the very strongest terms possible, the repeal of these two provisions. To have a member of the Government, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, say that those two provisions have as their primary aim the resolution of the underlying issues of industrial disputes is completely and utterly wrong. The two provisions seek to protect an employer who is not a party to an industrial dispute yet is being harmed by the actions of an employee group against an employer. For that reason the Minister, who cited two cases where the provisions failed to resolve the dispute, is way off course. I have a list of 50 actions by employer groups relying on sections 45D and 45E as protection for their position as innocent parties. Again, I can only reiterate what every other member of the Opposition has said: that is, that it is the unanimous view of every employer group in this country that these provisions are necessary to protect them against harmful employee group actions when they are innocent third parties. Question put: That clauses 2 and 3 be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J.Beazley, K. C. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Campbell, G. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. 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. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Jones, Barry Young, M. J.Keating, P. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.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. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Fry, K.L. Newman, K. E.Hayden, W. G. Wilson, I. B. C.Hurford, C. J. Drummond, P. H.Humphreys, B. C. O'Keefe, F. L.Blanchard, C. A. Hunt, R. J. D.Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C.Theophanous, A. C. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clauses agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr L. J. Keogh) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Campbell, G. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Gayler, J. Staples, P. R.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Gorman, R. N. J. Tickner, R. E.Griffiths, A. G. Uren, T.Hand, G. L. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J.Jones, Barry Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.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. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Fry, K.L. Newman, K. E.Hayden, W. G. Wilson, I. B. C.Hurford, C. J. Drummond, P. H.Humphreys, B. C. O'Keefe, F. L.Blanchard, C. A. Hunt, R. J. D.Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C.Theophanous, A. C. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis) read a third time. [COGNATE BILLS: WHEAT MARKETING AMENDMENT BILL 1984 WHEAT TAX (PERMIT) BILL 1984 WHEAT TAX (PERMIT) COLLECTION BILL 1984 WHEAT RESEARCH AMENDMENT BILL 1984 WHEAT TAX AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1984, the Wheat Tax (Permit) Bill 1984, the Wheat Tax (Permit) Collection Bill 1984, the Wheat Research Amendment Bill 1984 and the Wheat Tax Amendment Bill 1984, as they are associated measures? Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the six measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(10.27) —The 1979 wheat marketing legislation of the Sinclair-Nixon ministry has been described by the industry as the zenith of Australian wheat marketing since the formation of the Australian Wheat Board. The legislation introduced by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) could be better described as the 'last supper'. Were it to be implemented this nation' s wheat producers would no longer have an industry. It would be bankrupted through the non-assistance burden placed on it by the Hawke Government. Courtesy of the Minister, it would belong to and be controlled by the Hawke Government. Over recent days I have exposed the blackmail and the treachery of this spineless man, who promises one thing to a person's face and then does not even put it to the Cabinet. I have exposed him for what he is-a socialist and a weak reed who cannot win an argument anywhere. Above all, he has no manners. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be interested to know that tonight in the passageway I exchanged a few words with him but he did not have the courtesy to tell me that he was going to introduce amendments to the legislation in the Parliament. I have been a Minister myself, and on all similar occasions I indicated to my shadow Minister the nature of any proposed legislation. Honourable members will understand that I had a rather wry smile on my face because I had a copy of the amendments in my pocket. The Minister has backed down. He sought to put the blame on us for denying Australian wheat growers a first advance, but because of our action in exposing his blackmail tactics he was forced to admit that the tables had been turned and that he would get the blame. I remind the House of the Minister's words, recorded in the Hansard of 13 September: But I remind the Opposition that this is a package of legislation and, if it is held up, growers will not be paid. I understand that the legislation will be changed because it has been pointed out to him what a stupid statement that was. The Australian people have a right to be informed of and to have placed on record in this Parliament the Labor Government's obscene perversion of and complete disregard for the Westminster parliamentary system in its dealings with the wheat industry legislation before the House. Let me impart to my uninformed colleagues opposite the information that the basis of the Westminster parliamentary system is the right to opposition and to adequate debate. That is the cornerstone of continuing democracy, although this socialist government has taken it upon itself to abolish those very principles of democracy on which Australia was made a great nation. I have drawn the attention of the House to the Minister's statement. That statement is blackmail, and blackmail of the most cowardly kind. By blackmailing the Opposition this Government, through its lame-dog Primary Industry Minister, is attempting to blackmail Australian wheat growers. In consultation with industry representatives the Opposition has several amendments to propose to the legislation. However, the Minister, intent on prostituting the Westminster system, has ensured that there can be no meaningful amendments to this legislation without denying growers their $2 billion of harvest payments. For a responsible Opposition intent on protecting the interests of wheat growers, this course of action would have been a disregard of our responsibilities to this nation's wheat growers. Under the previous plan the guaranteed minimum arrangement gave producers a known price for their product, with the Commonwealth Government bearing a meaningful risk. The high delivery payment allowed producers to repay production costs in the immediate post-harvest period. This cash flow situation was of great economic and social benefit to surrounding communities through increased industry confidence. The GMP will now be calculated on the average of estimated market returns for the subject year plus the lowest two of the preceding three years. I recognise that removing the higher priced year from the calculation does not reduce the level of underwriting where it is justified, that is, where it protects growers from a sharp downturn in the price of wheat. However, the level of payment at harvest will be reduced and this reduction of cash flow will occur at a time when growers can least afford it. Why does the Minister do this when he knows the profitability of wheat growing is declining? The intent of the Labor Government in using the split method of paying the 95 per cent guaranteed minimum price is clear. It ensures that the Government's underwriting liability will not be triggered. Once again the Labor Government slides out of its responsibilities towards a key export industry. I pledge that the coalition will be fair to wheat farmers and, in meaningful consultation with industry-that means we will not go out and promise the world and not deliver-we will provide an honest formula, unlike the Minister's formula which seeks to limit the Government's guarantee to the lowest possible combination of returns. I now turn to the Wheat Finance Fund. It is an indictment of this Government's shameful treatment of Australian wheat growers, when, having wound up a grower sponsored fund, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) refused to give back the money for a further 12 months. According to the Minister the money could not be returned because that would have added to the deficit problem. Honourable members, as we all know, farmers are familiar with deficit problems. They have them every year, unlike those seaboard union members earning up to $60,000 a year in fat overtime cheques at the terminals. This Government, by withholding urgently needed money to touch up its lousy book- keeping, lets the industry know where it stands with the Hawke Government-that is under the heel of the Treasurer and under the boot of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). It is ludicrous that whilst the accounting principles of the Australian Wheat Board have been attacked in recent years it is the obsolete accounting principles in use by Consolidated Revenue that are preventing the return of money from the Wheat Finance Fund. More importantly, I ask the Minister to explain to Australia's 90,000 wheat growers why his Government cannot return their $100m. This money was levied from growers and remains their property. I ask the Minister-if he can tear himself away from small talk with the Treasurer and show a bit of interest in the wheat industry-when the industry will be informed as to where the money is. If this money is invested-we presume and hope it is-where is it invested, who is doing the investing and at what interest rate ? What provisions have been made to counter the negative effect of Australia's inflation rate and decreasing dollar eroding wheat growers' money? Well may we ask: Where is the money, Mr Minister? The Prime Minister is less than honest to the rural sector as he squawks about recognising the importance of the rural sector to the national economy. I regret to inform the Prime Minister that he cannot seduce this nation's producers with slick public relations when he passes policy after policy that kicks them down and out. Producers are hard headed, intelligent operators who quickly analyse the effects of Government policy. As the World Agricultural Report put it, the honeymoon Australia's socialist Labor Government enjoyed with farmers is fast coming to an end. The legislation before the House has failed to address an area of crucial concern to the Australian Wheat Board. The AWB is an organisation with a turnover of approximately $2.5 billion. It is a marketing organisation competing daily in the international market-place. It is an industry supplying 10 per cent of export revenue. Highly qualified staff are vital to the Board's performance. However, staff are continually being lost to private sector corporations which, not having to pay regard to Public Service Board guidelines, are able to offer more realistic lucrative inducements. The Minister for Primary Industry tells the AWB that it has to adopt a more corporate structure, yet he cuts it off at the knees by ignoring its pleas to employ staff without regard to Public Service Board guidelines. To enable optimum commercial operations it is a matter of urgency that the Australian Wheat Board be put on an equal footing with private sector companies in competing for available expertise. A clear indication that this Government has long failed to understand where the dollars really come from in Australia is the fact that, with the wheat growers losing $66 a tonne due to unnatural and ever-increasing burdens imposed on them by the system, the Labor Government continues to impose further taxes and charges. Approximately $35 of this burden can be attributed to income lost through tariff and quota protection of other industries. Through failure of this legislation to clarify the margin to be added to the average of Australian standard while export prices in determining the price for domestic consumption, wheat producers will continue to subsidise wheat processors who buy their wheat. This is a gross perversion of market justice. I am amazed that the Minister, a former Bureau of Agricultural Economics economist , has refused to recognise this added and inequitable burden on growers. The flour milling industry in particular derives substantial benefits from the marketing arrangements, including the value of interest foregone by growers in the terms of payments by flour millers, the guarantee of supply and the ability to purchase from selected silos. The Opposition does not support the calculation used for domestic consumption pricing unless the margin over export parity ensures growers do not subsidise domestic buyers. Under the Government's legislation the margin is not reviewed annually. Therefore, whilst the Minister talks about the need for industry response to market signals, he takes no action to ensure legislative provision when it would be a favourable signal to growers. The coalition rejects out of hand the Minister's plan to socialise, through government control, the Australian Wheat Board by a reduction of two to one in grower membership, thus giving the Minister overriding ability to stack the Board with his own Yes, Minister appointees. The Minister's master plan for agriculture is now revealed. Firstly it was revealed through his blueprint for the meat industry and now through his proposals to restructure the Australian Wheat Board, which fortunately, bowing to our pressure and the pressure of the Australian Democrats, has been temporarily suspended. Clearly, the Minister wants to nationalise major commodity boards which pose a sinister threat to the existence of those highly efficient producer control boards now running the rural sector. I remind the Minister of his attendance at the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation's 1983 conference in Adelaide when he stated that he did not think there was a need for restructuring the AWB because its performance was satisfactory. That is typical of him. He fronted up in front of growers, agreed with them, congratulated them, patted them on the back, got out the door and then said: 'I conned them'. Mr Fisher —Double standards. Mr McVEIGH —As the honourable member for Mallee says, those are double standards . It is great to know that the Australian rural people have finally woken up to this con merchant. The Minister said to the face of members of the AWB that the Board was great but now he wants to restructure it. I cannot understand it. At least he should try to be consistent. We know he is consistent in his failures. I call upon the Minister to inform members of the Board publicly and to their face, with none of this cosmetic nonsense that he so favours, what aspect of their performance has declined to such an alarming degree in such a short time- in about 12 months-that he now feels compelled not only to modify its structure but also to remove producer control of its affairs. Obviously he thinks now is the appropriate time to reveal that he is a socialist. I request the Minister to provide growers and their organisations with the terms of reference to be used in the Board membership review which will supposedly take place next year. How will it all happen? How much input will grower representatives have? It is shockingly clear to the Opposition that the Minister has used, as the Australian Democrats have stated publicly, this review purely as a fudge for election purposes. We have exposed him. It is obvious from the originally proposed legislation that the Minister was going to disregard completely the review and carry out his intentions as expressed in the legislation. The Opposition formally warns the Minister and the Government that it will oppose any review which does not give the industry 10 growers and a workable majority. We will use every means at our disposal, in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, to prevent nationalisation of the Australian Wheat Board. The Minister has to come clean. He has to tell us what will be the terms of the review, who will be on it and what will be its charter. There is no need for him to try to hoodwink us. We insist, and we want the Minister to comment on it, that the review be conducted by people who are experienced in the industry-representatives of the States, representatives of national farmers federations and people who have expertise rather than a degree in bureaucratic nonsense. I want the Minister to respond to these points and give assurances that the review will be conducted. A sunset clause will be included in the amendments which I have in my pocket and which the Minister will move later. As I indicated to the honourable members, he did not have the courtesy to let me know that. Unless all the circumstances are completely made known to us in that review we will make it very difficult for the Minister to pass that legislation. Additionally I give notice that, if circumstances change and the Prime Minister decides not to call an early election, we will move amendments in the Senate to effect the changes, in addition to the membership situation, which the industry desires and which we support. We will expose, even to the extent of allowing the Bill to be used to invoke a double dissolution, the socialistic ideas and the anti-rural bias of the Minister and his Government. We will not deviate from this. Agricultural marketing and policy making are not the prerogative of a socialist government. That must remain where it has remained for many years and that is in the hands of those who produce the commodity. The grain industry is a vital cornerstone of this nation's continued economic stability. Wheat growers are called upon to subsidise inefficient manufacturing industries, yet they battle on in the world market largely unsubsidised. Being a price taker, the industry has had to be responsive to market signals and is currently lean, hungry and competitive in world markets. If the Labor Government continues its anti-rural bias the wheat industry will crumble against ever- increasing tax and excise on fuel, sales tax on petroleum products, tariffs and rail freight charges. This will negate all gains made in productivity. With an economically short-sighted Government, the public must make a realisation that it is in the interests of the whole nation to stop swings out of our major industries because of the massive impact on all other industries, overseas earnings, tax revenue and social dislocation. It is necessary to clarify the position of the coalition on the wheat industry legislation to ensure there is no misinterpretation or misconstruing of the grave and complex facts surrounding this matter. If this Government would sit out its full term instead of opting for an expensive premature election the coalition would be able to exercise its Westminster right of opposition and oppose the socialisation of Australia's second largest export industry. Due to the Minister's totalitarian mentality, the wheat legislation, which the coalition requested the introduction of three months ago, has only now been introduced. It is now clear that the legislation will not have time to pass back from the Senate to the House of Representatives before the House rises. As I said previously in a matter of Board membership, we forced the Minister to his knees, to swallow his pride. Remember the words of this man of straw: 'If you reject this legislation in any way, growers will not be paid'. He tried to pass the buck to us. He is a bad passer because it did not hit us. He failed to realise that the Senate has an equal say in the legislature of this country. We need to explain fully our reason for not wanting to adopt our approach of exposing the Minister. I draw to the House's attention the fact that should the proposed legislation be blocked, the present legislation would continue with growers delivering and the Board carrying out its activities. Section 49B of the present Act states: (1) Where the guaranteed minimum price for wheat of a season exceeds the net pool return rate for wheat of that season, there is payable to the Board an amount equal to the amount by which an amount in respect of all wheat of that season acquired by the Board (whether under this Act or a State Act) calculated at the guaranteed minimum price for wheat of that season exceeds the net pool return for that wheat. (2) In this section 'season' does not include the season commencing on 1 October 1984 or the next succeeding season. There would be no underwriting whatsoever, which is the very essence of this legislation. Given that there is insufficient time to debate democratically, which is a ploy cunningly adopted by the Minister, any amendment carried by the Senate would have the opposite effect to that intended. The Board would then be forced to find somewhere over $2 billion to meet the first advance at a higher interest rate with stringent terms of repayment. It will be the growers who will bear the extra cost incurred through the Minister's dictatorial desires. In anticipation of the legislation being passed, the Australian Wheat Board already has a borrowing program in place to fund the first advance but it cannot proceed if the legislation is held up through the successful carrying of amendments in this House and the Senate. Its borrowing program will be in jeopardy. Underwriting, which is the basis of this legislation will cease. The effect of this would be that underwriting, marketing and payments to growers would have to be renegotiated. The Minister would have the power to set an abysmal first advance and naturally the buck would be passed to the Opposition. The Minister told the Opposition in this very House last session that with the legislation operating as a package, should any Bill be held up, wheat growers would not receive their first advance payment. After inordinately lengthy consideration in both the shadow Cabinet and the joint party meeting, the Opposition made a difficult decision to act in no manner whatsoever that may endanger the first advance payment to growers. Furthermore, it is with a great deal of pride that the coalition puts on record that it has placed the financial welfare of Australia's wheat growers ahead of stooping to the gutter tactics of the Labor Government. We were not prepared to use the wheat industry like the Minister has, as a political football. The coalition further places on record its absolute contempt for the cowardly action of the Hawke Government in denying the right of the Opposition to oppose through amendment by threat of stopping grower payments. The coalition took the position that the legislation, although obnoxious in certain areas, should be passed, as the alternative-that of return to the old Act but with deletion of its real strength, which is the section 49 underwriting guarantee-is totally unacceptable. The coalition position on the wheat marketing legislation and the reasons for that position have been conveyed this morning to the President of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, Mr Trevor Flugge, who agreed with the Opposition that there appears to be no other alternative at this time but to pass the legislation to ensure protection of the financial interests of the wheat growers of Australia. Finally, prior to formally moving the amendment circulated in my name, I make a solemn pledge that on our return to government we shall immediately consult the wheat industry at national and State level to amend the legislation in line with the statement of principles involved in our second reading amendment. I now move that amendment to indicate our statement of principles. I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading the House is of the opinion that: (1) the Board should be composed of: (a) a chairperson, who shall be a wheat grower at the time of his appointment, appointed by the Minister; (b) two wheat growers from each of the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia and representing the wheat growers of their respective States; and (c) not more than four other members appointed by the Minister because of their special skills or expertise in relation to the marketing of wheat; (2) all moneys standing to the credit of the Wheat Finance Fund be paid to the board as soon as practicable; and (3) in determining the price per tonne for standard white wheat for human consumption in Australia, the Minister should, in addition to the matters stated in sub-clause 32 (2), be required to consider any extra costs to the wheat industry in handling, storage and caretaking of wheat provided to the flour milling industry.'. It is no great pleasure to the Opposition to have to put up with the dictator attitude of the Minister. He sought to pervert the Westminster system and to deny us the proper opportunity to debate by bringing in legislation several months after it should have been introduced. We should have debated it, and the Senate, an equal partner in the parliamentary system of Australia, should have expressed a point of view which could have been meaningfully considered by the House of Representatives. It upsets us very much to find out that the Minister used that most obnoxious threat in this bastion of democracy, this House of Representatives. I shall quote it again, because listening Australia and farming Australia must be made to realise that this Minister is a socialist; he is a dictator. He wants to control by power and by might. He is not interested in consensus or in a fair go. These were his words: But I remind the Opposition that this is a package of legislation and, if it is held up, growers will not be paid. I have to note this man has lived up to his reputation of being a person who says one thing and means another, who bends to pressure, who sways around in the breeze like a weak reed. As his colleague the Premier of New South Wales, the Hon. Neville Wran, said: 'Let us see how good he is when we put the blowtorch to his belly'. We have just given him a small touch of the blowtorch and he came to his knees. I am grateful for that because the Australian wheat growers, on account of the pressure exerted by the Opposition and the Australian Democrats, will be assured of receiving a first advance. We hope that when the review is conducted it will result in people being given a fair go to present their point of view. I assure the Minister that when the matter comes into this Parliament when we are in government, the people of Australia will get a fair go. They will know that they have a government which is sympathetic to their point of view and has the ability to understand the situation. As the Minister said in Adelaide in 1983, it is a great Board, a very competent Board. A few days later he denounced it but gave no reason for doing so. It is about time that that type of activity was exposed, and the Opposition has exposed it quite fruitfully and quite well in the last few days. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Fisher —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the amendment. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(10.58) —I listened to the honourable member for Darling Downs ( Mr McVeigh). We on this side of the House have heard some appalling speeches from him, but his speech tonight would have to be the daddy of the lot. Quite frankly, I have been very sympathetic in the past towards the honourable member for Darling Downs because it must be very difficult to oppose the very competent Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). All members on this side of the House are aware of that. Nevertheless, I say to the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Darling Downs, that he should immediately sack whoever wrote his speech. Quite obviously the person who wrote it knows nothing about the farming community and certainly has had no discussions with the farmers. I have told the honourable member for Darling Downs on numerous occasions that, if he is prepared to listen, he will learn something about primary industry from the very competent Minister for Primary Industry, the Hon. John Kerin. The Minister talks to people in primary industry, finds out about their problems, and is prepared to consult them. Obviously, the shadow Minister does not do that. I say to him, as he is about to leave the chamber, that the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) is looking better all the time to take over the position of shadow Minister. Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member said that I was about to leave the chamber. That is not true. That was a very unparliamentary remark. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr O'NEIL —I foreshadow some amendments to the wheat marketing legislation which will be moved by the Minister during the Committee stage tonight. We believe in consensus in this place and we are prepared to listen to any progressive statements put forward by any member of the House. The Australian Wheat Board will cease to function on 30 September 1985. The reason for including the sunset clause for the Board in the Bill is to provide the industry with the necessary guarantee that the review promised by the Minister will be a genuine one. I think all honourable members, particularly those on this side of the House, would agree with that. The Wheat Marketing Bill has been introduced to enable the Wheat Board to continue to safeguard the interests of Australian wheatgrowers, as it has done so well since its formation in 1948, nearly four decades ago. It has functioned smoothly and efficiently for a couple of generations of farmers and a variety of governments. The wheat industry has become a major export income earner and a yardstick of the Australian economy. In my electorate of Grey we were reminded of how important a healthy wheat industry is to the general economy when the vast wheat bowl of Eyre Peninsula was stricken by the 1982 drought which reduced national production from 16.4 million tonnes to 8.9 million tonnes. The changes incorporated into this Bill are being made to keep pace with developments in the industry and to put the lessons of practical experience to best possible use. A very good example of this is in the provision which will allow growers to make their own sales of stockfeed wheat to users outside the normal pooling arrangements of the Wheat Board. The desirability of such an arrangement was one of the lessons that emerged from the 1982 drought, which not only halved crop yields but also devastated stock pastures and sent many pastoralists searching for readily available supplies of grain to keep their stock alive. The exceptional demand for stockfeed grain called for exceptional measures, and the result was that such a cash sales system was introduced into Victoria in January last year and later extended to New South Wales. This innovation has become the basis for clause 22 of the Bill, which will still depend on the bringing in of corresponding State regulations to make it effective. This is one aspect of the Bill which could fairly be said to introduce a new element of deregulation into what is a highly regulated industry , at least in the marketing area. It is also by world standards a remarkably efficient industry in the technical arena. In recent years it has needed little assistance or none at all. Permits to trade stockfeed wheat outside the pool will be available from the Australian Wheat Board to users, enabling them to buy wheat directly from growers. This is expected to result in considerable savings to both parties. There is a clause prohibiting export of any such wheat or its by-products, and there is separate legislation to provide for the payment of wheat tax and wheat research tax on grower to buyer sales. This stockfeed arrangement is one of the changes that arose from negotiations with the Australian Wheat Growers Federation and wheat industry user groups following release of the Industries Assistance Commission report on the industry last October. One recommendation in the report was that an objective of the Board should be to maximise returns to growers from the sale of wheat without taxing domestic consumers. I think that recommendation is well taken care of by a new method of determining the domestic price of wheat for human consumption, which will tie it more closely to the export price. Each quarter the domestic price will be arrived at by arranging the Wheat Board's export prices for the forward quarter and past quarter. A margin will be included to allow for proven additional costs to growers in servicing the domestic market. In the first year of application the new method is expected to bring down the domestic price of wheat, and consequently that of bread. Basically, it means that instead of the domestic price being subject to a complex annual formula, the home market will be deregulated to the extent that Australian consumers will , like others, pay a price directly influenced by market forces. Another departure from practice that has been hailed by a writer in the Australian Financial Review as 'a great improvement to wheat marketing rules' is the recognition of five grades of wheat, two above and two below the level of the Australian standard white in current use. Although in the past it has been possible for growers to receive higher rates for premium wheat as well as being docked for lower standards, this measure means that each of the five grades will be subject to a guaranteed minimum price. In the past the guaranteed minimum price has applied only to Australian standard white. The guaranteed minimum price for each of the two new grades will be arrived at by calculation of a differential based on the expected market value of the grade relative to Australian standard white. The new marketing arrangements will continue the practice of underwriting on a net basis calculated at 95 per cent of a moving average of estimated returns, through a guaranteed minimum price. This is an average of estimated returns for the relevant season and the lowest two of the preceding three seasons. However, there are changes that will both benefit growers and protect government liability. Removal of the high year price from the moving average formula will ensure that Government underwriting cannot be triggered by a short term price rise rather than, as intended, by a significant fall. Underwriting of the Wheat Board's costs will in future be based on the current year rather than a three year average. A new split first advance payment system will give growers a payment of 90 per cent of the estimated GMP at the time of delivery, with a further advance to be made early in the season when the final GMP is determined. The Minister is required to determine by 1 March each year the GMP for wheat of each different category. This will ensure that growers receive a high proportion of their final wheat returns early in the season. The only aspect of the Bill which appears to have aroused any controversy is the change in structure of Australian Wheat Board membership. However, in my experience I have found that growers have been quick to acknowledge the rapidly increasing complexity in international marketing for an industry that is now up around the $3 billion level, and the consequent need for a greater membership component equipped with the specialised experience and expertise required to cope with this complexity. The new structure will comprise a wheatgrower chairman, one chief executive, one grower member from each mainland state, plus from three to nine additional members, including one Government member, to be appointed by the Minister. These extra members will be selected for their qualifications and experience in finance, marketing, and other areas of relevance to the Wheat Board's activities . Up to five of the nine may be chosen from a list submitted by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. The present grower membership of two from each mainland State will be retained until their terms end at the end of June next year, thus accounting for five of the extra seats, leaving four to be appointed. This will give the Board a membership of 16 for the time being. The Minister has said that he will review the situation early next year, but even if membership is reduced to the expected 11, growers will still have a majority. There are five other Bills forming part of the new wheat marketing arrangements . The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill changes the calculation of the Government's liability in the event of a payout under the guaranteed minimum price arrangements. It will ensure that the payout is restricted to the amount of borrowings made by the Wheat Board to make first advance payments to growers and to ensure that the entitlements of premium wheat growers are not used to reduce any Government underwriting liability. The Wheat Tax Permit Bill and Wheat Tax Permit Collection Bill deal with tax to be paid on issue of permits for grower to buyer sales of stockfeed wheat. The Wheat Tax Amendment Bill and the Wheat Research Amendment Bill concern the wheat research tax as applied to grower to buyer sales both through the normal pool arrangements and outside them. Other measures contained in the Wheat Marketing Bill include continuation of the Tasmanian freight subsidy, with some changes, pending its examination by the Inter-State Commission. The Wheat Board will be permitted to operate on the United States of America corn futures market in order to finance wheat receivals and marketing. Its expenditure limit without ministerial approval will be increased to $500,000 from the current $100,000. A new provision imposes a formal statutory obligation on the Wheat Board to consult with the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. This is good because it has to be recognised that in spite of the backing given to the Wheat Board by an overwhelming majority of growers, the very prosperity that has been engendered by the Board's successful operations has led inevitably to stirrings here and there of the urge to get out from under the umbrella and go it alone in the best laissez faire traditions. As only about a quarter of total Australian wheat production is absorbed on the home market, any radical change to the status quo would have to involve relaxation of the Board's monopoly of export marketing. The impracticability of any such urging is best summed up by this quotation from a paper put out by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics: For a market dominated by the regulatory activities of the US Commodity Credit Corporation and by the centralised marketing of Canadian wheat, the AWB would have difficulty retaining sufficient market power if other traders were selling Australian wheat in competition. To wind up, it would be quite remiss of me if I did not thank the Minister for Primary Industry for coming to Port Lincoln recently to speak with zone delegates of the United Farmers and Graziers Association, finding out the problems of the wheat industry, listening to queries and coming up with this positive legislation. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.12) —The Wheat Marketing Bill 1984 and cognate Bills are of huge importance to this country. The providers of the wheat industry are not a government but the thousands of people who take the risks and go on to the land to produce Australia's wheat crop. Remarkably in the negotiations leading up to the introduction into this Parliament of this legislation those providers were suddenly denied their rights. They negotiated at length with the previous Minister and also with the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and they received certain concessions, but suddenly they saw their representation on the very important Australian Wheat Board being reduced to a point where they would be outnumbered by ministerial appointees. To my mind that was a step towards the socialisation of this industry at its most important point, the point of marketing. No wonder those growers protested vigorously. Numerous representations were made to the Opposition. Requests were made that we combine in the Senate with the Australian Democrats and the independent senator to give the growers the fair deal they are entitled to receive in regard to their own company. Irrespective of the statutory status of the Wheat Board, it is really and truly a company owned by the shareholders, the wheat growers who provide the product that the Wheat Board markets, namely wheat. As is normally done, the Minister, in presenting the legislation to the Parliament, made a second reading speech. It was a prepared document. He knew of the dissatisfaction of those people whom he claims to represent. He decided to make a terrible threat to them. One might say that, to all intents and purposes, those people get paid once a year. What comes after that is a very small amount of money relative to the so-called first advance. The Minister suggested that if those people did not toe the line and were not prepared to cop it in the way that he proposed to deliver it they could go without. I quote from page 1211 of the Hansard of 13 September 1984. The Minister right at the end of his speech, dropped his prepared text and said: Members, I have noted that the Opposition has indicated that it will get the Australian Democrats to oppose these Bills in the Senate with respect to the membership question. But I remind the Opposition that this is a package of legislation and, if it is held up, growers will not be paid. I commend the Bill to honourable members. As one of my colleagues has reminded me, Mr Deputy Speaker, it was blackmail. Furthermore, it has been said here tonight that the Minister possesses some economic training or degrees. It is interesting to note that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil), mentioned not once but a number of times, the 1982 drought. I put it to honourable members: What was the great curse of the 1982 drought? It was the removal of billions of dollars from the Australian economy, first as it came to the hands of the farmers, who do all the work, and then as the lack of it shunted its way through the economy we had the disasters that occurred throughout the Australian economy and which this Government has tried to visit on the Fraser Government. That is what happened. This Minister callously offered Australia another 1982 drought. It was a most remarkable statement for a man who thought that all he had to do was threaten some disorganised and widely scattered farmers and that they would come to heel under the threat of no income . He was promising no repayment of bank loans; he was promising no repayment of stock accounts and he was promising no payment for the workers. He was promising the retrenchment of people who make the tractors and all the other farm machinery and chemicals. What is more, he was denying many kids their Christmas presents. What a disgraceful thing that was. The facts of life are that this money would have come into circulation at about Christmas time. But of course the factor that the Minister overlooked-and honourable members should have seen the shock on the face of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) this morning when I suggested this situation-was that the Minister was going to take that money out of circulation right at the time when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was going to be begging the Australian people to re-elect him. Talk about the knock on the door that pensioners are going to get under the Government's assets test, I bet there was a knock on the Minister's door when the Government suddenly realised the implications of this stupid decision. Mr Snow —Get back to the subject. Mr TUCKEY —The subject is that the wheat growers of Australia were threatened with no income but nobody stopped to think of the implications of that. I put it to honourable members that anybody who has not got the brains to work them out is not very likely to represent the most important industry in Australia-primary industry, and agriculture in particular. But there has been a rethink on that situation. It was my job today to make this point, and make it clearly and to have circulated an amendment to clause 34 in regard to membership. The honourable member for Grey has made the comment that the Minister will bring in some amendments to overcome this problem of membership and to retain the present structure of it. I thank the Minister for providing me with information relating to that. One of his officers has explained the situation to me and I am perfectly satisfied with the explanation I have got. Provided the amendments, as they have been circulated, are carried in this place, I think that arrangement is quite satisfactory in the interim. It will therefore not be necessary for me to introduce the amendment that I proposed to foreshadow in this speech and to introduce during the Committee stage. That amendment was to change those sections of clause 34 which refer to one wheat grower to two wheat growers. But I do not propose to proceed with that. I am quite confident of the Minister's promise but, as the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) has informed the House, the real action will be in the Senate. Should there be any backdown on the promises made, I am sure my colleagues there will stand behind me, as my colleagues here have stood behind me for the last three days as we have fought this battle. As I understand it, the present Board structure will be retained until 1 October 1985. I am surprised that in the process of these amendments-the Minister can address himself to this matter and I am sure he will have a satisfactory explanation-the part of section 34 which I proposed to amend is to stand in the legislation. I understand that the other deletions and amendments will mean that the present Board will be retained and there will be no board to replace it on 1 October 1985. Consequently, legislation must be brought to the Parliament by the government of the day to restructure the Board. My amendment was very simple. It was aimed at maintaining the structure of the Board in terms of its grower representation. However, I have no objection-I speak personally-to the Minister trying to change the type of expertise available on the Board. We all know that a huge sum of money was to be stripped from the Australian economy by the intemperate threat of the Minister the other day. It was $2,000m to $3,000m. That sort of money and the international monetary dealings that go with it require expertise. Admittedly, it can be hired and I congratulate the Minister for including a much more flexible wage setting procedure in the new legislation. But, as easily as we can pay for good advice, it is comforting to know that sitting beside us on a board is someone who can question that advice and a farmer with other skills in which he is very competent. It is satisfying to know that the advice we are getting from our staff has the approval of such people and therefore we can represent the members we are serving. There is good reason to have specialist members on the Board. If that means fewer farmer members that is not necessarily bad, provided the farmer shareholders control the Wheat Board. There is absolutely no reason for a Minister to have that right. He has a representative because the Government has an involvement if there is a guaranteed minimum price. The Government has an overall responsibility, as it does with any other statutory authority, but the real losers if anything goes wrong are the farmer shareholders. They are the people we should be concerned about. When these skilled positions are created on the Board there is absolutely no reason why farmer shareholders should not be involved in appointing people to fill them. It is an absolute certainty that all knowledge does not reside in a Minister. The large group of farmers who are putting their money where their mouths are would take great care in attracting the best advisers on to their Board as many companies do. I helped restructure on one occasion a small co-operative trucking company in which we foresaw exactly this need. We identified the responsibilities and qualifications of our directors and their business capabilities. There was a designation of certain seats but all the shareholders of that co-operative voted for each of those seats. What is wrong with something like that? I accept that the Minister proposes a review. All these forms of evidence can be put to it. I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong but I understand that when the report of the review is received it will result in legislation for a restructured board which will be presented to the House and to the Senate. The Opposition-I hope we will be the Government by then-will not tolerate the structure of a board that does not give the Australian farmer, the Australian wheatgrower, absolute control of his own destiny. The Government is involved because it is necessary to have some organising central power. That is the only reason the Government is there and any attempt to socialise the Wheat Board will be resisted; and for good reason. We know the amounts of money that go through that Board; we know now its involvement in overseas finance and money markets. We have talked about the corn futures and other factors. The fact is that it is possible for governments to consider the Board an economic instrument. It is not so many years since the Fraser Government took an economic decision about the Wheat Board when it removed its borrowing powers from the Reserve Bank and told it to go out on the open market. That was a major economic decision, for better or for worse. But the reality of that is that the Board is big enough to influence the Australian economy and I do not think that that temptation should ever be available to any government of any particular persuasion. There are other matters we must deal with in this regard and unfortunately I have spent a lot of time on that matter but I wanted to express my view and I have fought very hard for the last two or three days to make sure that people understood the position. Nevertheless, we know that wheat growers are not entirely happy with other areas. The Minister should be prepared to listen to them further. They are concerned that under what is really quite an excellent arrangement whereby stockfeed will be able to be traded directly under permit, the permit fee, to which they have no objection, will be used to assist in the subsidising of freight to Tasmania. I have raised this matter before. I wish to put clearly on the record the fact that I do not oppose the help that the Australian people collectively give to the island of Tasmania. There is nothing wrong with that. Our objection is that wheat growers should be solely responsible for that subsidy. That is a charge on Australians. It is something that we accept; we accept that type of responsibility in many other ways. This is just a case of the Government dodging this issue. My other point is that for some inexplicable reason the Government has decided not to refund growers their own money-the $100m that stands in the Wheat Finance Fund-until next year. When I say that this is inexplicable, I should add that it is easy to understand why the Government did this. That money is now in Consolidated Revenue, a trust fund, and any movement of that money comes out on the debit side of the national budget. This Government has been trying to convince Australia of its wonderful economic management, management that has seen it receive $8.6 billion in additional revenues, yet has not enabled it to get itself out of its Budget situation. Consequently it has a $6.7 billion Budget deficit, one of the largest in the history of this country. The Government did not want that deficit to be seen for what it really was-$6.8 billion. It did not want that situation to get out, so it fiddled the books. Who is paying for that? The growers. Yes, they will get some interest, but many of them desperately need the money. In my electorate in areas that were affected by drought there were growers this year who could not benefit fully from the excellent rains because they could not get the money to buy the superphosphate and the fuel. Of course when they bought the fuel they had to pay the 3c a litre tax that this Government puts on their enterprise. That is a tax which they must pay on the effort to grow a crop, not on the crop itself and not on the proceeds of the crop. The growers are being taxed today for their enterprise in planting a crop. That tax is 3c a litre and it will be increased. That is the sort of thing these growers needed the money for and they still have not got it. I stress that payment on 1 July next year will not help them plant their next crop. Thank goodness the evidence is that the growers will have a good season. Possibly the actions of nature and the Lord will overcome the stinginess of this Government in fiddling the books and trying to make this Treasurer look good. The Treasurer happened to follow the Mexican Treasurer in receiving congratulations by some world body. I have just been to Mexico and if the Treasurer is second best to the Mexican Treasurer, God save Australia. But the fact of life is that a fiddle was done to make things look good, to allow the Treasurer to stand up in this chamber and praise himself and then get a bit more praise on that issue. The situation is that the farmers should have had that funding by now. These are the issues which worry the farmers. Nevertheless, I am sure that the wheat farmers are gratified with the modifications to this legislation. I hope that some of my colleagues who will follow me in the debate tonight will make reference to them. I am absolutely sure that members of the Government will pay attention to those matters. I would not like to sit down without letting people know that the Opposition congratulates the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for having come to an agreement with the wheat industry and for having done those things that the industry needs. We should recognise that an attempt is about to be made to try to reduce the power of the Senate. I hope that every farmer who is listening to the debate tonight realises that. We could not have won this argument if the Senate had had less power than it has today. The reality is that the Minister knew we could win but he made a silly mistake. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEDDALL(Fadden)(11.32) —The Wheat Marketing Bill 1984 and the cognate Bills before the House will put into effect a new five-year agreement for the industry . I understand that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has had the fullest consultations with all sectors of the industry before introducing these Bills. Indeed, a willingness to consult and listen to the problems of all primary producers has been one of the hallmarks of this Minister. As a further example of that, the Minister will be moving amendments in the Committee stage this evening to take account of further representations. In regard to the consultation that this Minister has had and the respect in which this Minister is held, the Director of the Cattlemen's Union of Australia, Rick Farley, said that the Minister has made a greater effort to consult primary industry than any Federal primary industry Minister he had dealt with. The President of the National Farmers Federation said that he was impressed by the Minister's great understanding of agriculture. I mention these remarks to show how highly regarded the Minister is in the eyes of primary industry. They show why the Minister deserves support with these Bills. One aspect of the Bills which is particularly helpful to Queensland growers is the redefining of the wheat season. As honourable members will know, a wheat season covers a seven-year period. However, the underwriting provisions and the domestic pricing provisions will be limited to a five-year period. The extension of a further two years will help in a smooth transition between wheat plans. The Bill will provide for the commencement of the wheat season from 1 July instead of 1 October. This change recognises the special circumstances of Darling Downs growers. They have traditionally harvested in August and September and these provisions will be of benefit to them. The Bills also affect the domestic pricing of wheat. However, the Government is dependent upon complementary legislation from the States. I understand that, after consultations with Queensland's shadow primary industry spokesman, Mr Kruger, the legislation was introduced into the Queensland Parliament yesterday. I hope that the Queensland Government will proceed with the complementary legislation without delay. Domestic pricing involves a quarterly determination based on the averaging of the Australian Wheat Board's export prices for the forward quarter and the past quarter. In addition, this price will include a margin per tonne which relates to the cost to the Australian Wheat Board of servicing the domestic market. Directly resulting from the new wheat arrangements, the Minister consulted State Ministers at the Australian Agricultural Council on 27 September. The new price was determined at $195.25 per tonne free on rail at port of export. This price represents a fall of $24.16 per tonne compared with the 1983-84 price. The effect of this on the cost of bread making will be between 1.6c and 2.2c per loaf, depending on the size. This price reduction should be passed on to consumers. I am sure that all Australian families will welcome such a reduction. One of the measures in these Bills which has provoked much public discussion is the decision to restructure the Wheat Board. We have heard claims that this measure will nationalise the Wheat Board. A former Liberal member from Western Australia, Mr Hyde, wants to have the Australian Wheat Board scrapped. I do not envy the Minister trying to negotiate an agreement between these viewpoints. I believe the Wheat Board should be restructured. The decision to include experts in financing and marketing is a sensible one. Initiatives undertaken by the Government to deregulate aspects of the Australian economy have made us internationally competitive. It has also meant that a thorough knowledge of finance is needed. Financial arrangements including commercial borrowings, the use of futures markets and credit sales receipts with borrowing repayments have added to the financial expertise demanded of any member of a statutory authority . The Bill recognises this and the Minister should be congratulated on the proposals for restructuring. I think it would be easy for the Minister to allow the Board to remain the same. I remind the House of the comments made yesterday by the President of the National Farmers Federation, Mr McLachlan. He said: If the exciting potential of agriculture is to be achieved, attitudes must change, shackles must be removed. Changes to the Wheat Board must be seen in that light. These Bills have to be judged against measures undertaken in the Budget which will assist the wheat industry. The wheat tax, estimated at $4.7m, will be supplemented by the Federal Government with a contribution to wheat research of $5.5m. The Government has also spent a considerable amount on research funds and investment oriented soil conservation programs. These are initiatives which have been of benefit to the wheat industry as a whole. These Bills continue the initiatives in the Budget. The new permit system for domestic stockfeed wheat sales includes a saving of up to 80c a tonne for all growers. The permit system for stockfeed wheat frees the Australian Wheat Board from the obligation of selling it all through the pool system. The Australian Wheatgrowers Federation Director, Ian Wearing, has calculated that growers will get cash savings of $25 a tonne, shared between growers and buyers, for wheat sold outside the pool. On Dr Wearing's calculations, if 500,000 tonnes were sold under permit, the total cash savings across the entire harvest would be about 80c a tonne. I turn now to an aspect which many farmers are worried about. I refer to off- farm costs. I read with interest in Queensland Country Life that Queensland wheat producers face the highest wheat handling charges of any producers in Australia. They pay $20 a tonne compared with $16 paid by growers in New South Wales. Mr Brumby —Where is that? Mr BEDDALL —Queensland. They pay $20 a tonne while in New South Wales they pay $ 16 a tonne. After the recent State Budget, rail freight increases of nine per cent were announced. It is still unclear whether wheat producers will be free from this increase. I call on the Queensland Government to come clean on rail freight charges for wheat farmers. Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would like the honourable member for Fadden to withdraw that statement about Queensland costs. If he would only take the time to read the report, he would know that the New South Wales rail freight rates are higher. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr BEDDALL —I repeat the figures for honourable members in the House. Queensland growers pay $20 a tonne compared with $16 paid by growers in New South Wales. It is interesting to hear the doomsayers opposite talking about primary industry as if they were the only people concerned about the industry. The recent Queensland State Budget saw a decline in real terms in allocations for primary industry. In fact, the National Party member for Warwick said the State National Party Budget had done nothing for primary industry. Of the $100m given in the Budget, one- third came from grants from the Federal Government. Even the National Farmers Federation has recognised the hopelessness of those opposite. Mr McLachlan said: The problem the Opposition's got at the present time is that it isn't representing the right-hand side of politics. It is not providing a viable alternative for anybody to vote for. I congratulate the Minister on these Bills. I hope he actively continues to consult and encourage all primary producers. I look forward to the day he and I can visit the Darling Downs to discuss this Government's policies with the people whom I am seeking to represent. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(11.39) —In speaking to these wheat Bills, and I think supporting the amendments that the Government has foreshadowed-until we see what the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) brings forward it is hard to say-I will start by giving some background to the wheat industry and the importance of the Australian wheat crop. It is important to remember that last year the Australian wheat crop totalled over 19 million tonnes and the gross value of that was about $2.5 billion. This earned export revenue of more than $1.3 billion. To put this into perspective, that is about 10 per cent of the Australian export income. The wheat industry is a very efficient industry. Just to give honourable members some idea of the position, I will quote from the February 1984 edition of the Quarterly Review of the Rural Economy which was put out by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. It states: Wheat production---- this is in Australia- is one of the most efficient of all Australian industries. The level of assistance to the industry in recent years has been low (or even negative) and, except in occasional years of drought, the industry has continued to grow---- That gives honourable members some idea of the importance of the wheat industry and the fact that it can also stand on its own two feet. As my colleague, the Deputy Leader of the National Party said in this place a couple of weeks ago, on 12 September- Mr McGauran —Which one? Mr HAWKER —Is the honourable member the Deputy Leader of the National Party? The wheat industry is in a crisis. Why is it in a crisis? The wheat price has gone up only 2 per cent in the last five years. Over that same period the growers' terms of trade have gone down by 15 per cent. Despite the crisis the wheat industry is facing, what has the Government done? I will tell honourable members what the Government has done: First, it has put a 15 per cent tariff on harvesters. This has added about $15,000 to the cost of every harvester. Mr McGauran —How do you explain that one? Mr HAWKER —I am not sure how the Minister will explain it. As was discussed in this place yesterday, the Government has completely emasculated the income equalisation deposits scheme. This was of particular assistance to the wheat growing industry because of the devastating effect that a drought can have on the wheat crop. Furthermore, as has already been mentioned by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) the Government froze the off-road diesel fuel excise rebate last year. Since then it has been indexing the excise on diesel fuel every six months. This has meant that farmers are now paying road taxes for the use of diesel for ploughing up paddocks. I do not know whether the Minister for Primary Industry can explain that logic, but he may have a go. This gap is now about 2.4c per litre and it will be growing because the Government, in its wisdom, has decided to index the rebate, but not until February next year. The hidden tax on agriculture is costing about $25m a year and the bulk of the cost is incurred by wheat growers. I remind honourable members of what the Australian Labor Party said in its policy speech before the last election. It stated: Farmers have nothing to fear from a Labor Government. Mr Fisher —What about the wine tax? Give that a bit of a burl. Mr Andrew —Yes, what about the wine tax? Mr HAWKER —That is right. As the honourable member for Mallee and the honourable member for Wakefield- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member for Wannon will resume his speech. Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member for Maranoa will resume his seat. Mr Ian Cameron —Where is the Minister for Primary Industry? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Maranoa will resume his seat. He is giving no help at all to his colleague, the honourable member for Wannon. Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it permissible for debate to continue when the Minister does not show enough interest to stay in the chamber? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am sure it is. Mr McGauran —I raise a point of order. As I understand the Standing Orders, the business of the House cannot be conducted unless there is a Minister in the chamber at the time. The Minister for Primary Industry is not in the chamber during the debate of this very important legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I suggest that the honourable member read the Standing Orders. I call the honourable member for Wannon. Mr HAWKER —I was just reminding everyone what the Australian Labor Party said in its policy speech before the last election. It stated: Farmers have nothing to fear from a Labor Government. With that background to the wheat industry, I would now like to turn briefly to the Australian Wheat Board. As has been mentioned already, it was established in 1939 and reconstituted in 1948 when the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act was first enacted. Since then there have been six successive five-year stabilisation plans. The plan we are debating tonight actually started on 1 October. The Opposition welcomes many parts of the proposed Act. In particular, I welcome the increase in the commercial flexibility afforded to the Australian Wheat Board. It is very important that a Board that is now handling in excess of $2 billion a year be given that sort of flexibility. It is a lot of money, and it will give the wheat growers a chance to maximise their returns. The legislation also allows the Wheat Board to use the futures market. If this is used wisely I believe it can be of great advantage to all wheat growers. Another initiative that will help some wheat growers is the cash out option for equities in pools for those who wish to get their money earlier. I also welcome the expansion of underwriting to cover all wheat. I think this is particularly important in the light of the increasing interest in growing wheat in high rainfall areas. I have been following this fairly closely and quite a bit of work is being done at the Pastoral Research Institute at Hamilton which is in my electorate. This research work is being done by the Crops Research Institute from Horsham. I see that the honourable member for Mallee who is present in the chamber takes more than a passing interest in that Institute. Already research being done at Hamilton is showing some very encouraging signs. It is certainly encouraging enough for research to continue into the high rainfall wheat area. The reason I am interested in seeing the expansion of underwriting to cover all wheat is that some of this wheat may not always be up to the Australian standard white. I am glad to see that the legislation has recognised that. Furthermore if the Australian Wheat Board does not actually want some of this wheat, much of which will be soft wheat, I believe the Government should allow the Board to free up the market so that any growers who want to sell the wheat that the Wheat Board does not want, have the opportunity to sell it in direct competition with other crops such as oats. I note that in clause 33(4) the Bill makes special mention of assistance to the port of Portland. I take more than a passing interest in that because Portland happens to be in the seat of Wannon. Mr McGauran —Is that where the live meat exports are a problem? Mr HAWKER —No, they are not a problem. All the sheep are going out on time. I am glad to see that the Bill recognises the importance of the port of Portland. There are many other features of the Bill which the Opposition finds worthy of support. The Minister in his second reading speech, when talking about the proposals, touched upon the importance of the membership of the Australian Wheat Board. He said: The Government has agreed to increase the marketing and financial expertise on the AWB. I think everyone agrees that that is extremely important. The Minister went on to say: The functions of the AWB have dramatically changed in recent years and have involved much more sophisticated and complex financial arrangements. These include enormous commercial borrowings both in Australia and overseas, the use of futures markets and matching credit sales receipts with borrowing repayments. Everyone would agree with that. However, I was very concerned when I read about the proposal to reduce the grower representation from 10 to five. As the honourable member for O'Connor said, growers are the ones who actually grow the wheat that is sold by the Australian Wheat Board. It may seem obvious but it is something we should not lose sight of. I understand that the Minister has some proposal to change the legislation, so I will not go into the matter any further . However, towards the end of the second reading speech the Minister made this quite remarkable statement. But I remind the Opposition that this is a package of legislation and, if it is held up, growers will not be paid. Mr McGauran —That is a threat, is it not? Mr HAWKER —I would call it more than a threat. I think it is even stronger than that. Mr Ian Cameron —It is blackmail. Mr HAWKER —The word 'blackmail' comes to my lips, too. Mr McVeigh —A Minister of the Crown said that? Mr HAWKER —That is right. The Minister for Primary Industry said that. Mr McGauran —What integrity does he have? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will withdraw that remark . It is most unparliamentary. When you withdraw, you stand and say: 'I withdraw' . Mr McGauran —I withdraw. Mr HAWKER —We are very concerned when we read that a Minister is prepared to make that sort of threat. I draw the Minister's attention to page 115 of House of Representatives Practice. Under the heading 'Role of the Opposition', in elaborating on the role of the Opposition, House of Representatives Practice says: These functions-- the functions of the Opposition- include: . . . . scrutiny of, criticism of, and suggestion of improvements to legislation and financial proposals; If the Minister threatens the Opposition, I suggest that he is questioning the role of the Westminster parliamentary system. This is Australia. We have a parliamentary democracy and I think that we, as members of the Opposition, have a very important role. The Minister should not lose sight of that. It is of great concern that he should threaten members of the Opposition in the House that if they disagree with one little aspect of his pet wheat Bills he will sort of pick them all up and take them home and play with them on his own. That he should threaten the wheat industry that, by doing that, the first advance would not be available is to me quite astounding. As the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) and the honourable member for O'Connor have already mentioned , we are also very concerned about the delay in repaying growers' money from the Wheat Finance Fund. I gather that there is $100m in the reserve. Mr McVeigh —Cockies' money too. Mr HAWKER —That is right. Mr McVeigh —That is real dollars. Mr HAWKER —It is real dollars but it is in consolidated reserve. I pose the question to the Minister: Why the delay? In conclusion, we welcome most parts of this legislation. We await with interest what the Minister is really going to bring in concerning the restructuring of the Australian Wheat Board. I repeat: We are very concerned that the Minister should have tacked on to the end of his second reading speech a threat that the Government would not allow the Bills to pass unless the Opposition agreed to everything that the Government proposed. I believe that that is a threat not only to wheat growers but also to parliamentary democracy. Mr McGauran —Will he apologise? Mr HAWKER —That is a good question. Maybe the Minister will tell us when he sums up. Mr Kerin —No. Mr McGauran —He said no. Mr HAWKER —We will remember that too. It is very important that we now await with great interest what the Minister has proposed, but as far as the structure of the Board is concerned the Opposition will settle for nothing less than seeing growers maintain their control of the Board, because after all it is the growers' wheat and it is the growers' money and it is not there for the Government to use for its own purposes. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(11.54) —It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Bills before the House in this cognate debate. Before I make any specific comments about the Bills before us, I would like to make a few general comments about the importance of the wheat industry to the Australian economy. The wheat industry is one of Australia's largest rural industries. It accounts for 20 per cent of all rural production and some 70 per cent of grain production. There are approximately 48,000 farms which grow wheat throughout Australia and they occupy some 12 million hectares. So it is a very significant industry. It is a very significant industry also in terms of total employment. The number of full time jobs estimated to be directly involved in wheat production on farms is 95,000. I should add, as previous speakers indicated, that the gross value of wheat produced in Australia varies, of course, according to climatic conditions but it is somewhere between $1.6 billion and $2.6 billion. So in anyone's terms it is a very significant industry indeed. Of course, export markets are crucial to our Australian wheat industry. Some 80 per cent of our wheat is exported and almost all of that is exported as unprocessed grain. As the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) pointed out in his remarks, the value of those exports is $1.3 billion. That is such a significant amount that it accounts for 10 per cent of the total export income earned by Australia. We do export to over 40 countries, the main markets being the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Egypt, China, Japan and India. I think it is worth noting that although Australia produces only about 3 per cent of total world wheat production, we are the world's fourth biggest exporters after the United States of America, Canada, and the European Economic Community. Mr Speaker, it is important in the context of these Bills to make those few points. I think it is also important to recognise as we look at these Bills on a State basis that New South Wales is the largest producer of wheat, and I am sure that you are aware that Western Australia plants out the largest acreage of wheat. Mr Gear —Top stuff. Mr BRUMBY —The honourable member for Tangney says that it is top stuff in Western Australia, and I am sure it is. Victoria, of course, produces the highest yields and it is New South Wales, though, which generally produces more wheat than any other state. In Victoria the principal grain growing areas are the Wimmera and Mallee areas. The Wimmera area in particular borders on and in some cases comes within my electorate of Bendigo. During the last season-the last bumper wheat crop in Victoria-I spent several days in the grain growing areas surrounding my electorate. I was inspecting the crop and assessing progress in handling the cartage and storage of the harvest. On one of those days, I am pleased to say that I accompanied the Victorian Premier, Mr John Cain , who has a very keen interest in Victoria's wheat industry, during an inspection of the Charlton, St Arnaud, Boort and Mitiamo areas. I must acknowledge, as the Premier does, the mighty effort-it really was such last year -of all Victorian growers in planting out such a massive crop and in stripping the crop so efficiently in what were often difficult and trying conditions. I am sure that the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) will recall that in the period last year between Christmas and the New Year when the weather was extremely humid it placed great difficulties on those attempting to strip their crop. I acknowledge that effort on behalf of Victorian wheat growers. I must also say that there is no doubt from that harvest last year, which was a record harvest, that it significantly contributed to Victoria's economic recovery. Victoria, as I am sure all honourable members are aware, is leading Australia's economic recovery. It has the lowest unemployment rate of any State. Victoria's economic performance is now the best of any State in Australia and its unemployment rate is the lowest. In my mind, and I am sure in the Victorian Premier's mind, there is no doubt that much of the impetus for that economic recovery came from the massive harvest last year in Victoria's wheat industry. We do acknowledge the great effort of our wheat farmers. The export and domestic sales of Australian wheat are controlled by the Australian Wheat Board and the Board derives its powers from the Wheat Marketing Act of 1979. That Act of course expires-it is a five-year plan-on 31 December of this year. There are a number of Bills before the House but the major Bill before the House, the Wheat Marketing Bill, implements the Government's decisions on wheat marketing arrangements and will operate effectively for the next five-year period commencing from 1 October of this year. The Bill continues in operation the basic features of wheat marketing and pricing arrangements which have occurred over the last five years. Wheat returns will continue to be underwritten on a net basis calculated at 95 per cent of a moving average of estimated returns. Changes to the underwriting arrangements include the removal of the high year from the underwriting formula and a split first advance payment system whereby growers will receive 90 per cent of the then estimated gross national product at the time of delivery and the remainder early in the season. Another change is that guaranteed differentials will apply to grades of wheat other than Australian standard white. Further important changes in the legislation are the introduction of the permit system for direct grower to user sales of domestic stockfeed wheat outside the normal pooling arrangements and a new method of calculating the domestic price of human consumption wheat which will, of course, result in a significant price fall in the first season of the plan. It is estimated that that price fall, if fully passed on, will result, in a reduction of 1c to 2c in the price of a loaf of bread. Another significant change effected by this legislation concerns the Government 's proposed restructuring of the membership of the Australian Wheat Board to incorporate, amongst other things, an increase in marketing and financing expertise on the Board. I think it has been acknowledged and accepted tonight by all speakers, including Opposition speakers, that that will be a notable improvement to the structure of the Board. Over recent months I have received representations from wheat growers who have been concerned at the possible loss of a grower majority on the proposed new Board. In that respect I welcome the amendment which the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will move at the Committee stage. The effect of the amendment that the Minister will move is that the Board will cease to function-it is a sunset clause-on 30 September 1985. Of course, the purpose of including the sunset clause is to provide the industry with, in a sense, the necessary guarantee that the review promised by the Minister will be a genuine one. I make the point at this stage that there seems to be a great deal of confusion in the minds of members of the Opposition about that review. The only reason for the amendments which will be moved by the Minister this evening is to give legislative backing to the review which, I must emphasise, had already been agreed to by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. It was already agreed with the States and it was already agreed with the growers that the present 10 members of the Board would continue until 30 June 1985. That review. as already notified and as already agreed, will still take place in April and May next year . The amendment gives a legislative guarantee, if you like, that that review will be a genuine one. There has also been a good deal of misrepresentation about the Minister's concluding statement in his second reading speech. The honourable member for Wannon made particular reference to that. The simple fact on that issue is that the Opposition spokesman was floundering around, ignorantly saying absurd things , such as that he would take over from the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation and that the Bills would be blocked in the Senate. The Minister in his second reading speech simply pointed out that if this occurred the growers would not be paid because if the legislation was delayed the Wheat Board could not raise the money necessary to pay them. I think that is a fairly important point to make and I put it in that context, particularly for the honourable member for Wannon, who seems to have lost some interest in this debate. I hope that when he is at work in his electorate he pays more attention to the issues which affect his wheat growers than he paid during his contribution to the debate and in his attendance during the debate tonight. Mr Hawker —What are you talking about? Mr BRUMBY —I have just explained-the honourable member's reference to the Minister's statement in his second reading speech that wheat growers would not be paid if these Bills were not passed. The simple fact is that if the Opposition chose to block the Bills the Wheat Board simply would not be able to raise the money necessary to pay the growers. That was the context in which the Minister made that reply. The honourable member for Wannon grossly misrepresented and, indeed, misunderstood that remark. That is a simple statement of fact. The remaining Bills before the House which are part of this cognate debate are the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill and the Wheat Tax (Permit) Bill. They do not propose the major changes envisaged in the primary Bill. The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill amends the Act of 1979 so as to change the calculation of the Government's liability in the event of a payout under the wheat guaranteed minimum price arrangements. The Wheat Tax (Permit) Bill sets out the amount of tax to be paid on the issue of permits by the Australian Wheat Board for sales of domestic stockfeed wheat outside the normal wheat pooling arrangements. Those are the major Bills before the House. I can only repeat some of the comments that were made earlier by the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Beddall) who quoted a number of references from the Cattlemen's Union of Australia and the National Farmers Federation which confirmed the opinion of the very good Minister for Primary Industry that we have in this Federal Government. He is a Minister who is prepared to talk and to consult widely in primary industry. He has done that and of course the result has been better policies for our primary producers throughout Australia. The new wheat marketing arrangements have been well received by the industry. I do not think there is any doubt that they provide a very sound basis for future growth in what I have already described as one of Australia's largest and certainly most efficient agricultural industries. I certainly support the Bills before the House. Friday, 5 October 1984 Mr FISHER(Mallee)(12.08 a.m.) —The wheat Bills will put into place a new five- year marketing plan for the Australian wheat industry. I acknowledge the efforts of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation in negotiating these arrangements under difficult circumstances and congratulate it for the improvements that have been made in a number of important areas. At that time two major negotiating areas existed. The first concerned the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission that underwriting be set at only 85 per cent of gross returns and that government returns be calculated on a gross basis rather than net. The second had been the decision of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in a blatant move to slash the Australian Wheat Board grower representation by half, totally in conflict with an assurance he gave to the annual meeting of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation in Adelaide last year. It appears that the success and the existence of a grower controlled industry had become too much for this socialist Government to swallow and so change was to be imposed. As in so many other areas, the Government decided to intervene in industry affairs. No one in this House should pretend that this legislation is either acceptable to the vast number of Australian wheat producers or is a major improvement on the former plan. The 1979 legislation of the Sinclair-Nixon Ministry was a high for wheat marketing in Australia since the formation of the Australian Wheat Board in 1939 when wheat was being given away at two bob a bushel. There was no stability. Producers were at the whim of a small consortium of buyers who played one grower against the other and reduced an expanding industry to a very sorry state. Orderly marketing of wheat has provided equity between growers no matter where they geographically reside. Any critics of the philosophy of the wheat industry exist because they have not experienced the disasters of the 1930s and have enjoyed only the stability that has since developed. Of course, changes can and should be made within the general plan. The 1979 plan clearly indicates the gradual improvements that can be achieved without destroying a base. Why do I claim such success for the 1979 plan? The guaranteed minimum price arrangements gave producers a known price for their product while at the same time the formula that established the GMP put a meaningful risk on the Government. In effect, the GMP underpinned the Australian wheat price during any domination of world prices, yet still reflected long term world price trends. It allowed the industry to react to market signals and ensured continuing productivity and efficiency increases, innovative farming techniques and a gradual restructuring of the industry without the massive trauma, crisis and personal social costs we regularly experience in other primary industries devoid of orderly marketing. The 95 per cent advance was a high delivery payment which enabled producers to repay production costs in the post harvest periods, and this cash flow situation has benefited the whole community through increased industry confidence. I also believe the industry has no need to apologise for the tariff compensation transfer to wheat producers in the former formula for the human consumption price for domestic wheat sales. There will now be an expansion of the underwriting to cover all wheat with guaranteed support for non-Australian standard white wheats including premium and non-milling wheat. This cover will be based on the expected market returns relative to Australian standard white. The new arrangements will provide for the introduction of a permit system that will allow direct grower-to-buyer sales of stockfeed wheat outside the pool, but under full control of the Australian Wheat Board. The domestic human consumption price is to be determined quarterly by averaging the Board's export prices for the forward quarter and past quarter. This will include a margin to cover the extra costs of servicing the home market. As we know, membership of the Australian Wheat Board was to be restructured by reducing the number from 14 to 11 and by reducing the number of grower members from each State from two to one. We were also to increase the number of members who had special qualifications from one to three. In line with this change the Minister has promised to establish a formal AWF/AWB consultative mechanism. Also , he has given an assurance that the AWB will be given more flexibility in the employment of terms and conditions for staff. As with the previous arrangements, the Australian Wheat Board will be able to use commodity and financial futures and will now be able to operate on the United States of America corn futures market. It will also continue to operate a cash-out option for equity in pools. Many of these changes are commendable and necessary to give the Board the technical and financial capacity to operate in a modern financial environment. But I am extremely concerned about the overall philosophy of this legislation, particularly in the current world supply situation. We need to reflect on only two recent issues-the tariff decision on headers and the Tasmanian wheat transport subsidy. The tariff on headers cost grain growers an estimated $14m annually. Australian manufacturers supply about 15 per cent of the market so that tariff also raises the cost of the entire harvester market. This tariff is a tax on the grain industry and adversely affects its international competitiveness. Australian wheat growers urge the Government-many in the Opposition also urge the Government-to make a decision so that farmers can make investment decisions for the coming seasons. Of course the Government did make a decision but it was a negative one. As the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) has mentioned, the visit of Mr Cain to the wheat growing areas last harvest, I also remind him that the Victorian Government has also affected farmers' returns by this year increasing the dividend tax on the Grain Elevators Board from $4m to $5m. The Australian Wheatgrowers Federation has also called on the Government to fund the Tasmanian wheat transport subsidy from Consolidated Revenue rather than leave it as a charge against the wheat industry. We have no objection to removing any freight disadvantage to Tasmania but this should be a community subsidy, not one at the expense of the wheat producer. I now turn to the new 1984-89 legislation and the key features of it. Underwriting will continue at 95 per cent and the guaranteed minimum price will apply on a net basis, which allows the best borrowing rates to be made by the Australian Wheat Board on behalf of growers. The guaranteed minimum price will now be calculated on the average of estimated market returns for the year in question, plus the lowest two of the preceeding three year's market return. The present glut is depressing prices, but at the same time importing countries are not taking advantage of low prices to buy more grain. The International Wheat Council states that only one million more tonnes of grain will be traded internationally than last year and much less than the average of 1980-82. Of course, this glut is going into stocks. The highest percentage in 30 years is stockpiled in silos and this could well increase further. Wheat prices have fallen in real terms since 1973. Between 1972 and 1981, total grain exports more than doubled from 97 million tonnes to a peak of 201 million tonnes. In the same period, imports by developing countries rose from only 8.5 per cent of production to 12.5 per cent. Of course, we are always living with the threat of any action by the European Economic Community that would disadvantage Australian producers or the possibility of the United States of America pulling out its farm support price mechanisms and so releasing massive tonnages onto the world markets. This then is the fault I see with these new arrangements. Everything has been designed to reduce the likelihood of any possible commitment by government and, in effect, reduce the real value of an underwriting scheme. This has been achieved in two ways. The new formula for setting the guaranteed minimum price has excluded the high price year of 1982-83 and will now be determined by taking the average of expected market returns in the subject year plus the lowest two of the previous three years. This change from a simple three year moving average will still afford some protection against a sharp downturn in the wheat market, but it should be emphasised that no benefit to growers will be brought about by an improvement in prices. The Minister, of course, had also intended to use a similar formula for determining wheat pool payments by his threat in this Parliament on 13 September not to pay growers. He was going to include the 1982 drought year caused by climate and 1983 year's good prices. Then in 1984 he was going to create another drought by ministerial decree-again, all the lows and none of the highs for the farmers. As well as this change, the GMP payment is now to be split-an interim payment of 90 per cent of the expected GMP on delivery with the final 10 per cent payment made on 1 March. This change will allow the Government in estimating pool costs and market returns before the season has commenced to avoid estimation errors brought about by difficulty in confirming crop quality and quantity. This all sounds very reasonable, but it introduces two new elements into the wheat payments system. It reduces the maximum delivery payments if required to allow the payment of production costs as quickly as possible and, again it gives a government greater flexibility in circumstances such as crop damage, difficult economic conditions or sluggish sales. Therefore a reduction of the risk by a downward calculation of the 10 per cent second payment would not be out of the question. The Minister has also made much of the new domestic human consumption price arrangements and predicted with great publicity a reduction to consumers in the price of bread. I believe this is a nonsense. If wheat comes down by $20 per tonne, it may reduce the price of a loaf of bread by 1c. But we should ask: At whose expense? It can only be at the expense of the producer. According to the philosophy of this Government, a producer is expected to produce wheat in Australian conditions with our high cost structure and sell it at Pakistani prices. If the Australian community receives high wages, controlled wages, it surely would not deny the wheat grower a small premium return over the export price for the benefits to users arising from an assured market, information on crop quality and the ability, of course, to purchase wheat from selected silos. The price of domestic consumption wheat should cover all the additional costs in servicing the local market such as cost of storage, and capture for our growers the benefits to flour millers in these marketing arrangements. The Australian Wheatgrowers Federation believes that a justifiable margin over export parity would be somewhere in the vicinity of $30 per tonne. It will be interesting to see exactly the price that is determined. Finally, I refer to the proposed changes that were announced by the Minister to the membership of the Australian Wheat Board. As far as I am concerned, the present membership of grower control is an act of faith. It was a hard fought initiative and I have totally opposed the proposed reduction in producers on the Board. Why was the change proposed? There can only be one reason-a desire on the part of the Government to intervene directly in the affairs of the wheat industry and to socialise its operation. The honourable member for Bendigo again pointed to the confusion that there has been out there in the wheat industry. We can only say 'no wonder' when the changes that we are seeing tonight by amendment from the Government were made only this afternoon. We need two grower members per State to operate what is now Australia's largest single primary industry, an industry that produces in the vicinity of $2 billion to $3 billion annually and supplies 10 per cent of Australia's export earnings. The last harvest was, of course, the worst that anyone has been through, with crop damage, mice plagues and industrial disputes. Of course, we need two member growers per State because today their work load is enormous. They have to go out and secure old and new markets. They have to watch the performance of these markets and, of course, the management arms of the Board, and communicate with their constituent growers. This is not the role of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, which is the growers' policy and agro-political arm. The problem of the wheat industry today is not the size of the Australian Wheat Board. It has nothing to do with the production of an annual report. It does not relate to marketing techniques or efficiencies. The problem is our internal cost structure-quite simply, our internal costs; rail freight that thieves one- quarter of a grower's pool payments, fuel costs that include no concessions for the producing sector, highly protected machinery and chemical costs and, of course, industrial disputes. I should like to look at these matters for a moment . Our most recent industrial dispute affecting the wheat industry has held up the loading of grain from the Sydney and Newcastle terminals for more than three weeks. This strike will be reflected in lower guaranteed minimum price payments to the nation's wheat growers this harvest. We have 300,000 tonnes of shipping held up off the New South Wales coast, with a carryover cost of $7 a tonne extra . Of course, we have an added interest charge on all the wheat that is held up. We have a delay in payment for the wheat, which will cost the Australian Wheat Board at least $2 a tonne. Also, of course, we have the cost of having to move New South Wales grain, which would normally have moved out of Sydney and Newcastle, to Victorian ports-another additional cost of $15 a tonne. This could well result in profit cutbacks of up to 50 per cent or more. These are the factors that so concern and so frustrate the Australian wheat industry. Just this week the Government removed the income equalisation deposits scheme, which was a viable farm reserve fund to meet the problems of fluctuating incomes and the gambles of the seasons. Mr Hawker —They do not understand it. Mr FISHER —The Government certainly does not understand it. Little encouragement is given, and I am appalled that the Minister took this road and has resorted to blackmail in an attempt to get his own way. It simply will not work; it obviously has not worked. This Bill also should have been introduced into this Parliament weeks ago, to allow full and honest debate on a vital piece of agro- industry legislation. Indeed, we now have possibly only five sitting days left. There was little time in which to amend. Originally that was seen as a shrewd political tactic, but I assure the Government that it has been greeted out in the bush with all the cynicism that it deserves. Perhaps I may quote from five or six telegrams that I received today, as the honourable member for Bendigo said that this sort of arrangement was supported. One telegram states: We resent being held to ransom by threats. Another states: We object strongly to the dispicable form of blackmail. I paraphrase the others as follows: This use of political blackmail by the Minister to stifle debate on proposed legislation must be stopped. We wish to maintain workable control . . . and full-time grower chairman. We are opposed to blackmail. I paraphrase what the President of the Victorian Farmers and Graziers Association states: Grower representation must, repeat must, remain at two elected members from each State. This is government by threat. In the past the ALP has often expressed pride in the part played to assist orderly marketing. The Minister now has a lot of ground to make up. Therefore, I ask him to give the House a commitment that his review of the Australian Wheat Board membership next year and the amendment that has now been foreshadowed is not just a technique to get the Government past the next election, and that he will retain the existing numbers of grower members as from 1 July 1985. He can easily accommodate this by allowing either ten elected members to continue or five elected members and five growers, appointed following selection by the AWB. There is nothing more important for the maintenance of effective and workable control of wheat marketing than the continuation of ten grower members on the Board. Any additional required expertise can be achieved by way of the three additional members with special qualifications in business and commercial matters. There is no need for this proposed reduction in grower members. There is a need to give an efficient and viable modern industry confidence in its future by ensuring that the underwriting scheme is meaningful. I call on the Minister to re-establish his severely affected credibility. There is nothing wrong with caving in when in error. But do not destroy a structure which has been so successful. It has been a pretty busy couple of days in this Parliament. I am very happy tonight to be able to second the amendment which was moved by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. In precis form it states that the Board should be composed of a chairperson who should be a wheat grower; two wheat growers from each of the States; not more than four other members appointed by the Minister because of the special skills or expertise in relation to the marketing of wheat; and that all moneys standing to the credit of the Wheat Finance Fund be paid to the Board as soon as practicable. Finally, the last paragraph of the amendment states: (3) in determining the price per tonne for standard white wheat for human consumption in Australia, the Minister should, in addition to the matters stated in sub-clause 32 (2), be required to consider any extra costs to the wheat industry in handling, storage and caretaking of wheat provided to the flour milling industry. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(12.27 a.m.) —Since Federation this nation has been riding on the sheep's back. Since March 1983 this Government and the people of Australia have been riding on the back of rural Australians. The economic recovery that we have experienced has been largely thanks to Australia's primary producers, especially the wheat growers. For that reason, because the Wheat Marketing Bill is so important, it is quite inappropriate, I believe, that tonight's debate should have been conducted in the atmosphere of levity and frivolity that has from time to time pervaded the chamber, and equally inappropriate that so few members, particularly from the Government side, have participated in the debate. While I echo the sentiments of the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), who was prepared to stress by way of statistical analysis the importance of the wheat industry to Australia, and while I echo the emphasis he placed on the industry as a key primary industry, I point out to him and the chamber that the debate has scarcely been conducted in an atmosphere that reflects the importance of this legislation to the productivity of Australia. The legislation in general terms has met with bipartisan support. It has been generally accepted that from a broad perspective the new arrangements contained in the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill are an improvement. But they are not matters for commendable consensus, as has been outlined by the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil). Indeed, we have only reached the level of debate and agreement that we have had tonight by sheer hard-nosed politicking. It is regrettable that that sort of politicking has been necessary before what was in the best interests of the wheat growers of Australia could emerge from this chamber. A number of changes have been made to the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill and they are currently being debated by the House. I have no wish to be repetitious or to speak at any length tonight. As other speakers have said, the changes involve the retention of the Australian Wheat Board with statutory powers; the retention of underwriting; the retention of a guaranteed minimum price, although as the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) said, the calculation basis has changed; the expansion of underwriting to cover all wheat in a series of categories; and a permit system to be introduced for the direct grower to buyer sales. Human consumption wheat will be subject to an administered price, and this has been a matter of some concern in this debate. In total $160m from the wheat grower finance fund will be returned, some from the revolving fund and some from money held in reserve. Concern has been expressed about the delay in getting this money back to the growers to whom it belongs. It has also been said that the Tasmanian freight subsidy will continue. There have been a number of changes in staff conditions, expansion of permitted capital expenditure, and a consultative mechanism between the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation and the Australian Wheat Board. The major change still in dispute-we await the Minister's amendment in order to resolve the position-relates to the structure of the Australian Wheat Board. That matter has been debated at length and I have no wish to enter into it. Suffice it to say that the Opposition stand is that the Board should be in the hands of growers. The Opposition has insisted that far from professionalism being part of the Board, it is appropriate that the Board be prepared to buy the professionalism it needs. The Opposition has made this point because it may well be that in appointing particular professionals to the Board the Minister, with the best will in the world, still does not meet particular needs which the Board may find itself facing. The Opposition thinks it appropriate that the Board be grower dominated and be prepared and able to seek and to buy the professional advice it needs. This legislation and the amendments before the House are the result largely of the perception of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). They are the result of courageous representation by the Opposition and a sensitivity of the industry to its needs. They are not the result of the anaemic consensus peddled by the honourable member for Grey. A matter of some concern that has been brought to my attention relates to an area of legislation that requires clarification. I should like the Minister to comment on the price of wheat for domestic consumption, which is to include a margin to be added to the average of Australian standard white export prices. At times I am troubled to hear Australian wheat growers described as small businessmen. In reality, a vast number of them are big businessmen who are responsible for the properties valued at millions of dollars. A great number of them manage properties the value of which runs into millions of dollars. Sadly, because of the capital investment in these properties the image held by so many Australians of primary producers generally and of wheat farmers in particular is one of wealthy cockies. But those of us who represent such people know that for the vast majority of farmers the reality, day to day, year to year, is tight cash flow. Successful farming in this day and age is only the result of putting into practice the latest available research. The honourable member for Wannon ( Mr Hawker) has already spoken at length about the need to maintain research. In concluding my remarks, I commend to the House the Wheat Research Amendment Bill and the Wheat Tax Amendment Bill, both of which allow the 30c per tonne directed into research to continue to be directed to that area. It has been only the productivity gains in which farmers have been prepared to invest in the past two or three decades that have allowed Australian farmers generally and wheat farmers in particular to remain both productive and efficient. Far from these productivity gains having been achieved at the price of soil degradation, in the 1970s and 1980s they have largely been achieved by ecologically sensitive farm practices. Practices such as minimum tillage have illustrated what Australian farmers can do to maintain their farms in an ecologically sensitive way. In spite of this, we have the reality from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics with which the Minister is so familiar, that this year there will be a 30 per cent fall in farm incomes. The Bureau is predicting that the wheat price will fall from $40 to $30 per tonne. This industry deserves assiduous support, it deserves careful representation and should not be subject to the sort of dictatorial approach that we have witnessed in this chamber in the last two days . Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(12.35 a.m.) —Before supporting some of the concepts of the Wheat Marketing Bill 1984, and probably adding some other points of interest , I point out to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the state of the House on the Government side. Perhaps we should call in the undertakers to remove the members of the Australian Labor Party who are showing such a tremendous interest in this most important Bill. Half a dozen members of the Australian Labor Party are sound asleep, or perhaps they have had heart attacks. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The honourable member might like to speak to the Bill. We are all getting a bit tired. Mr IAN CAMERON —That is very true. Honourable members know by now that the legislation covers the wheat industry. The Wheat Marketing Act will last for another five years. I condemn the Government and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for being so slow in taking up this legislation. As we know, complementary legislation is needed in all States before it becomes law. I just wonder about the position of the State legislatures if we are to get this legislation through so that the first payments can be made to wheat growers. Growers' returns will be underwritten by 95 per cent, which will mean a payment of $5 a tonne less than was received under the old scheme. Those people in the Department of Primary Industry, the wheat industry and the Government who drew up the new wheat legislation were more interested in protecting the interests of the Government than those of the growers. In most instances, under most of these amendments, growers will get less for their wheat. Basic changes have been made in calculating the underwritten price, and of course the risk to government has been reduced. I wonder why the wheat industry today even bothers to come to the Government for help, and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) spoke about this earlier. The Government is no longer giving the industry any help. The industry is now financing itself totally on the domestic and overseas money markets. I cannot see why it is necessary for us to have a whole host of Bills to cover this industry. As a wheat grower and as somebody who represents most wheat growers in Queensland, I have come to the conclusion that it is high time we started to get government off the back of the wheat industry and for the wheat industry to start looking after itself. Mr Campbell —Try to sell that to the wheat growers. Mr IAN CAMERON —I will; do not worry. We have heard a lot tonight about the price of bread being reduced. Of course, that is great stuff for the workers in the metropolitan cities where all the so-called Labor voters are. That is great stuff for them. The Minister crows about it every day of the week, but he does not point out that it has cost the wheat growers of this nation $25m. One million tonnes is sold on the domestic market. The price difference today is $24 a tonne. That is the price drop on the domestic market, and it has cost the growers of this nation $25m. Mr Fisher —What about the freight subsidy to Tassie? Mr IAN CAMERON —The freight subsidy to Tasmania costs the growers $3m, and I am totally opposed to the industry having to pay that. I believe that this charge should be paid out of Consolidated Revenue. Mr Campbell —You brought it in. Mr IAN CAMERON —Maybe we did bring it in. It is only every five years that the legislation is changed, and surely this is an opportunity to bring some sense and sanity to these matters and to make some changes. We should get the $3.5m off the growers' back. Why should the Tasmanian bread eaters not be made to pay the real price for their wheat instead of the growers suffering? Mr Kerin —What about the starch makers? Mr IAN CAMERON —Starch makers? Let them pay the right price for their wheat too. I am sick of producing wheat and giving it away to Tasmanians or anybody else. The permit system is being introduced, and perhaps that is a good move, but I argue that there is no need for permits. Why do we have to go to the bureaucrats and pay for a permit when we want to trade in a bit of feed wheat, for God's sake? We had a system whereby we could trade across the border and get rid of our surplus wheat, our feed wheat, the wheat that was not able to be graded, et cetera. Some years ago wheat could be traded freely. The industry subsequently decided that that was not right. Hello! The dead has arisen. I see that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) has come into the chamber. At long last the honourable member is taking a slight interest in the concerns of the farmers of this nation. Mr McVeigh —Madam Deputy Speaker, I would point out to you the divine quality of the honourable member for Maranoa. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —There is no point of order; it is not that late. Mr IAN CAMERON —We come to the membership of the Australian Wheat Board. I believe that too much politics has been played in regard to the membership of the Board. I blame the industry as well as the Government. I think the Government is shonky in the way it set up the thing with two formulas for the wheat growers. It is still shonky. Apparently it is to bring in a sunset clause that will terminate next October. Why can the Government not make a decision now on the composition of the Board? Why can it not tell the growers of Australia what their Board is to consist of? It is like the Aboriginal land rights question. The Government cannot make a decision on that either. The reason it is not prepared to do so is that it is shonky and is playing politics. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is to come into this place next week to announce the date of an early, unnecessary election which will cost the taxpayers of this country $ 100m or more just to run. I think it is a damn disgrace. I am easy on the composition of the Board. I believe that the Board should be run by growers, but I am easy on the number. I believe that it is the quality that counts. I point out to the wheat growers of this country the mess that the Queensland grain growers got themselves into. They had all sorts of experts but they successfully lost $35m. They did it dealing in futures. I notice that the new Act will allow the Australian wheat Board to continue to deal in futures. I warn even our own Government that when we introduced this measure we had to be very careful. I warn the Minister for Primary Industry again that we have to make sure that this part of the legislation is very tight. The Australian Wheat Board does not want to be put in a position where it is able to lose enormous amounts of money. When these Bills become law apparently $60m is to be returned to the Wheat Finance Fund. Another shonky election issue is the $100m which is being held until July next year. Of course, that is partly the doing of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I want to know why we cannot have that money. The other thing I point out to the industry and to the Minister is that it is high time we started looking at setting up a financing fund of our own. I believe that these funds should be used to do that. They should be the start of a self-financing fund the same as that of the wool industry. The wool industry borrowed funds initially to set up its reserve price fund. It successfully ran that fund and paid back those borrowings. I believe the wheat industry should be doing the same thing. It is presently costing the wheat growers of this country $156m a year in interest for borrowings. It is presently borrowing over $4 billion a year on a revolving fund . It is high time we set about setting up our own fund to do that. The only reason the Government has its finger in the pie today is that it is used to guarantee those borrowings. I put it to people in business and finance and to farmers: What is the guarantee of a Government going overseas and borrowing funds when it is running a $6 billion or $7 billion deficit, when our total debt structure is $60 billion or $70 billion? I put it to farmers and others that that is no guarantee. The Government is not in a sound economic position. It is not being run soundly. It is cruising along. The Treasurer is floating around overseas collecting Oscars, one after the other. All he has done has been to set up the biggest deficit Budget we have ever had. One honourable member suggested today that that will continue. That is costing the producers and farmers of this country a lot of money. The highest guaranteed minimum price for wheat has been removed. This Government has again set about taking any risk out of the guaranteed price. The reason it has done this is that six months ago it stood to have to put in $170m to make up the funds. This was due to the floating of the Australian dollar and the fact that the Australian dollar dropped out of sight. It has dropped nearly 25c since this Government came to office. The Government got out of that situation as the dollar dropped in price the Government did not have to find the money. That is the reason it has been reduced. Mr Campbell —Are you complaining about the devaluation? Mr IAN CAMERON —No, I am complaining about the drop. There is a split first advance. We are now not being paid as high a first advance as we were. We are getting only 90 per cent of the GMP. Why should we not have it all paid? Why should we get only 90 per cent of the payment? We need the money as much as anybody else does to stay in business. We have enormous costs to pay, enormous interest bills and costs on machinery et cetera. One of the pluses is that there are four categories for wheat. The wheat year has now moved from October to October, back to the normal financial year running from July through to June. I think this has mainly been brought in because of the early harvest times in Queensland. I also point out to the Minister that wheat has been harvested in my electorate in Queensland for nearly three to four weeks now and these people are looking for their first payment. I have mentioned the futures market. Before finishing I would like to point out to the House the excellent publication that the Wheat Board has put out. Sir Leslie Price is the Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board. He is a Darling Downs farmer and a member of my electorate and he has very successfully run the Wheat Board. I commend the report to every farmer in Australia and I believe it should be read. Research funds have been cut back. We have heard all sorts of arguments as to why that happened. I think it is an absolute disgrace that research funds have been cut back for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. All sorts of research goes on in the wheat industry. The other day I mentioned to the Minister the non-payment of premiums in Queensland. Here we have a situation where, until this Bill is passed, every grower in Queensland will be waiting for a payment on his premiums. We heard one of the previous Australian Labor Party members state that Queensland was the highest cost State in Australia for wheat, but that is absolute bunkum. This report states that rail freights for New South Wales are $20 a tonne and for Queensland only $13. Every imported header is costing $15,000 extra because of the tariff situation. There have been wheat grower protest meetings throughout the length and breadth of New South Wales in the last few weeks. They are all complaining bitterly about the high costs of farming and the high fuel costs. It now costs food producers $25m a year in excise on fuel. I would like to warn the industry that there is a chance of an oversupply of grain throughout the world. I believe that if, after the presidential election, the American Government reduces its $5 billion to $6 billion farm support program-America presently underpins the world price-we will see a fall in the United States price of grain and it will be able to dump even bigger quantities of wheat on our markets so we will find it even harder to sell to overseas markets. I would also like to congratulate Ian McLachlan, the President of the National Farmers Federation who spoke the day before yesterday at the National Press Club , for his excellent speech and for the fact that at long last the Federation is starting to show a bit of interest in the politics of this country and beginning to get a bit aggressive. He mentioned a whole list of things that the farmers of Australia, and that includes the wheat farmers, are vitally interested in. I will conclude my speech by running through the extensive list. There is international trade, Aboriginal legislation-that is the hottest issue in the country now apart from immigration-interest rates, inflation, international competitiveness, fuel excise, fertiliser, rural unemployment, drought policy, industry assistance, rural research, income equalisation, secondary boycotts and , a really burning issue, the capital gains tax. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(12.50 a.m.) —in reply-First of all, the Government believes that the Wheat Marketing Bill and those being debated cognately form an excellent package of legislation for another five years for the wheat industry. In many places we carry on the gradual development of the Australian Wheat Board's powers. I instance particularly the permit system and the fact that we have introduced a grading system whereby the Wheat Board each year sets the number of grades. This will give the Board more flexibility. There has been no inordinate delay with the legislation. As occurred in 1979, final agreement had to be negotiated with the States at the last Australian Agricultural Council meeting before the legislation could be introduced. Opposition members plainly do not understand what has happened, despite being briefed by my Department. As usual the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) has engaged in a bit of vitriol. I was accused of blackmail by him. I think the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) accused me of being against Father Christmas. I have been accused of prostitution, perversion, treachery and seduction. Given that most of this abuse has come from the National Party, I am pretty grateful that I have not been accused of rape, incest or bestiality. As we all know in respect of bestiality and the jackaroos it is the view of this Parliament that what happens between a man and his beast in the privacy of his back paddock should not be a question for this House. I will not get on to that, however. I wish to speak now about the accusation of blackmail. Meetings throughout the country were masterminded by the Livestock and Grain Producers Association mainly to get the Wheatgrowers Federation. However, I will not go into that. The honourable member for Darling Downs attended those meetings. Mr McVeigh —Incorrect; one meeting. Mr KERIN —He attended one meeting. The honourable member once again displayed his ignorance and capitalised on some of the suspicions of the farmers while indulging in a bit of grandstanding. The Press reports that very day claimed that the legislation would be blocked in the Senate. I very charitably pointed out at the end of my second reading speech that, if this occurred, given the honourable member's abundant ignorance he should understand that the growers would not be paid until the legislation went through. The honourable member made a personal explanation saying that he had been misquoted. There, I guessed the matter had ended. However, apparently this had caused all sorts of brawls in the so-called coalition's party rooms. The honourable member for Darling Downs raised a few points about the money being put in the Wheat Finance Fund and how it is being invested. The money is held in a trust account in the Department of Primary Industry. It is invested at the best rate possible by professional investment managers. Mr McVeigh —Tell us the rate. Mr KERIN —The rate varies depending on what deals can be done. Again, there is some ignorance about the underwriting principle. It is to take care of a sudden collapse in the international market. The problem that we faced and the problem that has developed with the Wheat Board-the Board and the Federation readily acknowledge that-is that we had a drought in 1982-83 when a higher percentage than normal of the wheat crop was sold on the domestic market which gave us a higher price. That was followed by a record crop, a record proportion of which was weather damaged. Therefore, we had a very high price net return to the farmers followed by a very low value crop. Underwriting is not for rain insurance. That is why the high year was taken out to accord basically with the underwriting principles. There has also been debate about the domestic value of wheat for home consumption. It was agreed among the Government, the States and the growers that we should have additional verifiable costs. The States have a role in respect of domestic pricing and, as we all know, handling, transport and storage. When the question of verifiable additional costs was put to the States the range they put to the Government was between $9 and $21.30. The Commonwealth allowed a $6 fobbing factor in the calculations but the imputed value of interest could not be agreed on. The question of the allowance for local flour millers picking the eyes out of the wheat was impossible to calculate as Australian standard white is sold at the ASW price. What was agreed was that the $16 would suffice for this year but we would have a recalculation after one year to see whether we could get more agreement between the States on what is a verifiable additional cost that local consumers should pay. So the price was fixed at $195.25 as against an expected international price this coming year of about $US150. The coalition, if one can still call it that-I understand that the biggest problem it has now is to find a deputy for the honourable member for Bennelong ( Mr Howard) after the election-has shown that it has been confused and ignorant. There are always two policies because the honourable member for O'Connor and perhaps the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) are a lot more free enterprise-that is the Liberals, they are trendy. But they have had a policy for quite a while now. They do not believe that any Board should have the power of compulsory purchase; that no board should have a statutory monopoly on sales; that no board has the power to exact a compulsory levy from purchasers; and no board has the power to determine the variety of the goods produced. That is Liberal Party Federal Council policy of May 1982. Mr McVeigh —That has changed. We have superseded that one. Mr KERIN —That is very good, that one has been superseded; but that was the Liberal policy and there was not a mutter about that when the Party was in government. Now we have a new Liberal-National Party policy; we are not quite sure. I have read it and it is just a series of platitudes upholding the status quo. But of course the honourable member for Darling Downs who poses as Opposition spokesman on primary industry, does not really understand the wheat industry. I find that remarkable because I understood that he used to grow wheat . Mr Fisher —He is also on the Wheat Board. Mr KERIN —That is even more staggering. At a meeting in Adelaide on 14 June he told the South Australian Rural Media Association that the domestic price of human consumption wheat was the same as the guaranteed minimum price. That is how much he knows about it. When the Hawke Government freed the Australian Wheat Board to borrow abroad, saving it tens of millions of dollars, the honourable member was about the only person who opposed it until the wheat growers got on to him and told him what he was doing. When I was recently in Toowoomba the honourable member for Darling Downs was running around with a story that the price of bread should drop. Mr McVeigh —You said that, you galah! Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs will please stop interjecting. Mr KERIN —He failed to understand that we have to get the Act through the Parliament before there is the potential for the price of bread to drop. The honourable member just does not understand rural issues and this is why he resorts to abuse rather than constructive comment. That is why we get all this nonsense about blackmail, prostitution, treachery, sedition and seduction. This is the usual thing. There is no criticism of the 95 per cent net and the wheat growers would not have got that from Peter Nixon. He would have stood over the wheat growers and they would have caved in. He would have given them 85 per cent gross as recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission. The main criticism, of course, is the reduction in the grower majority from 10 out of 14 to six out of 11. What the Opposition has really picked up is the agro -political line, and that is fair enough. It has always been agreed that the present 10 would remain until 30 June and as the honourable member for Bendigo ( Mr Brumby) has explained, I have extended that to 30 September so that it is in legislation. The big worry, of course is that if the Government changed there might not be any willingness to carry out the agreement that has been agreed with the Wheatgrowers Federation. There will be a review of membership after this season and before the next. That has been agreed for quite a while and the States know about it. What will mainly be reviewed will be in the working of the consultative mechanism between the Wheatgrowers Federation and the Wheat Board and the way in which additional expertise on the Wheat Board has had an effect. The Government will review this in consultation with the Board itself and the Wheatgrowers Federation. There has never been any intention to move away from a grower majority and six out of 11 is still a majority. In general there is nothing magic about a grower majority. The Australian Dairy Corporation has a grower majority and it has some problems. There is always a problem in looking at each statutory authority and one of the determining factors in the Government's approach is whether there is an inherent conflict within the Board. When we have processors and producers on a board, as we do with the dairy industry and the meat and livestock industry, we have an inherent conflict. That is why we moved with respect to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation to have not necessarily a grower majority. That seems to be working out all right. What we are doing with the Wheat Board is exactly the same thing that was done with the Australian Wool Corporation many years ago. That has worked out very well indeed. So the Government's approach is commodity by commodity. What is different about the wheat industry? There are quite a few things. First of all, the crop is acquired; the growers have a clear and absolute interest; and, as well as that, the States have a clear and absolute interest. The States are involved constitutionally and legislatively with respect to domestic pricing , and handling storage and transport. Therefore, we cannot get away from a grower majority-no government should think of that-and we cannot get away from State representation. Two people per State has been the status quo. So the choice is either two per State or one per State. There is a grower majority in the proposal. It was always agreed with the Federation that we take the existing Board through to at least 30 June. There is no problem in respect of the Government's attitude as far as a workable selected grower majority is concerned . It is not opposed by the Government. This legislation allows a change following a review. I have given assurances to the Wheatgrowers Federation of this review in April-May 1985. I must say that the Wheatgrowers Federation has been tough but fair. It understands all the aspects of this because I have taken it fully into my confidence during the negotiations of this agreement. Why change the status quo? There really have not been any changes since about 1946 or 1948. In those days about five million or seven million tonnes of wheat were produced. There were traditional markets. The Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank of Australia was used for finance and flour as well as wheat was sold. The world is now a bit more complicated. We produced last year some 21 million tonnes that was worth $3.1 to $3.4 billion. We do not export much flour. We are involved in international money markets. We are engaged in fierce international trading against subsidised exporters and we are dealing with credit markets. The Australian Wheat Board is primarily an organisation concerned with the marketing and financing of wheat. It is involved in the use of commodity, currency and financial futures markets and there is a growing risk for mistakes in judgment to be made. I am not reflecting on the competence of the existing Board or the professional staff. But the collapse of the Continental/Illinois Bank and the problems of the Queensland grain growers remind us that no one is infallible. Many honourable members have said that one can buy expertise. That is okay but we have lost the General Manager of the Wheat Board. We then lost the Assistant Acting General Manager of the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board is also losing some of the people at the middle levels who have key expertise. When we have people dealing with that sort of money and people dealing in futures they acquire highly marketable skills. The focus is on risk. The Government is addressing the problem of salaries. It was the focus on risk, the reliance on too few individuals, the reliance as far as finance is concerned on one individual on the Board, that prompted the Government. We also believe we need to get a more balanced board but one of a manageable size. CSR Ltd and other big companies have about 10 people on their boards. We do not want to push it out to 16. Those are the responsible reasons why the Government took the decision to put additional expertise on the Board in the finance and marketing areas. Many decisions on questions such as forward exchange cover, for example, are absolutely crucial. Honourable members opposite seem to ignore the fact that taxpayers have a stake in the industry because they will bear the cost of wrong decisions in many circumstances. At one stage this year I was presented with a potential bill for $180m on underwriting. That figure disappeared because the calculation was made at the ebb of the market. But I put that figure forward to point out that the taxpayers have some stake in this industry. Cabinet was prepared to continue the 95 per cent net underwriting that the industry would not have got under Mr Nixon on the understanding that there would be more expertise on the Board, plus the changes made to take the high year out of the underwriting formula and a split guaranteed minimum price. This latter aspect was due to the record crop-as I have already said, it was 25 to 30 per cent weather damaged-and the problem with provisional allowances and dockage. The reason why 95 per cent was reasonable during the last plan was that the United States was backing the market and inflation was on a rising trend. Those situations do not prevail. Frankly, the reason why we took the decision to maintain 95 per cent net underwriting was to preserve the Wheat Board's absolute AAA1 credit rating on the American money market. There is agreement with the Wheatgrowers Federation and the Government on most elements of the new package. I fall out with the growers on one fundamental concept. It is my firm opinion that people put on a board have a duty to act corporately-not just as a grower, a State person or a finance person but as a board person. The view put to me that we need two from each State because if one is away the State will still be represented is rather abhorrent. I would think that State interests would be preserved by the board acting corporately. The view put to me that we need two because they have to get back to all the growers in each State is also a nonsense because I do not think two people any more than three or four people can get back effectively to all the growers. I went through the Australian Wheat Board minutes covering a period of 15 months, the period I have been Minister. From a representational point of view in about 32 decisions out of 800 a grower majority would have been clearly needed. Mr Hawker —They might be the critical ones. Mr KERIN —I am not getting away from a grower majority. It is the job for the Wheatgrowers Federation, as well as owning and acquiring the crop and being vitally involved in the running of the Wheat Board, also to act as a critic of the Wheat Board, of the manufacturing arm of the wheat industry. I believe that by having this consultative mechanism with the Wheatgrowers Federation we will have a better understanding, and the Wheatgrowers Federation will have a better understanding, of the decisions being taken by the Board. The Federation welcomes that. The honourable member for Bendigo canvassed other matters, and I too would like to canvass a lot of other matters but I have run out of time. I remind honourable members who seem to make great play of the fact that they have had a victory because I have moved amendments tonight that already in the legislation there is room for between five and ten grower members. That has never been under debate. These amendments simply give the Australian Wheat Board legislative backing to what was already agreed to by the Commonwealth, the States and the growers themselves. In other words, because the legislation makes no provision for a board beyond 30 September it will be necessary for the Minister to take back to Parliament the proposed structure following the review. The Wheatgrowers Federation wanted an assurance on a couple of other matters. It wanted it specified in the Bill that any extra grower representatives on the Board will be nominated by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. I give a personal assurance that that will be done. That is actually already in the Bill but there has been some misunderstanding by the Federation. There is no question at all that the Wheatgrowers Federation will not be the body nominating the additional growers. Another concern of the Federation needs to be put clearly beyond doubt. It wanted it to be clearly specified that if there is to be any appointment to the Australian Wheat Board by the Board, that person will be the managing director. The problem with trying to get that into legislative form and so give that absolute guarantee-it will be covered in the amendment next year-is that there is no point in putting it in now because the Parliamentary Counsel has referred in the legislation to 'an officer', and no managing director is specified in the legislation. The reason for that is the agreement I reached with the Wheat Board that at this stage it did not want the newly appointed general manager to be regarded as a managing director until it took that decision and he was involved in it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr McVeigh's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, 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. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. Hodgman, W. M.Cadman, A. G. Howard, J. W.Cameron, Donald Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McCGroom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Fry, K. L. Newman, K. E.Hayden, W. G. Wilson, I. B. C.Hurford, C. J. Drummond, P. H.Humphreys, B. C. O'Keefe, F. L.Blanchard, C. A. Hunt, R. J. D.Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C.Theophanous, A. C. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Amendments (by Mr Kerin)-by leave- proposed: (1) Clause 3, page 2, lines 42 to 44 and page 3, lines 1 to 6, omit the definition of ''State Board''. (2) Clause 25, page 19, line 28, insert ''or the corresponding provision of a State Act'' after ''section 22''. (2) Clause 25, page 19, line 39, insert ''or the corresponding provision of a State Act'' after ''section 22''. (4) Clause 34, page 33, lines 23 to 30, omit sub-clause (5). (5) Clause 34, page 34, lines 1 and 2, omit ''or, in the case of a member appointed under sub-section (5), the election, of the member''. (6) Clause 35, page 34, omit the clause, insert the following clause: Term of office of members ''35. (1) Subject to this Act, the members hold office until 1 October 1985. ''(2) Where a member ceases to hold office before 1 October 1985- (a) in the case of a member representing wheat growers in a State-the Minister may, after consultation with the appropriate Minister of the State, appoint a wheat grower in the State to that office; or (b) in the case of any other member-the Minister may, subject to section 34, appoint a person to that office.''. (7) Clause 64, page 46, lines 29 to 31, omit paragraph (2) (b). (8) Clause 64, page 46, lines 34 to 40, omit sub-clause (3). (9) Clause 66, page 47, lines 27 to 29, omit ''(other than sub-sections 35 (1) and (3)), to hold office as the Chairperson for the remainder of the term of appointment of the person, and so holds office'', insert '', to hold office as the Chairperson''. (10) Clause 66, page 47, line 35, omit ''(other than sub-section 35 (1))''. (11) Clause 66, page 47, lines 38 and 39, omit ''until 30 June 1985, and so holds office''. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(1.21 a.m.) —The Opposition supports the amendments. They are in line with our policy. I seek an assurance from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) that the review will be conducted and that people representative of the industry from State, national and regional areas will have the opportunity of having an input into those discussions. The Opposition is firmly wedded to the proposition that there be two grower representatives from each State elected by the growers and- Mr Ian Cameron —I take a point of order, Mr Chairman. I would like to ask the Minister where his amendments are because we do not have copies of them here. We would like to know what he is on about. Mr Young —Your spokesman is agreeing with them. Mr Ian Cameron —Maybe he is, but I still want to see and read them. Being an old cocky from way back, I want to know what you blokes are on about because I do not trust you for one minute. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —There is no point of order. The amendments were circulated. They are at the end of the table if the honourable member wishes to take a copy. I call the honourable member for Darling Downs. Mr McVEIGH —We would like an assurance from the Minister that the review will be conducted and that the matter will be brought back to the Parliament so that we can debate it in the democratic process with plenty of time rather than have the attitude adopted at present where a set of circumstances forced an inappropriate discussion which was not conducive to a full and frank debate on the various issues confronting the wheat industry. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for the third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: 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 Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: 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 Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: 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 Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: 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 Kerin) read a third time. House adjourned at 1.27 a.m. (Friday) The following notice was given: Mr John Brown to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 and for related purposes. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 4 October 1984: Australian Telecommunications Commission-Service and business outlook for year 1984-85-Erratum to paper presented on 22 August 1984. Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 259. Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 271. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, Nos. 260, 261, 262, 263. Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 267. Defence Act-Determinations-1984- No. 38-Child Allowance. No. 45-Special Action Forces Allowance and other allowances. No. 46-Special Gratuities and Annuities for Honours and Awards. Dried Fruit (Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No . 268. Fish (Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 270. Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 269. Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 265. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act-Determination pursuant to section 6A (3) fixing wholesale price of liquefied petroleum gas, dated 30 September 1984. Public Service Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 272. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinance-1984-No. 51-Nurses Registration (Amendment). Variation of plan of lay-out of City of Canberra and its environs, dated 4 October 1984. Shipping Registration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 273. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 264. Wool Industry Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 266. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1439) Mrs Kelly asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 29 May 1984: (1) What is the estimated final cost of the construction of the new Parliament House in final figures and 1978 dollars. (2) What overrun is there on the previous estimates presented to Parliament. (3) What are the costs of preliminaries for the building project. (4) What is the breakdown of expenditure on preliminaries. (5) Is there a contingency amount available in the overall budget. (6) What capacity does the Parliament House Construction Authority have to absorb the costs of the current industrial dispute. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The building budget for the new Parliament House was set at $220m at May 1978 prices. This budget is updated every six months to reflect the current cost of the building. The most recent updated building budget is $462.2m at February 1984 prices. The updated building budget represents the original $220m at May 1978 prices with adjustments made only for the effects of inflation since that time and an increase of approximately 3 per cent for earlier additional building requirements approved by the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. The separate budget for the building extensions, required to accommodate the additional senators and members, is $41.7m at February 1984 prices. Both the Authority and the Government have indicated their resolve to maintain the building budget in real terms for the project. The final cost of the building will therefore depend on the impact of inflation on the work remaining to be completed and the extent of any additional requirements requested by the Parliament. No estimate has been made of the likely final cost, in 1988 prices, of the completed building. (2) As outlined in (1) there is no overrun on the updated building budget estimate of $462.2m at February 1984. The budget for the building extensions is for additional user requirements relating to the increase in the number of senators and members. (3) As at June 1984, expenditure on preliminaries was $27m at June 1984 prices. (4) The breakdown of expenditure on preliminaries is as follows: $m Construction management service 15.1 Plant and equipment 6.3 Site services 4.2 Sundries (scaffolding; safety; cleaning; etc) 1.4 Total 27.0 (5) In accordance with Commonwealth policy there is no contingency. (6) The final cost to the project of the recent industrial dispute cannot be calculated accurately until all claims from contractors have been received, assessed and finally resolved. The extended nature of the dispute and the considerable amount of construction work which remains outstanding are factors which the Authority will be considering in assessing the impact on the building budget of the costs of the recent dispute and its ability to absorb the costs within the approved budget. (Question No. 1568) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: (1) Further to his answer to Question No. 1059 (Hansard, 29 May 1984, page 1521 ), is the R. J. Walsh listed as a principal of Taralba Pty Ltd on page 3 of Appendix A, in relation to the lease of a newsagency and composite shop at Tullamarine Airport, the same person as E. J. Walsh, listed as a principal of Taralba Pty Ltd on page 4 of appendix A, in relation to a gift shop at the same location, and as a principal of Taralba Pty Ltd on page 7, in relation to a duty free shop at Adelaide Airport; if not, what is the reason for this discrepancy. (2) If so, is the error a result of information supplied to his Department, or in the preparation of the information by his Department. (3) Is the E. J. Walsh listed in the answer the same person as Mr Eric Walsh, a Canberra lobbyist. (4) How many tenders were received for each of the 3 leases listed as granted to Taralba Pty Ltd in 1983. (5) Has Taralba Pty Ltd or any other company of which Mr Eric Walsh is a principal, or Mr Eric Walsh as an individual, been granted a lease, awarded a contract, or in any other way gained a benefit awarded at the discretion of the Minister of his Department; if so, when. Mr Beazley —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The R. J. Walsh listed as a principal of Taralba Pty Ltd on page 3 of Appendix A, in relation to the lease of a newsagency and composite shop at Tullamarine Airport is the same person as E. J. Walsh listed as a principal of Taralba Pty Ltd on page 4 of Appendix A in relation to a gift shop at the same location, and as a principal of Taralba Pty Ltd on page 7, in relation to a duty free shop at Adelaide Airport. (2) The error was made in the typographical preparation of the information by my Department. (3) The E. J. Walsh is the same person as Mr Eric Walsh, a Canberra lobbyist. (4) For each of the 3 leases listed as granted to Taralba Pty Ltd in 1983 the following number of tenders (including Taralba Pty Ltd bid) were received: Tenders Concession received Gift Shop: Tullamarine 5 formal 1 late Newsagency/Composite shop: Tullamarine 7 formal Duty Free Shop: Adelaide 5 formal 1 informal (5) Neither Taralba Pty Ltd nor any other company of which Mr Eric Walsh is a principal nor Mr Eric Walsh as an individual has been granted or awarded a lease or contract under the non-mandatory tender requirement provisions of the Airports (Business Concessions) Act 1959-1973. Taralba Pty Ltd have had their consideration modified in Coolangatta, Canberra and Hobart as a result of the Department's action in relocating East West Airlines out of the main terminals at those airports. The effect of the relocation was to divert passengers who would otherwise have had access to Taralba's concessions. Since 1 July 1984 Taralba have received no modified consideration in respect to Canberra Terminal as East West Airlines passengers handling activities have returned to the main terminal. The department and Taralba have agreed to vary the commencement date of a 5 year contract term for the Coolangatta bar/bistro concession from 1 February 1982 to a commencement date of 1 March 1983. The revised commencement date resulted from delays encountered in construction and fit out of the concession area. The Commonwealth contributed to those delays. (Question No. 1634) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) How many houses held, for any purpose, by the Minister's Department or any agency or statutory authority responsible to the Minister in the ACT were vacant on 18 June 1984. (2) Does the Minister's Department control any other premises in the ACT which are presently unused which could be occupied for residential purposes; if so, (a ) where are these premises, (b) what were their previous uses and (c) are there any plans for their future use. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Nil. (2) No. (Question No. 1819) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: (1) How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the Community Employment Program, in each of the months June, July and August 1984. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) CEP STAFF TAKEN ON IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE Men Women Total June 1984 79 31 110 July 1984 48 19 67 August 1984 42 32 74 Total 169 82 251 (ii) CEP STAFF TAKEN ON IN STATUTORY AUTHORITIES REPORTING TO THE MINISTER FOR DEFENCE For the months June, July and August 1984-Nil. (Question No. 1588) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: (1) Further to the answer to Question No. 1026 (Hansard, 29 May 1984, page 2389 ) did he state that the number of person/weeks of employment created under CEP in 1983 are not yet available on a national or federal electorate basis. (2) Does each internal project summary sheet include the electoral division in which the spending will take place. (3) Do his news releases include the location of each approved CEP project. (4) Is he unable or unwilling to provide the answer to part 4 of Question No. 1026. (5) Are the October 1983 'Estimates of Unemployment Rates by Commonwealth Electorate' the most up to date available estimates; if not, what are. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. However, the total number of person/weeks of employment created under CEP in respect of projects approved in the financial year to 30 June 1984 has now been estimated at 1,624,192. (2) Yes, but the projects, and consequently the spending, are not necessarily limited to that electorate. In such cases the summary sheet lists each relevant electorate but no distribution of financial and employment details is shown. (3) Not necessarily. It would be impracticable to provide full details of all projects in each Press release. (4) An estimate of the number of person/weeks of employment created for any given Federal electorate can now be provided, on request, by my Department. However, as the effect of projects is often wider than electoral boundaries, the data cannot be aggregated to provide cumulative State or Territory totals since projects may be listed in more than one electorate. It should be noted that data of this type give a general indication of the locality of the employment but do not indicate in which Federal electorate project employees are resident. Estimates of placement by Federal electorate can also be provided, subject to the abovementioned constraints regarding project overlaps. Estimated total placements to 30 June 1984 are 28,400. (5) Yes. (Question No. 1595) Mr Fisher asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) Has he refused to grant a visa to Mr Trevor Goddard, a former South African cricket captain, to attend the South Australian Cricket Association's centenary dinner in December 1984; if so, on what basis was the decision made. (2) Does the Government's policy on sporting contacts with South Africa make a distinction between amateur and professional sports people; if so, why. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. Mr Goddard and his wife were issued visit visas on 28 June 1984 to enable them to attend the South Australian Cricket Association centenary celebrations. (2) Yes. In strengthening its policy on sporting contacts with South Africa, in October 1983, the Government decided that individual amateur sports persons domiciled in South Africa would henceforth be considered as representative of South Africa or of a South African organisation, and thus banned from entry, unless there was clear evidence to the contrary. Individual professional South African sportspersons, on the other hand, are assumed to be competing on their own behalf and non-representative unless there is contrary evidence. The Australian Government is of the view that sport in South Africa is subject to apartheid and that therefore equal opportunities do not exist for non-white sportsmen and women. Persons representing South African organisations, or South Africa, are thus representative of the apartheid system. The Government's policies of restricting sporting contacts with representative South Africans are consistent with the Gleneagles Agreement and are designed to persuade the South African Government to abandon apartheid. (Question No. 1605) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) What is the (a) name, (b) address and (c) former occupation of each trade commissioner appointed since March 1983. (2) To which country has each been appointed. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The honourable member's questions are answered in the following table. Date Former appointed Name Address occupation Country 30.3.83 Zarifeh, Ghassan T. 16 Weld Street, Yarralumla, ACT Public Servant Algeria 22.4.83 Armbruster, Philip A. 43 Rosemar Circuit, View Bank, Vic. Sales and Marketing Manager, BMW Aust., Melbourne Malaysia 22.4.83 Bailey, Paul R. 122 Brook Street, Coogee, NSW Aust. Graduate School of Management-full time study Egypt 22.4.83 Bell, Ian E. 33 Jean Road, Camira, Qld State Manager, ANI Komatsu, Rocklea, Qld South Korea 22.4.83 Cassidy, Frances M. L. 1 Dickinson Street, Watson, ACT Public Servant United States of America 22.4.83 Myers, Paul M. 5 Tregenna Close, St Ives, NSW Editorial Manager, Rural Press Ltd, Sydney Canada 22.4.83 Westwood, Harry V. 102 Williams Road, East Prahran, Vic. Senior Marketing Consultant, ICI Federal Republic of Germany 22.4.83 Wigley, Prudence S. 23 Northcote Road, Armadale, Vic. MBA Studies, Melbourne United States of America 26.5.83 Gribble, Darren P. 5 Wargi Place, Aranda, ACT Public Servant Belgium 29.6.83 Doueihi, Joseph C. 92 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee, NSW Marketing and Advertising Executive Australia 29.6.83 Goss, Terence H. 34 Garanya Street, Waramanga, ACT Public Servant Canada 29.6.83 Unger, Frank V. 38 Birdwood Street, Hughes, ACT Public Servant South Korea 11.11.83 McKenzie, Colin C. 55 Percy Crescent, Chapman, ACT Public Servant Argentina 17.11.83 Cook, Anthony J. 8 Centaurus Street, Giralang, ACT Public Servant Belgium 17.11.83 Scott, Graham H. 83 Wybalena Grove, Cook, ACT Temporary Public Servant China 18.11.83 Savage, Eric N. 15 Arabana Street, Aranda, ACT Public Servant United States of America 19.1.84 Lowday, Phillip C. W. 24 Kootingal Street, Giralang, ACT Public Servant New Zealand 19.2.84 Alparslan, Jay 42 Diamond Bay Road, Vaucluse, NSW Trade and Investment Adviser to NSW Government Australia 19.4.84 Paxton, David W. G. H. 187 Majura Avenue, Dickson, ACT Public Servant Bahrain 10.5.84 Bolduan, Ray C. 14 Trawalla Avenue, Toorak, Vic. Public Servant Malaysia 27.6.84 Hely, Anthony J. 13 Wassell Place, Macgregor, ACT Public Servant Japan 30.6.84 Jones, Roy G. 4a Bundabah Avenue, St Ives, NSW Chairman, AMLC Australia 16.7.84 Day, Roland M. 24 James Road, Belair, SA Trade Consultant Australia (China) 16.7.84 Hearn, Simon E. 54 Caley Crescent, Narrabundah, ACT Public Servant Australia 26.7.84 Downie, Peter C. 1 Coonie Court, Charnwood, ACT Public Servant USSR (Question No. 1638) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) How many houses held, for any purpose, by the Minister's Department or any agency or statutory authority responsible to the Minister in the Australian Capital Territory were vacant on 18 June 1984. (2) Does the Minister's Department control any other premises in the Australian Capital Territory which are presently unused which could be occupied for residential purposes; if so, (a) where are these premises, (b) what were their previous uses and (c) are there any plans for their future use. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Nil. (2) No. Neither my Department nor the statutory authority responsible to me holds any houses in the Australian Capital Territory. (Question No. 1711) Mr Rocher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 5 September 1984: (1) How many customs marine patrol hours have been spent by Fremantle based patrol craft outside Fremantle Port limits. (2) How many separate overnight patrols have been made during the 2 years to 30 June 1984 and what was the duration and distance of each patrol. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) 435 hours during the 2 years to 30 June 1984. (2) There were 6 overnight patrols conducted in that period, from Fremantle to: (1) Two Rock Marina and Yanchep September 1982; 20 hours duration; 70 nautical miles. (2) Geographe Bay and Bunbury December 1982; 5 days duration; 240 nautical miles. (3) Wedge Island and Lancelin April 1983; 2 days duration; 160 nautical miles. (4) Lancelin August 1983; 24 hours duration; 130 nautical miles. (5) Geographe Bay and Bunbury August 1983; 4 days duration; 240 nautical miles. (6) Geographe Bay and Bunbury November 1983; 3 days duration; 240 nautical miles. (Question No. 1732) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 6 September 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a memorandum, dated 1 June 1984, to all permanent heads, heads of statutory authorities and staff organisations from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, concerning encouragement of union membership. (2) Was the memorandum brought to the attention of all staff in the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities reporting to the Minister; if so, how and on what dates. (3) What additional action has been taken within the Minister's Department and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister to avoid delays in constructive action being taken to encourage union membership and on what dates; if no additional action has been taken, what are the reasons for such a decision. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department did not consider it necessary to draw the memorandum in question to the Minister's attention. (2) The memorandum was circulated with the Department's Staff Bulletin of 21 August 1984. (3) The staff Bulletin of 21 August 1984 contained the following item: Quote. UNION MEMBERSHIP Attached to this Bulletin is a copy of a Public Service Board Memorandum which outlines current Public Service policy on the encouragement of Union Membership. You will note that positive guidelines are being developed by the Board in consultation with the ACTU on ways in which departments might encourage employees to join the appropriate union. In the meantime, this department is supportive of these initiatives and encourages all staff members seriously to consider the benefits of union membership. Information on the various associations can be obtained from the relevant workplace delegates. Names and contact numbers for the delegates of the various staff associations represented in the Department are: Unquote. The names and contact numbers then followed. In addition, arrangements have been made in recent months for staff involved in recruitment to pass relevant union literature to new entrants, and workplace union representatives are able to identify persons eligible to be members of a union including new entrants. The Department has also recently re-affirmed the requirement that all induction/new entrants courses provide time for attendees to be addressed by union representatives. (Question No. 1733) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 6 September 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a memorandum, dated 1 June 1984, to all permanent heads, heads of statutory authorities and staff organisations from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, concerning encouragement of union membership. (2) Was the memorandum brought to the attention of all staff in the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities reporting to the Minister; if so, how and on what dates. (3) What additional action has been taken within the Minister's Department and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister to avoid delays in constructive action being taken to encourage union membership and on what dates; if no additional action has been taken, what are the reasons for such a decision. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) The memorandum was brought to the attention of staff in the Department's Central Office by a circular dated 26 June 1984. State staff were notified in a similar fashion as follows: Victoria-23 July 1984 South Australia-10 July 1984 Tasmania-2 August 1984 Northern Territory-11 September 1984 Western Australia-18 September 1984 Staff in the Department's New South Wales and Queensland offices and staff in the Australian Industry Development Corporation and the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation are to be notified in the near future. Industries Assistance Commission staff were advised by a notice in the staff bulletin dated 8 June 1984 and copies placed on notice boards. (3) It is considered that there is little requirement for additional action in those statutory authorities with relatively small numbers. In order to encourage union membership the Department arranges addresses to new recruits by staff association representatives, provides information to assist in identifying prospective members and provides staff with details of union contact officers. The Department is currently awaiting the issue of guidelines mentioned in the Public Service Board memorandum before taking further action. In addition to the action taken by the Department, the Industries Assistance Commission has made arrangements to provide reasonable typing and photocopying for association representatives. The action taken by the IAC in response to the PSB memorandum has been agreed to in the course of negotiations with staff associations. (Question No. 1748) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 6 September 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a memorandum, dated 1 June 1984, to all permanent heads, heads of statutory authorities and staff organisations from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, concerning encouragement of union membership. (2) Was the memorandum brought to the attention of all staff in the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities reporting to the Minister; if so, how and on what dates. (3) What additional action has been taken within the Minister's Department and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister to avoid delays in constructive action being taken to encourage union membership and on what dates; if no additional action has been taken, what are the reasons for such a decision. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2)- (a) The memorandum was brought to the attention of all staff in my Department through staff bulletins and circulars published on the following dates: Central Office-10 September 1984 A.C.T. Region-4 September 1984 N.S.W. Region-14 September 1984 Vic./Tas. Region-1 October 1984 S.A./N.T. Region-11 September 1984 Qld Region-13 September 1984 W.A. Region-14 September 1984 (b) The memorandum was brought to the attention of all staff employed by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation in a circular to staff on 23 July 1984. (c) The memorandum has not been brought to the attention of staff of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. (3)- (a) My Department has for many years recognised the important role played by unions and the desirability for active participation by its employees in union activities. Pending full consultation with the union movement my Department has taken the following additional action to encourage union membership: new employees are advised of the Government's and the Department's attitude on union membership; information is provided to employees regarding local contacts for the various unions/staff associations within the Department; recruitment material supplied by the unions is available in personnel offices and depots; space is available on notice boards for union material; with the assistance of the unions, information is provided to new employees during induction courses conducted by the Department; unions are, on request, provided with the names and work locations of the Department's employees; and union officials are given reasonable access to meet with employees of the Department. (b) In respect of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, the Corporation has encouraged employee participation in staff associations since its inception. The Corporation recently re-stated that policy and has continued to provide: details to employees of local contacts for the various unions/staff associations; and advice to local representatives regarding new appointments. The Corporation recently agreed with unions/ staff associations to display information provided by them. (c) The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation encourages union membership, and will initiate additional measures on receipt of the comprehensive arrangements to be issued by the Public Service Board and to which the memorandum referred. (Question No. 1809) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the Community Employment Program, in each of the months June, July and August 1984. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question in respect of my Department and the statutory authorities reporting to me in my capacity as Minister for Trade is nil. (Question No. 1825) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the Community Employment Program, in each of the months June, July and August 1984. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) The following numbers of (a) males and (b) females were engaged in the Department of Housing and Construction as temporary employees under the Community Employment Program at the beginning of June 1984. 1 June 1984 (a) 1143 males (b) 282 females. These persons had completed their engagement with the Department by the end of June. There were no persons engaged as temporary employees under the Community Employment Program in July and August 1984. (ii) No temporary employees under the Community Employment Program have been engaged by statutory authorities reporting to the Minister for Housing and Construction.