Wednesday, 10 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: National Flag To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Drummond,Mr Ruddock and Mr Uren. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Hawker and Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Inquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31st March, 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Carlton and Mr Ruddock. 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 Hunt,Mr Lusher and Mr Snow. 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 the 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 and Mr Millar. 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 and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. The concern at the presence of Foreign Military Bases in Australia being first strike nuclear targets in the event of both limited and total Nuclear War. 2. The concern at the Government providing Port and docking facilities for Nuclear armed warships and allowing the landing of aircraft which may be Nuclear armed. 3. The concern with the danger to all Australians of a policy of alignment with any Nuclear armed Nation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament shall: Not renew the leases of any Foreign Military Bases when these leases expire Not allow nuclear armed or powered warships to enter Australian ports nor allow the landing of aircraft which may be nuclear armed. Legislate for Australia to pursue a policy of Armed Neutrality without alignment with any Nuclear armed nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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, with its traditional approach, restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the excessively high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilizing chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints are vertebrogenic (spinal) in origin and therefore 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully shows: That we, electors of the Commonwealth of Australia, view with extreme concern and express forthwith our complete abhorrence of the relaxation of the former Federal laws concerning censorship classifications to allow publication and importation of hardcore pornography. Therefore we, the undersigned, do fervently request the Federal Government to repeal the 'A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance' 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 respectfully requests the Government to 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the 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 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 undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth : That the potential noise hazard to residents of Sandgate, Shorncliffe, Brighton and Nudgee Beach (including 4000 aged people) will become intolerable when the new Brisbane Airport is operative in 1987, if protective action is not taken. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal Government will, when the redeveloped Brisbane Airport becomes operative, ensure: 1. no jet aircraft use the 32'14' crosswind runway; 2. that the Department maintain the curfew on the runway from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. ; and 3. calls on the Government to introduce a six months trial period if the policy to lift the curfew on the runway is adhered to, to enable residents to voice their opinions on such a curfew before Government policy is finalised. (Curfew from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.). 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 the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Attorney-General with the agreement of Federal Executive Council amended the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations under the Customs Act (1901), to permit the importation of obscene and indecent pornography into Australia without reference to the Australian people or the Australian Parliament. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will establish a Parliamentary Committee to take evidence from the people of Australia, such as the Judiciary, the Police, Welfare workers and Youth workers, the video industry , the media, those engaged in public health, private citizens, civic organisations, churches and other community groups, and report to Parliament on the effects of all pornography. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and the honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that because it will cause untold damage to the morals of the youth of our community, the Parliament will make such laws as prohibit the importation or entry into Australia of video films, tapes, discs, slides or other recording from which a visual image can be produced which displays degradation of any person, particularly women, children or animals; scenes of explicit sexual relations showing genitalia detail; acts of violence and sex; sexual perversion such as sodomy; mutilation; child pornography; coprophilia; bestiality or the use and effect, of illicit drug taking. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Keogh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Labor Government's policy of automatically increasing the excise applying to beer increases the price of beer eliminates the opportunity for public or parliamentary debate on a tax increase , perpetuates inflation, reduces job opportunities in the hotel and brewing industries. Your petitioners therefore urge the Government to immediately repeal those laws which automatically increase the excise on beer when the CPI increases. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lusher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Labor Government's policy of automatically increasing the ABRD fuel levy when the CPI increases, increases the price of petrol, perpetuates inflation increases the cost of goods to country people reduces the living standards of all Australians short changes motorists, as the extra funds raised are not spent on roads. Your petitioners urge the Government to give Australian motorists a better deal and immediately repeal those laws that automatically increase the price of petrol when the CPI increases. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lusher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the metric system and request the Government to restore the imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: Because videocassettes are a particularly powerful media form now easily accessible to the general public for private home viewing, and believing that the likelihood of minors obtaining or otherwise viewing obscene and pornographic videocassettes is very high even with careful parental oversight, we the undersigned protest at the removal of previously existing censorship bans , and in particular request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith, which now allows into the community such pictorial material as 'relished descriptions of violence ' and 'publications which mildly advocate the use of soft drugs such as marijuana' (Category 1), and 'sado-masochism', 'extreme fetishism' (e.g. necrophilia), 'anal intercourse with consent' (Category 2), and other such depraved and repugnant activities; and non-pictorial material referred to as ' hardcore' paperbacks containing 'relished child pornography, e.g. incest, and school teacher/student', and 'extreme sexual torture' (both Category 2), in the conviction that the ready availability and increasing public consumption of same will be a blight on our society, stimulating individual dissoluteness and leading to unlawful behaviour with innocent persons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Millar. To the Honourable 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 62 per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Keefe. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. The Hawke Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements, and 2. The Government's proposed assets test legislation, presently under re- examination, 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. Totally abandon its proposed assets test legislation. 2. Either institute a broad inquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter, and 3. Following the report of such a wide inquiry, institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members 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 Scott. 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 Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully request that the Australian Government negotiate with the Australian Council of Trade Unions significant taxation relief for lower and middle income earners together with improvements in the social wage with particular emphasis on improving the position of those reliant on social security payments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT. 2600. We, your petitioners, humbly showeth: That permitting kangaroos to be commercially exploited when permissible cropping rates are unknown and the means of enforcing controls or protective laws are completely ineffective in this land, is allowing this unique animal to follow the path to rarity or extinction along which all wild animals have gone when subjected to exploitation in similar circumstances. We Australians, have the right to see kangaroos in reasonable numbers on the landscape: We find the commercial slaughter of the kangaroo to be abhorrent and unjustified. Commercialisation of wildlife should be stopped, particularly as exemplified by the kangaroo industry. We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will: 1. Ban the export of products made from kangaroos. 2. Take action to see that State governments prohibit the commercial killing of kangaroos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. 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 and Mr Millar. 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. Petitions received. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the second largest deficit in the nation's history, of $6.7 billion, and (b) the extensive Medicare advertising campaign currently being undertaken, and (2) requests the Special Minister of State to charge these expenditures against the ALP when public funding for the premature December 1984 election is being distributed. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Opposition parties for their silent acceptance of the extraordinary intervention in the operations of the free market by the Country Liberal Party Government in the Northern Territory which has confiscated $50m worth of assets of a private company without as yet paying a cent in compensation. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) will second: That this House urges the Government to- (1) carry out an investigation into the meat processing industry in Australia with particular reference to the export of this commodity, and (2) examine immediately the meat inspection service which is considerably over- staffed, as costs are causing this industry great concern. Mr FISHER(Mallee) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) notes- (a) the Government will spend an estimated $10.835m on the National Sports Facilities Program in 1984-85 throughout Australia; (b) the Prime Minister gave an undertaking at the Sydney Rugby League Grand Final on 23 September 1984 that the Government would provide $7.5m to the Parramatta Stadium project in 1985, and (c) that this stadium will be located in the electorate of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the Hon. John Brown, and (2) calls on the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism to advise the other State governments what their share of the remaining $3.5m in the National Sports Facilities Program will be. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern at the dangers to marine traffic if the Swan Island Lighthouse ceases to be manned; (2) notes the dangers to shipping in Banks Strait without the guidance of a manned lighthouse; and (3) urges the Federal Government to respond positively to the many representations from Tasmanians and other concerned mariners and announce as soon as possible that Swan Island lighthouse will continue to be manned. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —by leave-In November last year I made a major policy statement setting out policy guidelines for the development of satellite-related broadcasting services. I said at that time that such statements were designed to keep the Parliament and, through it, the public informed of Government intentions and proposed actions relating to particular areas of the broadcasting system. I also foreshadowed development of a policy for providing commercial television services to remote areas. This statement defines that policy. Let me go back and summarise the problem of the remote areas. The basic difficulty has been that the thinly scattered population in remote areas is not financially attractive to advertiser supported services. My Department estimates that in July 1984 there were 650,000 people living in areas which were not served by commercial television. About 43 per cent of these lived in communities of 200 or more, but many people also lived in isolated homesteads. More than half of the communities concerned were in Queensland or Western Australia, but there were significant numbers of people even in the more closely settled States . This has been a matter of concern for State governments as well as the Commonwealth. Indeed, when I directed the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to examine what measures were required to promote provision of commercial services to remote areas, the Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australian governments all made submissions to the inquiry. My direction to the Tribunal was made at the same time as my previous statement , in November 1983. In it, I drew the Tribunal's attention to recent Government decisions. In particular, I was concerned to highlight the contribution which the Government believed could be made by the national satellite system, due to become operational at the end of 1985. We had already provided, in that year's Budget, for the homestead and community broadcasting satellite service, HACBSS, which was to ensure that all Australians, no matter how remote the area in which they lived, would be able to receive the Australian Broadcasting Corporation television service and two ABC radio services. I also said that it was the Government's intention that every Australian should have at least one commercial television service potentially available; and that many should have two or three potentially available. I am now able to report a considerable advance upon that strategic objective. Following an intensive review of satellite transmission systems, I recently announced that the form known as B-MAC had been adopted as the standard for the ABC's HACBSS. This advanced and highly efficient technology permits the delivery of an attractive package of broadcasting services to low cost earth stations. For example, the ABC will be able to use B-MAC to provide not only ABC television, potentially with stereo sound or dual sound, but also the ABC stereophonic service and two other ABC radio services. Plessey-Scientific Atlanta, which has now signed contracts with the Government to deliver the relevant equipment within our lead times for the satellite launches, has also guaranteed that small domestic TVRO's-television-receive only-will be available to consumers in 1985. On 4 September 1984, I tabled the Tribunal's report on satellite program services. In that report, the Tribunal identified two concepts regarding remote area services as worthy of consideration: A network solution and a regional solution. Briefly put, the proposed network solution was that the Sydney and Melbourne commercial television stations, which are usually referred to as the networks, intended to lease 30-watt transponders in a national beam for the distribution of program material to other commercial stations; that is they would provide satellite program services, SPS, to stations which bought from them the rights to material which they were transmitting. The suggestion was that people in remote areas could be given access to these SPS signals if they purchased special reception equipment utilising television receive-only dishes, ranging from 2.5 metres to 3.4 metres in diameter. The Tribunal did not favour this proposal, commenting that fortuitous direct reception of Sydney or Melbourne SPS could not be regarded as a proper remote area service. It identified several major disadvantages to the proposal: a. since no one would be licensed to provide the service, no one would be responsible for it, or committed to maintaining it in the future; b. Sydney-Melbourne programs would be broadcast in eastern standard time, and therefore could not comply with the program and advertising standards for television; c. viewers in remote areas would be involved in considerable expense, and this cost would be much greater than for the ABC's HACBSS; d. the program material would often be irrelevant to the communities concerned; and e. the influence of the Sydney-Melbourne stations would be extended nationally, which could have dire consequences for the viability of the system and regional stations in particular. The Tribunal argued that people living in remote areas are entitled to receive a basic level of commercial television service and that a service therefore needs to be licensed specifically to serve those areas. It therefore supported the regional solution advanced by the organisation representing regional television licensees, Regional Television Australia Pty Ltd, RTA. This proposed a single channel of programming, licensed for each satellite footprint, or region. In effect, it would be a commercial HACBSS, prepared specifically as a service to remote areas. The satellite system was, of course, designed to be used in this way. Since the signals would be distributed via 30 watt transponders in spot beams, the dishes required to receive the ABC HACBSS 1 could also be used to receive the commercial service, HACBSS 2. That is, isolated homesteads wanting to receive both services would be able to use the same 1.2 metre to 1.5 metre dish and would not be involved in any extra expense. Remote communities would probably use larger dishes, and retransmit the HACBSS signals terrestrially, so that individual households would simply use a standard television aerial. While such communities would need dual transmission facilities, we would expect such an approach to be attractive in many situations. Regional Commercial Television Services (RCTS) The Government had decided to accept the Tribunal's position. While noting the offer made by the Sydney-Melbourne stations, it agrees that reception of such signals would be fortuitous and relatively expensive, and endorses the introduction of basic licensed commercial services to remote communities and isolated homesteads, to be known as regional commercial television services-RCTS . Accordingly, I have directed the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to hold an inquiry to determine who would be the most appropriate applicants to be granted licences to provide regional commercial television services in four regional areas, corresponding to the satellite system footprints: (i) New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania; (ii) Queensland; (iii) South Australia and the Northern Territory; (iv) Western Australia. In conducting its inquiry, the Tribunal will have regard for the Government's intentions as expressed in this statement. I expect it to report by 1 April 1985 . Guidelines for Regional Commercial Television Services The Government intends to introduce legislation in the Autumn sittings 1985 to provide for the licensing of RCTS; that is, HACBSS 2. Since it is important to establish such services quickly, and in time for use of the satellite system, we will include special transitional legislation providing for the initial grant of such licences without further inquiry to applicants recommended by the Tribunal. The Tribunal will, of course, follow procedures similar to those for the grant of existing licences. RCTS licensees will be authorised to provide a commercial television service to those parts of the States or Territories named on their licences which are not included in the service areas of existing commercial television stations or translator stations. The licensees will provide a service appropriate to the needs of residents of such areas utilising satellite transponders in a spot beam, capable of direct reception by individual households as well as retransmission at a standard consistent with the self-help television reception scheme. RCTS licensees will be authorised to establish those retransmission facilities for which they are responsible on a 'service area' basis; that is, they will not need individual licences for individual transmitters designed to reach their service area, simply technical operating conditions determined by me as Minister for Communications. In all other respects but those concerned with ownership and control-which I will detail shortly-RCTS licences will be subject to the same provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 as apply to licences for commercial television stations. Regional commercial television services are an essential stage in developing the broadcasting system towards equalisation of services; that is, the provision to all Australians of the diverse program choices available to those who live in our large coastal cities. RCTS licences will therefore attract those entrepreneurs who wish to take a strategic position in the broadcasting system. However, they are unlikely to be highly profitable in the short term and the Government therefore intends to set ownership or control provisions which maximise the opportunity for far-sighted investors to participate. In particular , it wishes to encourage existing broadcasters, regional and 'network' alike, to play a part. Accordingly, any company, including companies in which existing licensees hold an interest, will be free to apply for one or more RCTS licence; the ownership or control provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 will not apply. However, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal will be given substantial power to decide upon the merits of applicants. If, after a public inquiry, the Tribunal believes it to be advisable in the public interest it will be able to refuse to grant an RCTS licence. It will also be able to determine such ownership or control restrictions in regard to RCTS licences as it believes desirable in the public interest. In considering these questions, which hinge upon its belief as to what constitutes the public interest, the Tribunal will have regard to the Broadcasting and Television Act, its own substantial body of experience in broadcasting matters, and the Government's publicly expressed policies. In particular, it will have regard to the need to: a. ensure the availability of at least one commercial television service to all Australians; b. avoid undue concentration of media ownership or control in the service area concerned; c. avoid control, direct or indirect, by foreign persons; and d. such other matters as may be prescribed in regulations. The last clause should be noted. While we hope to maximise the opportunities for creative innovation by RCTS licensees, there must always be a mechanism for amending the regulatory mechanism, particularly in matters of ownership and control. Officers of my Department and the Tribunal will therefore shortly discuss what elaborations, if any, are required. The net effect of these provisions will be that both new interests and existing licensees will be able to apply for RCTS licences or to join in consortia which apply for licences. However, it is the Government's intention that the influence of any particular existing licensee will be diluted because it will control only a small part of the RCTS licence. For example, we would welcome one of the Sydney-Melbourne licensees seeking to join in a consortium of licensees for the south-east zone, or a Brisbane licensee participating in the north-east zone. However, those licensees who already hold dominant positions in the broadcasting system might be well advised to concentrate upon zones where they do not already have a licence. The consortium concerned would bear the onus of convincing the Tribunal that the proposed arrangements satisfied the Government's policy objectives regarding ownership or control. That is, the Tribunal should reject any application for an RCTS licence which clearly exacerbated concentration of ownership or control in the service area concerned. Again, RCTS licences will be transferable, but only after public inquiry by the Tribunal and under the same policy constraints as applied to the original grant of the licences. RCTS licences will be fully commercial, that is, they will be 'free-to-air', like existing commercial television services, and viewers will not be required to pay the cost of programs, satellite links, company management and so on. RCTS are not a step towards pay television, and the Government will not countenance future requests for a change in policy which would add a subscription element to such licences; nor will the Government be prepared to subsidise RCTS operations. At the same time, there are obvious economies in the retransmission of signals on a community basis where 50 or more households are grouped together. We will do everything possible to allow small communities which wish to establish transmission facilities to expedite the planning and licensing processes. We will also try to accommodate entrepreneurs who wish to provide such facilities in remote areas in return for a periodic fee for use. In the context of small communities I want to mention the special situation of Aboriginal communities. The Government realises that Aboriginal needs have to be specially recognised. My colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and I have just received the report from a task force we established in March 1984 to advise us on the development of policies and strategies in Aboriginal broadcasting. We will be closely examining the task force recommendations to ensure that special attention is given to Aboriginal communities in the extension of remote area television services. Satellite Configuration I should now specify likely impacts on the satellite system. The 'Guidelines for Planning Satellite-related Broadcasting Services', issued last November, made it clear that the Government does not believe it should be involved in the direct allocation of satellite transponders. That remains our position. Within the framework of those policy guidelines, Aussat Pty Ltd will contract for services provided through all transponders on a normal commercial basis. However, we are now ready to take another step forward and to allow a limited amount of commercial direct broadcasting through the first generation of satellites. This will mean that all those prospective users of the ACSS, who have previously expressed interest to Aussat, will now be able to negotiate their contracts within the context of the November statement. There will also be a second group of users, to be identified by April of next year, who will seek to negotiate contracts based upon the Tribunal's acceptance of their applications for RCTS licences. The Government will not seek to control the allocation of transponders to those users either. The practical effect of this will be that the configuration of 30- watt satellite transponders, like that for 12-watt transponders, will depend upon commercial arrangements now to be made by Aussat. If any of the existing group of prospective users choose not to sign contracts for 30-watt transponders , Aussat will be able to accommodate additional RCTS licensees on its first two satellites. However, some RCTS licensees may have to be accommodated at a later date. Aussat has recently signed contracts which would allow it to launch its third satellite in a 'window' stretching from June 1986 to 1988. Present indications are that it will choose to make the third launch in mid 1986, but it is not possible to be certain about this since that decision is a matter for Aussat's commercial judgment. I recently announced that we had adopted the B-MAC system of satellite transmission for the ABC's HACBSS service. In practice, this also sets the standard for RCTS services, or 'HACBSS 2', since they are to be receivable on the same domestic TVROs. My Department is currently preparing the relevant technical document, entitled 'Transmission Standards for the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service' and I expect to release it shortly. From the point of view of RCTS licensees, the B-MAC standard provides some room for commercial negotiation. It will be possible for licensees to negotiate with Aussat for their service to be in stereo or dual sound; it will also be possible for them to negotiate arrangements with Aussat for the sale of radio satellite program services-SPS-to existing commercial licensees. Summary Let me now go back and summarise the Government's position. Firstly, as forecast in my statement last November, the satellite system does provide a cost -effective and convenient solution to the problem of extending broadcasting services to the remote areas. I said then that the Government was concerned to provide commercial services to Australians who are presently deprived of them, and I asked broadcasters to use their expertise to suggest remedies based on the satellite system. They have done this, both in formal submissions to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and in detailed discussions with my Department, and I congratulate them on their response. Secondly, the Government has accepted the Tribunal's recommendation for a 'regional solution'; that is, a single channel of programming licensed for each satellite 'footprint', or zone. Thirdly , these new services, to be known as regional commercial television services- RCTS-will operate in parallel with the ABC's homestead and community broadcasting satellite service-HACBSS. It would be quite accurate to describe the two services as HACBSS 1 and HACBSS 2, because they will be able to be received on a single, small TVRO in each satellite footprint. Fourthly, I have directed the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to hold an inquiry to determine who would be the most appropriate RCTS licensees and I expect it to report by 1 April 1985. The Tribunal will have regard to the policies set out in this statement. Finally, we expect the first of these new services to be operational by 1 January 1986. The other three will either begin simultaneously or will follow within a period of months. Future Developments I now wish to say a few words about the future. In its SPS report, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal provided a very useful analysis of strategic objectives regarding commercial television. It identified five major concerns of government: a. To maximise diversity of choice in radio and television services, so that all Australians have access to as wide a range of services as possible; to bring a similar range of entertainment and information through broadcasting services to all Australians, especially those currently without any or with inadequate services; b. To maintain the viability of the broadcasting system; c. To encourage an Australian look for television and radio by maintenance of an appropriate Australian content level and the fostering of an Australian production industry; d. To provide broadcasting services relevant and responsive to local needs; and e. To discourage concentration of media ownership and control of stations. As it then noted, 'there are inevitable tensions in these policies'; that is, every strategic planning decision, including that regarding RCTS licences, involves an implicit weighing of these objectives. Moreover, the weighting accorded to each objective may very well change over time. It will be clear that in this stage of development, the Government places primary emphasis upon the need to extend services and to maximise diversity of choice for all Australians. We recognise that the present structure of the commercial system, while it has some blemishes, has performed well. Most Australians are now able to see the best of the world's television, as well as to enjoy that unique blend of insights which comes from our own production industry. We do not intend to jeopardise this. We are neither doctrinaire nor obsessive, and we wish to build on this solid foundation to make the system work even better. However, communications is an expanding field in every developed economy and broadcasting is the central focus of much of this expansion. While the RCTS decision allows us to consolidate on a fresh policy plateau, we are even now needing to consider a new generation of broadcasting technology involving such concepts as full direct broadcasting and high definition television. This new technology promises great benefits-Among them the possibility of equalising services throughout Australia-and we are determined to provide as wide a range of services to all Australians as we can possibly achieve. If government and industry continue to work together, as we have done on satellite program services and television for remote areas, I am sure that we can maintain stability in the industry while accommodating necessary change. As the Tribunal put it, 'the satellite era of television raises major structural questions which were last fully addressed on the introduction of television'. Our next task will therefore be to talk with commercial broadcasters about the impacts that this technology will have upon their industry in the next decade. I am very much encouraged by the co-operative and helpful responses we received from the industry, both in 1983 and again this year. It is a matter for congratulation to all those individuals and organisations concerned that this exercise has proved so fruitful in providing commercial television services to those thousands of Australians who for so long have been deprived of them. I present the following paper: Regional Commercial Television Services-Ministerial Statement, 10 October 1984. Motion (by Mr Howe) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.32) —I commend the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) for making this statement to the Parliament. There have been rumours in the newspapers that this very important statement would be made outside the Parliament. That would be most inappropriate. Parliament is the place for such a statement to be made and that statement was correctly made here. I also make the point that this is a very important statement for the future of television in Australia. I believe that it is basically the correct decision. It is the same decision as we in government reached over two years ago. It relates to one of the major reasons for the domestic satellites-that is, to allow all Australians access to at least one Australian Broadcasting Corporation and commercial radio and television service. The decision determines a policy against national networking, at least in the medium term. However, I am uncertain, from the Minister's statement, what the situation will be in respect of direct broadcasting of commercial television and satellite signals and whether there will be a complete HACBSS 1 and HACBSS 2 situation as envisaged and planned by the previous Government-that is, whether or not the commercial remote area signals can be completely accommodated in the most uniform and cheap way on the second satellite as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's HACBSS 1 signals are accommodated on the first satellite. Before making detailed comment on this statement I must criticise the Government for taking so long to make this statement. In effect, 18 months has been wasted. The Government first of all attempted to duck this decision by referring the issue to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal last November. The Tribunal threw it back to the Government several months ago with a few asides against national networking and concentration not just of ownership by the networks but of the provision of program material. Given that delay, this statement contains a timetable that will be dangerously tight, probably too tight, for the establishment of the operating arrangements by the time the second satellite is launched next year. The Government finally has been forced to adopt much the same policy as we had been pursuing but, because of the unnecessary delay which I have already noted, its complete implementation may not be possible. I will refer later to the problem of providing sufficient 30- watt transponders to cover the satellite commercial service for the remote areas . The Minister has called the service the regional commercial television service or RCTS. I think it is the Minister's prerogative to provide a title for the satellite television service which will provide television cover for all Australians in four or five transmission beams. But the service is really for those in remote areas rather than regional areas. The ordinary person's concept of regional television is television provided to people in provincial or ' further in' areas. These areas already have television. There is a regional television association identified with that area of television as distinct from the metropolitan and remote areas. In that sense, the debate last night on supplementary licences really referred to regional television. Could I suggest to the Minister that he re-think the title and come up with something such as 'remote commercial television service' or 'remote and underserved commercial television service' because it would then be seen as providing this third area of television service and as being distinct from what is already accepted as metropolitan television and regional television . Perhaps the title could be something like 'satellite commercial television service' to create a greater distinction? I will leave that with the Minister. Mr Duffy —It might cause further delays. Mr LLOYD —The Minister should be able to think up something fairly quickly. Early in the statement the Minister referred to the HACBSS 1 and HACBSS 2 policy of the same antenna dish and related equipment being used to receive both the ABC and commercial signals. People are very confused about these matters and the Minister from time to time has referred to this confusion. In the statement today he said that the dish required would be somewhere in the 1.2 metre to 1.5 metre size. I believe that, if he could make some statement, even in general terms, about what the anticipated cost would be to a person receiving this commercial television satellite service, it would be welcomed by people in those areas. By that I mean the approximate cost of such a dish, the cost of the B system of the multi-complex analog components, B-MAC, and any other associated costs that may be necessary because people are concerned, confused and anxious to get some idea of what the approximate cost will be. The Minister's statement then refers to the direction to the Tribunal to call for applications for licences in four service areas-the south-east of Australia, Queensland, Western Australia and, as I have read it, the Northern Territory and South Australia together. However, what if the applicants and the Tribunal consider that separate service areas should be allowed for the Northern Territory independent from South Australia. I believe that there could be such a proposal and it would be sensible. I hope that the Tribunal will have the power to determine the most sensible option in that situation. The Minister then states: . . . The licencees will provide a service appropriate to the needs of residents of such areas utilising satellite transponders in a spot beam, capable of direct reception . . . I ask the Minister: What is direct reception? Does this mean direct broadcasting , that is, an unencoded direct receival of a commercial service, which is what I understand that term to mean? Or does it mean the ability to receive by spot beam at the lowest cost the encoded commercial television signal? My confusion on this is compounded by a later paragraph in the Minister's statement where he refers to allowing limited direct broadcasting in the first generation of satellites. This, to my understanding, is contrary to the Government's earlier statements on this matter, or at least the Government's reaction when I have challenged it as to whether it is going to allow direct broadcasting of commercial television signals on the first generation of satellites, meaning the first three satellites that go up. I believe that this is a very critical and important question. How far and to what degree does the Minister think this should go, particularly considering paragraph 11 of this statement? He referred to, and I repeat: '. . . a limited amount of commercial direct broadcasting through first generation satellites'. What does that mean? It must have a tremendous impact on anybody who may make an application for one of these licences and for the future of television transmission generally in Australia. I believe that until that is clarified confusion will still reign as to what will in fact happen. The statement also authorised the licensees to establish re-transmission facilities within the service area and without the need for additional transmitter licences. Once again, I commend the Minister, as I did last night, for following that same sensible pattern which he established in that other legislation. Does this mean that only the licensee can authorise a community translator, or can the community just go ahead and erect that translator or transmitter? The Minister later refers to entrepreneurs assisting with the provision of facilities. How does the entrepreneur get into the act? Does he have to apply to the licensee? Does he have to go to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal or to the Minister? I hope that the autumn legislation that is proposed will clarify that point. I hope that those who are interested in being part of this new service to people in the outback will have that clarification very quickly. The Minister has correctly relaxed the existing ownership and control provisions to encourage applications from as wide a range as possible of individuals and regional and/or metropolitan consortia. But what of State government involvement? I hope that State governments are allowed and encouraged to participate by leasing a transponder and so on. To my knowledge the success of the scheme-that is, some of the zonal arrangements in two or three areas-may depend on such State government involvement or State government subsidy in some way. I would hope that they will not be prevented from participating. I believe that it is important that the successful licensee for each zone or area should be based in that State or zone so that there can be adequate State news input-and not just news, other matters or programs of interest to a particular zone or State. The ability for a consortium of regional stations in that zone to be involved is also important in that they could make use of the beam for program transfer. I therefore disagree with the Minister's comments on the need to avoid concentration of ownership in the remote area satellite service as I believe a specific direction to the ABT will inhibit the best overall arrangements for each zone. Once again I refer to the ABT's report in which it made the point about the problems of concentration of ownership, but it was referring to the metropolitan networks, not the regional situation.The Minister has noted that unless some licensees opt for the 12-watt transponders some zones may have to wait for the third satellite; that is if I have read the statement correctly. This should not be allowed to happen because if it does it will mean that there is not the complete HACBSS 1, that is, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's service to the remote areas, and HACBSS 2, meaning the commercial service to the remote areas, uniform system as previously promoted. That was the previous Government's policy and I believe that this Government would want to adopt it as its policy too because it is the most sensible one for the cheapest and best form of reception. I welcome the statement, even if it is late and lacking in all the necessary detail. I note the Minister's reference to other information which will be provided to assist with this. There is a very important need to clarify some of the grey but critically important issues, such as the direct broadcasting service, zone and consortia arrangements and the allocation of 30-watt transponders. Whoever is the Minister in whatever government is here for the autumn session will have to make a statement early in the life of the Parliament to bring honourable members up to date on what is happening and clarify some of these issues which are presently confused. I believe that all of us in this Parliament want those who live in areas without television or radio to have an ABC and a commercial service as quickly, cheaply and efficiently as possible. Debate (on motion by Mr Charles) adjourned. Mr Ian Cameron —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: Are we able to get copies of the Minister's speech? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —That is a point of information rather than a point of order. Yes, copies will be available. Mr Ian Cameron —We have asked and they are not here. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The question is nothing to do with the Chair. I suggest that the honourable member contact the Minister's office if he requires copies. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 16, paragraph 37 (a), proposed new paragraph 31 (aa), line 16, leave out ''and''. No. 2-Page 16, clause 37, after paragraph (a), insert the following new paragraph: ''(aa) by omitting paragraph (c) and substituting the following paragraph: '(c) the Commissioner shall- (i) refund the amount of any tax overpaid as a result of the variation of the prescribed decision; or (ii) apply the amount of any tax overpaid as a result of the variation of the prescribed decision against any liability of the person to the Commonwealth and refund any part of the amount that is not so applied'; and''. No. 3-Page 16, paragraph 38 (a), proposed new paragraph 32 (aa), line 26, leave out ''and''. No. 4-Page 16, clause 38, after paragraph (a), insert the following new paragraph: ''(aa) by omitting paragraph (c) and substituting the following paragraph: '(c) the Commissioner shall- (i) refund the amount of any tax overpaid as a result of the variation of the assessment; or (ii) apply the amount of any tax overpaid as a result of the variation of the assessment against any liability of the person to the Commonwealth and refund any part of the amount that is not so applied'; and''. No. 5-Page 18, paragraph 44 (d), proposed paragraph 3 (1) (g), line 27, after ' '221YHD (1)'', insert ''or (1D)''. No. 6-Page 52, clause 137, proposed sub-section 221YHJ (1), line 29, before '' remains'', insert ''or sub-paragraph 221YHD (1D) (c) (i)''. No. 7-Page 130, clause 297, proposed new sub-paragraph 8J (3) (a) (ii), line 24 , leave out ''or''. No. 8-Page 130, clause 297, at end of proposed new sub-section 8J (3), add the following new word and paragraph: ''; or (c) an offence against section 29D or 86A of the Crimes Act 1914, being an offence that relates to a tax liability.'' No. 9-Page 137, clause 297, proposed new paragraph 8Z (1) (c), line 28, leave out ''or'' (last occurring). No. 10-Page 137, clause 297, after proposed new paragraph 8Z (1) (c), insert the following new paragraph: ''(ca) the conviction of a person of an offence against section 29D or 86A of the Crimes Act 1914, being an offence that relates to a tax liability; or''. No. 11-Page 156, clause 323, proposed sub-sub-paragraph 10 (1) (a) (iii) (B), line 34, leave out ''commencement of section 10A'', insert ''day on which the Taxation Laws Amendment Act 1984 received the Royal Assent''. No. 12-Page 169, after clause 358, insert the following new clause: Default assessments ''358A. Section 40 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-sections (2) and (3).''. No. 13-Page 176, sub-clause 381 (4), line 21, leave out ''sections 38 and 40'', insert ''section 38''. No. 14-Page 176, paragraph 381 (4) (a), line 23, leave out '', 40 (3)''. No. 15-Page 176, clause 381, after sub-clause (4), insert the following new sub -clause: ''(4A) Notwithstanding the amendment of section 40 of the Principal Act made by this Act, sub-section 40 (3) of the Principal Act continues to apply, after the commencement of this section, in relation to a liability for additional tax that accrued before that commencement, as if that amendment had not been made.''. No. 16-Page 193, Schedule 6, amendment of paragraph 221YHD (3) (b) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, leave out ''after 'sub-sub-paragraph (1) (b) (v) (A)' '', insert ''from and including 'applies-' to the end of the paragraph''. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(10.45) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. These amendments were introduced by the Government in the Senate. They are essentially of a technical nature, correcting drafting errors or other oversights which were discovered subsequent to the introduction in this House of the original Bill. My colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) indicated during the debate on this Bill that these corrections would be made in the Senate so as to facilitate the passage of the legislation. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment. Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Senate's amendment- Page 6, sub-clause 9 (3), lines 17 to 19, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clauses: ''(3) Sub-paragraph 78 (1) (a) (1xxxi), and paragraph 78 (1) (ac), of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 apply to gifts made after 21 August 1984. ''(4) Paragraph 78 (1) (ad) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 applies to gifts made after 30 June 1982.''. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(10.46) —I move: That the amendment be agreed to. This amendment was moved by the Opposition in the Senate and makes retrospective the commencement date of the Government's amendment to the law relating to gifts . The Government's amendment grants income tax deductions for gifts to the value of $2 or more for trading stock made to an eligible fund where the value of the gift has been included, under section 36(1), in the taxpayer's assessable income . The Government had proposed to commence this provision from Budget night but the Opposition has amended the Bill in the Senate to make 1 July 1982 the commencement date. It is interesting that the Opposition and the Australian Democrats are willing to apply the principle of retrospectivity in this case. However, the Government has decided to accept the amendment, which will have little practical effect. The acceptance facilitates the passage by the Parliament of this important legislation. I indicate also that this was a Budget measure which the Opposition has sought to amend. That, I understand, is in contradistinction to what was said by a number of Opposition spokesmen in the course of the presentation of the Budget. I reiterate how interesting it is that the mock indignation we see from the Opposition about retrospectivity can be swept to one side and it can be applied whenever it suits the Opposition. I commend the amendment to the Committee. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(10.48) —I welcome the repentance by the Government. I welcome the fact that it has agreed to an amendment that was sponsored by me in this place last week and which has been inserted by the Senate. I would not have imagined that the Government would have wanted to be in the position of voting against the implementation of an arrangement that I understand was made between the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, and the Labor Premier of South Australia, Mr Bannon, relating to the Ash Wednesday fire disaster. My information is that a firm understanding was reached between Mr Fraser and Mr Bannon in February 1983. All the Opposition sought to do was to give effect to that. It has taken the combined effort of the Opposition and the Australian Democrats to bring the Government screaming to acceptance of the implementation of that undertaking. We have heard from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) the extraordinary proposition that in some way we are being hypocritical in supporting retrospectivity on this issue, yet opposing it on others. Does he not understand that there is an enormous difference between the retrospective benefit involved in this legislation and retrospectively altering the law to the detriment of people? His Government, and governments of all persuasions, time and again, have supported the conferring of retrospective benefits, whenever a Budget announcement is made , with effect from 1 July although the Budget might be brought down in the third week of August. That is a retrospective benefit. That has been the practice in the Parliament for years. The Treasurer knows as well as I do that any parallel between the benefit conferred by this measure and the sort of retrospectivity he sought to introduce without support or substance is quite absurd. Anyway, one ought not to be churlish because the Government has given way and has accepted an amendment put forward by the Opposition. We welcome that. Mr Rocher —A perfectly sensible one too. Mr HOWARD —It is a very sensible one. We are very pleased that the Government has been willing to honour an undertaking made, during the time of a great national disaster, between the former Liberal Prime Minister and the Labor Premier of South Australia. The Government, even at this late hour, is to be congratulated for having the good sense to do that. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. [COGNATE BILL: INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 4 October, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1984, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —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 MOORE(Ryan)(10.53) —In speaking to the Automotive Industry Authority Bill 1984 and the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1984 I firstly address myself to the amendments to the Industries Assistance Commission Act, which result from an inquiry headed by Mr John Uhrig of Simpson Ltd in Adelaide into the workings of the IAC and the effectiveness of its relationship with business in Australia. Mr Uhrig is well known to all those in the manufacturing sector. His contribution to the Australian Manufacturing Council over the years has been considerable. The way in which he has been able, as chief executive, to mould the future of Simpsons Holdings leads me to regard him as an eminently suitable person to head such an inquiry. The recommendations that have come forward from his inquiry carry the endorsement of the Opposition, except as to one part. Because of that the Opposition will move an amendment in the Committee stage, notice of which has been handed to the Clerk. The proposition brought forward by the inquiry embraced the extension of the definition of industry to include both tertiary and service industries in Australia. This is an infinitely sensible approach. Both the tertiary and service industries are the growth sectors within the Australian economy. While the IAC has to date been predominantly involved in the area of assistance to the manufacturing sector, its extension to these areas is a very practical and real endeavour. The provision for the appointment of associate commissioners on a full or part time basis in any inquiry is something which the previous Government encouraged, and in terms of the Trade Practices Commission we implemented it. I believe that the process is very timely. It will add market relevance to many inquiries of the IAC. I was very pleased to see that this will apply in my particular area. The guidelines for the IAC have been simplified to encourage the growth of efficiency of export orientated and internationally competitive industries while recognising the interest of other industries and consumers. That does seem to me to streamline the guidelines that are to be applied by the IAC and it gets our full endorsement. I fully support the provision for the IAC to provide recommended options in its reports to Ministers. In the past, when IAC reports came to me I found that they were somewhat limited in their approach to the problem area. In many cases it seemed that the Department was forced into making an assessment of the IAC recommendation which tended to relate to a small area rather than the general industry. Because of that I welcome the inclusion of options and its preferred position. It makes the IAC's responsibilities heavier but, after all, it is the expert body which is there to advise government regarding a particular industry problem. I think that the approach taken here is certainly the most creditable. The aspect which I found the most difficult was that in the past the IAC tended to report in terms of a technical area without real regard to the financial consequences to a particular company or industry. I commend to the Government that in taking decisions on IAC reports it go past the technical options that are sometimes put forward and look at the financial consequences, to a corporation in particular and to an industry in general, of taking those moves. There is no point in accepting something if a corporation does not have the financial ability to implement it or does not have the general area of management to be able to come to grips with some of the recommendations that come from the IAC. I recommend that those areas be looked at. The abolition of the Temporary Assistance Authority, the introduction of new policy guidelines relating to temporary assistance and the provision of temporary assistance to be limited for a period of 12 months seem to me to represent a sensible conclusion from Mr Uhrig. The TAA was very much a band-aid operation which wheeled down the case for temporary assistance. Sometimes if an industry could not receive assistance through the Authority, it looked for a dumping complaint. I believe that the rolling of the TAA into the IAC is a step in the right direction. I believe that it will force that industry of the day to look at its problems far more thoroughly than was the case with the band-aid treatment that was meted out by the TAA. The final part of the legislation which I think deserves some comment concerns the provision to dispense with public hearings prior to the publication of the draft reports of the IAC. It was certainly the previous Government's experience that on giving a reference to the IAC many sections of industry either did not hear the clarion call or chose to ignore it until such time as the draft report came out which carried within it a series of bombs. Having been frightened by that shock treatment they were far more apt to run to the IAC and complain that they did not know the gun was loaded. It strikes me that this approach to the question is far better. It will draw the attention of corporations to the fact that they may make a written submission to the IAC. That process will not be as expensive as that involved in appearing before the Commission. I think that it will have a fair bit to do with taking away the legalistic approach that could have been inferred in the old IAC days to what is-I think Mr John Uhrig referred to it-a more practical business approach to the area of business assistance. I welcome that provision. However, the Opposition regrets that the IAC's power to initiate its own inquiries has been removed. I can understand the Government thinking that it has control of policy and the IAC ought to respond. However, by doing that we are effectively severing the independence of the IAC to be able to initiate inquiries into certain industries which may, for some reason, not be acceptable to the government of the day. In the past the IAC has been particularly sensitive regarding this issue. I do not recall that it has gone down the track of initiating its own inquiries. However, I do recall that it made a number of recommendations to government that certain industries would desire a reference for an inquiry into particular areas. Because of that, the Opposition, at the Committee stage, will propose an amendment to clause 13 to enable the IAC to initiate inquiries of its own volition. The Automotive Industry Authority Bill is a very extensive piece of legislation and one which the industry as a whole has been looking towards for some time. The industry has been silent to date. Evidently some sections of it have not seen the legislation. I wonder whether they are aware of the extent and degree of involvement that the proposed Automotive Industry Authority will have. The automotive industry in Australia is a very important area of manufacturing. It represents the biggest component of the engineering base within the nation. Without an automotive industry we really have no engineering base. Without an engineering base it is very logical for one to consider the effect on the defence interests of Australia and overall consumer interests in Australia. The importance of the motor car industry was something with which both this Government and previous governments had to grapple. The level of support that has been given to the motor car industry, both the manufacturers and the component manufacturers, is substantial. Over many years the Australian consumer has been called upon to meet those costs. Because of that it is only right that the manufacturers in that area should be called upon to be competitive and innovative and to meet international standards of production. To do this in Australia, with five plan manufacturers, a completely knocked down component and a fully made up import market for a total vehicle consumption in any one year of about 610,000 to 615,000 units, is quite a tall order. It does require the industry to look at its position. The Industries Assistance Commission in its report on the post-1984 car plan, which was presented a couple of years ago, pointed out a number of areas in which the obvious excess capacity and in part the obvious disinclination of some manufacturers to be competitive, to meet international standards and to spend the sort of money that is required within the manufacturing sector, needed to be prodded along. However, the plan which was devised originally put heavy emphasis on the area of export facilitation and a list of incentives to get the manufacturers in Australia to move towards some rationalisation. Indeed, it was the expectation of the previous Government that those programs which were initiated in that area would lead to a reduction in the number of car manufacturers in this nation and probably to a higher degree of direct importation. Export facilitation would certainly allow manufacturers in Australia to limit the number of lines produced. They could have short runs. By having a program of export facilitation they would be able to import lines to compensate for those which they intended to supersede. I am still convinced that if that policy were allowed to run it would have a very substantial effect on the motor car industry within the nation. The current proposition is that an authority be set up. The industry has the Australian Manufacturing Council and the motor car council and now it will have the Authority. The Department of Industry and Commerce also plays a role. So a whole structure of authorities, councils and a government department will be responsible for the motor car industry. The role of the Department in this area over the years has been substantial. There have been some very worthy contributions from it. Mr Godfrey, who is now a deputy secretary in the Department of Industry and Commerce, had a very intense interest in the whole area and a very high degree of understanding of the ramifications of the motor car industry. As I read the Bill, it is not envisaged that the role of the Department will be diminished. However, the Bill does envisage that very substantial powers will be given to this Authority, which will then attempt to come to grips with the details of the industry. This is just duplication. The Authority will then act in the role of the honest broker in an attempt to bring together component manufacturers, car manufacturers and all the other sectors of that industry and make recommendations by way of a report to government and alert government if the industry is not carrying out its policies. I am not at all convinced by that theory. It strikes me that if the Authority is to play the role of the honest broker it will have to trade in confidentiality. The Authority cannot go to a component manufacturer or a car manufacturer and say: 'Look, we do not think this particular operation is good enough. We think it is inefficient and it ought to be improved'. How would the Authority know that such an operation was not efficient if it did not have confidential material from another producer in another place? The role of any broker, even the power broker, involves dealing in confidentiality. To do that and get away with it requires remarkable skill. For that reason I cannot see how a person who knows the intimate details of all five car manufacturers in Australia and who can make policy suggestions or recommendations to the Government can make a positive effort to encourage a car producer not to produce a certain line because it is better done by another. This can be done only on the basis of inside information. That can be got across only, in my judgment, in the area of dealing confidentially. I do not believe that a public authority should be involved in that. Mr John Brown —You are an old power broker yourself. Mr MOORE —The Minister would know all about dealing with matters in confidence and he would know things sometimes leak out and inevitably the trail leads home. The Department of Industry and Commerce has a very substantial interest in the motor car industry. There have been very skilled people, in my experience, over the years in the Department who know the game thoroughly. I doubt that they want to be second-guessed. I doubt whether they really want to have this new Authority in operation. Australian motor car manufacturing has changed considerably in the last two years. Consumer preference has been the spur for the industry to move away from the six-cylinder family car and the demise of the overall dominance of General Motors-Holden's Ltd in the Australian family car market. The penetration of that market by Japanese car manufacturers in the production of wholly built up cars, Australian assembled cars and Australian-Japanese manufactured cars has been enormous. Today, the Toyota, Nissan and Mitsubishi companies have achieved a very substantial penetration of the Australian market. Manufacturers were forced by consumer preference-perhaps by the rise in oil prices and the need to meet the market demand for four-cylinder cars-to such a degree that General Motors- Holden's is now producing Nissan four-cylinder cars. Ford has teamed up with Mazda. The preferences of the consumers forced Australian manufacturers to change their production standards and to spend money on their plants. General Motors-Holden's has not had a happy two or three years. It went into the world car plan in a very big way. It spent an enormous amount of money on the development of an engine which was manufactured at Fishermans Bend. That engine has not proved to be successful. As a consequence, General Motors-Holden' s is now changing to another area. What brought that change about? It was brought about not by government regulation or by an authority dealing in confidences but by consumer preferences. General Motors-Holden's could not sell the engine or perhaps its cars did not meet the demands of the day. As a result, companies are being forced to change and to seek new areas of the market. Those which have not changed have suffered substantial losses. I have only to instance the losses of General Motors-Holden's in the last two or three years. I do not find the intervention of another authority to be particularly helpful to the overall cause. I can understand some of the sentiments involved in establishing it. There is a desire to come to grips with a great shoal of regulations which have been foisted upon the industry by the various State governments. The different standards of safety and the different standards of emission control need to be ironed out, using some nationwide approach. As well as that, various State governments have stood over manufacturers and said: 'If you want to sell us a line of Holdens or Fords it would really be a good idea if you were to have an assembly plant in our State'. That happened in Queensland but General Motors-Holden's has now backed away from there. It happened in regard to the Queensland operations of the Ford Motor Company of Australia. It operates a Fairlane and LTD plant there, whereas its main operations are in Victoria in a much better and more modern plant. General Motors-Holden's plants are scattered around the country. It has not only the plant in Brisbane, which is now closed, but also plants at Fishermens Bend and Dandenong. In South Australia it has the Woodville plant in the city and a plant in Elizabeth some way out of town. Many of those developments are historical in base but political in reality because, as we have seen, State governments of all political persuasions have said to manufacturers: 'If you shut down the plant in our area, we will not buy your product'. In New South Wales corporations have been told: 'If you shut down your operations, we will just take away your rights to mine various coal deposits and give no compensation whatsoever'. That type of intimidation has been meted out to some corporations by State governments. If the Authority can make a contribution in this regard, that would probably warrant its survival if it does not come to grips, as I do not think it will, with the problems of the industry as a whole. The Opposition will be voting against the motion for the second reading of this Bill on the grounds that I have outlined. We do not regard the establishment of yet another authority as the best way for the motor car industry in Australia to come to grips with marketing its product and with the problems in the area of component manufacture. We believe that incentives and adequate degrees of financial management in regard to depreciation, investment policies and the ability of a company to meet export facilitation requirements, which is the spur to a company's development, will make a substantial contribution towards the improvement of the motor car industry. This industry has been in great trouble over the years and has cost the Australian consumer a lot of money. These considerations must be weighed against the engineering base that the industry provides for Australia. Without that base, there would be a very real risk of the whole engineering fabric collapsing. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(11.15) —In speaking on this Automotive Industry Authority Bill, I want to support the Government's initiative in proposing the establishment of this Authority which, after all, is the focal point of the Government's motor vehicle industry policy. I do not believe that anybody would argue that there was no need for the Government to have a comprehensive policy in the motor vehicle area. As the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) so correctly said, the engineering base in Australia is very important. It is important to ensure that it is not minimised or lost through making decisions which do not necessarily take note of the need for Australia to have a base of those skills. As an integral part of the Government's strategy for developing the motor vehicle industry in Australia, the basic role of the Authority will be to monitor the performance of the industry and its future objectives. Again, that monitoring role is an essential role because over the years we have seen numbers of decisions made in the motor vehicle industry by the motor vehicle producers which have not been of very great advantage to this country, to the people who work in that extremely important industry or to the people who work in the components industry which is such an important structure in the small business of this country. However, the establishment of the Authority did not come out of thin air. It was recommended by the Car Industry Council. That Car Industry Council has on it representatives from all sectors of the car industry. So, it was a decision made not by people who did not know what they were talking about, but by people who were actually involved within the industry itself. It has two aims: To preserve a substantial manufacturing industry in Australia-to ensure that it is there, not to ensure that it disappears; and to put that industry on a more competitive basis. It has to be encouraged to concentrate on its strengths and to have much greater integration and co-operation within it. That is particularly important in the components area. I know that General Motors-Holden's Ltd in Melbourne alone has outside sourced components from some 120 suppliers. Those 120 suppliers range from Australian factories belonging to big multinational companies, to large suppliers with large factories which are Australian owned, to medium sized factories of all kinds and quite small workshops, even down to the sheltered workshops which supply a number of components and assembled components. All of those people need a stable and secure future. All of those people need to know what they will be doing in the future. Unless the components industry is seen as part of and integrated within the main vehicle manufacturing industry, we will have the same situation as we have had with businesses going under because of some sort of change in the motor vehicle industry which had not been anticipated by the main manufacturers. There is a need for practical support to come to grips with the problems in this area. We are concerned not only with employment within the vehicle manufacturing and assembly plants themselves but also with the enormous base of employment which goes out into the community for the components which are sourced outside the factories-for example, from small steel works. Plastics, rubber, paint, plating, glass and all kinds of things are also sourced from outside the factories themselves and this supports the employment of very large numbers of people. The Authority's capacity to help with forward planning through its monitoring and advisory role is essential. For one thing, we have to look at the need for factories to upgrade their tools from time to time. Of course, upgrading of tooling is an extremely expensive business. In those cases where the major manufacturer supplies the tooling to the component maker, that too requires a great deal of forethought and planning. The failure of the component industries to be able to upgrade their tooling sufficiently quickly and to a sufficiently high level of technology has been one of the difficulties in the car industry. It is important to understand that the component producers believe that the Automotive Industry Authority will be a good thing and that the new policies for the components sector are a vast improvement on those adopted by the previous Government. That is a comment direct from the Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers. The unions believe that the plan is a commonsense policy which will benefit everyone, including consumers. I do not think that the Authority is seen as a surprise to the car industry or as something which will not be beneficial to it. The standards of product quality and consumer service provided by the industry need continual overseeing. The industry has been interested for some years in upgrading its quality and keeping its quality standards as high as possible. Certainly, customer service provided by the industry is not seen in this country as being as good as it could be. I believe that the car plan, because it includes a provision of $150m over five years to assist in upgrading design capabilities, will assist us to start looking at designs which are determined in this country and not elsewhere, as is presently the case. That is another part of the car plan which will underpin employment and the level of skills in this country. It is interesting to see that the endorsement of the Government's policy rests on the recognition that the policy is a genuine attempt to come to terms with the basic problems facing the industry. I do not think anybody would argue with the fact that this is an industry which has faced a multitude of problems in the last few years, not all of them based on decision making which is questionable or even the recession. Some of them have been based on the lack of understanding of the need for co-operation between car producers in this country. We need constructive change; we need to provide future security; we need to provide stability; and we also need to consider the employees who will find that the industry no longer needs their skills. However, we need the skills and so the industry has been designated as a participant in the labour adjustment training arrangements scheme. That scheme will assist us to keep the skills and to upgrade the skills of those people who may be displaced from either the major industry or the components industry in the future. That displacement is taking place at the moment without that training arrangement being made available. This industry receives a high level of government assistance; therefore it is right that the Authority should be there to keep the Government and the community informed about the progress being achieved by the industry. A great deal of the industry's difficulties come to the notice of the public at large only when we find large scale redundancies going on in the industry, when we find small businesses closing down or when we find the industry generally in trouble. That is the first time that we know about it. We believe that, with an industry which receives the level of government assistance that this industry does, we really do need to know more about it before we find the disasters happening. The sunset clause which is written into the legislation to bring the Authority to an end in 1992 is a safeguard against the Authority becoming a permanent bureaucratic arrangement and one more authority to be dealt with by the car industry. There is a task at present to promote rationalisation, co-operation, and a level of stability in an industry which desperately needs it. This is also needed so that all those people in the smaller industries who are dependent on the larger ones will stay sensible, viable, secure and stable. But that should be a task undertaken and completed in the short term. Should that not be the case, the Government's policy is for a further review by the IAC to be initiated in 1989 to determine whether there is any need for this Authority to continue. I believe that the eight-year period over which the Authority will operate and the terms of reference and powers it will have-and the powers it does not have; that is a fairly important point-will assist the industry to do what it is necessary to do; that is, to provide it with a stable and secure future so that the employment situation in the nation will improve, benefits will flow to consumers and the maintenance and upgrading of skills and technology will be able to continue. The Government and the community will be kept up to date with information about how that is going on. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(11.26) —I want to concentrate my remarks in this debate on the Automotive Industry Authority Bill because this legislation shows clearly the philosophical difference in policy and approach between the Opposition on the one hand and the Government on the other. Here we have a government that is in favour of more intervention in the private sector. It is creating another authority that will involve more public servants, more bureaucratic interference , more red tape and more regulation and control. By comparison, the approach of the Opposition is to reject this legislation, and reject this intervention in the market-place by the Government through the Automotive Industry Authority. It is a frightening precedent for Australian industry and Australian business. Let us look at the powers proposed in this Bill, because they are frightening and wide-ranging. When one considers the power of the Authority, the policy of the Government under its new industry development platform passed at the recent Australian Labor Party conference-that did not receive the publicity that it should have-and the prices and wages accord, one realises that the Government has the capacity to have total control in an industry. It is a dangerous precedent indeed. The Authority will have power over investment and the level of Australian equity and managerial participation. So it will decide how much investment there will be and it will decide by whom and how it is managed. I refer particularly to the section concerning the component industry, so important to the industry as a whole and also part of that vitally important but so often forgotten sector in the Australian economy, the small business sector. The component manufacturers have been forgotten by the Government in this legislation and they are at considerable risk. I understand their position because they have had difficulties in the industry for a long time. I will come to that shortly. One of the most frightening matters in relation to which the Authority has power is changes in employment levels in the automotive industry and the manner in which those changes are effected. There will be total government interference in the industry, not only in the large firms but also in small firms such as the small component manufacturers that I talked about a minute ago. Another section of the legislation worth referring to deals with compliance with agreed procedures for the resolution of industrial disputes in the automotive industry. There will be total control by the Authority. As I have said, it is part of this Government's fabric of interference in the private sector which we see in the industry development plan, in the prices and wages accord and in this frightening piece of legislation. It is a capacity not only for total control but also for total control by the union movement. The union movement has power over the present Government because, as I have said in this place on many occasions before, the Australian Labor Party is the parliamentary wing of the trade union movement. I pass on from some of those frightening provisions in the Authority legislation to talk about the deregulation myth that exists in the business community. The Government is putting that myth around and part of the media is swallowing it. More frighteningly, some private sector business men and women in Australia are accepting that this is a government in favour of business. Without doubt this legislation puts that myth to an end because here we have total intervention in the market-place and total control-as I said earlier, a most frightening precedent for any industry. I say to small businessmen, large businessmen, owners, proprietors, managers and employees alike that here we have regulation rather than deregulation. The Government is going down the path of further regulation and further bureaucratic and administrative control, linked with the fabric of the trade union movement that I referred to earlier. Just because there has been an in-principle decision by the Government to allow foreign banks into the country, there has been a floating of the Australian dollar and some other areas of financial deregulation, there is the myth that this is a deregulation government. This is not a deregulation government; it is a government of greater interference and greater regulation. The one thing it cannot deregulate, as we know-it is plain because the prices and wages accord and its constituency, the union movement, do not enable it to- is the labour market. If we deregulate in order to free the labour market, subject to certain terms and conditions, we will solve Australia's economic problems. I say to the business community that the myth of deregulation about this Government is exploded once and for all, firstly, by the Government's inability to do anything about the prices and wages accord and, secondly, by this frightening piece of legislation which will give the Government total control of one industry. It is a dangerous precedent. Today it is the Automotive Industry Authority Bill but what other industry authority Bill will it be tomorrow? It is a step along the road of control not just in this industry; it is a precedent for other industries in Australia. I shall read a couple of sections from the industry development platform of the Australian Labor Party. I would say that other industries will cop this type of authority if this Government is re-elected because I am sure the chairman of the powerful Caucus industry committee, that left wing member for Burke (Dr Theophanous), is one of the architects of this piece of legislation. The whole socialist left would love the idea of more industry authorities, more control, more public servants and more bureaucracies. In the preamble to the ALP industry development platform, it is stated: The development and implementation of detailed policy and plans for industry will require continuing consultation and negotiation involving governments, unions and management. It refers to 'the development and implementation of detailed policy and plans'. This legislation is a manifestation, an example, of a detailed policy and plan; a plan by the Government that is deemed to know better than the market-place, or consumer preference, voting with dollars for the product that it wants. That freedom to buy and indicate our preference will be limited by what some bureaucrats on the Automotive Industry Authority tell us. The platform, under the heading 'Industry Development Strategy and Business Policy', states: Labor will pursue an industrial development strategy based on a comprehensive planning program developed in consultation with trade unions, business and community groups. Key elements of this strategy will be: 1. A prices and incomes policy . . . I have talked about the danger of the prices and incomes accord. The industry development strategy and business policy then calls for a 'comprehensive plan for the development and restructuring of Australian industry', based upon a number of things. I repeat that the Labor platform calls for a comprehensive plan for the development and restructuring of Australian industry. In this legislation we have part of this restructuring, part of this plan for the development of Australian industry. I say to all industries and to all businesses in any industry that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Not enough attention has been given by the community to this most dangerous part of the ALP's industry policy platform. The section entitled 'Restructuring and labor force policy', as amended, was passed, unanimously I believe, at its Conference in July; so it has the Government's support. It reads: Labor believes that the restructuring and development of industry should be achieved with a minimum of social, economic and personal disruption to employees and their families. To achieve this, Labor will: Promote and establish the rights of employees to participate in the process of developing and implementing industry policy at the enterprise level, with particular emphasis on decision-making in new technology, employment, work organisation and industrial health and safety. Through the definition of 'automotive industry matters' in the Automotive Industry Authority Bill that enables the Authority to take into account changes in employment levels in the automotive industry and the manner in which those changes are effected, we have one of the first implementations of this part of the ALP program on restructuring and labour force policy. That is, the unions will tell the Government and then the industry what it ought to be able to do. Under the Authority there will be more regulation, more intervention in the market-place, more red tape, more restrictions. Governments ought to get out of the way of the private sector and of industry, large and small, so that they can get on with doing their own thing. I understand and accept that there are restrictions on the industry because of industry plans and interventions in the market-place by governments in the past. The problems facing an industry that has government intervention will not be solved by further government intervention. The history of these matters is that, with more regulation and restriction, more intervention and government action, we create more problems than we solve. We ought to be walking down the path of less regulation and restriction. I guarantee that at the end of the day government intervention will create more problems for industries, both large and small. This legislation is just creating another bureaucratic monster, with more public servants and more salaries to be paid for by the Australian taxpayer. For what purpose? As the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) said so adequately in the House-- Mr John Brown —He did not say anything like what you are saying. Mr SHIPTON —The Minister should ask him. I am sure that he will agree with me. He talked about market preference being the way to dictate consumer demand and he advocated it as the way we should be going. As an aside, let us consider the new bureaucracy to be created under this legislation. That bureaucracy very carefully has got itself power to monitor developments outside Australia in the industries concerned with the production, distribution and sale of motor vehicles and components. I think it has just guaranteed its members overseas trips. I had to smile when I read that provision. It is fitting that the Government should introduce this legislation in 1984, George Orwell's 1984. It really is a step towards the type of control portrayed in Animal Farm. This legislation is a step towards total control of the industry . Under this type of legislation governments do not have to nationalise industry . They get control in other ways, through the back door mechanism of an industry authority that has the wide powers to which I have referred. This legislation will set a dangerous precedent for every industry group in Australia. The socialist Left wants an industry plan. It wants to control industry on its terms . In this legislation we see a new bureaucracy and growing government. One of the cancers of our society is that government grows day by day and the individual consumer and taxpayer seem to have no control over it. I refer now to the relative roles of small and large businesses in this industry. The small component manufacturers for some considerable time have had difficulties with the larger manufacturers, and I understand their difficulties. They have had legitimate complaints, certainly in part, against the activities of the larger companies. The honourable member for Ryan indicated that the larger companies had chosen to manufacture the wrong types of vehicles. The market-place gave them a clear message otherwise. Australian consumers did not want cars such as the Commodore and other larger cars; they went for the smaller vehicles. Again we have the classic example where the market-place rather than an industry authority should dictate what is manufactured. It is possible and highly likely that under legislation of the nature we are discussing this intervention will inhibit that consumer dollar from dictating what the market- place manufactures. The component and parts manufacturers of Australia ought to understand that they have probably jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. They may have decided to try something else because the existing situation was dreadful; but there are greater dangers for them in dealing with government and unions in the way envisaged in this legislation than in dealing with large companies in the market-place. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, we do not get the balanced approach that is so essential to the solution of many problems. Large companies in the motor industry and in all industries have to understand that small businesses are reliant on and important to large businesses, both as customers of, on the one hand, and suppliers to, on the other. Certainly they lost sight of this principle in the motor industry, but this legislation does not provide the solution to the problem. The honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) implied that because the motor industry received large amounts of government assistance it was right to have this type of authority. The honourable member clearly said that, once government assistance is given to an industry, we need to set up an authority so that we can know more about it. I think that would set a most frightening precedent. It was a most frightening remark. If we applied that principle to every case in which there was a tariff or any sort of assistance by government to industry we would automatically get an authority of the nature of that proposed in this legislation to control the industry. That is the last thing that industry, large and small, across Australia needs. My final remarks go to the nature of the industry. There are some particular aspects of it to be considered. The Japanese manufacturers are here for reasons other than making a simple profit in the Australian domestic market, and I think people often lose sight of that. The Japanese manufacturers in the early stages clearly came to Australia to manufacture, assemble and test Australian market conditions. They wanted manufacturing operations in a Western country. They wanted to test their advertising, marketing and sales mechanisms in a Western country. They wanted to see how their cars performed under Australian road conditions and stringent government safety regulations. Once they got their vehicles working on our road system, they established manufacturing plants and went through the whole process of manufacturing, marketing and selling. Having gathered that experience in Australia, they took on the United States and European markets. Australia is in fact a guinea pig for the Japanese motor industry and will remain so. I have no objection to that if it brings manufacturing, investment and growth to the Australian industry, but I think it is one of the facts and aberrations of the Australian industry that ought to be clearly recognised. So many people say that it is time all the producers in Australia merged or that we need three major producers instead of four or five. I do not think that that will necessarily come about, particularly because of the role of the Japanese. They will want to have a strategic interest by maintaining investment in Australia, certainly in the reasonably foreseeable future. For the reasons I have outlined I support the honourable member for Ryan in opposing this Automotive Industry Authority legislation. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(11.45) —I am very happy to support the initiatives of the Hawke Government as expressed in the Bills that are before the House, the Automotive Industry Authority Bill 1984 and the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1984. The establishment of the Automotive Industry Authority is the single most important step that this Government has taken in its program to revitalise the Australian manufacturing industry. I point out that we on this side of the House are excited about the future of Australia and the Authority. I suggest that Opposition members would do better by joining in some of this enthusiasm instead of crying gloom and hoping that such an authority will not work. They would certainly be doing more to support private enterprise, about which they speak so much. The Hawke Government is committed to a strong manufacturing base in this country. Secondary industry has never been Australia's strong point. As a nation we have always made our money in agriculture or the extractive industries. Australia is a wealthy country by international standards. As Donald Horne put it, and as we Australians so quickly forget, we are a lucky country, not because God ordained it, but because our forebears worked hard to wrest gold from the ground and to take the wool clip when there were international markets ready to absorb our primary produce. Unless we can recycle our wealth in Australia, that wealth could be frittered away on technological trinkets from our trading partners and unemployment will continue to grow. If the Australian manufacturing industry picks up its game-and we believe it can-it can compete with Japanese, Korean and American manufacturing industry; not in every aspect, but in enough areas actually to create jobs in Australia and to create more wealth. That is the way forward. That is the course to which the Hawke Government is committed. I have great faith in the automotive industry's ability to accept the challenge of the future. We particularly look forward to offering some stability to the automotive components industry. The industry in my electorate is an excellent employer of unskilled as well as skilled workers. We need to see that in the future industry decisions are made which will support and not hinder the Australian components industry. It must be given recognition and support as an integral part of our automotive industry and not a poor cousin. As the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) pointed out, the components industry has suffered under the policies of past governments. The new Authority, in its advisory capacity, can act as a support and particularly a channel which the components industry may use to gain recognition and see that its viewpoint is considered. The tragedy of the Fraser years was the continual decline suffered by our manufacturing industry-the hundreds of thousands put on the dole queue to be tempted by despair and heroin and by the wealth of this nation forgone. Honourable members opposite when in government had no strategy to avoid that tragedy and I suggest that they have no strategy now. By way of contrast, this Government has developed and continues to develop a strategy to revitalise the manufacturing industry in this country. This Bill is a crucial part of that strategy. It is only a part, but it is indicative of the way we will continue to go forward in the next three years when we are returned to government at the forthcoming election. In consultation with the business leaders and trade unionists of this country, we will consolidate the manufacturing industry that we already have so that it is competitive in the international market. We will pick out new industries and develop new products that we can sell overseas. Do not let me hear anyone say that this is just a pipe dream. Our nation's youth is incredibly talented. We have always been an ingenious people because we have had to be supple and resourceful in our thought and action to survive in an alien land. Our young people have inherited that ingenuity and put it to work whenever they get the opportunity. What they do need is opportunity. We must give them that opportunity before any more sacrifice themselves on the altar of negativity, before any more turn to heroin to blunt the grinding reality of long term unemployment and before any more give up in the face of an economic system that has been out of control and falling apart because of years of government neglect . The car industry is a good example of the fate of our manufacturing industry. In the past it was competitive and we had international markets for what we produced. In the 1960s and early 1970s we sold Holden vehicles to Greece and to Commonwealth countries all over the world. Times change and as the Fraser Government looked on unconcerned, many plants and too many models competed for the same small domestic market and so the whole industry faced collapse. In the period from 1978 to the present, the number of new cars registered in Australia gradually increased while the number produced dramatically fell. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table which points out this very fact. I have the agreement of the honourable member for Higgins. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Vehicles Newly produced registered in Australia vehicles (excluding (excluding Year motor cycles) motor cycles) 1978-79 399,588 580,426 1979-80 437,135 568,424 1980-81 373,291 594,215 1981- 82 422,693 622,242 1982-83 356,606 590,023 1983-84 363,267 603,714 Mrs DARLING —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The resultant situation is that the number of vehicles registered grew by only 23,288 during this period, while the number of vehicles produced in Australia fell by 36,321. But now the Hawke Government offers hope. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) sat down with the industry, armed with intensive research and fresh ideas, and the result was a plan for the car industry that promises job security and greater wealth for this nation. In the long term it will mean more jobs and a chance to break back into the export market. The economic environment is also very favourable at the moment for this government initiative. It is obvious that the 1984-85 Budget consolidated economic growth, and that the prices and incomes accord is working. There had been reason for gloom. There was no acknowledgment of unemployment and therefore no policy and no improvement under the previous Government. Inflation was up to 11.5 per cent and depression yawned at our feet. But in this Budget we consolidated 1983-84 as a year of strong economic growth. There was a 5 per cent growth in non-farm gross domestic product-people bought more; 232,000 more jobs were created; the inflation rate was halved to 6 per cent, not counting the Medicare component; there were fewer strikes-the amount of time lost was down by 30 per cent. No intelligent person would evaluate the success of a long term policy such as the accord on fluctuations on a monthly basis. The Budget will maintain the course for 1984-85. There will be a 5 per cent growth in non-farm GDP, more jobs and inflation will be reduced. The accord-a major reason for success-will be supported by tax cuts, increased employment and welfare spending, new policies for the work place, occupational health and safety and industrial democracy. That Budget prepares for long term economic growth of which the automotive manufacturing industry will be a part. As Senator Button put it when announcing the Government's new policy on the car industry in May of this year: The car industry, given the right policy environment and commitment, can become increasingly competitive and stable.It can become a strength rather than a weakness in the Australian economy. This Bill provides for an authority to put the Button plan into effect. The Automotive Industry Authority will restructure the industry, modernise it and make it more efficient. By cutting the number of models and standardising components, the Authority will achieve economies of scale that will make the Australian automotive industry competitive, and that is what it needs. The Authority will be responsible for $150m in research over the next five years that will call on our homegrown ingenuity to design and produce better, safer and more efficient vehicles. I have no doubt that Australians are up to the challenge. All we have required is a government with the vision to implement a plan of these proportions. The Hawke Government has shown that it is such a government. The Bills before the House implement a plan which gives hope to the people of Australia and a future for our young people, and I commend them to the House. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.55) —in reply-I will confine my remarks to the first of the two Bills which are being considered cognately, the Automotive Industry Authority Bill 1984. I understand that the Opposition will be moving an amendment at the Committee stage to the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1984. I would like to thank the two Government supporters who have taken part in this debate-the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) and the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer)-for their reasoned approach to the Bill and their very clear espousal of the Government's success in putting the motor car industry back on the track of efficiency and prosperity. I think the importance of the motor car industry to Australia is beyond debate. I note that the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) made some very strong comments about the great importance to the whole engineering fabric of Australian manufacturing industry of a viable motor car manufacturing industry. The two Government supporters reiterated in very strong terms the Government's commitment to the continued prosperity of the motor car industry in particular and I commend them for that. I must say that I appreciated the comments that were made by the honourable member for Ryan, who was the Minister responsible for this area in the previous Government. The honourable member's remarks indicated his very clear understanding of the motor car industry and the difficulties faced by it. Unfortunately, I think that in some ways he has missed the point of the Bill because he asked a couple of questions about the need to have the Automotive Industry Authority at all. He also questioned the requirement for confidentially which, of course, the Authority would need to maintain in order to be effective. Perhaps I could say something about a couple of the worries there. The industry in fact was completely involved in the formulation of the Authority. The Government is very keen to see that whatever assistance is provided to the motor car manufacturing industry is provided in the most efficient fashion. In line with that objective we set up the Automotive Industry Advisory Council, which is one of a whole series of industry councils that are represented on the Australian Manufacturing Council. The Automotive Industry Advisory Council, which involves the managing directors of the five motor car manufacturers in Australia at the moment, suggested to the Government that it set up the Authority which is the subject of this Bill. The reason for that is quite clear- the industry itself could not put its house in order. The motor car industry needs an authority with the power this Authority has if any sort of reasoned rationalisation is to take place within the industry. So I would like the honourable member for Moore to know that it was not the Government's decision to set up this Authority. A very strong suggestion was put to us by the Automotive Industry Advisory Council to set up the Automotive Industry Authority. I hope that what I have just said will lessen the honourable member's dislike for this legislation, although I note that the Opposition intends to divide the House on this matter. We have a different view to that of the Opposition on the subject of confidentiality. This Authority can operate effectively only if it has at its disposal the facility to receive confidential material. Clause 29 of the Bill makes it quite clear that the Authority will be under strict obligations not to break that confidentiality. The honourable member for Moore spoke in glowing terms about the skill and knowledge of the Department of Industry and Commerce with regard to the motor car industry. I am sure that the Department will appreciate those comments as, in fact, the Government does. We happen to share his view. With all the best intentions and constrained by all the limitations under which public servants operate, they would not be in the same position as the Authority to help in the rationalisation of the industry, the reduction in the number of car models and the increasing of efficiency in terms of componentry without having the power that the Authority will have to suggest to the Government ways and means of achieving this. So this Authority will act as an independent and honest broker working with the various motor car manufacturing organisations to try to achieve the best results. As I said, I share the ex-Minister's views about the standard of the public servants involved in this area of the Department of Industry and Commerce, but the Department itself agrees that the best way to effect what it would like to see happen is through this Authority. That is exactly why we are setting it up. I would not have too many fears about the capacity of the Authority to maintain confidentiality on the information that it will acquire and require across the full spectrum of the manufacturing groups. I note that the Opposition will be opposing this Bill at the second reading stage. However, I take that as a measure of ignorance of what the Bill is on about rather than any real opposition to it. The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) spoke with his normal amount of bluster. I feel half inclined not to dignify his remarks by replying to them but I think the Government probably would like me to answer some of them. Mr Shipton —I take a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) — I warn the honourable member for Higgins not to take a frivolous point of order. Mr Shipton —I accept the warning but I did not attack the Minister personally. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr JOHN BROWN —I think it is fair to say that the honourable member certainly did not attack me. However, he tried to turn us back to the dim, dark days of the past and cried despairingly about many innovations that this Government has produced. He made statements such as: 'The unions are telling the Government how to run business', and 'the Government should get out of the way of private enterprise and let it run its own house'. He said that in fact the Government is imposing more regulation upon the industry. Let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and, through you, the honourable member for Higgins, that the industry itself demanded this Authority. We have acceded to this request and we are setting up the Authority. I think it ill becomes any member of the Opposition to come in here and lecture this Government about its industrial relations policy and its views about involving unions in industry decisions. One needs only to cast one's mind back to the period prior to March 1983 to find out exactly what was the situation in Australia not just in manufacturing industry but across the whole spectrum of industry. Prior to that time there was an extraordinary number of strikes and an extraordinary lack of profitability in every area. The country was in a real state of absolute depression, financially and morally. I think that there has been a metamorphosis since this Government took office. Industry councils with union representation have been set up. The unions now have a say with the entrepreneurs in how industries should be run. The result of that is clear for everyone to see. We have broken out of recession. We have just now gone through a period in which there has been less industrial confrontation in Australia than we have had for 16 years. Surely that is fair testimony to the success of this Government in getting away from the theories that the honourable member for Higgins would try to impose upon us, including the theory that unions are an evil influence in Australia and should have no say whatsoever in how industry operates. That is not the view of this Government; it is not the view of industry. Industry welcomes the presence of trade unions on those advisory bodies. We have no intention of going back to those dim, dark years of the type of depression, recession and confrontation in Australia that was encouraged by the previous Government. I am sure that the honourable member for Ryan, who is responsible for the carriage of this Bill in the House on behalf of the Opposition, does not share the honourable member for Higgins's views at all. In fact, I saw him nodding his head in despair at the comments that emanated from the ill-advised notes of the honourable member. So the Government in every way rejects the propositions that were put forward by the honourable member. They were the sort of guff that he normally sprouts every time he gets up in this House. It is about time he took a more positive and optimistic approach to legislation that comes before this House and not make the usual negative carping comments that we hear from him on every subject. I, and I am sure the balance of the House, applaud the reasoned and thoughtful contribution that was made by the honourable member for Ryan. The honourable member exhibited a great understanding of the industry and the difficulties that it has faced over the years. I am sure that in his own quiet way he is very happy that this industry, for which he had great affection as a patriotic Australian and a former concerned Minister, is at last getting back on to the road to prosperity. The Government rejects the Opposition's comments and, of course, when we divide on the question the Government will defeat the Opposition , as we always do. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 41 —— 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.Blanchard, C. A. 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.Charles, D. E. Mildren, J. B.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Child, J. Morris, AllanChynoweth, R. L. Morris, PeterCohen, B. Morrison, W. L.Cross, M. D. Mountford, J. G.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) O'Neil, L. R. T.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Jones, Barry Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. O'Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Groom, R. J. White, P. N. D.Hall, Steele Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Fry, K. L. Katter, R. C.Hurford, C. J. Newman, K. E.Jacobi, R. C. Aldred, K. J. 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 John Brown) read a third time. Debate resumed from 5 October, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Amendment (by Mr Moore) proposed: Clause 13, page 6, line 30, omit ''Sections 23A and 24 of the Principal Act are repealed'', substitute ''Section 23A of the Principal Act is repealed''. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(12.14) —The Government cannot accept the amendment moved on behalf of the Opposition which would have the effect of continuing to allow the Industries Assistance Commission to initiate its own inquiries. The Government's view is that that is a matter of policy and such decisions relating to the conducting of inquiries into industries are more appropriately made by the Government itself. The provision to allow the Commission to initiate its own inquiries has been in the legislation for some time but the Commission has never made use of the provision. Whenever a need for an inquiry in any industry has been discovered it has been traditional for the Commission to suggest to the Government that such an inquiry should be made, and the new arrangements allow the Commission to do this. In all the circumstances, the Government is opposed to this amendment and would not entertain a proposition that an instrumentality of the Government be in a position to determine policy issues. The IAC is an advisory body to the Government on assistance to industry and in all cases the Government should give directions to that body on what matters it should inquire into and when it should hold such inquiries. A further major point on the proposed amendment is that the removal of the power of the Commission to initiate its own inquiries was, in fact, a recommendation of the Uhrig report which the Government has accepted. I note with some interest that the shadow Minister at the table, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), spoke glowingly of the report provided by Mr Uhrig. I am sure that no one would question the appointment of Mr Uhrig to conduct that review because he is a highly successful and high profile figure in industry and he is in a very good position to provide this sort of advice to the Government. In all the circumstances, we do not propose to accept this amendment, which I do not think the shadow Minister moved with any great enthusiasm. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 9 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(12.21) —The Opposition supports the amendments which are proposed to the Telecommunications Interception Act but it proposes an amendment to the motion for the second reading. 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 a Royal Commission should be established with terms of reference to investigate and report upon: (a) the origins of the tapes and documents, the subject of the Bill; (b) the authenticity of the information contained in and upon the said tapes and documents; (c) whether such information reveals any offences against laws of the Commonwealth; (d) whether, arising from such information, any criminal charges should be laid ; (e) whether any action has already been taken by any law enforcement agency arising out of the said information; and (f) whether any immunities should be granted to any person to enable the Royal Commission fully to investigate the above matters'. The purposes of the Bill before the House are effectively two: First, to enable the transfer of material now held by the Special Prosecutor to the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, to the National Crime Authority and also to the Commissioner of Public Complaints as set up under a New South Wales Act; and, secondly, to enable people who have information that may have been obtained illegally to pass that information over to law enforcement agencies without attracting any criminal penalties. Effectively this is a protection for the surrender of documents or information to law enforcement agencies that otherwise might not be protected. There are, however, a number of restrictions imposed on the use that can be made by the Stewart Royal Commission, the Commissioner of Public Complaints or the National Crime Authority. If the Age tapes material is passed over, in the first instance the National Crime Authority, the Royal Commissioner or the New South Wales Commissioner shall consider whether the document involved is an authentic record of the matters purported to be recorded in that document and whether, in the case of the National Crime Authority, the document is or may be relevant to the matters with which the Authority is concerned. The same limitation applies if the Age tapes material is passed over to either the Stewart Royal Commission or the New South Wales Commissioner. Effectively each of those bodies must first consider whether the document is an authentic record of the matters contained in it-that is whether the tapes or summaries are authentic-and whether it is capable of being dealt with by the body to which it is passed under the terms of reference of that body. It is only if that first question is answered in the affirmative that the body, such as the National Crime Authority, can make use of the document because in the case of the NCA it is provided that, if the tapes or summaries are given to the Authority and the Authority is satisfied as to their authenticity and that they are relevant to the matters with which the Authority is concerned, only then can it make use of that material. Thus, at the very beginning there are hurdles established, hurdles over which the Authority must first jump before it can use the material can be used. We all know that the Age tapes material is wide ranging. It covers a very wide variety of possible State offences and possible offences against Federal law. A major deficiency of what is being proposed in this amendment Bill is that necessary powers are not reposed in the receiving bodies to determine the authenticity of the material and to investigate that material properly. I turn to the report of Mr Temby, because his report on the Age material made some findings of great significance to this Bill. Let me refer to some of those findings. First of all, in paragraph 10 of his report, after referring to certain material, he said: It seems likely that both the tapes and the transcripts came from the same source. The source he had in mind was the New South Wales Police Force. He went on to say: By report dated 21 May prepared by Detective Sergeant McDonald of the New South Wales Police I was advised that the voices on that portion of the tape were those of a named prisoner and a Detective Inspector Stevenson, who died 19 January 1980. It appears the original tape was made between 12 February and 4 July 1978, following a complaint in December 1977 that there was a discrepancy in moneys recovered following the arrest of three men on a charge of armed robbery. Mr Temby then quoted from the report which had been given to him. He said: The report concludes: '' . . . I am able to say that the conversation on the . . . tape did take place and most likely on a body tape, then transferred onto a reel tape. Despite numerous inquiries I am unable to say who may have caused this transfer. It is logical to assume that the Stevenson tape was 'stored' at the Bureau of Crime Intelligence as that is where Stevenson performed duty during the relevant period of time. It is also open to assume that the tape could have been 'stored' elsewhere, but that will never be found out because of the death of Inspector Stevenson.'' Later on, in paragraph 17 of the report Mr Temby referred to a specific line of investigation which has yet to be properly pursued. He said: The other avenue of investigation that has been closed to me is through Mr. Arthur (''Jock'') Hawthorn. He is a former member of the New South Wales Police Force. Between 1976 and 1981- a period of five years- he was a member of the Radio Branch of that Force attached to the Crime Intelligence Unit. He left the Police Force in June 1981 as a Sergeant Second Class due to ill health. In July 1980 he met with Superintendent Lamb, then in charge of 'B' Division in the A.F.P. in Sydney, and provided information obviously obtained from the same source as the transcripts-- that is the Age transcripts- His contact with Mr Lamb extended from about May 1980 until March 1981. He supplied Mr Lamb with tapes of telephone conversations between Mr Ryan and others. Mr Hawthorn was a registered paid informer (code name ''Irish'') with the A.F.P. whilst still a serving member of the New South Wales Police Force. It is not known whether the payment was used by him to defray expenses, to maintain a facility, or for his personal benefit. Mr Hawthorn has refused to be interviewed by either the A.F.P. or New South Wales Police. It is my belief that he could assist in further investigations into the source of the materials but I am unable to insist on this. In paragraph 31 of his report Mr Temby concluded: The matter could be taken further by the materials generally being referred to some body or person having coercive powers. Mr Justice Stewart as Royal Commissioner has those powers. So does the Senate Select Committee. If only to avoid duplication of effort, my recommendation is that the matter be left as it is until the Judge and the Committee have completed their respective tasks. Whatever conclusion is reached in relation to any part of the materials is likely to be applicable to the materials generally. I should add that, of course, Mr Justice Stewart has certain powers but those powers are restricted by the terms of his Commission, just as the powers of the National Crime Authority are restricted by the terms of the Act and the powers of the New South Wales Commissioner, which seem to be pretty irrelevant to what we are looking at, are restricted by the terms of his Act. I refer in passing to one incidental matter. I noticed a reference to a colleague of mine from the New South Wales Bar, Mr Michael McHugh, whom I have known well for many years. He has placed on record vigorously his denial of the accuracy of what is there stated. I accept it entirely and support Mr McHugh in what he has said. I think it is most unfortunate that that kind of reference should creep into a report without the matter having been properly checked out in the first instance.Turning to what the Senate had to say upon the subject, I refer to the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. Paragraph 39 of that report stated: The Committee took evidence from the person who supplied the materials to The Age newspaper. That evidence, which was not available to Mr Temby, was to the effect that the materials were composed by officers of the New South Wales Police Force as part of operations of surveillance of persons believed to be associated with criminal activities. It appears that the police selected certain persons as ''targets'' for this surveillance, and that the records of conversations were intended for the purpose of gathering intelligence which would facilitate the further investigations of criminal activities. It was said that the tape recordings were obtained by means of devices, operated by police officers, which intercepted and recorded telephone conversations, and that the purported transcripts and summaries were composed by police officers as they listened to such tape recordings. It was claimed that Mr Ryan was a person of interest to the police and that he was subjected to interception and recording of his telephone conversations, and that is why those purported conversations appear in the materials. In the following paragraph the report stated: In order to reach firm conclusions as to the source of the materials, however, the Committee would have to obtain admissions by the police officers who actually took part in the interception and recording of telephone conversations and who composed the transcripts and summaries. The evidence available to the Committee sufficiently indicated that such admissions have not been forthcoming and all efforts by the Committee to pursue such admissions produced no useful results. What the Government now proposes is that under the severe restrictions I have outlined the material may be made available to the Stewart Royal Commission, the New South Wales Commissioner and the Crime Authority. The introduction of the Crime Authority was the result of an amendment by the Opposition in the Senate which had the support, I believe, of the Australian Democrats. Let us examine the position of the Crime Authority. We know that the coercive powers of that Authority depend on its having a reference. I remind the House that Mr Temby referred to the necessity for coercive powers if an effective investigation was to be carried out. We know that the references that go to the Authority may concern State or Federal matters. They have to go with the authority and direction of the relevant State government or the Federal Government. We know that at this time no references have been given to the Authority. There is no way that it can exercise any of its coercive powers for the purpose of examining the authenticity of the tapes and the other material. We know that no references are guaranteed. Certainly, so far as I am aware, the Government has not guaranteed to give a reference in relation to this material. If it has, I invite the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is at the table, to tell us about it. We have heard a great deal recently about what has been happening in New South Wales. Without traversing the history of the last few years of that State of scandal, one must view with the greatest of reservations the likelihood of references coming from New South Wales relevant to the Age material. Perhaps they will; one can, after all, live in hope. Another question arises. The Crime Authority is the only body capable of looking at the whole of these matters because of the limitations in the powers of Mr Justice Stewart and the irrelevance of the New South Wales authority. We must ask this question: Could the matters constitute a reference under the National Crime Authority Act? The answer to that question is to be found in the terms of that Act. I remind the House that under the Act the powers to investigate by the Authority are confined to what are called relevant criminal activities. The power to use the coercive powers of the Authority is also confined to relevant criminal activities. The definition of 'relevant criminal activity' which this Government has propounded is stated in section 4 of the National Crime Authority Act. When we look at the section we see that 'relevant offence' means an offence: that involves 2 or more offenders and substantial planning and organization; that involves, or is of a kind that ordinarily involves, the use of sophisticated methods and techniques- there can be little doubt about that- that is committed, or is of a kind that is ordinarily committed, in conjunction with other offences of a like kind; that involves theft, fraud, tax evasion, currency violations, illegal drug dealings, illegal gambling, obtaining financial benefit by vice engaged in by others, extortion, violence, bribery or corruption of, or by, an officer of the Commonwealth, an officer of a State or an officer of a Territory, bankruptcy and company violations, harbouring of criminals, forging of passports, armament dealings or illegal importation or exportation of fauna, or that involves matters of the same general nature as one or more of the foregoing, or that is of any other prescribed kind . . . It is perfectly plain that the New South Wales police officers-it seems fairly obvious that we are talking about New South Wales police officers-were engaged in investigations, as the Senate Committee has pointed out, which were directed towards gathering information. Why? Presumably they were so frustrated by the circumstances in which they were working that they thought such a course was necessary. So far as we can tell, they were not gathering information for the purposes of anything which would constitute an offence under the National Crime Authority Act. Dr Klugman —What about selling the information to the Federal Police? You don't think that selling information privately is an offence, or should be? Mr SPENDER —If the honourable member for Prospect would look at the terms of the National Crime Authority Act he would see that that is a quite different proposition because the offence has to fall within the terms of the definition to which I have referred. As well as falling within the terms of the definition that I have read out to the House, there is the proviso that a relevant offence- it is only relevant offences that constitute relevant criminal activity, and it is only relevant criminal activities which may be investigated by the Authority- does not include an offence which is not punishable by imprisonment or is punishable by imprisonment for a period of less than three years. I remind the House that under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 the offence there created is punishable by a penalty of $5,000 or imprisonment for two years . Dr Klugman —It is covered by the other offence of corruption of public officials . Mr SPENDER —I say again to the honourable member for Prospect, so that he understands it, that a number of elements must be fulfilled. One of those elements is that it come within the definition that I read out. Secondly, the offence must be punishable effectively by a term of imprisonment of three years or more. The offences under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act are punishable by imprisonment of no more than two years. Hence the definition under the National Crime Authority Act would seem not to apply. That will make it extremely difficult for the Authority to investigate this material. I have pointed to the hurdles and the extreme difficulty that the matter to which I have just referred creates. It is easy to see that the Authority would feel extremely circumscribed because, on the face of things, it is simply beyond its power to investigate these matters. The Opposition in the Senate has done all that it could, by the inclusion of these amendments-that is, the amendments which would permit the National Crime Authority to investigate these matters-but it does, therefore, appear that the Authority will be circumscribed so severely that any reference to it or any attempt to refer these sorts of matters to it will in the end prove to be perfectly pointless. Madam Deputy Speaker, that brings me back to the terms of reference contained in the motion which I have moved as an amendment to the Government's motion. Let me summarise the position as it presently appears to me. We have the tapes and summaries. Those tapes and summaries concern a variety of possible criminal offences against State and Federal laws. We can be fairly certain that those tapes and summaries came from within the New South Wales Police Force. The inference appears to be overwhelming that they did. We can be equally certain that they were prepared in the course of surveillance for intelligence gathering activities by the New South Wales Police Force. Mr Robert Brown —By a paid informer. Mr SPENDER —They were handed over by a paid informer. There is no evidence to the effect that they were prepared by a paid informer. Personally I do not care where they came from. The question is that we have them. That is the important matter. It is probable that that man Hawthorn knows how some, if not all, of the summaries were made and how some, if not all, of the tapes were prepared. It is imperative that with the aid of coercive powers he be examined so that we can find out what he knows and from him follow the trail back further to all those who were engaged in the illegal recording activities. We propose that a royal commission be established. If necessary, indemnities could be given for the purpose of getting evidence from witnesses. Whilst this Government has concentrated so much upon the invasion of privacy and the breach of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act, it seems to have lost sight of the fact that the matters which are the subject of the tapes and the summaries, on the face of things, constituted or related to some extremely grave criminal activities. Those criminal activities are of the utmost importance in that they require investigation, and investigation of the most efficient and penetrating kind. It is for those reasons that we propose that a royal commission should be appointed. In conclusion, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister this question: Looking to the difficulties that face the National Crime Authority, looking to the immense difficulties which also face the Stewart Royal Commission, looking to the irrelevancy of the role of the New South Wales Commissioner, how can the matters be properly investigated unless they are investigated by an authority having full and untrammelled coercive powers? Since we know the identity of the person who would seem to know a great deal about the circumstances under which the tapes and summaries were prepared-after all, he was with the radio unit of the New South Wales Crime Intelligence Unit for five years, and that was the relevant five years-why are we not pursuing this man, and pursuing him with all the coercive powers which are available to this Government? If the Government really wants to understand how the Age tapes were collected, if it really wants to know whether the summaries are accurate-they would seem to be summaries prepared by the police-and if it wants to uncover the criminal offences to which those summaries and tapes apparently relate, the only way to do so is through the use of coercive powers. The only way to go about the use of those coercive powers is to make sure that the person using them has full and untrammelled authority to use them in the interests of the administration of justice and in the uncovering of organised crime. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Steele Hall —I second the amendment. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2 p.m. Mr CONNOLLY —I refer the Minister for Trade to his answer yesterday to a question by the honourable member for Deakin concerning recent negotiations on economic and social security agreements between Australia and Italy. Can the Minister confirm that a senior member of his staff, together with one of his personally appointed trade advisers, suggested to the Federal and Italian governments that the reciprocal agreement on social security between Australia and Italy should be linked to the willingness of Italy to offer trade opportunities to Australia? Does the Minister believe that social security benefits due to Australians of Italian descent should be bargained off against economic and trade agreements? Can he tell the House what he believes an Australian of Italian descent is worth in terms of reciprocal trade? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Firstly, there has never been any suggestion of any linkage or bargaining off of social security and trade. As the honourable member would know , social security arrangements are the responsibility of my colleague Senator Grimes. The honourable member is also obviously not aware that Senator Grimes has had discussions over a long period with the Italian Government, and, of course, Minister Corti will be here tomorrow. It is quite outrageous to think that the honourable member should make the allegation of linkage. My adviser and a consultant were in Italy earlier discussing trade and in no way suggested that there would be a linkage between the two. Let me make the situation very clear: As I understand it, the social security reciprocal arrangements have been the subject of discussions between the two governments for a long period, and apparently could well have extended to the period when the honourable member's Party was in office. Mr Connolly —There was never a linkage. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There has never been a linkage and there is no linkage now. Let me make that very clear indeed. I think it is quite wrong to say that there was ever a suggestion that trade would be bartered off for social security. I will again confirm what I said yesterday. The Italian Government, particularly its Minister for Trade, is anxious to find out why trade between Italy and Australia declined while honourable members opposite were in office. The really relevant point to be made about what the honourable member has said is that there are one million Australians of Italian descent. It seems remarkable to think that because of that linkage the previous Government was not able even to sustain the trade. I think the honourable member ought to withdraw the remarks he has made and the inferences he has created here by saying there was a linkage. There is none. The point is that the Italians want to offer to us a partnership in joint ventures in technology, which I think would be of the utmost advantage. I explained that yesterday. That will be a matter for deliberations between the private sector in Australia and Italian statutory corporations. So if any advantage is to come to Australia it will be because of the efforts of Australian private enterprise. There will be no government involvement. Surely the honourable member can understand that. If we sell more iron ore it will be to the advantage of the Australian companies. Mr Connolly —Your officers gave you that advice. You should table the correspondence in detail. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have no knowledge of what the honourable member is saying; I make that very clear, and I also want to make it very clear that Senator Grimes is fully entitled to meet Minister Corti here tomorrow. He made those arrangements. They relate to an agreement which has been the subject of negotiations over a long period. I refute the suggestion that there is any linkage. I welcome the fact that we now have a trade agreement in the sense of economic and technical co-operation. It is an arrangement that we successfully negotiated on 26 September. I make the further point that I think trade between our two countries could be substantially improved. It certainly can be improved in the area which I mentioned yesterday. I refer to steel technology and the opportunities for using the North West Shelf gas to reduce iron ore to iron sponge, which would be of great advantage. The Italian representatives are coming here not to talk to a government but to talk to the responsible private authorities that have an interest in trade. Mr Connolly —Can you assure the House that no one in your office has put that proposition to the Italian authorities? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I make the point that Minister Capria will be here soon. I hope that when he comes the honourable member will have a discussion with him. He can satisfy himself as to what is the position. Minister Capria has asked that we assemble a group of Australians to act as a permanent working group which would be compatible with a similar group set up in Italy. The idea behind that is to identify what technology and industries would be of advantage to both of our countries. This proposal deals not so much with advancing trade but with the concept of joint ventures, because the Italians have excellent technology. Our main interest in this proposal is that by having such co-operation with the Italian authorities we think we would have greater access to the European markets. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I inform the House that we have present in the gallery today members of the delegation attending the seventh Australasian and Pacific Parliamentary Seminar. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to the members of the delegation. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr SCOTT —Can the Minister for Health advise the House of the estimated cost of the abolition of direct billing and the reintroduction of public hospital charges? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for his question. It is true that the honourable member for Mackellar has made two unequivocal statements about what the Liberals would do. Firstly, they would abolish the freedom of doctors to bulk bill, which was the question asked of me, and, secondly, they would reintroduce means tests into the public hospital system. There is some real difficulty in knowing where this Opposition stands on health policy because we have had a series of soft soap editorials by the Leader of the Opposition which suggest marginal changes at the edges-little brushings up at the edges; nothing serious-but then the Deputy Leader of the Opposition went to Albury and said Medicare would be scrapped. So we have the soft sell approach of the Leader and we have the Deputy Leader promising us that Medicare would be scrapped. Let us go to the real authority, the honourable member for Mackellar. We find that he says that a Liberal government would retain universal cover through Medicare-so he is on his Leader's side there-but then he says: 'We will scrap about three-quarters of it'. So he is on the side of the Deputy Leader in that case. I think the whole Australian population can see the utter and total confusion that exists in the Opposition ranks in regard to this matter. I come back to the honourable member for Mackellar's specific statements. On 14 September 1983 the honourable member for Mackellar said: We cannot live with so-called free public hospital beds regardless of patient's means. At least that is one unequivocal statement from the Opposition. As all members of this House would know, the guarantee of universal cover for public hospital treatment is one of the cornerstones of the Medicare program. If this access for every Australian to public hospital treatment is destroyed, the Opposition will destroy the Medicare system. Let me tell the Australian people what that would cost. Public hospital charges would be forced up to $140 a day. It is true that would net the State governments an extra $854m in revenue from means tested public hospitals. However, it would mean the abolition of the one per cent levy, which would cost $1,191m. It would mean the reintroduction of private insurance, and that would cost the Commonwealth $630m. It would mean the restoration of reinsurance pool subsidies, costing $80m. Any proposal like that put forward by the Opposition would be simply financial suicide. So the Opposition would do what it did in 1976. It would duplicate the first Fraser health scheme by increasing the levy to 2.5 per cent and give the people the choice of paying that 2.5 per cent levy or of belonging to a private health fund which would have rates of at least $15 a week. That is the Liberal system of choice-a two and a half per cent levy for the less well off and $15 a week for those who want flat rate private insurance. If that is not its theory, it should tell us how it will deal with the financial burdens that would follow. Then we have the second unequivocal statement from the honourable member for Mackellar. On 14 September 1983 he said: We cannot live with bulk billing for general patients as opposed to the disadvantaged. That means that over one million Australians will be denied direct billing services by their doctors. They will be compelled to pay. At the moment they are getting those services direct and free but this Opposition plans to deny at least one million Australians those directly billed services. The total confusion in the health area, the fact that we have had 18 months and no policy from the Opposition, will indicate one clear thing to the Australian people. The Opposition is bound on exactly the same course as it was in 1975-76. That course was a soft sell on Medibank until it got to power and then constant instability. Australia had five schemes in seven years. We are quite sure that on 1 December Australians will opt for stability in their health insurance arrangements. Mr SINCLAIR —Does the Deputy Prime Minister share the view of his colleague the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge that the Committee has been scrupulously careful to admit into evidence only those matters which would be admitted before a court in a criminal trial? Does he accept the Chairman's statement that in particular it is quite wrong to suggest, as the Minister did yesterday in another place, that any evidence has been improperly admitted? If so, will he now apologise for his intemperate remarks yesterday in this place and also tell the Premier of New South Wales that the Premier's remarks about Mr Clarrie Briese and about the Committee are damaging to the administration of justice in New South Wales and to the impartial operations of the Committee? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will acknowledge that my colleagues in the Senate have a sensitivity about their rights. Certainly when they heard reports of what I had said about the Senate in setting up a committee-which I did say-they felt that that was impugning their method of conduct in the Senate. I did not do that. To that extent I do apologise and I have apologised to my Chairman. The point that I want to make though is that yesterday-- Mr Peacock —Your chairman? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —To the Chairman of the Committee. Well, he is a member of my Party. I had better make the point that he was round to see me pretty soon last evening. He said: 'What are you accusing me of?' I said: 'Nothing'. But the question is serious in this sense. The Senate has set up a committee which appears to have a judicial aspect about it. There is a stack of QCs in there which I am now told cost $50,000 a day, not $20,000 a day. The other point is that it is an unusual inquiry. In terms of my defence in the matter, I point out that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked a question about what the Committee is dealing with. The right honourable member for New England followed it up with another question about what that Committee is dealing with. In attempting to defend the issue, of course, I have now put myself slightly offside with the Senate. But the issue is very serious in the context of what I did repeat in the statement. Two people are facing trial in New South Wales. As I think the right honourable gentleman, and even this House, will acknowledge, a fair amount of publicity has been given to what has happened in that Committee. I make the point that most of that has yet to be substantiated in evidence. The fact that publicity has been given and the fact that these people have to face juries in New South Wales will in my view affect the question of justice. Mr GEAR —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. By what percentage has the Government increased spending in the education portfolio for 1984-85? Is this percentage an increase in real terms? Is he aware of proposals to increase spending even further in this area? If so, has any costing of those proposals been prepared? Would the further expenditure on these proposals significantly increase the deficit unless there were corresponding cuts in other areas? Finally, is he aware of any proposals for equivalent cuts in expenditure to make room for these additional expenditures? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for Tangney for his question. The fact is that when this Government came into office it found an education system which had been allowed to run down under the administration of our predecessors. We found a situation in which the participation rates in education had fallen dramatically, in which the dropout rate of young people had risen dramatically and in which the number of young people going from school to continuing education in universities, colleges or technical and further education colleges had dropped alarmingly. We set about doing something about that. Over the two years we have restored the good health of the education system, although of course we cannot overcome all of the damage that was done to the education system by our predecessors. But, in conjunction with the States and with the non -government school sector, we are working towards that goal. In the 1984-85 Budget we provided an additional $458m for education, or an 11.2 per cent increase. That is on top of the $370m that we provided in our first Budget. The greatest proportional increase in education funding has been in the area of school funding and funding for TAFE. We have also acted in both Budgets to increase student allowances and to ease the means test to ensure that those allowances provide realistic assistance to students continuing in education. This year's Budget represents a 4.5 per cent real increase in education expenditure. I have seen some ideas which have come forward from the Opposition. At this stage they are fairly vague and bland and fairly difficult to cost-that is, unless one were to cost the rhetoric, in which case they would cost a fortune. We do see that in those proposals there is a basic competencies program which would cost at least $5m, a teacher exchange program which would cost at least half a million dollars, extra resources to non-government schools which would cost $12m, a computer education program which would cost $14m, an increase in the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance to bring it up to the rate of the unemployment benefit, which would cost $57m, a review of higher education which would cost half a million dollars and an open university which would cost about $15m-a total of over $100m which the Opposition intends to add to education outlays. I wish to make two points about that. The Opposition has not suggested any areas which might be eliminated in order to make way for this additional expenditure, so one assumes that this is on top of the existing education outlays and would therefore add $100m to the deficit. The other point is that it is extraordinary that it is only when the Liberal Party and the National Party are in opposition that they begin to realise the deficiencies which they created in the education system. What were they doing for seven years in relation to funding for student assistance and the important areas of school funding? This Government believes that by careful, prudent and well targeted increases in education spending, we are providing the sort of education system that all Australians ought to expect. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I direct my question to the Minister for Health and stealth. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will address his question properly or he will sit down. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I address my question to the Minister for Health. Prior to Medicare was any Australian who fell ill allowed 60 days worry-free accommodation in a public or private hospital and, after 60 days, was he or she allowed a wide range of reasons, if necessary, to extend the stay without loss of benefits? Why has this 60 days been reduced to 35 days under Medicare and why is the patient's doctor now required to prove 'need of acute care' for the patient to remain in hospital without incurring, for many, crippling out-of- pocket expenses? Dr BLEWETT —Many accusations have been made against me, but hardly that of stealth. The previous Government introduced a 60-day rule which required a certification at the end of 60 days as to whether the patient required acute care. When revising the program for Medicare, it was decided in discussions with the funds that a 35-day rule would apply, the major reason for that being that most patients in hospital for that period of five weeks were usually there for the period that the Liberals had introduced-eight weeks. We refined the certification but there was no intention in that certification to change the rules with regard to acute care. Indeed, by making it simply acute care we accepted the advice of the Australian Medical Association that this was essentially a matter for the professional integrity of doctors to decide. Mr LINDSAY —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of proposals for an underwriting scheme for the sugar industry? Does the Minister consider that an underwriting scheme holds the answers to the sugar industry's problems? Mr KERIN —One of the 13 meaningful paragraphs out of the Opposition's 162 rambling paragraphs on primary industry policy says that the Liberal and National parties will introduce an underwriting scheme for the sugar industry. They do not cost it or give any details. Indeed, I understand that this week the Leader of the National Party was in Queensland where he indicated that an underwriting scheme would be no panacea for the sugar industry's problems. It is reported in Townsville's North Queensland Register that he gave the definite impression that the coalition does not believe in an underwriting scheme. The whole question of underwriting is basically a technical question. If the Opposition is to make these irresponsible promises, it should tell the sugar industry what will be the coverage of such a scheme, what will be the reference price, what will be the reference period, what will be the level of support and whether the scheme will be gross or net. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has worked out various permutations for an underwriting scheme, under which nothing would have been paid over the last two years. The Industries Assistance Commission's underwriting scheme would pay nothing this year. The joint industry group's formulation, in terms of those parameters I have just nominated, would have paid out $180m this coming year. The Opposition spokesman for primary industry basically composes the policy after talking with industry leadership. It is essentially a wish list. I assume that the Opposition is quite happily taking on this $180m underwriting scheme for this current year. Following a Cabinet meeting this week and also following a meeting with the leadership of the sugar industry last week, I have been trying to get to speak to the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries again on some aspects of assistance to the industry. Unfortunately, Mr Turner says he is too busy to talk to me until 24 October. Mr Kruger, one of the Opposition spokesmen in Queensland on this industry, of course is not too busy; he is here today. I can talk to him. Mr Hallam, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in New South Wales, is not too busy to talk to me, and I will be talking to him on Friday of this week. Both the Queensland Minister and I have had meetings in Queensland with the sugar industry. I have now been to about eighteen. Mr Turner recently visited the super-wet belt but the Queensland Government, which has always regarded the sugar industry as its preserve, obviously does not have any answers for that area. I ask members of the Opposition how they can really say that they will be fiscally frugal when they quite happily take on $180m extra for the sugar industry. If we add up the coalition's promises, they come to about $310m extra. Total spending by the Government this year is at about that level; they promise another $310m-double the amount already promised. That extra $310m is more than the Liberal-National Party coalition spent on primary industry during the whole time it was in government. It is easy to promise $108m for the export inspection service, it is easy to promise the no-threshold payment on natural disaster relief arrangements and it is easy to promise another $34m for research and promotion. Of course the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, this fiscally frugal man, will quite happily go along with the National Party because the coalition parties like to speak to different audiences. It is a very divided coalition and that is part of the reason for this approach. The two parties say one thing to one group and another thing to another. They can promise the world in one setting but, in another setting, they say no, they have to be fiscally frugal and keep the Budget deficit down. I put it to the honourable member for Herbert, who takes a close interest in the sugar industry, as does the honourable member for Leichhardt, that the problem the coalition parties face is that they cannot be consistent. As we all know, there is no joint Senate ticket in Queensland or Victoria. Prominent Liberals have joined the National Party recently in Melbourne; in New South Wales the National Party has been telling the Liberals to 'get to hell out of the bush'; and in Victoria the National Party is raising $1m to assault Liberal seats. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is a requirement that an answer should be relevant to the question. I think the Minister is straying rather wide. I ask him to wind up his answer. Mr KERIN —Mr Speaker, I was trying to point out that the big problem of inconsistency in the coalition-the fact that the Liberal Party can say that it needs to keep the Budget deficit down and the National Party can promise things with ease-arises simply because the parties are not agreed. It is a very shaky, shonky coalition. The parties are fighting each other in every State. They are split. There are even two country parties in Western Australia, not one. They cannot even work out whether they want to split with the Liberal Party there. The greatest irony of all, of course, is dawn-raid Everingham. He straddles both parties. He cannot work out which one he wants to be in. Perhaps he wants to sit cross-wise, cross-legged on the cross benches. Mr MACPHEE —I refer the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to this statement last night by the National Director of the Metal Trades Industry Association: The much-vaunted accord between the ALP and the trade union movement has in practice done nothing to assist manufacturing industry to become more competitive. On the contrary, the accord has made it worse, because although the accord is between the Government and the unions it requires a third party, that is the employers of Australia, to continually dish out more money and more benefits. I ask the Minister: As manufacturers throughout Australia are now apprehensive about their future, what steps is the Government taking to ensure that these damaging consequences of the accord are rectified? Mr WILLIS —I have noted the comments of Mr Evans of the Metal Trades Industry Association. I can understand Mr Evans's concern about the state of his industry . Clearly it is going through a rough period. However, that rough period is particularly attributable to the structural problems faced by the metal industry , largely because of the ending of the resources boom and the impact that has had by way of the diminished demand in the metal industries and the heavy engineering industry as a whole. Of course it is also partly to do with the fact that when prospects looked much brighter wage increases in that industry were conceded which were clearly beyond the capacity of that industry to pay and which then led to great troubles for the industry and indeed for the whole of the economy. It is important for it to be clear that we totally reject the allegations by Mr Evans that the accord has been damaging to the metal industry and to manufacturing industry as a whole. I strongly assert that, on the contrary, the accord has been of great assistance to manufacturing industry in various ways. Quite clearly, it has had a major effect in reducing real labour unit costs. As I have said to the House previously, there is now no doubt that real unit labour costs are down to the levels of the late 1960s and early 1970s. On the other side of that coin, the profit share is on the upturn. Therefore, we are getting that area of costs and profit shares back into the more normal state which prevails at times of high employment. Last year we had an increase in wages of 4.3 per cent, and this year 4.1 per cent, for most employees. These rates of wage increase are far below the rates which applied in the period of the Fraser Government. Under the Fraser Government award wages increased on average by 10 per cent per annum. The wage increases occurring now are clearly far below that level. The accord, therefore, has played a major part in bringing about that reduction in real labour unit costs. Moreover, it has done so in a way which has had the acceptance of the trade union movement. It has also built in a system in which wage justice applies. The accord has also enabled a reduction in the inflation rate, which has been halved under this Government and which is forecast in the course of this year to be only 5.25 per cent. It has also provided the basis upon which interest rates have been able to fall. We expect a further decline in interest rates in the course of this financial year. With the freeing of the exchange rate, we have also seen that side of things improve. The depreciation of the currency has improved the competitive position of manufacturing industry. Thus, in a whole range of ways this Government has sought to assist manufacturing industry by setting right the basic economic parameters. It is quite wrong for Mr Evans to accuse us of taking action which has not been in the interests of manufacturing industry as a whole. Indeed, if one looks at what has happened to manufacturing industry, one sees the improvement that has occurred. I remind the House that in the last 12 months of the Fraser Government, employment in manufacturing industry declined by 101,000. In the 12 months to August this year we have seen an increase, admittedly small at just under 10,000 , but at least we have stopped the decline in jobs in manufacturing industry and we are back on a growth path. Moreover, between May and August this year employment in manufacturing industry on a seasonally adjusted basis has grown strongly. On my Department's seasonally adjusted figures, there was a growth of about 17,000 in the course of that three-month period. Job vacancies as shown by the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group series, seasonally adjusted, show strong growth over the last few months. There is absolutely no doubt that manufacturing industry is on a strong recovery path. It is certainly true that the metal trades industry will be the last segment of manufacturing industry to recover because of particular structural problems it is experiencing, but it will recover, along with the rest of manufacturing industry, so long as the present Government's policies continue to apply. In that regard, Mr Evans should recall what happened when the centralised wages system was dropped in 1981 and we went to a system of industry bargaining. I say to him and to others who think like him, particularly the Opposition, which also would have us drop the centralised system and go to some industry bargaining system: Think back to what happened in 1981. There were negotiations in the metal industry, a $39 a week wage rise and a 38-hour week. The impact on manufacturing industry and on the economy as a whole was clearly very adverse. It was beyond the capacity of industry to pay. Quite clearly it flowed through the whole economy. That is what would happen again if we were to drop the centralised system and go back to the kind of wages system which the Opposition would have if by some incredible mischance it were to become the government of this country. There is no doubt that the wages system presently being pursued by this Government is highly conducive to economic growth and to recovery of manufacturing industry. That recovery is occurring and will continue to occur quite strongly over the next several years. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Is the Minister for Transport able to provide the House with the cost of the Opposition's promises on transport matters? If so, what would be the annual effect on the deficit? Mr PETER MORRIS —That is a good question. I thank the honourable member for it, but it is a very difficult task he gives me because there are so many Opposition spokesmen on transport. Mr Donald Cameron —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In all fairness, would that not be out of order? Mr SPEAKER —No, the question was in order. I call the Minister for Transport. Mr PETER MORRIS —As I was saying, a difficult task has been given to me because there are so many Opposition spokesmen on transport. There are the honourable member for Hume, the honourable member for Dawson, the Deputy Leader of the National Party, and the Leader of the Opposition. There are some others who have each espoused views on transport, but there is no consistency in the views they put. Each has his own policy, depending on the area of Australia he comes from. The fact also is that no transport policy has been announced by the Opposition. Mr Lusher —At least ours will come out before the election. Yours didn't last time. Mr PETER MORRIS —I draw the House's attention to a notice of motion given by the honourable member for Hume on 6 September which reads: That this House- . . . commends the Opposition for its far-sighted and national interest-based transport policies being espoused by the Shadow Minister for Transport. I simply say to the honourable member: That was said in September. Where is the policy? No policy has been announced. That is the difficulty we have in the electoral sense. The one element of consistency in the Opposition's transport policy has been the attack of the National Party on the benefits being provided to Tasmania. That is the one thing in which there has been consistency. The next thing is that the National Party seems to have deserted completely the special constituencies of rural Australia that it claims to represent. Transport has a great significance to people in rural Australia and to the products they send to market. I can identify only two items in the Opposition's policy: One is the Alice Springs-Darwin railway at a cost of $1,000m. The second is the Wild supertrain, which would cost $4,000m. Those two items are identifiable; neither is economically viable. If one considers the cost on an annual deficit basis over 10 years, as an addition to the deficit, we are looking at about $500m a year. One could say that that is consistent with the record of those now in opposition when they were in government because they were the big spenders. They were the big taxers. Mr Howard —Fairyland. Mr PETER MORRIS —The little man opposite, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, was responsible for the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the Australian electorate. He is the man who sought to conceal the magnitude of the deficit the previous Government put to the electorate at the last election. No doubt he will try the same thing again; he is consistent in that way. This Government has given a major priority to the improvement of our national transport network. I can assure the House and the people of Australia that after 1 December we will maintain that priority. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge and ask him whether he can give the House a categorical assurance that the Government will not make any attempt to prevent the due completion of the Senate inquiry. Mr HAWKE —Yes. Mr PUNCH —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In the Government's experience, is it possible to increase outlays, cut taxes overall, and reduce the deficit? Mr HAWKE —This answer will take a little longer than the last one, Mr Speaker. The Government's economic policies and management reflect on our part a very clear understanding of the basic economic reality that it is not possible to increase outlays, reduce taxes overall and reduce the deficit, all at the same time. I have already said in speeches to the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Business Council of Australia that in this Government's next Budget, which will be brought down by us next year, there will be no overall increase in the level of taxes, but the deficit will be further reduced by ensuring that the rate of growth in outlays is less than the rate of economic growth. The Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues fail to understand these basic elementary economic maxims. Their failure to understand them was reflected , of course, in their appalling record of economic management. It is no wonder that their incompetence is now universally recognised by the business community not only here but also overseas. It is not only the business community which recognises their incompetence. It is interesting to look at the Age poll published today which shows that the general public shares the business community's view of the economic incompetence of the Opposition and the far greater competence of this Government compared with the Liberal Party alternative. In the Age poll published today, when the people of Australia were asked which party was the relatively more competent in economic management, we out-polled the Opposition by more than two to one-54 per cent to 25 per cent. So the business community knows how incompetent it is and the Australian community at large knows that the Australian Labor Party is an infinitely more competent party in government than is the Opposition. The failure of the Leader of the Opposition to appreciate these elementary economic maxims is perhaps understandable but not excusable because in his very long period in the Parliament he never occupied a portfolio which required hard economic decision-making for longer than the briefest of periods. So we can understand but not excuse the Leader of the Opposition. But we cannot say the same thing about the pretender to the throne, the honourable member for Bennelong, because he knows better but he does not have the courage to say so. Mr Speaker, you have heard from some of my Ministers in answers to questions so far an outline of some of the incredible additional spending that has been proposed by those opposite. It is a matter of very great importance to the people of this country, I suggest, that the Government's costing of the firm and unequivocal additional expenditure and tax expenditure commitments made by the Leader of the Opposition and others amounts to about $2.5 billion. Government members-How much? Mr HAWKE —About $2.5 billion. That is firm and unequivocal. But if we add to the firm and unequivocal commitments also the indicative commitments, they add up to about $7 billion in additional outlays. May I say parenthetically that that, of course, does not include any outlays for what they would say is owed to the people of this country for the $22 a week-- Mr Goodluck —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. For one year I have been trying to ask a question and every time it comes to my turn the Prime Minister rants and raves. He is just taking up my time each time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAWKE —It is very strange that the Opposition has been attempting to paint this Government, with its great record of economic achievement, as a high spending, high taxing government. When-and we are all waiting for it-in the next week or so the Opposition releases its tax policies, it will no doubt attempt to claim that all it has to cover is the existing level of outlays. I have shown that that is not the case, that it is committed to an infinitely greater amount- perhaps up to $7 billion-in additional outlays. The key question that members of the Opposition will need to answer, and which we will be asking them every day of every week until 1 December, is a very simple question which has echoed around the political corridors of Australia in previous years: Where is the money coming from? In order to show them a little understanding, I will give them a simple economic exposition. The reality is that the only ways in which the Leader of the Opposition would be able to honour the various commitments that he and others have made all over the country would be by increasing taxes, or by running the risk of having higher interest rates by making the deficit blow out further or, of course, by reducing outlays by the amount of additional spending promises that he makes. We will be very interested to hear which of the $7 billion of existing outlays the Opposition proposes to cut out. In the weeks ahead the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues will rue the loose promises they have been making all over the country. They have been able to make loose promises, knowing that they will never have to bear the responsibility in office of giving effect to them. Mr McVEIGH —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. I ask- - Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —I suggest that the House come to order. Mr Peter Morris —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it in order for the honourable member for Franklin to claim that he has been robbed-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Transport will resume his seat. That is not a point of order. Mr Peter Morris —He has not risen to his feet to ask a question. How can he deny that he has been given the opportunity? Mr SPEAKER —I warn the Minister for Transport. I call the honourable member for Darling Downs. Mr McVEIGH —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the disturbing industrial action affecting the dairy industry in Sydney today? Is it the intransigence of the Victorian Labor Minister which has led to the failure to implement the national dairy industry marketing plan? Does the Minister intend to take action to stop milk being sold across State borders? If so, when and how will he do so? Mr KERIN —I am sure that the honourable member for Franklin could have asked a better question than that, if he had had one ready. Mr SPEAKER —I remind the Minister that the honourable member for Franklin did not get the call. Mr KERIN —Thank you. I was very interested that the honourable member for Darling Downs should ask a question about this because on other public occasions he has demonstrated a great ignorance of the dairy industry. I draw his attention to an article in the Advertiser of 19 June headed 'McVeigh stuns rural sector'. He was talking about the dairy industry. After reporting that he had stunned an audience of experts on wheat, wine, the drought, plant variety rights and the export inspection service, the article states: The final straw for the embattled Mr McVeigh came when SA Dairy Farmers' Association secretary David Higbed expressed incredulity at a statement in the rural policy, apropos the dairy industry . . . The honourable Member was reported as saying: ''Domestic pricing will be freed up to attract sufficient milk production to meet Australian domestic requirements on a year-round basis.'' Mr Higbed was reported as stating: ''We have never yet, in living memory, failed to produce that much milk, and over and above that in abundance.'' The article concluded: All in all, it wasn't a good day for Tom McVeigh . . . The honourable member has asked a serious question. Industrial action is being taken in New South Wales today and in Victoria, as I understand it, because of the threat of a milk war across State borders. The immediate issue before the industry is the total industry revenue and the preservation of the market milk premium. There is no need for me to go through with the House the history of this problem in the dairy industry. The Government has been most assiduous in trying to get the parties together. We should understand that we have to get the industry in agreement and the States in agreement and then I have to take it to Cabinet. Mr McVeigh —They are, except Victoria. Mr KERIN —The States are not in agreement. As the honourable member points out, Victoria has reservations about the Australian Dairy Industry Conference's levy entitlement scheme. I called a special meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council on, I think, the Thursday before last. Again, even with all the States there together with the ADIC, no agreement was reached at that meeting. The one aspect on which there was unanimous agreement was the decision to ask the market milk co-ordinating committee to report within 28 days on whether the current uncertainty surrounding the marketing of liquid milk was a sufficient justification to proclaim the 1977 Dairy Industry Assistance Levy Act. That committee will get back to me at the latest by 25 October. That committee is working. It met last week. I have a report of that meeting before me now. I was discussing this question with my officials this morning. The Government is aware of this problem and it will be addressing it this week. Mr WELLS —I address my question to the Treasurer, who was recently acclaimed as international finance Minister of the year for having presided over the world's most resurgent economy. Can the Treasurer advise the House whether the Government expects the Budget deficit to be reduced in future years? What role will changes to the taxation system play in that achievement? Mr KEATING —The honourable gentleman asks whether I expect to see reductions in Budget deficits in future years. He also asked about the role of taxation. Let me say in respect of the Budget deficit for 1985-86 that I can give an unequivocal yes to that question. There will be a reduction in the Budget deficit under this Government in 1985-86. It is our intention as recovery proceeds to pull the deficits back. I indicate that this outcome will be achieved not by relying upon an increase in the tax burden but rather by relying upon growth and a firm approach to expenditure review, which this Government has indicated in two Budgets it has been prepared to do. In two Budgets we have seen substantial savings by the Government in ambitious expenditure review procedures . After the conspiracy between the former Prime Minister and the former Treasurer to hide the true state of fiscal policy in 1982-83, this Government has reduced the Budget deficit from a prospective $9.6 billion to $6.7 billion, a reduction of just on $3 billion over the course of the two Budgets. I indicate that no such prospect is likely to emerge under the Liberals. Indeed, when one looks at their taxation promises, one can see that it is absurd for anybody on their side to suggest that they can run an even modestly respectable fiscal policy. I think it may be worth while detailing to the House the precise, specific and unequivocal promises on tax reform made by the Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy. They have promised unequivocally to abolish the lump sum superannuation tax at a cost of $300m; they have promised to abolish the coal export levy at a cost of $60m; they have promised to abolish the wine tax at a cost of $62m; they have promised to abolish the new oil excise at a cost of $317m; they have promised to extend the investment allowance and increase its rate to 20 per cent at a cost of $600m a year; they have promised to provide a special tax deduction for manufacturing systems at a cost of about $10m a year; they have promised to abolish the so-called double tax of company income and dividends at a cost of approximately $400m a year; and they have promised to introduce a 50 per cent premium for deductions in relation to research expenditure at a cost of about $ 90m a year. Those unequivocal and firm commitments by the Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy-I am not relying on things said by members of the back bench or picking up references that someone has made-amount to $1,839m. The Commonwealth would forgo revenue of that amount of money. It does not stop there because there is an even firmer commitment to raise the 46 per cent threshold in the income tax scale so that anyone on adult full time average weekly earnings would not be caught at all by the 46 per cent bracket. The cost of that in a full year would be $2,065m. I can be that precise about that. The firm commitments I listed plus the 46 per cent rate step would cost revenue $3.9 billion. One has to ask whether, given the unfortunate prospect of a coalition government in Australia, the Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy are saying that they would have an $11 billion Budget deficit. That is precisely what they have said. One would not mind if they detailed expenditure cuts, but they have a myriad of expenditure outlays. I have not touched on the expenditures. The Prime Minister mentioned them a few moments ago. So what we would see under a coalition government is not a fiscal policy with a winding down in the deficit as growth came through and as the government undertook expenditure reviews; rather we would see high deficits, high interest rates and, of course, a slow-down in economic activity back to recession levels. I give the unequivocal commitment that there will be reductions in the Budget deficit in 1985-86 under this Government as there have been in the two Budgets of this Government. That is a clear commitment by a responsible Government in office. Contrast that to the ratbaggery of the Opposition in tax and outlay promises. As the Prime Minister said, the Opposition will be asked plenty of times to say where the money is coming from and where it is going to. The Opposition will be reminded of its disastrous fiscal legacy. It will be reminded of its obfuscation and duplicity. It will be reminded of its incompetence. It will be reminded once and for all that firm commitments of this kind will come back to haunt it. Mr SPEAKER —Prime Minister? Mr Hawke —I would like the honourable member for Franklin to have the opportunity to ask his question. Mr GOODLUCK —I am absolutely stunned. I would like to thank honourable members opposite for this opportunity. Is the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment aware of reports that the Tasmanian Wilderness Society, backed by elements of the Tasmanian branch of the Australian Labor Party, particularly the left wing, wants to establish a western Tasmanian conservation area which would lock up a further 14.1 per cent of Tasmania? Is it correct that the Australian Heritage Commission supports the proposal? Is it true that this proposal would do great harm to the great Tasmanian forestry industry, which employs over 14,000 men and women and is worth over $20m to the economy of Tasmania? Is it true that there are elements alive and kicking in Australia, particularly the greenies, trendies and radical minority groups, which include some journalists-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have been pretty tolerant with the honourable member for Franklin. I appreciate that he has been waiting to ask the question, but I suggest that he leave a lot of the information that he is giving out of his question. Mr GOODLUCK —I have nearly finished. I am coming to the punch line now. Is it true that there are elements alive and kicking in Australia who want to make Tasmania a playground for their ideology? Will the Minister ensure the House that he will not use Commonwealth legislation to take control of another large slice of Tasmania as he did in the dams case? Minister, I am not putting one over you here-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr GOODLUCK —This letter was received-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I take it that the honourable member for Franklin has completed his question. Mr COHEN —I am tempted to say just 'yes'; but, in view of the fact that the honourable member has waited so long to ask this question, I will not. The House will be aware of the history of that part of Tasmania that is designated as an area on the World Heritage List. It is not the intention of this Government to move to extend that area unless the Tasmanian Government approaches us to add small sections to it. Thus, the question of any vast extension of that area, which would then be within the World Heritage park, is not going to be looked into by this Government. The question of Commonwealth sovereignty does not arise. There has been some concern expressed by people from Tasmania that certain areas are being added to the National Estate. There seems to be confusion in the minds of a lot of people that listing on the National Estate automatically gives the Commonwealth sovereignty over that area. All it requires is that in the event of Commonwealth action in that area the proponent Minister must take note of the fact that it is on the National Estate. A number of things have been listed on the National Estate where the Minister, after weighing everything up, has decided that certain projects must proceed, but that concerns only those areas where there is Commonwealth action. I can assure the honourable member that there is no proposal by the Commonwealth to take the sort of action that he is concerned about. Mr SPEAKER —I present a report, together with the minutes of proceedings, the transcript of evidence and three exhibits, from the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, being a report that the Committee has been unable to complete its inquiry into televising and radio broadcasting of Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —Pursuant to statute I present the annual reports and financial statements of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia, together with the Auditor-General's report thereon for the year ended 30 June 1984. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members I present the report on the activities of the Film Censorship Board for 1983, together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) relating to the report. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973, I present the report of the Law Reform Commission on its reference concerning foreign state immunity, together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) relating to the report. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 171 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, I present the Trade Practices Commission annual report for 1983-84, together with the text of a statement by the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) relating to the report. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members I present the Accounting Standards Review Board annual report for the period 1 January to 30 June 1984, together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) relating to the report. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members I present a report on the legal needs of social security claimants, together with the text of a joint statement by the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) relating to the report. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House I present the Department of Finance annual report for 1983-84. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House I present a statement on issues from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for August 1984. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance and Acting Minister for Housing and Construction) —On behalf of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford ) and for the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of Housing and Construction for 1983-84. The report also covers those matters on which the Minister is required to report pursuant to section 53 (2) of the Home Savings Grant Act 1976, pursuant to section 64 (2) of the Home Deposit Assistance Act 1982 and pursuant to section 41 (2) of the First Home Owners Act 1983. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation) —Pursuant to section 32 of the Independent Air Fares Committee Act 1981, I present the Independent Air Fares Committee annual report for 1983-84. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce and Industry) —Pursuant to section 30K of the Industries Assistance Act 1973, I present the annual report of the Temporary Assistance Authority for the year ended 30 June 1984. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce and Industry) —For the information of honourable members I present the Industries Assistance Commission's report on injection moulding machines and parts. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Task Force on Aboriginal and Islander Broadcasting and Communications entitled 'Out of the Silent Land'. A very limited number of copies of this report are available from the Bills and Papers Office. Further copies will be made available to honourable members as soon as possible. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —On behalf of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and for the information of honourable members I present the Australian Veterans' Health Studies Mortality Report-parts one to three-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) relating to the report. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Pursuant to section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 I present a proposal for the construction of a building in the Parliamentary Zone to house the National Archive and Exposition. In doing so I include my colleague the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) who has ministerial responsibility for the Australian Archives. The views of the Joint Committee on the New Parliament House are also being sought. When those views are available I shall be in a position to take further action under the Parliament Act to seek approval of the work by the House. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CONNOLLY —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —I will allow the honourable member to proceed. Mr CONNOLLY —Thank you, Mr Speaker. During Question Time today I asked the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) a question about social security and trade agreements with Italy, and he responded by alleging that I was suggesting that there is a link between the two agreements. I emphasise to the House that I did not make that allegation. What I asked the Minister was whether his advisers had suggested that such a link should be the basis of negotiations. He failed to answer that question. Unless he tables the correspondence of negotiations-I will not withdraw-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has gone beyond the scope of a personal explanation. Assent reported. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar ( Mr Carlton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The acute crisis faced by the Australian health care system in dealing with the problems of the long-term sick and elderly. 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 CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.10) —Today I am not going to talk about the costs of Medicare. I am not going to raise once again in the House, as I have on previous occasions, whether the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that nine out of 10 Australians will pay less for their health care has in fact been met. I am not raising the question of whether Medicare is the simplest, cheapest and fairest health scheme we have ever had in Australia. What I am doing today is examining Medicare according to the most important measure of all-what does it do for those who are sick? I will concentrate particularly on what Medicare is doing for the long term sick and elderly, for chronic patients, old or young. The basic question is: Has Medicare improved the quality of health care since it was introduced? Have we been better or worse off in our health care, in the kind of treatment that patients get since 1 February 1984? That is the very simple question that I pose to the House today. The Opposition does not claim that all was perfect before the introduction of Medicare. There were many things in the old system that I, as Minister for Health in the previous Government, was concerned about, and there were many aspects of the system that we were examining and changing gradually to improve the system. But that system had very considerable strengths. It represented improvements and changes brought about by all those involved over the course of 100 years or more. Basically the Australian health system was very good. Dr Chang, head of the heart transplant unit in St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, said during the recent doctors dispute in New South Wales that the Australian health care system was the best in the world. He had fled the British National Health Service to escape the bureaucratic controls and regulations of a nationalised system in order to work happily in the best health care system in the world. Mr Howard —And that is the one the Government is abolishing. Mr CARLTON —Yes, that is the scheme that the Government is abolishing, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) so rightly points out. This is the scheme which the Government has turned on its head to follow a 20-year-old failed socialist model and to take it in the direction of greater government control, less choice for the patients and those concerned with the scheme and a more centralised administration. What is the outcome in practical terms of turning the health scheme upside down and moving it in the direction of more government control? What does it mean in practical terms for patients and their families? How are they being affected in human terms? Let us take it at the simplest level. Let us look at individuals and families who are not very well off but have small children who need to see doctors frequently or perhaps have family members who suffer chronic illness. Under the old scheme such families relied on the security provided by insuring for the schedule medical fee. They paid, certainly at some expense to themselves , but with a tax rebate, a weekly or monthly contribution and following that they felt secure that, regardless of how many times they had to visit the doctor and however chronic their illness, they would be paid the full schedule fee from their medical insurance fund. What has Medicare done about that? Medicare has made that kind of private medical insurance illegal. There is now only one legal medical insurance fund in Australia and that is the nationalised Medicare system run by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and his Health Insurance Commission. That is the same Health Insurance Commission which under his direction is spending $800,000 of taxpayers ' funds in what is basically dishonest political advertising in the teeth of a Federal election campaign. This socialist instrument is the only means by which one can take out medical insurance under levy and one is allowed to insure only for up to 85 per cent of the schedule medical fee. One cannot insure for the the gap any more and therefore chronic patients and families with children find that these gaps build up and that they have a concern and a worry about meeting their medical bills. Admittedly, the Government has introduced a provision whereby, if one adds up gaps of $150 over the course of a year, subsequently one can get back 100 per cent of the schedule fee. But that $150 applies only to individual patients; it does not apply to a complete family. One could have four children, each one building up gap costs, but only when they build up to $150 each and one has a total gap of $600 can that family qualify for the 100 per cent rebate. That was not made clear to the public when the scheme was introduced in the fraudulent and misleading prospectus that was put out for Medicare. It was not clear to those people. In addition, the mechanics of claiming for the gap are extraordinarily difficult. One has to go through quite difficult procedures in most cases to have the sum of those gaps added up in the Medicare computer. People have also been discouraged from taking out private hospital insurance by the Minister's propaganda and by his constant statements. Private hospital insurance is still not illegal in Australia-not yet. It is worth pointing out that under Medicare in Canada it is illegal, and that is one of the models that the Minister is known to favour. At this moment we are still able to insure for a private hospital bed-either for private treatment in a public hospital or for a bed in a private hospital. But the Minister has said: 'You get a free bed in a public hospital, so why take out private hospital insurance? There is no need to '. As a result of people taking this advice there has been a 20 per cent drop in the number of patients who are privately insured. The result of that is that enormous numbers of people have come along to the public hospitals, people who could well afford to insure privately, and demanded their free hospital bed under Medicare. The end result of that is that there are queues in the public hospitals, queues that are much worse than they ever were before and in many cases queues where there were never queues before. At the same time, in many private hospitals there are empty beds because of the fall-off in private insurance and also because of the categorisation scheme for private hospitals which is sending the lowest level of private hospitals bankrupt. The Minister has said that these things are not very bad in Victoria, that there had always been queues and they are not much worse now. Originally it was claimed in the Age newspaper and in the Melbourne Herald that there were 3,000 people on waiting lists in Victoria. Subsequently it was found that there were some 8,000 people on waiting lists for public hospital beds in Victoria. But most recently it has emerged on figures provided by the Victorian Health Minister, Mr Roper, that the figure is closer to 15,000. I know this is a fact by visiting Ballarat where, before Medicare, there were no queues in the public hospital, and now there are 400 people on the waiting list in Ballarat and those people are the poorest, the pensioners and those in pain with what are said to be elective surgery requirements. Such requirements are still very painful for the old and the sick. Previously they could get into the Ballarat Base Hospital without waiting in a queue, but now there are 400 in the queue and people needing hip replacements, for example, have to wait at least two years and in many cases cannot even get a place in the queue. What has this Government done? It has promised free beds in public hospitals to people who can well afford to insure. It has created queues in the public hospitals. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) may well look querulous about this. He comes from Victoria. He should speak to the State Minister, because in Victoria the public hospital system has been brought to its knees by this Minister, and the pensioners, the poor and the inarticulate are at the end of the queue. In addition, the Government has cut out a reinsurance contribution of $80m from the taxpayer. This was a contribution to the private funds to enable them to pay out money to the chronically sick and the long term sick so that, when people had paid their private insurance premiums for years and years, when they really needed assistance when they were old and sick and had to stay in private hospitals for a long time they would have the benefit. Those benefits have been reduced. People who had felt secure ever since the measure introduced by Mr Gorton after his 1969 policy speech, by which the sick and the elderly could be assured of maintaining their level of private insurance cover, now find that this assurance has been removed by this Minister and this Government. Therefore, people who are at their lowest and who believe that by subscribing for years to these funds they are secure will find that at the very moment they need assistance their benefits are reduced. Either they are out of pocket or they face the desperate problem of trying to find a bed in a public hospital, and those public hospital beds are simply not available. If a person goes to the public hospitals in the major cities of Australia and asks whether they will take chronically sick, long term, elderly patients, that person will be discouraged. They will say: 'Maybe you can get into a nursing home'; but there has been a freeze on nursing home beds. They will say: 'Maybe you can get into a private hospital'; but under the Medicare arrangements a person cannot join a private fund if he has a pre-existing condition. He has nowhere to go. The families of such people are becoming desperate. In addition, we have the notorious 35-day rule. In Question Time the Minister was deliberately and absolutely misleading about the 35-day rule. He was asked by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) whether there were new rules whereby, after 35 days, a patient in a public or private hospital had to have a 3B certificate signed by a doctor to say that he was in continuing need of acute care, otherwise he had to leave the hospital or pay additional out of pocket expenses. The Minister suggested that this rule had been introduced by a Liberal government. A 60-day rule was certainly introduced by a Liberal government, and I do not deny that; but the Minister failed to point out, and he did so deliberately because I have raised this matter before with him in the House and pointed out this error, that originally under the 60-day rule the grounds were much looser than they now are. There were four grounds on which a doctor could say by certificate that a person should stay in hospital and retain full benefits. The four grounds were these: Acute care, professional attention for an acute phase of a patient's condition, active rehabilitation, and continued management for medical reasons as an in-patient. The Minister very deliberately misled this House about the major change, not from 60 days to 35, although that is bad enough, but the reduction in number and quality of the criteria from four to one, leaving the single criterion of acute care. Mr Howard —That is ruthless. Mr CARLTON —That is ruthless, and it was a misleading of this House. It means in practical terms-people whose families are not in this position will not understand-that a terminally ill patient may not meet the acute care criterion. I know this because I had a neighbour in this condition. He was being forced out of hospital. To stay he would have had to pay an additional $50 a day, which he could not afford. He had to find a bed in a nursing home. There has been a freeze on nursing home beds and there are queues for every nursing home. I managed to get that patient into a war veterans nursing home, with great difficulty. The patient left hospital and about three weeks later he died. He was a terminally ill patient who could not meet the 3B certificate criterion. Every time this matter comes up in the Parliament, or publicly, or in a letter to the Sunday Mail in Queensland, as it did the other day, when the Minister viciously attacked a journalist who had dared question the 35-day rule, the Minister will obfuscate, mislead and try to avoid giving an explanation. He has brought in a rule that, not after 60 but after 35 days, not with four relatively loose criteria but with one criterion of acute continuing care, a 3B certificate must be obtained. What happens to the patient if that criterion is not met? He has to leave the public or private hospital; or, if it is a public hospital, pay $12.40 a day and still maintain his home, or, if it is a private hospital, pay at least $50 a day extra out of his own pocket or require the private hospital to carry the cost burden. These are the practical human outcomes of this inhuman scheme. These will be made known to the people of Australia over the forthcoming seven weeks. This Minister and this Government, with their cruel, calculating, socialist schemes, will be exposed for exactly what they are. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(3.25) —It has now become clear that the Opposition, with certain elements of the Medicare scheme, is not concerned with any creative ideas about improving health care in this country whatsoever. It is simply creating the same kinds of scares and terrors that it tried to create with the assets test. It has no health policy of its own. It has suggested no aged care policy for this country. We have had again today and we had the other day-much of it dishonest, as I will instance in a moment-tactics to terrorise, particularly the elderly and the sick. Increasingly around this country we are seeing protests from pensioner groups about the tactics employed by the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). I noted the other day that the Australian Pensioner in its editorial of 11 September 1984 said of the Opposition: No Opposition which sets out to win a point by creating such anxiety in a community can ever be regarded as worthy of governing that community. The same editorial said to the Opposition: Don't play on the ignorance, the fear and insecurity of this most vulnerable group. I suggest to the honourable member for Mackellar that he take notice of that advice. We are now eight weeks from an election. We have had no health policy from the Opposition. As I said in answer to a question today, we have had three health policies-one from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), a quite contradictory one from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), and one straddled between both positions from the honourable member for Mackellar. I will answer quite clearly and rationally each of the points that the honourable member raised. First of all, he talked about introducing greater bureaucracy. He knows that this scheme is reducing the amount of bureaucracy, for one obvious reason. The Liberals decided-they may want to do so again-to build the whole health insurance system on 65 private funds, and they created an enormous bureaucracy to manage that. If the responsibility for health insurance is in the hands of a conglomeration of funds which will provide basic insurance there is an enormous governmental task of overseeing it. Medicare has enormously reduced the bureaucracy. We can show that in the most telling statistic of all. We have been able to cut the present day costs of medical insurance by nearly $ 100m a year. It is very costly and bureaucratic to deliver health insurance through 65 companies which the Government has to watch over and control rather than through a single institution. There is not the slightest doubt that we will reduce bureaucracy as a result of the Medicare scheme and save money, which we are certainly doing. The honourable member then talked about gap insurance. The majority of the less well off in society were not able to afford gap insurance, for which they received no taxation benefit because it was not included in basic insurance, because it cost an extra $2 to $3 a week. Medicare guarantees everyone in this country that once the gap has reached a certain level-$150-he will be covered at the 100 per cent level. That is a much more efficient and fairer way of doing it . People do not have to pay out money for something that they may never need. They are guaranteed that once their gap payment reaches $150 they will be automatically covered at the 100 per cent level. We have done more than that. This scheme is about the less well off in our society. We have said to every doctor in the country that he is free to bulk bill any patient he wishes. We have indicated particularly to doctors that the people who are chronically ill, the people who most regularly go to doctors, are the most appropriate people to be bulk billed. That was not allowed under the old scheme. There was no automatic provision for bulk billing for these people, as there is under this scheme. We have said that for families with young children who may have a lot of illness doctors can bulk bill and we will automatically pay the 85 per cent. For the mass of people we have improved the situation by giving them automatic gap protection. It is not something they have to buy. We have given the less well off in our society the opportunity to be bulk billed by their doctors. I am glad to say that a significant proportion of the medical profession has taken up that challenge and that something like 45 per cent of all services are bulk billed under Medicare. The honourable member for Mackellar complains about the procedures for ensuring that gap insurance. Certainly, I would like to see them simpler and I am sure that we will improve them and make them more efficient. Even at the moment, automatically, anyone who gets a cash payment from Medicare has his gap recorded . Indeed, we are now in the process of making new administrative changes so that even for those people who receive payments by cheque we will be able to make assumptions about their gaps and request them to provide us with the detailed information. We are trying to make the system more efficient and more automatic. We have already gone a long way towards doing this. The honourable member for Mackellar had the hide to get up in this House and say that the Government is opposed to private insurance. We have always said that private health insurance has a major supplementary role. Unlike him, we are not prepared to abdicate the responsibility and say that all health insurance is fundamentally the responsibility of private companies. We may be accused of being socialist when we say that we believe governments have a responsibility to the community but we have said that the private funds have a major role in supplementary private insurance. They have actively taken up that role and most of them are doing very well indeed. I will say now that Medibank Private-we have access to the figures-has done very well indeed under the Medicare system. The honourable member for Mackellar went on to complain about the things we did for private insurance. The reason for the 35-day rule is, in fact, to try to reduce the cost of private insurance to those people who want to take it out- trying to lower the costs to patients covered by appropriate benefits. That is the whole point of the 35-day rule, just as it was the whole point of his Government's 60-day rule-to try to reduce the cost for all those Australians who want to take out private insurance. Is that evidence that somehow we are trying to get rid of private insurance from the market? The question of hospital categorisation was discussed with the funds and private hospitals. All the funds and the best elements of the private hospital system agreed that hospital categorisation was a way in which we could reduce the cost of private insurance contribution so that more people who wanted it could take it out. The honourable member talked about the pressure on public hospitals but gave us only an odd collection of statistics. I want to talk about some of the statistics which he produced. First of all, he knows, or should know, that there has been less use of public hospitals under Medicare than there was prior to Medicare. I am not claiming that that is a benefit of Medicare. I think that we have been rather lucky-- Mr Carlton —Why the queues then? Dr BLEWETT —There were queues under the previous system. That is the chief reason. I am not claiming that the fact that public hospital utilisation has declined a little is a great result of Medicare. I think that probably it is the result of having a pretty good winter with no major epidemics and problems such as that. Let me come to the question of waiting lists. There have always been waiting lists in public hospitals. The waiting lists are drawn up by doctors themselves. We have no reliable waiting list figures. We have been able to go back and find that under the honourable member's Government there were waiting lists of 8,000 to 11,000 in Victoria. We found that there were waiting lists in the other States. The reasons for the waiting lists appear to have nothing to do with Medicare. When an inquiry was made all around the country no responsible hospital administrator was prepared to say: 'Somehow this is the result of Medicare'. The hospital administrators said that it was partly a result of the way the public hospital system was starved of funds by the Opposition's decisions, when in government, in 1981. Pressures have been building up in the public system since that date. As the honourable member and I know, various factors are built into the waiting lists. I presume the Leader of the Opposition , when he had his recent piece of elective surgery, was able to say: 'Look, I will be free in four or five weeks time; I would like it done then'. We need to examine much more carefully how these waiting lists are constructed. A classic attempt was made by the Tasmanian Minister for Health to see what he could make out of scaring people over the issue of waiting lists in public hospitals. We found out, when he made charges that his Tasmanian hospitals had long waiting lists, that one of his own hospital administrators said: 'The waiting lists have fallen 20 per cent since Medicare'. Another hospital administrator said: 'Well, the Minister may be right, but I have no figures to prove it'. The waiting list question is another of the kinds of issues which the honourable member for Mackellar blew up last year. Honourable members will remember that last year he said that 3,000 to 5,000 people-- Mr Carlton —Are you saying there is no concern about waiting lists? Dr BLEWETT —Of course there is a concern about waiting lists. There should have been a concern about waiting lists under the honourable member's Government at the time it restricted and cut back funds to the public hospital system. I am not saying that we are not concerned about waiting lists. What I am saying is that waiting lists have posed a long term problem in public hospitals. There is no evidence to suggest that Medicare as such has produced any increase in the number of those on waiting lists. I take one classic example-the very one to which our good friend referred-the Ballarat and District Base Hospital. After the honourable member's alarmist predictions-it is true that there is a waiting list in that hospital; it is true that that list has grown-I went across the road to the other hospital, the St John of God private hospital. There has been practically no fall in its accommodation. So all one can presume is that-- Mr Carlton —Did you say 'practically'? Dr BLEWETT —On the hospital's figures there has been a 2 per cent fall. What I am saying is that there is a big private hospital and a big public hospital and there does not seem to be any significant fall in this private hospital; yet there seems to be a much bigger waiting list at the Ballarat Base Hospital. All this suggests is that it may well be that many people, under the honourable member's health scheme, could not afford the treatment that they can now afford. That is the only possible explanation in Ballarat where one can look at these two hospitals and see that the private hospital has not lost patients; yet undoubtedly there are more patients for the public hospital. This suggests to me that under the honourable member's scheme, quite likely because some two million people were not covered by any form of health insurance, people were unable to receive the care that can now be provided. Finally, I refer to the honourable member's remarks about the 35-day rule because, as usual, they were totally misleading. Let me take his definitional problem about acute care. It is true that there were four categories. If he looks at them he will see that all of them relate to acute care. This Government said that it would make a single definition and allow the doctors the freedom to interpret acute care. This was an agreement reached with the Australian Medical Association because it argued that this was a matter of professional integrity and that the doctors should be able to make this acute care decision. However, because doctors-as I admitted the other day-seem to have been unwilling to exercise this right, as we expected them to do, guidelines have been prepared. Those guidelines are now being discussed today with the Federal AMA and, if they are acceptable, they will be circulated and published. By those guidelines we will be able to show to the honourable member for Mackellar that the definition of acute care is very much the same once one looks at the guidelines. Mr Carlton —I quoted them. Dr BLEWETT —Yes, and the honourable member talked about a second stage being the continuing phase of acute care. Mr Carlton —Continuing management. Dr BLEWETT —That is right. We will produce the guidelines for the honourable member and end that scare tactic. I mentioned a moment ago the Opposition's scare tactic last year that in the area of health funds 3,000 to 5,000 people would be unemployed. That did not take place. The Opposition has never admitted that it was totally wrong in its predictions. The same thing will be said about its waiting list arguments and also about the way it has abused this argument. I want to deal with the 3B certificate and give people the facts on the situation. We have redesigned again the 3B certificate, including clarification of the penalty provisions, to ensure that doctors are aware that bona fide expressions of medical opinion cannot attract penalties. Of course, those penalties were set not by this Government but by the previous Government in relation to its own 3B certificates. We have also made administrative arrangements to ensure that the health insurance funds will pay hospital benefits at least at the lower long stay rate where 3B certificates are in dispute. So we do not have that retrospective problem. We have administratively streamlined the processing of 3B certificates by hospitals, health insurance funds and the acute care advisory committees in the Department so that any disputes can be resolved quickly. We have taken that series of administrative measures. As the honourable member for Mackellar knows, we have also taken legislative measures. I think that the Australian population are really becoming sick and tired of the negative, knocking approach on this issue by the Opposition. What we all look forward to is, at last, a creative alternative from the Opposition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(3.40) —The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) says that the Australian people are sick and tired of the alleged scare tactics of the Opposition and that misleading information has come from the Opposition. I deny that. I have been given information on that by people other than the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), and my colleagues. Genuine concern has been expressed to me by elderly people and sick people within the community about many of the policies that have been introduced by the Labor Government. I will mention two programs-the assets test and Medicare. I know the Minister will cringe when I mention the assets test. Dr Blewett —Not at all. I am proud of it. Mr BRAITHWAITE —He is proud of it. I suggest to the Minister that, if he wants to do his job properly, he should forget about the mechanics of a program, about the Public Service and about what will happen here and there, and go to the people and explain the situation properly to them. Medicare was introduced with misleading advertising to the effect that it was a free national scheme. Dr Blewett —Nothing of the sort. Mr BRAITHWAITE —That was so. That was part of the scheme. Dr Blewett —The one per cent levy was always part of the scheme. Mr BRAITHWAITE —The levy was part of the scheme but people were being offered a completely free national scheme. What happened? People dropped out of private hospital insurance on the basis that they would be covered under Medicare. But certain factors were not highlighted, such as the fact that one could not have the doctor of one's choice and that operations could not be performed in a private hospital. Quite a few people-I will not say hundreds and hundreds-have complained to me. They dropped out of their private health schemes because of the initial advertising and found six, eight or 10 weeks later that they still required private hospital insurance. As a result of the time lapse they had to go through the waiting period again when they rejoined. Mr Carlton —Two years. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Two years, as the honourable member has mentioned. Many people were caught in that situation. I say to the Minister that this is a matter involving people, not mechanics; so if he is going to introduce a program he should go out and sell it and tell the people about it. I have only to go to a nursing home or old people's home in my electorate to find that this issue is the first thing that concerns them. One of the main things that people look at and want to know about when they are reaching retirement is that their health care is certain and that their retirement benefit, if they do not provide for it , is certain. Yet the pensioners, the elderly and the sick are concerned about both critical areas. Far from having the freedom offered in the old scheme by the previous Minister of knowing care was provided if one was a pensioner or elderly person and had to go to a hospital and that there would be no waiting list, all this has changed. These people do not have access to their own doctor in all cases. They do not have access to transport to and from a hospital in all cases. When they get to a hospital they have hanging over their head the fear that if they are not regarded as acute patients they will be obliged to depart from that hospital within 35 days. This must have an effect on the minds of the people who not only need hospitalisation but also fear that as they get older they will have more and more need for such services. There is confusion and because of that confusion there is the grave crisis that the honourable member for Mackellar mentioned. I have mentioned in connection with Medicare the removal of the option of choice of doctor. The Minister has said that there are not any waiting lists at hospitals and that that is just a figment of our imagination. He has said that doctors are double-dipping in regard to elective surgery, or something like that. Why in the name of goodness did the Minister not go to Britain and find out the real situation there? Under the national health scheme the situation is such, I understand, that people have to wait for up to two years for elective surgery. There are queues at the public hospitals. We have the same position here. Nationalised medicine has meant that our public hospitals have waiting lists. One has only to go to a public hospital and a private hospital in any city in Australia to note the congestion in one and the available beds in the other. If the nationalised scheme cannot be said to be victimising the private hospital scheme, I do not know who is telling the truth. I turn to another point made by the Minister when he said that he received advice from doctors that they preferred to deal with this matter on their own. It is a pity he did not take the doctors' advice in many of the other cases instead of forcing them into a situation which for the first time led them to call a strike in the New South Wales hospital system. The Minister was not prepared to take the doctors' advice on that occasion. Since then, I understand, a report has been brought down which states that the Government did err in trying to establish certain criteria to determine the amount of income that specialist doctors should earn. I suggest that it would have been better to have more consultation with the people who deliver the services. I have mentioned the 35-day entitlement. When I use the word 'entitlement' I do not mean to say that under the Medicare scheme one could get such a commitment. As I have said, we can see from the British experience that there are growing queues under the free hospitalisation system as people are forced into accepting the doctor of the hospital's choice and have no private insurance. That situation must automatically come about here. The change of circumstances in the reduction of the 60-day rule to 35 days has also led to a change in criteria relating to a person who is in need of acute care. I ask honourable members to think how that would affect an elderly person in need of acute care moving temporarily to a hospital from a nursing home. That person must wonder how acute his condition is and whether he can retain the bed in the nursing home. I know of situations where people have been discharged from nursing homes in order to go into hospital and they have not been able to get back. The proposal to provide respite care beds does not help at all. I will deal with Queensland where Medicare has not given elderly people the satisfaction, or the comfort and the knowledge that they will get the services as and when they want them. We have gone from having a free scheme in Queensland to having what is happening in the rest of Australia. We have queues in public hospitals and empty beds in private hospitals. I ask: How far have we advanced the cause there? The Minister made mention of the fact that $100m had been saved because of certain proposals that have been put into place, and that was basically part of the program. He mentioned the bureaucracy. Nobody is denying that the bureaucracy should not for ever be under constant public and ministerial scrutiny. That is part of the business of government, I believe. Any efficiency demonstrated in that regard is well and good. Where will the rest of the $100m saving come from? It will come from the doctors. It will come from hospitals and nursing homes, which now have to agree to new criteria, making certain beds available. In fact the pinch has not affected the Government. It has gone right back down the line. The Government says that it is taking a 1c in the dollar levy from those people with taxable incomes above a certain amount. That money is coming again from the people who have the energy to get out and earn it. They are paying the total costs. After paying the 1c levy it will cost them more money if they still want private hospitalisation. So the total cost has escalated and not come down. For those people who desire the doctor and hospital of their own choice, this is a significant factor. So the cost of providing the program is being borne again, as is the case in so many of this Government's programs, not by the Government but by the people themselves. This is not a government of care and concern for the people-the constituents of Australia. It is committed to an ideology forced on it by the left wing which requires it to nationalise not only health, as it is doing at present, but also everything it can lay its hands on. The Government will learn from the British experience that once something is nationalised standards are reduced, and everything that goes with nationalisation results in suffering for the individual. I can only go back to my personal experience and refer to the people who have seen me. I refer not to what I have learned from the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Mackellar, but to my daily contacts with constituents who have these fears. I say to the Minister that I do everything I can to allay those fears by saying: 'This is the program. This will happen. That happens with the assets test. This will happen here'. People can be warned and people can be told, but giving them the comfort of knowing they are not in trouble is something the Minister just has not done. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired . Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(3.50) —I am pleased indeed to be able to speak on this matter of public importance because this issue, along with many others over recent weeks, confirms the desperate tactics of the Opposition in these last few weeks of the Thirty-third Parliament. Mr Shipton —What are the queues like at Bendigo? Mr BRUMBY —This matter of public importance, dealing with the needs of the long term sick and elderly people in Australia, serves to reinforce, as the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has noted, the Opposition's lack of any constructive aged care and health policy to put to the Australian people in the next election . This matter of public importance is one of a number of recent attempts by the Opposition to confuse and to mislead the Australian public. Like other attempts that it has made recently on the issue of taxation, on the assets test and on organised crime, this latest attempt will also fail. I want to look briefly at the other issues which have been raised in the past few weeks. It is important to look at the taxation issue because in the space of just a matter of weeks the Opposition managed to highlight the fact that when it formed the Government in this country for seven years it was the highest taxing peacetime government in Australia's history. As an added bonus for our Government, the Opposition succeeded in reminding all Australian taxpayers of its very lacklustre record in the field of tax reform and, of course, of the massive tax avoidance industry that so flourished in the seven years of its incompetence. I turn to the assets test which is another of those issues which the Opposition has been raising over recent weeks. Rather than debate that issue fairly, objectively and responsibly, the Opposition has set its course on the path of fear, innuendo and hysterical accusation. It is worth repeating the comments made by the Minister for Health in his introductory remarks. Those comments have been along that path to such an extent that the Australian Pensioner, that very wide circulating magazine, was forced to write recently in its editorial that no Opposition which has made such outrageous claims in respect of the assets test has the right to be considered by the Australian people as worthy of governing this country. That is the view of the Australian Pensioner of the Opposition's efforts on the assets test. Finally, I will make a brief comment on organised crime, which is another of the issues which have surfaced in recent weeks. The opportunistic, self- righteous matters raised in that area have had one simple effect: In the space of those few weeks, the Opposition has managed to reduce the public acceptability of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) from 25 per cent to 14 per cent. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! Is the honourable member for Bendigo aware that he is speaking to this matter of public importance? Mr BRUMBY —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will refer to matters that have been raised in this debate, particularly those raised by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). The honourable member for Mackellar spoke, apparently with some sympathy, of his concern for the old and poor people in our community. The most appropriate interjection during his contribution was that made by the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys), who asked when the Opposition had ever been concerned about the elderly and the poor in our community. I make the point that under the previous Government's health insurance arrangements some two million Australians were not covered for any form of health insurance. But that was not the end of the previous Government's health insurance policy. It is also a fact that under its policy a family with an income of $50,000 per annum paid some one per cent of that income for its health insurance contribution while, of course, the vast majority of Australian families on incomes between $10,000 and $15,000 per annum were paying more than three times that amount for the same level of health insurance. The honourable member for Mackellar raised the issue of gap insurance. My only comment on that is to reiterate the comment made by the Minister for Health, namely, that it is simply a fact that most of the poor people in our community, certainly the vast majority, simply could not afford gap insurance under the policy operated by the Opposition when it was in government. I wish to make a few more points on the issue of Medicare. I emphasise the Minister's statement that Medicare has been very successful in reducing the costs of operation-the bureaucracy, if one likes-of the health insurance system. We have cut the costs, by the implementation of Medicare, by more than $100m per annum-that is, $100m of taxpayers' money which this Government is putting back into the vital areas of health care which have such a direct effect on the elderly and the poor in our community. The issue of waiting lists was also raised and there have been some interjections about waiting lists at a Bendigo hospital. I can only state that waiting lists at that hospital and at all other Victorian hospitals of which I am aware have been a matter of fact for many years. They have not arisen suddenly in the last 18 months since the introduction of Medicare. There have always been waiting lists at hospitals. They have existed for a variety of reasons. The most significant statistic, if one wants to quote statistics, is that the estimates of the current waiting lists in Victorian hospitals are some 7,000 to 8,000 people. Two or three years ago, when they were surveyed, the waiting lists were at the level of 11,000 to 14,000 people. Of course, that was under the previous Government and its health insurance arrangements. The honourable member for Dawson raised an issue of concern regarding nursing bed patients and their ability to move from a nursing bed to a hospital for medical care or more acute care. It is important to make clear to the honourable member for Dawson that in this session of Parliament the Government has passed legislation amending the Health Insurance Act. The effect of that legislation has been to provide for respite care. That legislation has gone through very recently in the House of Representatives. The effect of that legislation on respite care means that any nursing home patients leaving a nursing home for a short time can do so, confident in the understanding that the Commonwealth will pay the cost of maintaining that bed until they return. So in the case of a nursing home patient who requires medical care-- Mr Carlton —For how many days? Mr BRUMBY —The honourable member for Mackellar asks: 'For how many days?'. I ask the honourable member for Mackellar for how many days it was possible under his Government for nursing home patients to leave their beds, to go to a hospital for medical care and to come back and find a bed waiting for them. The answer is nil because there was no respite care. If a patient left a bed in a nursing home , that was the end of it; there simply was not one kept for him. Under our respite care legislation that bed is retained at no significant cost to the nursing home patient. It seems that most of the debate on this matter of public importance has concentrated on Medicare and on hospital care. But, of course, there is far more to the problems of the long term sick and elderly than simply medical or hospital arrangements. A whole range of health care facilities and arrangements ought to be provided by governments to assist our elderly and long term sick. When I look at the record of the previous Government it is not hard to understand why the Opposition has concentrated its debate today simply on the medical and hospital side of care for the aged. For seven years, for the whole term of the previous Government, report after report advised it that it had to establish a proper policy for the frail aged and that to do that it needed a proper assessment system. In seven years the previous Fraser Government did nothing. For seven years report after report recommended to the previous Government that it implement the system of respite care upon which I have just elaborated. For seven years it received reports to do that but, again, it did nothing and it dismally failed the elderly people in our population. Finally, it is a fact that for seven years report after report advised the previous Government to develop a home and community care program for the aged. Despite the very obvious, essential and critical needs in those areas, the previous Government did nothing about them. I am pleased to say that our Government, in the space of 18 months, has introduced a range of initiatives in health care for the elderly and sick in our society, but particularly for the elderly people. We have established new directions in health care for the aged and the disabled . A very prominent part of that new direction is the establishment of the home and community care package. This program represents a major contribution to our new directions in care for the aged and frail aged. It provides extra assistance in terms of home care services, including home help, delivered meals, home maintenance, home nursing and paramedical services. Where Labor has achieved in the space of 18 months, the Liberals failed for seven years. I have already mentioned that we have introduced respite care. We have taken a number of other initiatives in that broad area of care for the aged. We have succeeded in other areas such as income maintenance. We have increased pensions to 23.8 per cent of average weekly earnings-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr HAND(Melbourne) —I present a report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, being a report that the Committee has been unable to complete its inquiry into Aboriginal education. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, I present the Committee's report entitled 'In A Home Or At Home: Accommodation and Home Care for the Aged-A Follow-up Report', together with the minutes of proceedings, transcript of evidence and submissions authorised for publication. I also present another report, being a report that the Committee has been unable to complete its remaining inquiries. Ordered that the reports be printed. Mr LEO McLEAY —by leave-On behalf of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, I have just presented a report of the Committee entitled 'In A Home Or At Home: Accommodation and Home Care for the Aged-A Follow-up Report'. I suppose it is somewhat fortuitous that this report has come down just after we have debated a matter of public importance on the aged. In 1982 the Committee published a report on accommodation and home care for the aged. The recommendations made by the Committee at that time were directed towards removing major problems and anomalies in the imbalance between institutional and home care and directing Commonwealth government assistance for health and welfare to those in greatest need. The Committee is concerned that its recommendations should not suffer the same fate of earlier major inquiries on care for the aged, from which little action resulted. We have just heard in the debate on the matter of public importance of the problems relating to previous reports over many years. This said, the Committee neither demanded nor expected the achievement overnight of significant improvements in the provision of accommodation and home care services for the aged. The aims of the follow-up were to report on developments in areas on which the inquiry made recommendations; reasons for lack of progress in areas where there had been no significant development; and the current status of the recommendations in the light of present policies, progress in implementation and likely trends in future policy and program formulation. The follow-up report, in essence, is an inventory of developments over the past two years. During the period there has, of course, been a change of government. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is in the House this afternoon, having just spoken on the matter of public importance. The intention of the Labor Government towards the delivery of services for the aged was set out in the letter of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which established a working party on aged care policies. The Prime Minister stated: It is important not to inhibit longer term rationalisation by continuing the piecemeal approach that has long been a characteristic of Commonwealth policy on aged care. The Expenditure Committee viewed the restructuring of programs and funding arrangements as a short term objective. These changes were to provide for a reduction in the number of programs; responsibility to be brought under one Minister; modifications to financial arrangements so as to remove disincentives for the expansion of home care services; similar forms of control over all categories of program expenditure; and a reallocation of resources between institutional and community care. Developments to date have occurred in the provision of community care, nursing home care and housing and in needs-based planning. With respect to community care the Government announced in its 1984-85 Budget that it intended implementing a new home and community care program which will consolidate some existing community care programs as well as incorporate new initiatives. The aim of this program is to provide a more comprehensive range of integrated community services and is consistent with the Committee's recommendations. Perhaps the most significant departure from the Committee's recommendations on community care programs relates to funding. The Committee recommended that such programs be funded through a grant without matching conditions. The Government has indicated that the home and community care program will be cost-shared with the States and Territories. The Committee remains unconvinced that cost-sharing arrangements are conducive to the further expansion of community care services, particularly when one considers that nursing home programs are wholly funded by the Commonwealth. The Committee is of the firm view that the nursing home program and the community care program should be funded on the same basis so the State agencies do not get to make financial choices which may not be in the best interests of the aged population. Although the Government has not yet established a nursing home care program, a major reorganisation of the provision of nursing home care has been foreshadowed . A program grant system for nursing homes has also been foreshadowed by the Minister for Health. Recommendations relating to nursing home growth have been addressed in the issuing by the Minister of new guidelines in May 1984. Revised strategies for accommodation requirements of the aged should promote better targeting of funds to those persons most in need and result in improved administration. The approach to welfare set out in the 1983 accord emphasised a needs-based approach to welfare and social services and the development of greater negotiation and consultation with consumers, service agencies and other tiers of government. The implementation of the home and community care program should achieve a significant move, towards needs-based resource allocation recommended in the Committee's 1982 report. The Committee also recommended two measures to protect clients' interests: A requirement for public reporting about non-government nursing homes, and the establishment of aged care tribunals in each State. The Committee notes with disappointment that no action has been taken on these recommendations at the Commonwealth level. Action has been taken to establish complaint receiving bodies in New South Wales and Victoria and the Committee is anxious to see that these are set up in other States and particularly by the Commonwealth. Since the Committee first reported, administrative changes have occurred in portfolios which administer various aged care programs and others have been mooted, such as the creation of a community care department. In the limited investigation associated with this follow-up, the Committee has not, however, formed a firm conclusion as to the most appropriate location for responsibilities for the aged . Nevertheless the Committee strongly reiterates its view that there should be one Minister who is seen to have prime responsibility and from whom the Government can seek comprehensive advice on overall assistance for accommodation and care for the aged. The Committee also believes it is important that responsibility should rest with one Minister for the purpose of public and parliamentary accountability. The Committee recommends that the Government give urgent consideration to this recommendation. The Committee, in recognition of the administrative changes that would be required to bring about the consolidation of programs in one ministry, considered that it would be necessary to establish a special unit charged with this task. The Committee recommended that an office of care for the aged be established to develop a national policy on how best to provide assistance to meet the accommodation and home care needs of the aged. The Committee considered that the existence of an office of care for the aged would facilitate the development of a national policy and enable basic issues to be tackled. This office would have a pivotal co-ordinating function and thus reduce the scope for unilateral actions which might cause fragmentation of programs, further confuse policy direction and give priority to short term expedients to the exclusion of longer term policy formulation. The Committee was very much taken with the Prime Minister's statement that: It is important not to inhibit longer term rationalisation by continuing the piecemeal approach that has long been a characteristic of Commonwealth policy on aged care. The Committee is disappointed that its recommendation has not yet been taken up. The Committee considers that the lack of such a co-ordinating mechanism will reduce the impact and effectiveness of recent fine developments in the provision of aged care services. The Committee urges the Government to give priority to the establishment of an office of care for the aged. The Committee concludes that measures implemented to date evidence the beginning of a reallocation process to match the needs of specific clients with the appropriate level of care. It is the hope of this Committee that consideration will be given to the implementation of other recommendations outlined in the 1982 report but not yet acted upon, particularly those recommending the establishment of an office of care for the aged and the placing of responsibility for aged care programs under one Minister. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 224th Report of the Committee on Excise Duties and Deferred Customs Duties, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Dr THEOPHANOUS —This report concludes the Committee's inquiry into the collection of excise and deferred Customs duties. The inquiry included consideration of excise on beer, tobacco products, distilled spirits and petroleum products, as well as the process of deferring Customs duties and was extended to include the petroleum freight subsidy scheme. The Committee commenced its inquiry in 1982. However, action was interrupted by competing inquiry activities and an election early in 1983. Thus, this inquiry spanned both the previously constituted Public Accounts Committee and the current, fourteenth Public Accounts Committee. Despite these interruptions, the Committee has had time to conduct quite an extensive investigation into the area. The subject matter of the inquiry, being concerned with revenue matters, made a welcome change to the Committee's usual diet of expenditure-related inquiries. In carrying out its inquiry the Committee took note of the criticism by some sectors of industry that during the efficiency audit there had been little consultation with industry and the audit had concentrated on one city. Consequently the Committee's inquiry strategy was designed to ensure that the sectors of industry affected by the recommendations of the efficiency audit would have every opportunity to put their view, either directly to the Committee or by submission. Accordingly, in addition to the program of public and private hearings with the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Committee received submissions from representatives of most of the subject areas and undertook visits to industry sites as diverse as the Barossa Valley in South Australia in connection with distilled spirits, a Darwin bonded warehouse holding beer, and the Caltex oil refinery at Kurnell in New South Wales. Excise is a very important source of revenue for the Federal Government, which has exclusive power over commodity taxation by virtue of section 90 of the Constitution. In 1983-84, net excise revenue from the commodities being considered in this inquiry was $4,083m, representing approximately 9 per cent of total Commonwealth tax revenue. This compares with revenue of approximately $2, 400m derived from Customs duties on imports over the same period. The excise inquiry was based on the concerns expressed in the Auditor-General's Report on an Efficiency Audit-The Collection of Excise and Deferred Customs Duties. In that report of March 1982 the Auditor-General examined the procedures used in the collection of excise and the operation of the bonded warehouse system which is used for deferring Customs duties on imported goods. The aim of the audit was to check that controls and procedures used are adequate to protect the Commonwealth Government's revenue. The system used by Customs for excise collection and verification is known as commodity control. Under this system the Department relies on manufacturers' declarations of the amount of excisable product produced to determine excise liability. Audit was satisfied that the principle of commodity control was sound so long as sufficient, rigorous, validating checks of the manufacturers' returns and accounts were made. It was in the area of validating checks that Audit found deficiencies. Audit was also concerned that Customs had no independent means of determining the amount of excise revenue due to the Commonwealth. In summary, the Committee recommends that the Department take action to improve specific controls over the particular excisable commodities considered in the inquiry and to improve their general management strategy. For example, for distilled spirits the Committee recommends that spirits bottling be permitted only on licensed premises which are subject to the control of the Department of Industry and Commerce, and that resources be applied to ensure proper control over users of pure alcohol sold excise-free for industrial, scientific and educational applications. Among the specific recommendations for distilled spirits is, first, that urgent attention be given to increasing powers exercised by officers under the Excise Act to make them comparable to those exercised under the Customs Act, particularly regarding the powers of access to documents. The Committee recommends that care be taken to safeguard civil liberties and to prevent the possible abuse of powers. Secondly, a national loss control strategy for spirits should be developed and implemented as a matter of urgency. Thirdly, the Committee reiterates the recommendation of the National Loss Control Working Party that consideration be given to a simplified approach to loss control, involving an adjustment for losses being given in the duty levied. For beer, the Committee recommends that, first, Customs readdress the Auditor- General's recommendations on the possible use of independent sources of data to develop a means of estimating potential revenue due. Secondly, it recommends that adequate resources be made available to the Inland Revenue and Dumping Division to enable prompt implementation of systems-based reviews in the brewing industry. The Committee's consideration of material presented to it on tobacco products prompts it to recommend an evaluation of quota controls as a regulatory device when discretionary changes in excise rates are anticipated. Other recommendations made by the committee following consideration of tobacco include : Firstly, that the Department devote greater effort to the identification and use of alternative sources of data on production volumes in order to estimate the excise revenue due from tobacco products; secondly, that adequate resources be made available to increase the rate of progress in the development of systems -based investigation techniques in the tobacco industry and to allow regular review of companies' systems; thirdly, the introduction of a computerised inventory control system to enable proper inventory control of under-bond goods by Customs. The Committee recommends that detailed examinations be made of alternative methods of excise collection, including shifting the point of excise collection for beer, tobacco products and petroleum products back closer to the completion of the production process. It is hoped that this would streamline collection procedures by decreasing the length of time that the commodities need to be under Customs control. The Committee also makes recommendations to improve the operations of bonded warehouses and in fact suggests that the fundamental reasons for maintaining the facility should be examined. It recommends, firstly, that there be a formal entry into bond for domestically produced excisable goods with documentation and control comparable to that exercised over imported goods under bond. Secondly, the Committee considers that the Department's control procedures for bonded warehouses lack sophistication and that better use could be made of automatic data processing facilities in this area. The Committee recommends that immediate attention be given to upgrading control systems for bonded warehouses. Thirdly, it recommends that Customs promptly develop and implement a computer system which reconciles bond entries and releases to provide sufficient information to allow proper inventory control in bonded warehouses. Fourthly, the Committee endorses the Auditor-General's recommendations that Customs should analyse dwell times of goods under bond and direct investigative efforts to those goods with apparently lengthy dwell times. Similar comments apply to Audit's suggestion that efforts should be concentrated towards those warehouses which yield the greatest revenue. The Committee suggests improvements to the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme, for example by increasing resources, including ADP resources, for application to this area and by increasing penalties for illegal practices. The Committee also recommends that there be a comprehensive review of the scheme. The Committee recommends the formulation of a detailed plan to co-ordinate the Department's operations and its ongoing review processes. It also recommends improvements in staffing in Customs, particularly regarding training and the manner in which staff are deployed. The Committee hopes that implementation of its recommendations will increase the efficiency of Customs' excise collection operations. During the inquiry the Committee received disturbing information regarding illicit distillation of spirit and evasion of duty. This problem has serious implications not only for Commonwealth revenue but also for the health and stability of the potable spirits industry. The Committee considers that Customs' seizure of an illicit still-the largest ever found in Australia-in July of this year highlights the immense challenges facing Customs and the need for it to be ever vigilant in its duty. The seriousness of this problem was reflected by the extent to which the investigations took place all over Australia. The Committee wishes to thank the staff of its secretariat who were involved in the research and documentation of this inquiry which, as I mentioned before, took over three years to complete. I commend the report to honourable members and senators and I regret that copies are temporarily in short supply. Mr FIFE(Farrer) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the 18th report for 1984 of the Committee relating to improvements to On-Base Housing, RAAF Base, Darwin, Northern Territory. Mr PORTER(Barker) —by leave-I appreciate that we are endeavouring to get through our program as quickly as possible but the report presented today is a significant matter for the Aboriginal community. It relates to an inquiry which was undertaken by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs under two governments. It was initiated on 25 March 1981 by Senator Peter Baume when he was the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The reference was again given to the existing Committee by this Government. Unfortunately, the report has still not been finalised. The recommendation is that the reference be referred to the existing Committee, or those members of the existing Committee who are in the new Parliament, in order that the report can quickly be completed. Despite the increasing expenditure by government on education over many years, questions have been raised as to the effectiveness of education for Aboriginal people. The reference to the Committee enables it to investigate a number of issues. I refer particularly to the third reference which reads: The most effective methods of providing appropriate education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at all levels, having regard to the express needs of the Aboriginal communities and organisations and to the respective responsibilities of: (a) the State, Northern Territory and Commonwealth Governments; and (b) Aboriginal communities and other agencies administering Aboriginal education programs. The Standing Committee has already travelled extensively and collected valuable evidence and first hand information. The problems to be confronted by governments in relation to Aboriginal education relate not only to the education of children, but also to adult education, including tertiary education, as well as Aboriginal teacher education and Aboriginal teacher aides. The problems of providing education in some areas are enormous. Some outstations and islands on which there are Aboriginal residents see a teacher only once or perhaps twice a week and then in many instances only for a couple of hours. In other areas teachers go to Aboriginal settlements with very little idea of the Aboriginal people and their way of life. The problems they face in making education relevant to those communities are often very great, especially in the early period of their appointment. In our view, ways must be found to overcome these problems. I found some of the evidence given to the Committee very depressing. To date, our education system has failed most Aboriginal people in spite of extensive programs, considerable goodwill and commitment by governments. For example, too many young Aborigines are functionally illiterate, alienated and unskilled. With the benefit of my experience on the Committee, it has become clear to me that while the Government has concentrated its efforts on promoting uniform land rights legislation to be imposed on the States, it has ignored the areas of real need, such as housing, health, employment and education. There is no doubt that the Government has failed to give a high priority to addressing the need for, firstly, the development of appropriate education curricula, including bilingual programs to assist Aboriginal students; secondly, the need for the development of appropriate study courses for trainee teachers and Aboriginal teacher aides; thirdly, the need for the development of appropriate material for Aboriginal studies curricula to be available to all schools; and, fourthly, the need for special programs to assist Aborigines to overcome their educational disadvantages and to undertake higher education. These issues have been addressed by the Opposition and are addressed in our Aboriginal affairs policy. As stated in our policy, we will move where possible towards triennial funding for Aboriginal education programs to facilitate better planning and continuity. This is one of the matters which the Committee has looked at. One of the programs which was initiated by the previous Government was the enclave program. In many instances that program was and is a very successful program, assisting those Aboriginal people seeking tertiary education. Unfortunately, the program continues to suffer from the problems which are involved in annual funding. When the program was set up I think it was reasonable for the Government to say: 'We will give you annual funding and see how the program goes'. I think it is now generally recognised that the programs are successful and it is now time to look at longer term funding-and I would suggest triennial funding-because the problem facing those people administering the enclave program under the annual funding procedure is that they are unable to plan for the future. Those involved in the program spend too much time chasing funds and not enough time in undertaking the project. The other real problem for the enclave programs is that currently they are funded by five different departments. I think that is a farce and it is time that we in this Parliament had a look at programs which are meeting the needs of Aboriginal people and try to make it a little easier for the Aboriginal people to take advantage of such programs. A lot of good work has been done by schools, teachers and principals around Australia to develop special programs to ensure that Aboriginal students are given opportunities to participate successfully in existing education structures . I mention very briefly one example. I was recently in Mount Isa where I visited the Healy Primary School. The principal, David Bell, gave me some details of the problems which were confronting the teachers in maintaining the interest of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students in primary classes. The rate of absenteeism was extraordinarily high. In the last term of last year he indicated that some students attended for one and two days out of the period of 30 days over which the statistics were taken. He and the teachers changed the course by making it more practically oriented to cater for the children involved and the results in my view have been fantastic. Some of the children who rarely attended school are now attending for 28 and 29 days out of the 30-day period over which he subsequently took out statistics. I think we must give credit to the teachers for those sorts of successes. I believe a problem arises in that so many schools around Australia each try to overcome the similar problems they have and so, in many respects, they are re- inventing the wheel. I would like to see a situation where the valuable lessons learnt by teachers such as those at the Healy Primary School can be shared by others who have similar problems in similar situations. Good work is being done by other schools, such as the Traeger Park School in Alice Springs. The linguistics program at Batchelor in the Northern Territory is an example of the good work that is being done in other areas. But we have to give higher priority to ensuring that these are not just isolated examples, that they become the norm in trying to ensure that Aboriginal students around Australia have access to reasonable education. I repeat: I am very disappointed that the Committee has not been able to finish its report for two reasons: Firstly, we are rushing off to an early and unnecessary election. Secondly, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) referred another matter to the Committee which meant that the Committee's work load was too great for it to complete the two reports. As I said, the recommendation to the Parliament is that after the next Parliament assembles the government of the day ought to look at referring the same reference to members of the present Committee who are returned so that they can complete the inquiry. I urge the government of the day to accept that recommendation in order to ensure that this report is quickly concluded. I believe that the Committee Secretariat is now in the process of drafting the report, the Committee having agreed to the outline. It will really only be a matter for the existing members of the Committee who are re-elected to this Parliament to review that draft and submit the final report to the Parliament. The report deals with extremely important areas. Health, education, housing and employment are some of the most significant areas to Aboriginal people. A lot of work has been done on this report and I hope that we can quickly get this report into the Parliament so that the government of the day can act on it. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan) —by leave-I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to New Zealand. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr CUNNINGHAM —As a full description of the delegation's visit is contained in the report, there is no need for me to describe it here. Copies of the report are available from the Table Office. The report is set out under subject heading , rather than in chronological order of places visited and people called on or spoken to. This should, it is hoped, enable readers to identify easily the subject matter that may interest them from the contents page. The observations in the report relating to general questions of New Zealand's foreign and economic policy and to the recent political situation relate to the time just prior to and during the delegation's visit. Much has changed since the delegation made its visit. The delegation returned to Australia the day before Sir Robert Muldoon called an election. The election saw the Labour Party under the leadership of David Lange win government. The delegation had the pleasure of meeting Mr Lange, Sir Robert Muldoon and many members of their respective parties. It became clear during the visit that, although Australia and New Zealand enjoy a very close relationship, it is nevertheless an extremely sensitive and complex one in many areas. This has been borne out by events since the delegation's visit. We have seen, for example: Differences in attitude towards the visit of nuclear fuelled and armed ships of the United States Navy; continuing discussion about the future direction and progress of the closer economic relations agreement; the unfortunate troubles between Australian and New Zealand shearers in Australia; and the possibility of unhealthy competition between Australia and New Zealand in finding overseas markets for agricultural products. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of goodwill between Australia and New Zealand at the higher levels of government in both countries. The delegation is not competent to talk about problems in the Australia-New Zealand relationship which have arisen since its visit. All members of the delegation had discussions relating to the economic relationship and defence. In some ways these discussions have been overtaken by events, but they were nevertheless valuable, especially regarding the CER. Members of the delegation will no doubt be able to contribute to debates within the councils of their parties and in the Parliament arising out of the discussions. Some of us, including myself, discussed with members of the New Zealand trade union movement the problems that have arisen between Australians and New Zealanders in the Australian pastoral industry. This is an extremely sensitive issue which, if it is not dealt with carefully and sensitively, could sour some relationship between the two countries. I have had a number of discussions with members of the Australian trade union movement, including the Australian Workers Union, to see whether something can be done to stop the ill-feeling. The troubles which have developed in the Hamilton-Coleraine area of Victoria are very worrying. The visit was a valuable learning experience and we now understand a great deal more about New Zealand than we did before. The New Zealanders certainly made the delegation very welcome. We were able to hold discussions with a wide range of senior Ministers, parliamentarians and government officials. As I said before, the relationship between our two countries is far more complex than is commonly believed. These biannual parliamentary visits are a valuable aid in increasing understanding. Aspects of our relationship which may be ignored or taken for granted can be discussed on a regular basis. On this exchange visit the delegation was also fortunate, particularly during its visit to Wellington, that the New Zealand Government arranged special itineraries to suit the particular interests of individual members. Details of these itineraries are included in Appendix A of the report. In conclusion, I would like to thank my colleagues on the delegation for their co-operation in carrying out our official tasks. I give special thanks to Ron Wiber, the secretary of the delegation, who carried out his task admirably. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance and Acting Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.37) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: 132 kV subtransmission development, Tuggeranong , A.C.T. This proposal is for extension of the existing subtransmission system to cater for continuing urban growth in the Tuggeranong area of Canberra. It involves: Establishment of a new zone substation in the suburb of Gilmore; and construction of 132 kV overhead supply lines to Gilmore from the existing zone substations at Wanniassa and Causeway. Electricity for the Australian Capital Territory is drawn from the 330 kV New South Wales, Snowy Mountains and Victorian interconnected transmission system. Distribution within the Australian Capital Territory is the responsibility of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority, which is a statutory Commonwealth body. The proposal referred to the Public Works Committee was the first for the Authority following the amendment of the Public Works Committee Act in 1981 to bring the works of statutory authorities within the Act. The Committee has reported favourably on the proposal and has recommended construction of the work in the reference. In this regard I would like to commend the Committee for the very prompt manner in which it has conducted its inquiries and tabled the report . This will greatly facilitate the early calling of tenders by the authority for elements of the work which have long delivery and construction lead times. I am advised that such action is necessary to guard against power supply overloads in the winter of 1986. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $6.92m at October 1983 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(4.39) —The motion moved by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins ), in his capacity as Acting Minister for Housing and Construction, has the support of the Opposition. The work referred to in the motion is of tremendous importance and should be proceeded with as a matter of urgency. Of course, as the Vice-Chairman of the Public Works Committee I have had the opportunity to familiarise myself with the details of this project. As the Minister pointed out , what is proposed this afternoon will enable the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority to proceed with the calling of tenders. Speaking on behalf of the Opposition and in my capacity as Vice-Chairman of the Public Works Committee, I signify support for this work. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance and Acting Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.40) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, and by reason of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Accommodation for the National Crime Authority, Sydney. Accommodation for the National Crime Authority is urgently required in Sydney. A target date of April 1985 has been set for completion of the fitout of premises to enable the earliest practicable occupation date by the Authority. This timetable can be achieved only if an immediate start is made on the work and precludes the use of traditional construction and procurement methods. Unfortunately, it does not allow time for the project to be referred to and considered by the Public Works Committee. With the anticipated parliamentary timetable the Committee would not be able to report on the project until after the start of the parliamentary session next year. This would be far too late to enable the April 1985 target to be met. To meet the very tight planning and construction timetable the Department of Housing and Construction intends to engage an experienced construction management organisation to undertake the overlapping design and construction activities and arrange the progressive commitment of the various elements of the work. The fitout work comprises partitioning of the proposed space, and provision of adequate services, emergency generating equipment and security measures appropriate to the functions of the Authority. The order of cost of the work is $3.5m to $4m. The need to proceed urgently with this work has been discussed with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Public Works Committee. They have advised that , given the circumstances, there is no objection to proceeding with the work without it having been referred to the Committee. I am grateful for the Committee's prompt response and co-operation in this matter. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning and construction can proceed. I commend the motion to the House. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(4.43) —This is a co-operative decision because, as the Minister for Finance and Acting Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Dawkins) has said, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Public Works Committee were consulted. Both agreed with the urgency involved and agreed that the timetable should be met. Therefore the Opposition is pleased to agree with the proposal put forward by the Minister to facilitate as soon as possible the acquisition of new headquarters for the essential body of the National Crime Authority. It is interesting, however, to look at the history of the development of these headquarters and to note that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans)-the Government's representative in the Senate on this matter-has had, as usual, differing views at different times on this matter. On 15 June 1984, in part answer to a question in the Senate which involved this matter, he said: It should be said, however, that there is no foundation for the speculation I have seen in the newspaper that the whole enterprise will be shifted lock, stock and barrel to Sydney simply by virtue of the appointment of a Chairman from that State. Obviously it makes sense to maintain the core of the operations, at least so far as it concerns the computer analysis and so on, in Melbourne. I take it from the emphasis placed on this acquisition of headquarters that it will in fact include these things that the Attorney-General has said will continue to be stationed in Melbourne. However, it is not a surprise to the Opposition that the Attorney-General should find himself on the other side of the final decision. He has managed, in respect of many Government decisions, to intimate at the beginning that they would be otherwise than they have finally been concluded by Cabinet and his colleagues. Another more serious matter perhaps in the attitude of the Government in its management of this matter was the published concern of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association that it had not been told of the shift to Sydney from Melbourne of the headquarters or the organisation that had been built up by the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. The State Secretary of the ACOA, Mr David Bunn, in Victoria, was reported in the Age of 11 June this year as stating that about 25 unionists at the Costigan inquiry, which had a total staff of about 170, could not afford to pay the estimated $100,000 that it was believed it would cost them to relocate in Sydney. He went on to say: The only thing the union knows about the transfer is what Michelle Grattan (The Age') and Peter Costigan (Herald') have written. Without taking that further, it does raise the question of the costs of relocation of officers of Commonwealth authorities in Sydney. This was a matter dealt with in the joint management review of the Australian Federal Police and reported on in February of this year. Madam Deputy Speaker, you would be aware that the Australian Federal Police are very actively involved in supporting the work of the National Crime Authority. The joint management review then stated: The inhibitions in the present system of deploying manpower resources which . . . require the right personnel to move to regional commands to meet priorities as well as in career development caused by the lack of a career development program and claimed significant financial burdens associated with moves . . . For instance, to Sydney. The Eastern Region has 34 substantive vacancies at middle to senior management levels.I believe that this is something the Government will have to take into consideration in its support of the National Crime Authority establishing its headquarters in Sydney because it is a notoriously difficult city for people to move to from any other place in Australia, unless one is in a particularly good position somewhere else in Australia. It has been assumed in the past that, if one is shifting out of Sydney to a smaller State, in effect one has almost won the lottery in the change one will get from buying premises out of the high cost areas of Sydney. Conversely, in this case those who move to Sydney need special consideration in the extra financial burden that is required of them in the exchange of properties in this way. Mr Redlich, the Special Prosecutor, on 12 July of this year, in relation to the strength of the Australian Federal Police in Sydney, had this to say: An additional problem is faced by the Federal Police in trying to attract sufficient applicants for available postings in Sydney. At one stage in the Review period the Management Team noted that there were, for example, 34 vacant management positions in that city, many without applicants at all, the main reasons cited being the ''considerable financial hardship'' which apparently results from the relocation of A.F.P. members after recruitment in or posting to Canberra and is also due to the increased housing and commuting costs involved in both establishing and maintaining a residence in the capital of New South Wales. Therefore, in supporting this motion the Opposition draws attention to that problem which will inevitably arise from choosing Sydney as the location for the accommodation. We make no protest at that choice. Certainly it would seem that the more flamboyant areas of crime are positioned in New South Wales. Apart from that it is, of course, the largest city in Australia and the premier State in population. So there are many reasons why the headquarters should be there. But I point out to the Minister-I feel he is aware of it-that the problem exists, and has been reported upon in the two reports to the Government which I have mentioned, that the penalty which applies to those who are shifted to Sydney ought not to be an inhibiting factor in getting the right people for the right job. In fact, those vacancies that have been reported upon as existing partly because of that cost should be remedied by government intervention and assistance to those involved to make sure that they are not financially penalised in following their profession and in serving the Government and the community through the National Crime Authority. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle) —Minister for Finance and Acting Minister for Housing and Construction) (4.51)-I move: That, in accordance with the provision of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 and by reason of the urgency related to the implementation of the work, it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Extension of runway and terminal facilities, Hobart Airport. The Federal and State governments propose to further upgrade and extend Hobart Airport to allow for regular international services. On 7 June last the House resolved by reason of the urgency related to implementation that it was expedient to carry out upgrading of aircraft pavements and terminal facilities at Hobart Airport without its having first been referred to the Public Works Committee for consideration and report. In relation to that project, estimated to cost $3m, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) previously advised the House that it would be undertaken with Commonwealth funds provided to the Tasmanian Government as part of the interim agreement for financial assistance following cessation of the Gordon below Franklin project. It was envisaged that the funds would be paid to the Tasmanian Government as reimbursement for work to be carried out by the State in accordance with specifications approved by the Commonwealth. It has since been agreed with the Tasmanian Government that the Department of Housing and Construction will assume full responsibility for management of the project and arranging its construction. The project is under way. Funds in the amount of $3m have been appropriated under the Department of Finance- Appropriation Bill No. 2, Division 866, subdivision 04-for this purpose. The subsequent project is also estimated to cost $3m and it has been agreed with Tasmania that the Commonwealth will also carry out these additional works. The agreement to source the additional $3m from Division 866 constitutes creation of a further public work within the meaning of the Public Works Committee Act 1969. As was the case for the earlier project, failure to proceed immediately with final planning and implementation of the proposed works puts at risk the spirit of the Government's agreement with the State to provide alternative employment opportunities. In view of the urgency related to implementation of the work and the tight construction timetable proposed, it is not practicable for the project to be referred to the Public Works Committee for consideration and report. I have outlined this proposal to the Chairman of the Public Works Committee and he has informed me that there is no objection under the circumstances. Therefore, if the House agrees to support the motion, construction can proceed as desired by both governments. I commend the motion to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(4.55) —I indicate at the outset that the Opposition supports the motion. When the matter was before the House on 7 June last I gave that indication in my capacity as spokesman for the Opposition and also as Vice- Chairman of the Public Works Committee. As the Minister for Finance and Acting Minister for Housing and Construction ( Mr Dawkins) has pointed out, the work is proceeding. The Opposition supports the work. We regret that it is proceeding only because the Government has provided some compensation for the Franklin Dam issue. This work is urgently required in Tasmania and we believe that it should have been financed in the ordinary way through the Department of Aviation vote. Notwithstanding that, arrangements have been entered into between the State and Commonwealth governments and the Opposition supports the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(4.57) —The purpose of the Telecommunications ( Interception) Amendment Bill is to amend the principal Act to allow certain documents, including the Age tapes, which are held by the Special Prosecutor, Mr Ian Temby, to be given to any or all of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, the New South Wales Commissioner for Public Complaints and the National Crime Authority. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has moved an amendment to-- Mr Spender —Which you will support! Mr ROBERT BROWN —The Government will not be supporting that amendment, for a number of reasons: First, had the Opposition been serious and enthusiastic about both the nature and the details of that amendment, it surely would have moved it in a more substantive way, rather than as an expression of opinion attached to the motion for the second reading of the Bill, which the Opposition had indicated it would not impede. Attaching a simple expression of opinion of this kind is not considered to be appropriate in the light of the purpose and nature of this Bill. Secondly, the purpose of this Bill is to allow the material to be referred as well to the National Crime Authority, which can then seek a reference from the Inter-Governmental Committee concerning the investigation of this material as long as the National Crime Authority, like the commissioners, is satisfied with the authenticity of it. The National Crime Authority has just been established by the Parliament. Again, it is not considered appropriate in any way at all to approve an amendment which would have the effect of expressing a lack of confidence in the ability of the Authority to carry out the responsibilities with which it has been charged by this Parliament. It would be most inappropriate for the National Crime Authority, which has just been established, to have the Parliament which established it express such a lack of confidence in its ability to carry out the responsibilities with which it has been charged. Under the Bill either of those commissioners to whom I have referred, the Royal Commissioner and the New South Wales Commissioner for Public Complaints, must be satisfied that any particular document out of that collection of material is an authentic record before making use of it. I intend to make some observations about the very serious doubts concerning the authenticity of that material. First of all, however, I shall draw general attention to my personal concern about the very serious implications for civil liberties in this legislation and the very serious implications in the amending legislation relating to appropriate legal processes. Also, before I move on to questions concerning authenticity of the Age tapes material, I wish to draw attention to part of the report of the Special Prosecutor, Mr Ian Temby. It is sufficiently important to record all of this in Hansard. On page 10, paragraph 17 he said this in connection with the Age tapes material: The other avenue of investigation that has been close to me is through Mr Arthur ((Jock') Hawthorn. He is a former member of the New South Wales Police Force. Between 1976 and 1981 he was a member of the Radio Branch of that Force attached to the Crime Intelligence Unit. He left the Police Force in June 1981 as a Sergeant Second Class due to ill health. In July 1980 he met with Superintendent Lamb, then in charge of ''B'' Division in the A.F.P.-- the Australian Federal Police- in Sydney, and provided information obviously obtained from the same source as the transcripts. His contact with Mr Lamb extended from about May 1980 until March 1981. He supplied Mr Lamb with tapes of telephone conversations between Mr Ryan and others. Mr Hawthorn was a registered paid informer (code name 'Irish') with the A.F.P. whilst still a serving member of the New South Wales Police Force. It is not known whether the payment was used by him to defray expenses, to maintain a facility, or for his personal benefit. Mr Hawthorn has refused to be interviewed by either the A.F.P. or New South Wales Police. That is incredible for a number of reasons, not the least of which is its apparent significance. It is also incredible because at that time the Minister for Administrative Services in the former Fraser Government was the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman). It is absolutely inconceivable that an operation of that kind would have been undertaken by the Australian Federal Police in such a way as to encourage, authorise and support the commission of an act of corruption. A paid informer illegally took information and handed that material to the Australian Federal Police. It is inconceivable that such an exercise would have been undertaken without the authority, knowledge and approval of the Minister for Administrative Services in the Fraser Government. I hope that the significance of this matter is not lost to honourable members. It means, in fact , that Minister Newman in the Fraser Government contributed towards, encouraged and authorised the corruption of a member of the New South Wales Police Force by the Australian Federal Police for which he was responsible. Mr Spender —That is irresponsible speculation. Mr ROBERT BROWN —There is no question that an officer of the Australian Federal Police would ever have undertaken such an exercise without the approval of his Minister. That is absolutely inconceivable and the honourable member for North Sydney knows it. We saw the hypocrisy of the Opposition, whose members came into this chamber day after day, week after week, making claims about what they considered to be the extent of corruption in New South Wales. If there is corruption in New South Wales in part the people who make those claims were responsible for it. I said 'in part'. Quite clearly, Opposition members were in part responsible for one example of corruption in New South Wales which has been proved. The significance and implications of that are extremely serious. The lily white, holier than thou honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) is now the shadow Special Minister of State. If ever the Opposition became the government, presumably he would become the Minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police. He has already been identified within the Parliament as a receiver of stolen property. He received property stolen from the Stewart Royal Commission. That is on the record. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I suggest to the honourable member that he is getting fairly close to infringing standing order 76. He should watch that he does not transgress that standing order by imputing improper motives. Mr Spender —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member should be directed to withdraw the remark. It is directly contrary to the terms of the standing order to which you have referred. Mr ROBERT BROWN —On the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: It has been proved in the Parliament-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will continue his speech. He will also take note of what I have said. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I will certainly do so. Let me express it this way: It has been shown in the Parliament that those documents were stolen from the Stewart Royal Commission. It has also been claimed that they first of all found their way into the office of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). From there they were transferred to the office of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), from where they were transferred to the office of the honourable member for Boothby. The first two points in that movement I do not think have been proved, but we know that the material finished up in the hands of the honourable member for Boothby. That is incontrovertible. It has been proved. I let the point rest there. I mentioned that either of the commissioners has to be satisfied that any document is an authentic record before making use of it. Very quickly I will refer to some of the statements that have been made by very responsible, highly regarded people in Australia concerning the possible authenticity of some of that material. First of all, Miss Mary Gaudron, the New South Wales Solicitor- General, in her report after the material was referred to her emphasised that authentication would be difficult. She said: Unless technical assessment is able to bear in some manner on authenticity, authentication could be achieved only by the admissions of the person or persons involved in the interception and making of the tapes and documents, or by the acknowledgment of the various persons whose conversations they purport to be. Her report said that the tapes were not original recordings of intercepted telephone conversations and it was not possible to exclude the possibility of editing and patching-that was the word she used-of conversations. That is very serious. Let me move to the New South Wales Attorney-General, Mr Landa. He said that unless there had been attempts to authenticate 'it would be a monstrous abuse of the legal process to subject people to some kind of inquisition as to unauthenticated documents, many of which contain hearsay, innuendo, rumour and falsity'. The Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge was itself not able to determine that the materials relating to a Federal judge were authentic or genuine and is on record as being unable to do so. Senator Durack, in the second reading debate in the Senate on this Bill, said: I do not say it can be established that the actual recordings clearly are authentic in the sense that they are a continuous record of conversations actually taking place, made as they took place, but there is now evidence in a general sense that these Age tapes are certainly not a hoax. If the use to which these tapes will be put in relation to actions which could be taken against individuals which could not be taken under the provisions of the law is in doubt and if the authenticity of that material is so much open to doubt, I express serious reservations-I did so at the start-about it. Let me proceed further and refer quickly to a comment by Professor Richard Harding, Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology. In a wide-ranging speech to the New South Wales branch of the Royal Institute of Public Administration on ways and means of fighting crime and handling allegations about corruption, Professor Harding was scathing in his criticism of the publication and the use by the Federal Opposition of the tapes. He said: They are tapes of tapes, characterised by patching and tampering. He continued: To the extent that unpatched, if not original, tapes exist, transcripts of them contrive to reverse the role of the judge and the lawyer on more than one occasion. Further he said: No ordinary person of common sense would make the simplest decision affecting the most mundane aspect of his daily life on the basis of such inherently defective information. The newspaper report on his speech continued: He said that in the name of nosing out crime and corruption Australians were in danger of destroying a value needed for the survival of a democratic society- privacy. Because of the time constraint of this debate I do not have time to proceed with some other comments that have been made, but let me refer to the context in which they were made so that if people want to check them out they will be able to do so. First of all, I refer to those made by Mr Temby, the Special Prosecutor, in his role as Special Prosecutor, in his report in July on the Federal content of the material. I invite honourable members to check the comments made and the conclusion reached by Mr Temby. I also refer to the report to the Senate on 24 August of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. If material of that kind is to be handed to at least the two commissioners, the Stewart Royal Commission and the special commissioner in New South Wales, it is their responsibility to determine, in the first place, its authenticity. That needs to be done with a tremendous amount of caution. There are people whose status and reputation can be maligned and destroyed as a result of innuendo, supposition and perhaps cooked tapes and transcripts. The implications for those people are so important and so serious, as are the implications for the correct processes of the law in Australia, the whole range of democratic procedures and the rights of individuals in a democratic society. All those things are impinged upon by this legislation and by the possible direction in which it goes. I conclude by emphasising the need for great caution . Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(5.12) —I thank the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and particularly my colleague the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) for their contributions to the debate on the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2). The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment, which I do not think is any surprise to the Opposition. Let me address some remarks to the matters that were raised by the Opposition. There is no argument that the National Crime Authority should have access to the tapes; nor should there be any argument about their being made available to all the relevant groups that investigate crime. Basically, three commissions are dealing with that question. There is the Nugan Hand inquiry, under Mr Justice Stewart, and the Mr Asia drug inquiry also under Mr Justice Stewart. The Government accepted an amendment in the Senate that the matter also be referred to the National Crime Authority, also under Mr Justice Stewart. I do not think there is any contest about that. So, to that extent nobody is objecting to the legislation. In the course of debate the honourable member for North Sydney raised the question as to the powers of the Crime Authority and the purposes for which it may use materials given to it. It is very clear that proposed section 7B(5) of the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2) states that the Authority may use materials for the purposes and performance of its functions. This refers to both the general and the special investigations of the Authority. So it is not correct to say, as the honourable member has said, that the Bill limits the exercise by the Authority of any of its powers. In other words, even though the point was made that an offence under the Telecommunications ( Interception) Act carried a penalty of two years imprisonment, once the material under the Act is referred to the Crime Authority it does not have any inhibitions or restrictions because that material could perhaps lead to an offence that could be dealt with by the Crime Authority. So the honourable gentleman is not interpreting the situation correctly when he makes the point. Relevant criminal activity, under the National Crime Authority Act, is defined to include any circumstances implying that a relevant offence may have been committed. Thus the Age materials may well be of use to the National Crime Authority where they are relevant to any matters with which the Authority is concerned. It is not restricted by the fact that a penalty under the interception aspect is two years. The material can go before it because it comes under the general position of any circumstances implying that a relevant offence may have been committed. The relevant section is proposed new section 7B(2). It is a matter of note that some portion of what are called the Age materials is already in the possession of Mr Justice Stewart. This certainly guarantees that all materials will be made available to him. As we know, the matter has been the subject of debate in the Senate. In that context let me talk about some of the matters that were mentioned there. Basically, it was a question as to whether, in accordance with what the honourable gentleman has moved, there ought to be a royal commission of inquiry to look at the origins of the tapes and the authenticity of the material and whether such information reveals any offences against the laws of the Commonwealth, et cetera. The matter was not pressed to a division in the Senate. It was indicated that there was not really strong support for it. Even Senator Durack, while moving the amendment in the Senate, said that he really wanted the matter to be dealt with but he did not go to the extent of pressing a division. I make that point. I quote from what one of the Australian Democrats said in the Senate: It seems to us inappropriate to set up a body, with the checks and balances which this Parliament has already given that body and with the types of wide sweeping powers that have been given to it, and then to say that the matter which is already in its possession ought to be placed before a royal commission. In other words, the Democrats said 'We have enough power ourselves; we are into this matter', in terms of the appropriate committee which is still sitting. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) made this point in the Senate: The notion that a Federal royal commission would be the answer to all our prayers is a misconceived one, given the fact that a Federal royal commission could not exercise coercive powers to determine the possible relevance of this material to State laws. The material, of course, really relates-if it is authentic-to State laws. It concerns a person named Morgan Ryan. The point that ought to be emphasised, in the context of what was said by my colleague, is that Morgan Ryan has been dealt with already by this Government. He has successfully appealed against a conviction and is awaiting a further trial. We do not want to discuss that matter any more, except to say that Senator Durack had Morgan Ryan's matter before him for a considerable period and he was not able to proceed with the trial. Mr Spender —That is not so. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He did not go ahead with the trial. I know that the honourable gentleman is a bit sensitive about the fact but representations were made. The point I make is that we are looking at the question of the Opposition's amendment which creates the issue that these tapes really ought to be thoroughly investigated. Mr Temby did that and he did it very well. He referred to the fact that reports were furnished about these tapes. A number of tests were done with the tapes and we then have, as was outlined by my colleague the honourable member for Hunter, the extraordinary situation that the tapes were apparently done by Mr Arthur (Jock) Hawthorn, known as 'Irish', who was a paid informer of the Australian Federal Police. Apparently he was part of the Crime Intelligence Unit of the New South Wales Police Force. That Intelligence Unit must have been a pretty conservative body because it kept all that information to itself. It certainly did not give it to the New South Wales Government. Apparently it gave copies of the tapes to the Federal Police, which then transcribed some of them and handed the tapes back. That was an offence under the Federal Telecommunications (Interception) Act. Mr Spender —Which you are seeking to overcome now. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We are not seeking to overcome it. The point is that it constituted an offence which, as my colleague the honourable member for Hunter said, must have been known to somebody in the Federal Government of the day in 1982. The Federal Police could not possibly accept this sort of evidence, pay out money and receive tape transcripts without government knowledge, but they appear to have surfaced now. I think that some sensational evidence was given today in another place which would indicate that perhaps these transcripts surfaced by way of a member of the Liberal Party of Australia in the State House of New South Wales. Mr Shipton —That sensation was the comments about you. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not talking about me; I am talking about where this evidence came from, and that is the point. Mr Temby said: It is not possible to prove that the tapes or transcripts, or any part of them, are of actual telephone conversations. The authenticity of the voices cannot be proved . . . Mr Spender —He said it could be taken further by an independent inquiry. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The matter could be taken further, yes. Mr Justice Stewart, as a royal commissioner, has those powers. That is the point I am making. So does the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge. My recommendation is that the matter be left as it is until the judge and the Committee have completed their tasks. The judge is a dual royal commissioner. This should satisfy the honourable member for North Sydney. I come to the question of background. I wish to make a point in regard to the analysis of these tapes. An attachment to the report of the Special Prosecutor into the Age materials states: Analysis of the material gave rise to the theory that its preparation had been selectively summarised; that it was incomplete and inconsistent with what could have been expected from protracted and full telephone interceptions. We believed then, as we believe now, that the material had been edited. When both sets of material acquired from 'The Age' were compared, marked differences were readily apparent. An additional conversation was found on the second set of tapes which is not present on the first set. It appears to be between a police officer and an inmate of Long Bay Gaol. Two further inconsistencies were noted . . . The attachment discusses the inconsistencies. In reference to Mr Creighton Burns of the Age, it continues: . . . while not resiling from his decision not to co-operate with a police enquiry . . . has acknowledged that the additional conversation was not included in the material to the Attorney-General because, in the Editor's view, it was not of a telephone intercepted conversation . . . So we are dealing with material that was not relevant. It was altered, and admissions have been made to that effect. The attachment continued: The Editor of 'The Age' also acknowledged that 'The Age' was responsible for the ambient sounds and voices which appear on the Attorney-General's copies of the tapes. He profoundly regretted the fact that 'The Age' was responsible for a degree of confusion by employing a less than sophisticated method to replicate the tapes. That is a fair comment but we did not really get a first class result from the Age as a result of its interest in this matter. As mentioned by my colleague the honourable member for Hunter, Mr Temby's report states that the relevant period when all this matter was brought to notice was July 1980 when 'Irish' met with Mr Lamb, who happens to be one of our Federal officers. The contact extended from May 1980 until March 1981. The informant supplied Mr Lamb with tapes of telephone conversations between Mr Ryan and others. That is the period when the tapes were supplied. In an interview Detective Sergeant Lewington said to Mr Temby that he considered the tapes may have been of intercepted telephone conversations and presumed that such interceptions were legal. That is fair enough but one would have thought one would be able to establish that fact. There are many safeguards in the Telecommunications (Interception) Act to show what is regarded as authorised. Yet top police officers presumed this action was legal. I do not know how a State policeman would have presumed that it was legal to intercept telephone conversations. It is also very clear that the Telecommunication ( Interceptions) Act states that any person who communicates any information obtained by interception is liable to imprisonment of two years or a penalty of $5,000. Mr Spender —Are you going to change that? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, we do not want to do that. I want to ask about the Government Ministers of the day. I suppose the honourable member for North Sydney would say that they obviously did not know what was happening. Am I to understand that that is the case? We will see whether that is so. The officer in charge stated: . . . Lamb told him- this is the officer- that he was receiving information from a serving member of the NSW Police; knew that Lamb had been offered tapes and Lamb had approached Farmer who in turn had approached Woods- who happened to be the Police Commissioner- believed Woods had said Lamb should accept tapes because they contained intelligence; he believed that Woods later became suspicious that tapes were of illegal telephonic interceptions; Lamb told Anderson that informant was 'Jock' Hawthorn; Anderson did not listen to tapes . . . There we have it. The matter went right to the Police Commissioner. Would honourable members opposite say now that the Minister knew nothing about it? Do they really think that is the position? Interviews were conducted with Mr Hawthorn who, I guess, was not at all backward in protecting himself because he made the point that he declined to co-operate with the inquiry, and why not? That is his privilege. Honourable members opposite want to have a royal commission on this matter. They want to call these people to give evidence. I think the first thing they would have to do would be to charge them with illegally contravening Federal law . I suppose it would be interesting to find what the Ministers of the Federal Government at the time knew or did not know about the matter. We do not see any merit in the amendment. We do not see any need for the commission. The tapes will go where they can be thoroughly investigated. I would think that a number of people here might be called before the appropriate commission to explain certain matters. I suppose in the interests of the taxpayers somebody might ask how much money was paid for this information. Having got the information, the second point is why was nothing done with it? Why did it just lie dormant until we happened to come into government? What is the reason for that? The serious point is that all this information, I suggest to the honourable member for North Sydney, was known to the Ministers of the coalition Government. Accordingly, without any further ado, we think that having the acceptance of the Opposition will strengthen our position, but the Opposition should never suggest that there are matters from which this Government would ever resile when it comes to pursuing those who are guilty of criminal offences. I hope we can investigate all the matters that Mr Temby has mentioned. If it means former Ministers of the Government of Malcolm Fraser giving evidence, I hope that they will do so. Mr Spender —And present Ministers of the Government? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Present Ministers would be delighted, because all we have done is prosecute Morgan Ryan, something the previous Government failed to do. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Debate resumed from 9 October, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(5.32) —The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1984 [No. 2], which the Government is asking this House to accept, arises out of an amendment that was moved in another place by Senator Jack Evans of the Australian Democrats. What the Government has decided to do at long last is to accept the logic of the argument advanced by the Australian Democrats and the Opposition, that is, to provide that the legislation striking down tax avoidance arrangements in relation to superannuation schemes covered by section 23 of the Income Tax Assessment Act should apply only from 8 December 1983, which was the date of introduction of the legislation. We have said repeatedly that there was absolutely no case for applying retrospectivity in relation to this particular tax avoidance practice. Honourable members will be aware that, when the matter was last debated by the Parliament, I pointed out that this practice had been the subject of an exchange of correspondence between me, when I was Treasurer, and the former Commissioner of Taxation, Mr O'Reilly, in February 1980. At that time Mr O'Reilly, in reply to a specific request from me, said that in his opinion there was no need for the then Government to legislate, even prospectively, to strike down this practice. He advised us at the time that if we did legislate prospectively we might well interfere with the operation of entirely legitimate arrangements. Not surprisingly I took Mr O'Reilly's advice and we did not legislate. It is therefore quite unacceptable for the Government to have argued in the face of that evidence that there was a case for this legislation to start from 1 July 1977. That is what we objected to at the time. There was never any argument between the Government and the Opposition that these practices ought to be proscribed prospectively. We indicated as far back as December last year that we would be willing to support the Government in doing that. At long last the Government has bowed to the inevitable and has accepted the amendments moved by the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. I welcome this repentance by the Government. I welcome the Government's acceptance of the wisdom of the Opposition's and the Democrats' position because in truth there was absolutely no case for commencing this amendment from 1 July 1977. It would have been an outrageous use of retrospective legislation to have done so, particularly in the teeth of the advice that I produced of what the Commissioner of Taxation had told me in February 1980. But it really goes much further than that because when this matter was examined by the Senate evidence was given by officers of the Australian Taxation Office, including senior officers and, I think, the present Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Boucher, which in no way disputed the advice that I had been given by Mr O' Reilly and that I had accordingly given to the Parliament when the matter was debated. So not only was the wisdom of what the Government proposed undermined by the argument I used on earlier occasions but also the evidence produced before a Senate committee by senior officers of the Australian Taxation Office supported the argument that I had put forward. It is not surprising that the Government has sought to adopt the course of action that it has with this piece of legislation. One of the many things that this Government has done over the last 18 months is to use the new McCarthyism of putting up a piece of legislation, putting a tag of tax avoidance on it and, because we do not accept it, automatically saying: 'There you go again. You are the friends of the tax avoidance industry'. It is very interesting that in recent days a Government, some of whose senior members such as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) have been railing against breaches of fundamental rights and complaining that there is lack of orderly debate and due process, would be party to such a disreputable smear tactic as to put up unreasonable legislation, legislation that the Commissioner of Taxation told me in 1980 we ought not to bring in. He said in February 1980: 'Look, Treasurer, if you bring this in, it will interfere with many legitimate arrangements'. In the face of that reasonable and sensible advice, why would I not have taken the action I did? Yet this Government and Treasurer (Mr Keating) come into the Parliament and say: 'Look, we are going to start this from 1 July 1977'. It is absolutely outrageous. Not surprisingly, the Democrats objected and we objected. But, of course, it is part and parcel of the tactic that the Government has adopted. But there is a reason for this tactic. I have said this on many occasions in the past, and no doubt will have a chance of saying it again in the weeks ahead. The only thing that I regret is that the Parliament will have risen and I will not have the pleasure of saying it again to my friend the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown), because he has been a very keen and attentive listener to what I have said. He has not learned very well because he still keeps repeating all those canards of the Government about the tax avoidance issue. One of the great canards is that we did nothing about tax avoidance when were in power. We have heard time and again that we did absolutely nothing. Mr Robert Brown —We have got proof. Mr HOWARD —I am glad that the honourable member for Hunter used the word 'proof' because I will now draw on an impeccable impartial source. I draw on the most recent annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation. I have it here in all its blue glory. Mr Dobie —Liberal blue. Mr HOWARD —It was tabled yesterday, in nice Liberal blue. I had better not say that because the Commissioner of Taxation is a politically independent man and somebody who has given faithful service not only to the former Government but also to the present Government. I refer to Mr Boucher. He was appointed by Mr Keating, the present Treasurer. He was a senior officer in the Australian Taxation Office when I was Treasurer. I think it is fair to say that I spent more time with Mr Boucher in the five years that I was Treasurer, dealing with taxation matters and in particular tax avoidance matters, than with any other person in the entire Public Service. I know Mr Boucher well and I respect him greatly. It is therefore of some significance to me and to this whole debate that I quote what he says on page 6 of the report. It is very important. I hope the honourable member for Hunter listens to this because it will not be the last time he will hear it. He ought to understand it very well. Mr Boucher said: I assumed office as Commissioner on 14 June 1984. I succeeded Mr W. J. O'Reilly , who went into honoured retirement on reaching the age of 65 years. At that time the boom in the promotion of tax avoidance and evasion schemes of the kind experienced in the late 70s and early 80s was a thing of the past. In other words, it was dead. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) was right after all-tax avoidance really was dead by June 1984. Mr Robert Brown —Who was in government then? A Labor government. Mr HOWARD —The honourable member should not get too excited because it gets even better. Mr Boucher goes on to say this: That elimination of 'paper' schemes is one of the success stories of the last decade. Mr Dobie —How long? Mr HOWARD —Of the last decade-not of the last 14 months, but of the last decade. Who was Treasurer for five years of that decade? I was. The credit for that great success story belongs to the time that we were in government and this document is eloquent testimony to the work done at that time. Mr Boucher goes on to say: They have been beaten by a combination of legislation, administration, changes in attitude and sheer hard work. That sentence contains an appropriate compliment to the work of the Australian Taxation Office during that period, which in many cases laboured under difficulties. It laboured in circumstances in which there were public attitudes of hostility to taxation enforcement. Everybody is gungho now about clamping down on tax avoidance but some years ago when a few people started to do something about tax avoidance not everybody was quite so gungho. There have been changes in attitude and the Taxation Office deserves great credit. I want to dwell on the words of Mr Boucher because they are a landmark comment in this debate on tax avoidance. Nobody in his wildest imagination could possibly allege that what the Commissioner of Taxation is here talking about is the work done by this Government between March 1983 and June 1984. Not even the honourable member for Hunter, on the eve of an election, would be quite so outrageous with the truth as to allege that. He has to acknowledge that when Mr Boucher talks about the legislation, when he talks about the great success story of the last decade, he is talking about the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act which I had passed through the Parliament in December 1980. That particular piece of legislation declared bottom of the harbour tax transactions a criminal offence. When that Bill was brought before the Parliament I can remember the present Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, saying to the Parliament that that legislation was unprecedented in its severity. In other words, he did not regard lightly the Parliament introducing for the first time criminal sanctions carrying a five-year gaol sentence to deal with tax evasion practices. He was not storming the barricades then, saying that we should have brought it in years ago; he was prepared to acknowledge in December of 1980 that what we were doing was fairly severe, fairly unprecedented and fairly unusual because we had a particular problem. Mr Boucher was talking not only about the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act but also about the new general anti-avoidance provision that I was responsible for putting into the Income Tax Assessment Act. It came into operation in May of 1981. That was Part IVA, which replaced the defunct section 260. Mr Robert Brown —You never applied it. Mr HOWARD —The honourable member for Hunter says that I never applied it. We never applied it because the Commissioner of Taxation, noting the judgments of the High Court of Australia culminating in Cridland's case in 1978, decided that it was an absolute waste of time to use it. If we go to the judgment of Mr Justice Mason in Cridland's case, we find what is as close as we can possibly get to a judicial direction to the Commissioner to stop wasting his time in applying section 260. I am glad the honourable member for Hunter has raised the question of section 260 because I went through all of this in November of 1982. I got an opinion from Mr Gleeson and from Mr Hill, and I had Mr Gyles's opinion. They all said that I ought to test section 260. I went to no better authority than the then Commonwealth Solicitor-General, Sir Maurice Byers. Nobody could doubt his repute or his impartiality in these matters. He looked at all the legal opinion and said to forget it, I was wasting my time. All I can say is that I wish the Commissioner well. I do not know what has happened between then and now to change the advice going to the Commissioner, but I want to place it on record that I looked very hard at using section 260 and I came to the conclusion on the best advice, honestly given from the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, that it was an absolute waste of time. To return to the narrative about the success story of the decade, because it is a very important narrative in this tax avoidance debate, we have not only the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act and the new general anti-avoidance provision but also those 28 individual pieces of legislation which I sponsored to deal with specific tax avoidance schemes. It is worth remembering-Mr Boucher reminds us of this in his report-that in the late 1970s it was the paper schemes, the Curran schemes, the deferred interest schemes and the like, that really posed the monumental threat to revenue. The only way that any government could have dealt with those schemes was the way in which we dealt with them; that is, as soon as we found them happening we made a statement saying that from the time of the statement the scheme was out of court and would be legislated against. We did that on 28 separate occasions in dealing with particular schemes. Mr Dobie —And they knew it. Mr HOWARD —Yes. That legislative program was remarkably successful. When it was ultimately supplemented by the work we did on Part IVA of the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act, all of that came together to present a very powerful armoury against tax avoidance. Of course, it will be recalled that, when the McCabe-Lafranchi report on tax avoidance in Australia and the report of the Costigan Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union were tabled, enormous publicity was given to both of those reports. One of the interesting things about both of those reports, and something that with the benefit of hindsight one now ought to be able to acknowledge objectively, is that they did not really reveal, apart from the problems that had occurred in the Crown-Solicitor's Office in Perth, anything new. All they did was to give a dramatic flourish, some names and some colourful circumstances to matters that were already fairly well known within the community. One of the strange things about the interpretation of those events is the feeling that in some way Costigan, McCabe and Lafranchi discovered bottom of the harbour tax avoidance schemes. They had been discovered and legislated against years earlier. They had been made illegal and subject to criminal penalty in December of 1980. In fact, as a result of those reports and in the time that followed their tabling, the then Government legislated to recoup the unpaid company tax arising out of those particular schemes. I welcome this opportunity to talk on this Bill. Not only do I welcome the fact that the Government has finally agreed to accept the Opposition's advice and legislate prospectively but also it gives me the opportunity to say something about Mr Boucher's report. I imagine that over the weeks in front of us we will hear a little bit about the subject of tax avoidance. I have said before that I do not mind if the Government wants to debate the question of tax avoidance. I would love to have a debate about tax avoidance with the Treasurer during the election campaign but I suppose he will be as squeamish about having a debate with me on taxation as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is apparently squeamish about having a debate with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) on the issues of the election campaign. The Treasurer has been very squeamish about having debates with me over the last 18 months. Only in the last month has he condescended to have any debates with me, notwithstanding the fact that during the whole of the time I was Treasurer whenever I was asked I was always willing to debate my opposite number . For most of that time it was the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I make it quite clear now that not only will I welcome any opportunities the Treasurer can find in his busy schedule in the course of the election campaign to debate those outrageous things he said in the Parliament today about the cost of our election promises and the dishonest things he said about the cost of our election campaign; I will also be delighted-- Mr Robert Brown —All documented. Mr HOWARD —I will be delighted to debate that point also because the Treasurer's imagination, vivid though I know it to be, scaled new heights of fantasy this afternoon when he answered that question in the House. I would be absolutely delighted to debate the subject of this legislation, namely, matters relating to tax avoidance, because we have a record which is second to none in this area. We have a record that is supported by the profession and which, during the time we were in government, was declared to have been a good record by newspapers throughout the country. I was supported by the Commissioner of Taxation in advice to me before the change of government, and it was vindicated in the most convincing manner yet by the present Commissioner of Taxation when he spoke about the elimination of paper schemes as one of the success stories of the last decade. Nobody in a political position could ask for a more ringing endorsement of what had been done. No government could have been more abjectly set back on its heels with a dishonest campaign on this subject than the present Government because it appointed the Commissioner of Taxation who vindicated our position. He is not some toady of the Liberal Party. He was appointed to a high office by the Government, and I supported that appointment. His report is very welcome and very relevant. I welcome again the fact that the Government has agreed to our changes. It was never right or fair of the Government to try to date the operation of this measure from 1 July 1977. There was no justification for it. The Government had no right to allege that this practice justified the use of such retrospective legislation. I am very pleased that the Government has decided to back off. I remind the House that Senator Jack Evans in another place was responsible for picking up the very same point that was put forward by the Opposition when this Bill was first introduced. I am very sorry that the Government did not accede to the Opposition's request when it was first made. We could all have been saved a great deal of time. The honourable member for Hunter could have been saved at least two or three of my speeches on the subject of tax avoidance and I could have been spared at least two or three of his speeches on the same subject. Nonetheless, I welcome the opportunity to speak on it because it gives me the opportunity to say again how pleased I am to receive Mr Boucher's endorsement of the work that has been done. I can only say to the House, and particularly to the honourable member for Hunter, that taxation very clearly will be an important issue in this coming election campaign. In the interests of some objectivity creeping into that election campaign, I hope that the honourable member for Hunter refrains from saying some of the more outrageous things he has said in this House on the subject. It is appropriate that we should be joined at the ministerial table by the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones). I had almost run out of things to say, but his coming to the table has reminded me of how important are his words on the subject of taxation. To the Minister for Science and Technology belongs the distinguished credit for having let the cat out of the bag three days after the Budget was brought down. We all remember that famous interview on The World Today when he lamented the terrible deal he got from the Budget allocation to science. He lamented the fact that he had been wrong. He said that we could not expect governments to put up taxes three months before an election, but that if the Government were returned it would be able to increase taxation and spend a great deal more money. It is no wonder that he was promptly dragged into the corner office and given a lecture by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and pretty smartly told: 'Look, if you want any hope of getting any money for science out of us if we get back, you will keep quiet about the economy, and particularly taxation, between now and the end of the year'. The Minister for Science and Technology said aloud what many people know-that is, that next year, regardless of who is in power, we will have an enormous budgetary problem. There is no way we will be able to repeat the revenue increases which underlie and underpin this year's Budget. Next year we will not have a 45 per cent increase in provisional taxation collections. We will not have a 10.5 per cent real increase in taxation collections. We will go back to far more modest levels. It does not matter who wins the election. That will be a reality facing the government of next year. In the interests of an objective debate about the economy over the next couple of months all of us on both sides of the House ought to recognise it. It ought to condition our promises and condition what is said during the election campaign. If anybody imagines that the earth can be promised by anybody in this coming election campaign, he should have another think. Mr Dobie —And junior Marmaduke. Mr HOWARD —We will deal in time with junior Marmaduke's misrepresentations on that front. We will deal with them very effectively in time. I only hope I have the opportunity to deal with the issue with both junior and senior Marmaduke if they pay a visit to my electorate, as they are threatening; I hope they do. I make one plea to the Labor Party about the next election campaign: Please send Mr Wran into my electorate because it will do great things for my majority. I would not want to close my contribution to a debate on taxation without giving the Minister for Science and Technology a full run, because he spoke great truth. I respect him for his great outburst of honesty. He was really saying that, if the Hawke Government gets back, taxation has to go up. That is what he was really saying and he was telling the truth. The Treasurer came into the House today and further underpinned the truth of what the Minister was saying. He gave an unequivocal commitment in the House today that next year's deficit, if the Labor Party is in government, will be lower than this year's. Of course, the Prime Minister has given an unequivocal commitment that if the Government is returned there will be no overall increase in taxation. I am sure that Ministers are running around the country saying that the spending commitments they have made will be absolutely inviolate. I am quite sure that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, has told all the parents and citizens associations that have come to see her today that the Government's promises on education will be kept. Will they be kept or will the Government do something about them? Are they in doubt? The Prime Minister at Question Time put the proposition that it simply is not credible to promise the earth on taxation, reducing the deficit and spending; he said that something has to give. What will give if Mr Hawke is re-elected? He said that taxation will not go up, although the Minister for Science and Technology said it will. The Prime Minister said that the deficit is coming down . What will happen to some of the spending? Will Senator Ryan renege on some of her education commitments? Will the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) renege on some of the health commitments? Will there be reneging in some of these areas? The Government will have a credibility problem of gigantic proportion on this issue. In the weeks ahead not only will I draw on the writings of Mr Boucher on the subject of taxation; I will also draw very heavily on Milton-on the Minister for Science and Technology. Mr Allan Morris —Milton Friedman? Mr HOWARD —No; I was about to say Milton Jones, but I think that is being unkind because the Minister is basically a big spender. It would be very unfair of me to accuse the Minister of having any economic kinship with Milton Friedman. I do not think he would want me to do that, so I will not do so. His words will come back to haunt not only him but also the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the rest of his colleagues during the course of the election campaign because he really did speak the truth. I thank the House and the Government for its good sense in accepting the Opposition's position on this issue. I welcome the opportunity again of drawing upon Mr Boucher's vindication of what we have done in the tax avoidance area. I wish my good friend in these debates, the honourable member for Hunter, reasonable fortune in the election. I think the nature of his constituency is such that, even with the swing that will develop to the Opposition parties, he will not be at risk. I look forward-albeit our positions will be reversed-to once again crossing swords with the honourable member for Hunter in the new Parliament. I dare say that taxation will continue to rate a mention during the course of those debates. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BARRY JONES —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed with his personal explanation. Mr BARRY JONES —I simply repeat the substance of what I said by way of a personal explanation on 11 September in this chamber at pages 1000 and 1001 of Hansard. I claim to have been misrepresented because the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), on the occasions on which he has quoted what I said on the The World Today program, leaves out the critical words : 'That has always been the case in the past'. In other words, I was making a generalisation about the past performance of government. I repeat what I said on 11 September: I was not making a prediction about the future budgetary policy of the Hawke Government, which I was in no position to do. I was making a general observation about the activities of past governments. The essence of what I meant to say-I agree it was not very felicitously put on the program-was repeated later that day in an answer to a question without notice from the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards). I said: The difficulty that I face in my portfolio is that we are dealing with a longer timeframe. In a Budget we are dealing with matters that can be dealt with within a 12-month period. I am concerned about the things for which we make plans for 10, 15 or 20 years ahead, to the year 2000 and beyond. After an exchange between the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and me, he said: Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not want to be unfair. I said: You left out the key words 'That has always been the case in the past'. I pressed him by saying: . . . do you concede that you left out the words 'That has always been the case in the past'? Mr Howard said: I concede that those words were used by the Minister . . . Mr Shipton —He is not denying it. Mr BARRY JONES —No, but he never mentions it. I think that, if he quotes me, he should quote me fairly and in context. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —I do. It is quite true, as the Minister for Science and Technology ( Mr Barry Jones) said, that he did use those words and in my presentation today I did omit reference to the fact-- Mr Barry Jones —And 84 different occasions as well. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not seem to have been misrepresented. Mr HOWARD —It is very important, with respect. The implication in the Minister's explanation that I misrepresented the thrust of his remarks is not fair. He would have to agree that in those remarks he said that governments were not game to put up taxes three months before an election. The Minister did say that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! This is not a general debate. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(6.05) —I thought that a moment ago we were about to see a demonstration of the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) talking under water. He raised a glass to his head and I thought that we would see another display of his prowess because the rest of his speech was basically about talking under water. Talking under water means that one makes sounds and the person on the receiving end hears something other than what came forward. Let us take the first aspect of his remarks. I refer to the letter in February 1980 which stated in effect: 'Mr Treasurer, you have much bigger problems than cherry-pickers right now; billion dollar problems of people not paying taxes under your government for a number of years'. That is what the Commissioner of Taxation was saying to the then Treasurer. If we are looking at priorities, the first priority is one of a very large volume. We discovered subsequent to February 1980 that in the vicinity of half a billion dollars to a billion dollars a year was being ripped out of revenue by an increasing escalation in paper schemes. Later we saw the report of the present Commissioner, which will have more relevance in a moment. The honourable member for Bennelong told us that in the late 1970s the previous Government was aware of these schemes, that the report of the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the McCabe-Lafranchi report said nothing new, that these things were already known; and, furthermore, that they had been dealt with in 1980. In fact, so they had-the schemes had been made illegal. But the funds that had been accrued in that way had not been recovered. It is pretty fair to suggest or to postulate that the only reason for the recoupment legislation in late 1982 was the release of the McCabe-Lafranchi and Costigan reports. If those reports had not come forward, the recoupment legislation would not have been brought down by the previous Treasurer. He had been aware of the schemes for four years before he outlawed them. They had been going on for many years. In 1980 we had what we have here today. In an attempt to pretend that they are not friends of tax avoiders, the Australian Democrats in the other place and the Opposition in this place have proposed an amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1984 [No. 2] to make something illegal. But something is made illegal only after it has been successful, after it is all over. The cherry- pickers scheme took place mainly between 1977 and 1981-82. The funds that were accrued were mainly accrued then. By outlawing them now, from the Government's point of view it is certainly a technical point and we accept it purely on that basis. But the fact is that the funds that were received are no different from the money that was collected by the recoupment legislation in 1982, of which the former Treasurer is so proud; legislation he was forced to bring in because of those two reports that said nothing new, except that the public at large did not know how much money had been lost. The former Treasurer may have known how much his friends had ripped out, but we did not know and the people in the community did not know about the volume of money-the hundreds of millions of dollars that was involved in the schemes, ranging back over five or six years. The former Treasurer says that the reports said nothing that was new. Therefore, he knew before those reports were handed down about the money that had been taken out of the system. He knew of the need for recoupment before the McCabe-Lafranchi and Costigan reports had been handed down. He expressed an intention or even a desire to bring in recoupment legislation only after those reports had been handed down. Then, of course, that legislation was disembowelled because the provision for taxation on undistributed profits was cut out of it. Let me make it clear that no one in Australia believes that the former Treasurer drafted that recoupment legislation. Quite clearly, the model for that legislation and the drafting of it came from the Australian Taxation Office and the Commissioner. But some surgery was applied to it. One piece was taken out- the piece that referred to the retrospective collection of tax on undistributed profits from those companies. On four occasions this Government has tried to recover that money. That was first posited in legislation in 1982, but the money still has not been recovered. When we talk about tax avoidance, we are talking about two things: The act in itself and the funds that are achieved. It is a mockery and a farce to talk about changing the law to prevent tax avoidance if one makes no attempt to recover the money that has been obtained by that avoidance. As the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) says, when tax avoidance is a dead industry, it will remain dead only if the tax avoiders perceive that the Government and the Parliament are committed to recoupment. This House clearly is committed. But there is a different attitude in the other place, which has had before it two pieces of recoupment legislation designed to recover funds obtained by tax avoiders through the manipulation of their affairs. Those funds have not been recovered to this day. Almost two years ago the Government was elected with a clear and quite specific mandate to recover funds that were in fact lost to revenue, but the Government has been denied by the other place the opportunity to carry out that mandate. Instead, we have a private member's Bill from the Australian Democrats which says, in effect, to the people of Australia: 'Even though you elected a government to recoup money gained by way of tax avoidance and we will not let it get it back, we will let it change the law so that the scheme that has been used can be made illegal'. It has been pretty clear for the last two years to potential cherry-pickers that that scheme would be put out of action. It is not that scheme that is important in the future; it is the next scheme that comes along. The Australian Democrats have made a mockery and a farce of tax avoidance legislation by approving legislation which dates from December last year-not from the time of the previous Treasurer's announcement of some years ago that tax avoidance is now dead, that blatant avoidance schemes would be a thing of the past and he would legislate against them and that he would date the legislation from the day of that announcement. The Australian Democrats did not date it from the time the 1983 Australian Labor Party policy statement was made. They did not date it from the time the Government was given a mandate following the election in 1983. They did not date it from the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in 1983. They dated it from the date the legislation was introduced into the House. In other words, the maximum get-out time has been allowed. Anyone who had a scheme operating at the time of the election last year would have closed that scheme down by the time the legislation was introduced. In effect, they have had nine months warning to close their scheme down. I just wonder how many of those schemes were closed down between March and December of last year. The fact is that we as a Government have been trying for almost two years to recoup money gained from the bottom of the harbour schemes and the cherry-picker scheme. We sat here today and were lectured by a thoroughly discredited ex- Treasurer who said that we are going to need more money in the next Budget. In fact, what he is suggesting is that the ordinary taxpayers will either pay more taxes or get fewer benefits because we will not be able to collect revenue from the dishonest taxpayers who have not paid their fair share. He is saying to all honest taxpayers in Australia who have paid their taxes legitimately: 'We will not help the Government recover this money because we think that either it should get it from you or else you should get fewer benefits for the money that you provide'. In the legislation before the House the Government is talking about $15m. That would probably be chicken feed to the ex-Treasurer. To many of his colleagues and friends that could be chicken feed. However, I can assure him that that is an awful lot of money to the taxpayers of Newcastle. Mr Robert Brown —And the Hunter generally. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —And certainly in the Hunter area as well. We are talking about half a billion dollars in respect of bottom of the harbour schemes. I think it is pretty obvious that the Opposition and the Australian Democrats are going to persist with their view that they will stop a scheme only after it has been running for a certain time. We have had from the ex-Treasurer examples of schemes which ran for five, six or seven years. They are saying: 'Let them run for five years and then we will stop them. At the end of that time we will not seek to recover the money because that would not be nice and, after all, they are friends of ours'. We are saying that, no matter where a scheme starts and no matter how long it runs, if it is blatant, if it is clearly not for the purposes intended, if there is fiscal nullity and the various other things that mark tax avoidance schemes, we will legislate to recoup the funds from the time the schemes commenced and not from the time the avoidance was detected. Tax avoidance will be dead only if we adopt that principle and take that position. Tax avoidance has always functioned in this way over the last 20 years. It has been suggested that there has been great success in dealing with tax avoidance in the last decade. The former Treasurer blew his trumpet about how he generated tax avoidance, let it run for five years and then introduced legislation initially to stop it and then, most belatedly, to recoup tax that had been avoided. It is an absolute travesty to say that that is a success and that he should be congratulated for what he did. The previous Government created a system under which the people of Australia were ripped off for years and years . It finally stopped that system after all its friends had benefited. Now it is saying that that is a proud record. If that is a proud record, I can assure the Opposition that the people of Australia understand that record. They understand that the former Treasurer knew before Costigan and before McCabe-Lafranchi. None of this was new, including the amounts of money involved. On that basis the whole of the honourable member's speech was a fraud. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(6.16) —I would like to say at the commencement of my remarks that we heard a whole lot of hogwash from the previous speaker, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris), who devoted the first minutes of his speech to trying to put an analogy that I still fail to comprehend. Still and all, if he is prepared to waste 10 minutes on a subject as vital as the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1984 [No. 2], that is his problem. An allegation has been made against the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), about what happened five or six years ago and the retrospective collection of income tax. I remind Government members that in 1974 a Labor Treasurer set out in his Budget to clamp down on the Curran scheme. I am not sure by what means he intended to do that, but he was going to bring to an end the Curran scheme, which had been in operation from the late 1960s. What did he do about it? He did not do a thing about it. Legislation was not introduced into this House in connection with the Curran scheme or anything else. So Government members should not come in here and carp and harp about the previous Liberal Party Treasurer, who acted as soon as he received information but who adopted the principle of not taxing retrospectively. In fact the Government in that instance removed itself from the collection of any money. We are talking about a figure of $15m in respect of the legislation before the House. The Government has cooled its heels for 12 months with legislation that it was told could be made effective as from 8 December 1983 but not retrospectively. What has it done? It has denied the Treasury the collection of those funds from that date until now. This is the attitude that is taken by people who are against tax avoidance. Government Ministers have spoken about this matter in moments of honesty, which does not happen very often. I will not include in that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) have all said at some stage that tax avoidance was a dead issue, that it was no longer an issue. They even had the honesty to insist that the $9.5 billion deficit was a figment of the imagination of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and would never have been on with the previous Treasurer. They have often quoted a much lesser amount. The Minister for Housing and Construction did just that more recently. So there have been glimpses of honesty by members of the Government. However, I have not seen that honesty displayed today. I was very sorry to see Government members come in here with their tails thoroughly between their legs. They have been told by the Australian Democrats, as we have tried to tell them since December of last year, that they will accept this legislation as from now but they are against the principle of retrospectivity. The Government is short on principle. Mr Allan Morris —We will bring it back. Mr BRAITHWAITE —The honourable member had better just check yesterday's or today 's newspapers because they said that the Government has given that principle away. I think the fact that we are dealing with this legislation today is evidence of that. I think it is further evidence of the fact that the Government has finally found out that, firstly, tax avoidance is a dead issue and, secondly , it was not worth while trying to trigger a double dissolution with legislation of this type. We now have the facts before us. The Government is going to a normal but very early election without using these tax avoidance measures as triggers. Mr Cadman —Indecently early. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Indecently early, as my colleague says. That is evidence of the fact that at long last, although one may not be able to tell a Labor member much , at least he has learnt from the hard grind of having matters rejected by the Senate that tax avoidance was dead before the Government came to office. It was killed by the previous Treasurer in the legislation that has been described. Mr Allan Morris —Just tell us about the money. Mr BRAITHWAITE —The honourable member knows about the money. I do not know about it. Mr Allan Morris —Where is the money? Mr BRAITHWAITE —The honourable member should go and ask Costigan. In many of those schemes, even those that we acted on under that legislation in 1980, many innocent people were involved. Money had been paid to them in all innocence and I believe that the collection of it would have been a miscarriage of justice. Something that was legal yesterday should not be made illegal today. Tax avoidance is about the interpretation of the Income Tax Assessment Act within the confines of what can be got out of it. I suggest that all honourable members do exactly that. If there is a measure in the Act that allows a parliamentarian a benefit which may not be afforded to others, he will take it. I defy any honourable member of the Government to say that he has not used the tax Act to his maximum benefit. That is the pity of the Act. It is so convoluted that it does give incentives to and provide for the minimisation of taxation, and people will take that opportunity. The Government has not addressed itself to an issue which is not dead at the moment, the prescribed payments tax. In 18 months it has done absolutely nothing about it except to put into place legislation threatened by ourselves in the Budget of 1983. Beyond that there has been no attempt to get at tax evasion. The Government is talking about $15m in connection with the cherry-pickers. I refer honourable members to the comments and calculations of the Leader of the Opposition at that time, the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), when he came in here and said grandly, in a loud voice, 'Tax avoidance' and, in a very soft voice, 'and tax evasion are worth $16 billion in Australia annually' . Instead of saying 'tax evasion' in his quiet voice he should have said it more loudly. What has the Government done there? Not a thing, not a crumpet. It is to those things that I believe the Government should have been addressing itself. We certainly will be addressing ourselves to them in government. I have spoken on this Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1984 [No. 2] on many of its visits to this House in the past. I have to keep saying that the ex-Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong, did more to ensure the collapse of the tax avoidance industry than any other Treasurer has done. In fact, the present Treasurer expected to get handfuls of money to balance his Budget from his big tax avoidance issue. He expected $30 a week for the average taxpayer, or something like that. He expected billions, not millions, of dollars, and he found the cupboard was bare because there was no more tax avoidance money in the stream. People in this House have estimated the amount of revenue that could be collected retrospectively. They have found that the amounts have diminished as they have found out the facts. Section 260 was a washout and a failure. It has been a failure since the 1960s. Labor previously rode through three years of government and did not do a thing about it. Again it fell to the honourable member for Bennelong to correct that anomaly also. The passing of that legislation led to the final funeral and burial of tax avoidance in this country. At long last I am very happy to be able to support the Bill and to recognise that the Government has come to its senses in a delayed manner. I suggest that this might be a lesson to the Government; winning an election does not give it a mandate to do everything, including varying its principles. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1984 Air Navigation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1984 Sitting suspended from 6.25 to 8 p.m. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.01) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill and its companion, the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Bill , which I will table shortly, propose changes to the petroleum retail marketing legislation package introduced in 1980. That legislation aims to provide lessee service station operators-called 'franchisees' in the Bill-with certain basic protections, the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act, and to limit the number of oil company direct-operated retail sites, the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act. A review of the legislation was announced on 18 May last year. This review was necessary because, since the introduction of the legislation, many problems have arisen in the operation of both Acts. An important feature of the review conducted by the Department of Industry and Commerce has been the close consultation with all groups affected by the legislation-oil companies, dealer groups, consumer groups and State government departments. All parties displayed a very constructive attitude in addressing the many problems which have come to light during the operation of the legislation. The amendments to the franchise Act contained in the Bill now before the Parliament are quite extensive. Many of the amendments have arisen from the consultations and have the general agreement of the industry. However, I must emphasise that this Bill does not seek to alter the basic policy direction of the franchise Act which is to confer basic rights on lessee service station dealers. Rather, it seeks to simplify the Act, and make it more effective and balanced between the parties. The current legislation was introduced by the previous Government following sustained criticism of marketing practices and the highlighting of serious problems in the industry by the Royal Commission on Petroleum in 1976. The Commission drew attention to alleged unfair price discrimination, increasing vertical integration by the major oil companies and unfair leasing arrangements between the companies and their lessee dealers. The oil industry marketing consultative committee, which was subsequently formed, and the national oil industry conference failed to find agreed industry solutions to the serious problems in petroleum marketing. It would be helpful at this stage if I were to outline briefly the main features of the current franchise Act. The Act provides basic protection for certain dealers, both in the pre-franchise period, and during the currency of a franchise relationship. An important condition for this protection, however, is that there is a franchise relationship in regard to the retail sale of motor fuel. Such a relationship demands three basic elements: The first involves the use by a franchisee dealer of a franchiser's trademark in connection with the retail sale of motor fuel; the second relates to a right granted by that franchiser permitting the franchisee to possess, occupy or use premises for the retail sale of motor fuel; and the third entitles the franchiser to supply motor fuel for retail sale at those premises. Where such a relationship is contemplated, the Act requires that information known to a potential franchiser, which is material and relevant to the operation and profitability of the relevant marketing premises, be made available to the potential franchisee. Once a franchise relationship is entered into, the Act protects a franchisee's tenure by guaranteeing a minimum term of three years and providing an entitlement in most circumstances to two three-year renewals. Termination of such a relationship by a franchiser is prohibited except on specific and limited grounds. The Act generally prohibits a franchiser from discriminating between its franchisees in the price of motor fuel supplied to them, or in any discounts, allowances, rebates or credits given or allowed to them in respect of such fuel. I should stress that the Act is not restricted to the franchise relationships of the major oil companies. It may also apply to the relationships involving any other companies engaged in petroleum retailing. The important conditions for the Act's application is the existence of the three basic elements of a franchise relationship I mentioned earlier. I now turn to the problems identified with the current legislation and the amendments contained in this Bill. A major problem that has arisen with the operation of the franchise Act is that it has applied to a wider range of franchise relationships than was originally intended. I understand that it was intended, as still is intended, that the franchise Act would apply only to those relationships where a franchisee operates a typical 'retail service station business', making retail sales of motor fuel on his own behalf, and not as an agent or employee of an oil company-franchiser. Wholesale fuel establishments, referred to in the industry as depots, are the most obvious example of the Principal Act having a broader application than was intended. A significant number of lessee depot operators, in addition to their normal bulk and wholesaling functions, have historically engaged in some retailing, though usually as a minor part of their normal functions. I also understand that it was intended that the franchise Act would apply to franchise relationships in respect of depot or bulk sites if retail sales constituted a significant proportion of total sales. On the other hand, if retail sales were only a minor and incidental part of total sales, the Act was not intended to apply. The reason the franchise Act has inadvertently applied to many depots is attributable to the current application test which is based on the percentage of retail sales to total sales made at a particular site. This test has been found to be inappropriate as it applies the Act to some marketing premises which have only minimal retail sales, and yet fails to apply it to others which have significant retail sales. The franchise amendment Bill introduces a new application test-a 'volume threshold' test. This new test will apply the Act only to franchise relationships where retail sales of motor fuel at the marketing premises, effected by a franchisee on his own behalf, exceed 360,000 litres per annum. The objective behind the new test remains the same-the amended Act is not intended to apply to franchised premises with quite minimal retail sales. While the volume threshold level of 360,000 litres per annum is acknowledged to be well below the minimum economic throughput of an average lessee service station, the level was chosen following consultations to ensure that the maximum number of franchise relationships will continue to have the protection of the Act. The Government proposes to review the level of the volume threshold test periodically. Because of this important change in the application of the Act, some transitional arrangements are required to cater for premises whose status under the current legislation may change when the amended Act comes into effect on 1 January 1985. These arrangements are contained in clause 25 of the Bill and concern essentially two major categories of marketing premises. The first relates to existing franchise relationships pertaining to retail service station type premises. These will not continue to have the protection of the amended Act from the date of its commencement, 1 January 1985, irrespective of whether or not retail motor fuel sales at those premises during 1984 met the new volume threshold. All such relationships will be accorded full protection of the Act for at least the year 1985. In effect, a one-year transitional period is to be allowed, during which time a franchisee will have the opportunity to meet the new test. For most true retail service station-type businesses, the threshold should present no problem, for as I have already mentioned, the threshold level has been set below what is regarded in the industry as the minimum economic throughput on an average lessee service station. For those franchised premises, however, which do not meet the volume test in the year 1985, there will be no obligation on the franchiser to renew the franchise relationship when that relationship is next due for renewal. Failure to satisfy the volume threshold in 1985, or any subsequent year for that matter, will become a possible ground for non-renewal under the amended Act but, as such, it will be subject to the express safeguards of the Act relating to renewal. The second major category of marketing premises dealt with in the transitional provision, clause 25 of the Bill, relates to franchise relationships pertaining to predominantly wholesale fuel establishments or depots. The Bill clarifies the unintended application of the Act to such outlets by expressly removing them from the Act, in the following manner: A definition of a bulk site agreement is provided to describe establishments to which the amended Act will not apply; in essence, marketing premises will be regarded as bulk wholesale sites where not more than 25 per cent of the total petroleum products dealt with at the premises during 1984 consisted of retail sales of petrol. This definition has attempted to capture the totality of the operation of a bulk site by recognising that products, in addition to being sold from the site, may also be transferred through the site to other storage places or marketing premises. The amended Act will not apply to such sites for the remainder of their fixed lease periods. This temporary exemption is necessary to permit oil companies the opportunity to renegotiate their agreements relating to their own bulk sites to ensure the Act does not apply, if they so wish. Otherwise, a relatively small amount of petrol retailing might bring a predominantly wholesale business under legislation designed to regulate franchise relationships involving the retail marketing of motor fuel. To allow companies the opportunity to renegotiate their agreements relating to bulk sites, it has been necessary for the Bill to provide for an amendment to section 7 (1) of the Act to permit what in effect might be described as contracting out of the Act. This amendment, set out in clause 5, is, however, confined to agreements in respect of marketing premises which meet the test of a bulk site. It cannot be used by franchisers to deny the application of the amended Act to retail service stations to which the Act would normally apply. I will now outline the other important amendments in this Bill. Clause 8 introduces a new section into the Act to provide that payments required to be made by a franchise during the currency of the franchise relationship, other than payments for motor fuel or other stock in trade, must not be increased unreasonably by the franchiser. At present, this protection applies only at the renewal stage of a franchise relationship. The new section will extend to the consideration of any rebates, waivers, discounts, allowances or other like arrangements which affect the actual amounts required to be paid by a franchisee . Clause 15 introduces several additional grounds for termination of a franchise relationship. These cater for situations which are beyond the control of either party to the relationship, notably where the marketing premises are to be compulsorily acquired by the Commonwealth, a State, Territory or local government, or where the sale of motor fuel at the marketing premises is no longer permissible due to a change in a law relating to the use of the land. Clause 16 deals with renewal of franchise relationships, including the mechanical and administrative procedures relating to renewal and non-renewal. I do not propose to talk about these procedures here, except to say that the re- ordering and clarification of section 17 of the current Act should assist all parties in their future renewal dealings. There are however, several important new grounds for non-renewal which are worth mentioning. The first concerns the requirement that a franchisee achieve the volume threshold level of 360,000 litres per annum in each year of the three-year agreement. This amendment will ensure that the basis for entitlement to the protection of the Act at the commencement of a franchise relationship is continued throughout the renewal stages of the relationship, guaranteeing a minimum volume throughput for a franchiser before requiring a renewal of the relationship. A further important ground for non-renewal concerns redevelopment of a site. Under clause 16 a franchiser will be able to refuse renewal where it proposes, in good faith and in the normal course of business, to occupy and use the marketing premises wholly for purposes other than the retail sale of motor fuel, or where it proposes to redevelop the premises wholly or principally for purposes other than the retail sale of motor fuel. This amendment is intended to broaden a franchiser's ability to refuse franchise renewal in order to obtain vacant possession of premises, and should assist in orderly rationalisation of sites in the industry. It is not the Government's intention to entrench uneconomic sites, and this amendment should clarify our position in this regard. Clause 18 introduces certain protections for a franchisee made necessary because of the new redevelopment ground for non-renewal, which I have just mentioned. Situations may arise where a franchiser has not renewed a franchise relationship due to the planned redevelopment of the premises but the redeveloped premises are to be used, in some capacity, for the retail sale of motor fuel. The franchiser will be required in most cases to offer the former franchisee the opportunity to remain at the premises under a new agreement, on terms no less favourable than those offered to other persons. This amendment should ensure that the redevelopment ground for non-renewal is not used as a means of denying an existing franchisee's security of tenure. Clause 20 makes an important clarification to the prohibition of certain price discrimination in section 20. The Act is presently unclear as to whether the prohibition of price discrimination by a franchiser amongst its franchisees relates only to motor fuel supplied for retail sale or whether it also covers wholesaling. This prohibition is being clarified to confine it to motor fuel supplied for retail sale. On a more general note, the Government has given careful consideration to submissions on alleged price discrimination in the industry and to suggestions that the scope of section 20 should be broadened to include other classes of resellers, for example, owner-dealers. The Government is of the view, however, that the original intention of the franchise Act in regulating the relationship only between a franchiser and its franchisees should be preserved. The Government considers it would be inappropriate to extend the franchise Act to prohibit a franchiser from supplying motor fuel to its franchisees at different prices from those offered to other classes of resellers. Clause 21 amends section 21 to allow franchisers to seek court relief to enforce provisions of the Act or restrain contraventions of it. Section 21 in the Act is currently restricted to franchisees, and this change should give franchisers an equal opportunity to protect their position under the Act. Similarly, the clause amends section 22 to allow franchisers to be compensated by franchisees where the franchiser suffers loss or damage by reason of the franchisee contravening a provision of the Act. Clause 22, relating to the jurisdiction of courts in matters arising under the Act, clarifies the intent of the Government not to restrict the exercise of Federal jurisdiction by the inferior courts of each State and Territory in respect of all matters arising under the Act, where those lower courts possess the authority to deal with such matters. It is the Government's belief that this amendment will permit parties to pursue remedies under the Act which involve more speedy and less costly litigation. This Government will continue the previous policy of having the franchise Act enforceable by private action only. I draw honourable members attention to the fact that amendments were made in the other place to this Bill. These amendments, which are mainly technical in nature, were drawn to the Government's attention by members of the petroleum industry after the introduction of the Bill in the other place on 22 August 1984 . The amendments to clause 4 of the Bill will clarify the Government's policy that the franchise Act and its companion, the sites Act, should not be capable of applying concurrently at the same marketing premises. The amendments to clause 16 of the Bill will correct a potential loophole in one of the grounds for non-renewal, which would have gone beyond the Government's intention to assist the orderly rationalisation of retail outlets where it is commercially sound to do so. The Government considers that the measures contained in this Bill will clarify the intention and application of the Act and redress a number of the imbalances which have become evident in its operation. The changes will remove a number of the present restrictions on oil companies in rationalising their retail networks , at a time when the desire of the industry is that such rationalisation should occur. In proposing the amendments, the Government has also been conscious of the need to preserve certain protections for, and rights of, franchisees. It is the Government's belief that the franchise Act has done much to improve many of the problems in petroleum marketing relationships. We feel there is a greater understanding and tolerance now by all parties as to each other's problems and perceptions. As a result we believe that fairness and good relations will continue to prevail in dealings amongst all parties in the industry. The Act when amended should provide the basic ground rules for this to occur. The measures introduced by this Bill will require no additional financial outlay by the Government. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hunt) adjourned. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to amend the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980 to make it simpler and more effective in meeting the Government's objectives. The sites Act was introduced by the previous Government to effect, through the allocation of site quotas, a 50 per cent reduction in the number of retail service stations operated directly by the major oil companies in Australia. In this Government's pre-election statement on business regulation, we undertook to continue the policy of restricting the involvement of the major oil companies in the retail petroleum market by a process known throughout the industry as 'divorcement'. We acknowledge that there are price competition advantages in permitting the majors to have some share of the retail market, but consider the involvement of these corporations should be restricted to protect small business operating in the market. The Government has undertaken to closely monitor the process of partial divorcement now occurring under the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act to ensure that a satisfactory balance is struck and maintained between the interests of consumers, service station dealers and oil companies. In my speech introducing the related Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Amendment Bill 1984 I outlined briefly the background to the Government's policies and the reasons that have led the Government to continue with the petroleum retail marketing legislation package. I believe it would be helpful if at this point I were to outline the background to the current sites Act and the Government's proposals under this Bill to continue a partial divorcement policy. Prior to the introduction of the legislation in 1980 there was an acceleration in the trend on the part of some oil companies to move away from marketing motor fuel through lessee and independent service station operators to direct selling of motor fuel to the public. Generally these direct sales were made at stations operated for an oil company by a commission agent. Figures provided to the previous Government indicated that total company operated site numbers-that is, sites operated by company employees or commission agents-had increased from 578 in June 1978, to 670 in June 1979, and to over 800-not counting special purpose sites-in May 1980. In the same period total service station numbers declined from 14,281 to 12,411. The movement to oil company operated sites caused some concern in the community because of its effect on small businesses in the industry, and gave rise to claims of unfair competition. There were also fears that if the trend continued the resultant increased vertical integration by the major oil companies would have had long term, anti-competitive effects. When in opposition we supported the previous Government in the particular and unique circumstances of the petroleum industry in its belief that the time had come to arrest this trend. We also generally agreed with the previous Government 's position that total divorcement-that is, a complete prohibition on oil company direct retailing-was not necessary to achieve the stated objectives in this area. It was considered that a reduction of about 50 per cent in the number of retail sites directly operated by the companies at 30 May 1980 would be adequate. This reduction was to 401 sites overall. A further concern of the previous Government, which we shared, was that the practical effect of the franchise Act might be nullified if there were no restrictions on oil company direct operations, as a number of companies would not elect to retail through lessee-franchisees, and therefore be subject to the franchise Act, if they could retail directly without any legislative restraints. The Government does not wish to depart from the policy of partial divorcement. Nor does it consider that a departure from a 50 per cent level of divorcement in either direction has been shown to be in the long term interests of the industry or consumers. Rather, the Government's proposals, contained in this Bill, will provide for an effective 50 per cent divorcement level, by clarifying the intent of the current Act and closing a number of loopholes. The corporations subject to the restrictions of the sites Act are those listed in the Schedule to the Act. In 1980 these were the nine major oil company groups operating in Australia. The Schedule currently lists the following companies- Ampol, Amoco, BP, Caltex, Esso, Mobil and Shell. Mergers and takeovers which have occurred since 1980 have seen H. C. Sleigh-that is, Golden Fleece-Total, and recently Amoco, disappear as separate entities from the retail market. On 18 April 1984 the Government's decision on changes to the Act were announced following a review of the legislation by the Department of Industry and Commerce . There has been increasing pressure on the Government to bring independent oil companies-that is, companies other than the current majors-within the ambit of the sites Act. The Government has given this careful consideration as it recognises the important competitive influence of independents in the retail market. On the other hand, it is important that one group of competitors should not be unfairly disadvantaged by legislation as opposed to another group. The Government has decided not to change the Schedule to the Act to include independents as prescribed corporations. It is considered that the current independents' lack of refining capacity, and their dependence on the major refiner-marketers for the majority of their supplies of refined product, distinguishes them in a fundamental way from the corporations presently subject to the Act. However, in the future, should independent oil companies acquire the fundamental refining characteristic of the major oil companies, or should they import more than half their refined product, they may become subject to the Act if they also choose to direct-operate sites in the retail market. The Government 's decision in this regard has been taken in the interests of fairness to all groups in the industry so that the same rules may apply to all corporations possessing the same essential characteristics and is embodied in clause 3 of the Bill. The present Act makes available, in addition to each corporation's quota of sites, certain special purpose sites. Each corporation is currently able to operate one training site in each State or Territory and one market research site in each State. In addition, diesel fuel sites are not included in quotas as these are sites which are principally used for the sale of diesel fuel for heavy vehicles and not for the retail sale of petrol. Provision is also made for temporary operation of sites in special circumstances for a limited period. Clause 3 removes the current exemption for market research and training sites. While the Government does not deny the necessity for companies to conduct legitimate market research and training to improve services to consumers, it believes these are on-going activities, which can be, and ought to be, accommodated within a corporation's overall quota. Further, clause 3 continues the exempt category status for diesel fuel sites, but replaces the current ' principal use' test with a volume-based test. Diesel fuel sites will continue to be exempt only if they are clearly diesel oriented. The new test prescribes that a minimum of 100,000 litres of diesel fuel per month must be sold from the site, and, at the same time, that no more than 100,000 litres of petrol per month may be sold by retail. The exemption for the temporary operation of sites in special circumstances will be continued for a maximum four-month period. On the basis of the proposed changes to the current Act's exempt-category special purpose sites, the Government has decided to set the total quota of retail sites at 425, which is the original 401 plus half the market research and training sites in operation in late 1983. As these latter sites had not been previously subject to divorcement, the Government has decided that this should now be reflected in the final total quota. The total of 425 may be varied marginally in future, due to rounding, during any reallocation of quota. The previous Government devised a formula for allocating the total site quotas amongst the corporations. This allocation, however, has resulted in many inequities and has been widely criticised by several companies which argue that it does not adequately reflect their share of the market, nor does it reflect commercial reality. The Government considers this criticism to be valid, and believes a more equitable method for the allocation of quotas is to base each company's quota on its comparative market share of total petrol sales over a three-year period. A review of the market shares will be conducted every three years and quotas adjusted accordingly to reflect current market positions of the affected companies. Experience has shown, however, that market shares, aside from those combined due to company mergers, change only marginally over a period such as three years. Failure to use a quota will not lead to a reduction in that quota, and, because of the market share allocation, quotas will not be transferable between companies unless mergers occur. The Government's decisions permit oil companies to achieve their final quotas in six-monthly phasing periods to 1 July 1986. This is necessary to give the companies sufficient time to make any necessary changes to their retail operations. The first changes will occur on 1 January 1985 when this amending Act comes into force. Turning to the question of which company operated retail sites the Act should apply to, the Bill proposes a new application test to clarify the application of the current Act to predominantly wholesale or bulk fuel establishments, that is, depots. Companies for the last three years have been given additional temporary quotas to cater for wholesale depots which have been subject to the Act because they also engage in some level of retailing. This problem was not fully appreciated until after the 1980 legislation was introduced and as a result, additional quotas have been allowed by regulation, pending amendment of the legislation. An additional 348 depot site quotas have been made available on top of the 401 service station quotas, resulting in a combined total of 749 site quotas. As this Bill does not distinguish between depots and other oil company operated sites, the quota phasing arrangements provide for a total movement downwards from 749 available quotas to the new 425. However, this is not quite as severe a reduction as first might appear. Not all of the 348 additional depot sites covered by the extension to quotas engage in significant retailing of petrol and , therefore, not all will be caught by the measures in this Bill. Furthermore, the companies have been on notice for some time that these additional depot quotas have a limited life and I understand that they have been reducing retailing from these sites. Companies have also been rationalising their depots, particularly in country areas. Clause 5 introduces the new application test, replacing the current uncertain percentage test with a volume based test similar to that in the franchise Bill. Sites operated by the corporations, where direct retailing of petrol by or on behalf of them in any month exceeds 30,000 litres, will be included in quota. This monthly test is less cumbersome administratively for both the Government and the oil companies and is more definitive than the current percentage test. The Bill provides for sales to government account customers to be exempt from the volume test. The volume threshold test has been set low enough so as to provide sufficient disincentive for an oil company to direct-operate a retail site outside its quota allocation. The Government proposes to review the level of the volume test periodically. Clause 5 also embodies the Government's policy that the sites Act and the franchise Act should not be capable of applying concurrently at any one site. Submissions have rightly presented the view that the application of the franchise Act to a site to which the sites Act applied would be illogical, as it would virtually render ineffective an oil company's right to direct-operate that site. This clause, together with the transitional clause in the franchise Bill, should prevent this occurring. Clause 7 makes certain amendments to the returns provisions of the principal Act to reflect the change in the application of the Act from a daily to a monthly basis. This change accords more closely with the industry's own sales monitoring arrangements and should reduce the administrative work load for affected companies. Clause 9 clarifies the existing penalty provisions of the Act and increases the pecuniary level for one type of contravention. A corporation will continue to be subject to a maximum fine of $10,000 for a breach of the quota provisions, but it will now be specified that a separate contravention will result from each site operated in excess of quota. For a breach of the reporting requirements of the Act, the maximum penalty is to be increased to $5,000 per contravention, on the basis that adherence to the returns requirements is essential for the effective administration of the Act and the integrity of the Act itself. These two Bills that I have just introduced amend a package of measures designed to assist the continuation of a viable, vigorous and competitive small business sector in the petroleum retail market. They will continue the objectives of the previous Government in promoting greater fairness and ensuring that future rationalisation in the industry, having regard to the history of the industry, will continue to take place on an equitable basis. At the same time, by encouraging diversity at the retail level, the Government believes they will continue to promote competition in the short and long term. We are confident that the new measures will not prevent the rationalisation, investment or innovation already taking place within the industry. Financial Impact Statement The measures introduced by this Bill will require no additional financial outlay by the Government. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hunt) adjourned. [COGNATE BILLS: PETROLEUM RETAIL MARKETING SITES AMENDMENT BILL 1984 PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Bill 1984 and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) 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 SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the three measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(8.36) —The Opposition has been pleased to co-operate by suggesting that there be a cognate debate on these three Bills. Both the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Bill and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Amendment Bill amend legislation set up by the Liberal and National parties in 1980. The amendments have been agreed to by the oil industry and will have clear passage through both this House and the other place. The sites Act in 1980 was our response to changes in petrol retailing. Motor services have become increasingly specialised, and the need for all-purpose petrol stations has diminished. Our legislation reflected these changing circumstances. The franchise Act gives lessee service station operators some basic protections and limits the number of oil company direct-operated sites. I know that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) will wish to address himself to these issues because of his involvement in and expert knowledge of the industry, particularly at the service station level. The franchise amendment Bill is intended to continue the basic policy direction set out in 1980. I wish to focus on the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill, which has two main purposes. Firstly, it establishes around the Bass Strait oil field platforms an area to be avoided by unauthorised Australian ships. This important safety measure was brought into the Parliament late in 1982 by the Liberal- National Party Government, but did not secure full passage through both Houses before the March 1983 election. I am pleased that it has now come back before the House, close to its original form, although regrettably it has been delayed a year and a half. Ships of 200 tonnes or more will be required to avoid an area extending 50 nautical miles from the Victorian coast. The area takes in all off- shore platforms and associated submarine pipelines. The outer boundary of the platform area is some five nautical miles beyond the platforms. The present Act allows for a 500-metre safety zone around off-shore installations, but this larger area will further reduce the risk of large ships colliding with the oil platforms. Penalties for infringement of the area range up to $50,000 and/or five years imprisonment for the owner and the master of the ship, as proposed by the former Government. The other main purpose of this Bill is to give the Commonwealth power to manipulate the amount of oil uplifted from oil pools and the amount of revenue accruing to the Government from oil production in three ways: Firstly, by transferring the power to determine the rate of uplift from oil fields to joint State-Federal control. At present control is held by the States, but this Bill shifts effective control to the Commonwealth. Secondly, by narrowing down the area subject to control to oil pools rather than permit areas. Thirdly, by stating clearly that Federal revenue considerations will be uppermost in determining the amount of oil from each pool during any period. This third point is the subject of a government amendment today. The concern of this Parliament must be to ensure government controls are implemented only on a basis of good oil fields management. Government decisions on the control of Bass Strait production must be the best for the oil industry and the best for the Australian consuming public-not the best for the Government 's own coffers. The existing Act allows the State Minister to issue orders varying rates of production from any licence area. Yet this Bill now before the House gives the Commonwealth effective control over the rate of production from individual petroleum pools for reasons which include Commonwealth revenue considerations. In fact, a close inspection of the Bill reveals revenue is not just one of the minor considerations; without today's amendment it would be the key to future government decisions in this regard. The oil industry has been concerned from the start about this legislation. It asked the Hawke Labor Government to insert a clause specifying that the amount uplifted should be determined on the basis of good oil fields practices which would ensure the maximum recovery of petroleum in the licence area. That request was originally ignored. It is only since the Opposition stated its intention that it would seek an amendment that any consideration has been given to meeting the industry's wishes. So it is as a result of our opposition, along with that of the oil companies, that the Government has now decided to amend the legislation. Oil fields can be damaged and the amount able to be recovered from them reduced if oil is uplifted too fast. Good oil fields practices are those which permit the maximum amount of oil to be recovered from a particular field and thus maximise our reserves of oil. Until Friday last week, when the Bill was due for debate in this House, the Government stuck to its requirements that uplift decisions would be based on their effect on government revenue. The industry did not believe this was good enough, and the Opposition shared that view. On Monday of last week my colleague the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney), outlined in a letter to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) our concern that good oil field practices might be compromised by the heavy emphasis on tax revenue. I am pleased that the Minister has now responded by offering an amendment to clause 12 which is on page 3 of the Bill. This amendment, after lengthy negotiations, will now ensure that revenue effects come into consideration only after good oil field practices have been taken into full account, and so the legislation before the House will now be passed without delay. The Opposition was concerned that the Bill without this new amendment would place the Government's own revenue above other considerations. But, this will come as no surprise when one studies the record of Labor in government. Time and again, whether it be in respect of diesel, liquefied petroleum gas or petrol fuels, Labor has placed its own revenue interests first. It has slugged the users of energy, and that is every Australian, with excessive fuel tax increases , and it has delighted in imposing new tax formulae in a way designed to maximise revenue while hopefully minimising the backlash. This year alone it has failed to make up the 2.24c per litre gap it imposed between the excise and off-farm rebate for diesel fuel. It has fiddled LPG pricing arrangements so that consumers have had the $80 a tonne rebate reduced to about $19 since last March-and this is certain to keep falling early next year. The Minister deferred the fiddling of the arrangements until just before the State elections in New South Wales, so that people did not have the time to assess the consequences of the savings that the Government made at the expense of country gas consumers throughout Australia. This is the same Minister who during this afternoon's Senate Question Time accused me of mistakes on the matter of oil industry deregulation. I say to him: People in glass houses should not throw stones. His outburst over my statement on the need for deregulation which I issued on Sunday was completely unjustified. Nothing the Minister said today has convinced me to change my statement. I made the point that a realistic world price would be tied not only to the official price of the market crude, that is, the Arabian light crude expressed in United States dollars, but also to spot prices. In recent months spot prices have been quite soft, up to about $4 a barrel below that figure but commonly a little less than half that figure. Under current pricing, oil from Bass Strait is sold at the official Saudi price plus costs such as freight. But if our oil companies were competing on a more open market, these charges would tend to be absorbed into the market place. Deregulation would also mean fewer administration costs, an ability for companies to adjust more rapidly to changing circumstances and other such savings. The Minister also made great play of his belief that import parity pricing was extended to all oil in 1978. In my statement I said this was in 1977. The Minister will be able to clarify his pedantic concern by referring to Budget Paper No. 1 of August 1977 which sets out the extension of the policy to old oil . This process, of course, continued in 1978. So he would be wise to do his homework before making such outrageous statements. Let not the Minister for Resources and Energy attempt to dismiss my statements as not factual when he has his own facts all mixed up. He proceeded to draw some rather fantastic conclusions about the sugar, dairy and poultry industries, all of which are entirely fanciful and irrelevant to the subject. He would do far better by turning his attention to the unjustified expense his policies are placing on the Australian people such as liquefied petroleum gas pricing, the diesel rebate and oil pricing. In many of these cases, a similar trend emerges. The Government has slugged people in the country, especially those involved in efficient primary production, to pay the bill for this Government's sell out to its special interest groups. But in the case of this Bill in its earlier form, the slug would have hit a much wider range of fuel users. The question remains: What are the Government's real intentions? A Bill which seeks to maximise short term revenue places at risk the longer term market forces of the oil industry. By upsetting the balance of supply and demand and possibly even damaging oilfields, this Government may find that it has thrown market prices out of kilter with everyone suffering-industry and the consumers. I am concerned that this fuel tax grab mentality is blocking out the need for a proper review of our total fuel pricing arrangements in Australia in what is a fast changing industry. The former Liberal-National Party Government bit the bullet. It took the tough decisions of world parity pricing when it became clear that world supplies could not be guaranteed and nor could world oil prices. We need to insulate ourselves against wild fluctuations by developing our own well- endowed oilfields. That decision was the right one to take and has resulted in the flourishing, independent industry which Australia boasts today. But now that we have realised that goal, the time is right to start again. The expiry of the crude oil allocation scheme on 31 December was an important chance, in my view, for all Australians to enjoy the benefits of oil industry deregulation. On Sunday I called for a six-month extension of the current allocation system to allow a full review of Australia's fuel pricing policy. I know that there has been a review, but I believe that it should have gone further. Sadly, on Tuesday afternoon the Hawke Labor Government once again stopped short of completely fulfilling its promises by introducing a so-called partial allocation scheme after 31 December. That reminds us of the way in which it handled the Australian community following the March 1983 elections when it promised to reduce the price of fuel to the average motorist by 3c a litre. We are still waiting for that promise to be realised. I doubt whether the Government ever had any intention of honouring that promise. It is a bit like its tax promise. It promised six million Australians a tax cut within a month of the elections, and what did they get? They got the highest tax rate in post-war years in this country. The Government could have moved more vigorously towards a free market but failed to do so. It has made some tentative moves in the right direction-I do admit that-but the industry now faces a great deal of uncertainty about the details of the allocation system after next year. The potential gains from a proper freeing-up of the market are twofold: Firstly, the interplay of supply and demand would result in a prompt and substantial cut in market prices; and secondly, deregulation would remove the heavy burden of many outdated government controls and bureaucratic restrictions. Among the most immediate beneficiaries would be the motoring public and those industries which rely most heavily on petroleum energy, including agriculture and a wide range of export industries. Despite the substantial independence Australia now enjoys, our retail petrol prices are by no means concessional against those of other nations. A comparison of world retail prices as at 30 June this year reveals that despite our wealth of oil resources our prices remain higher than those in the more highly import- dependent countries, such as the United States of America, and on a par with Canada's. Our average retail price ranged between 46c and 49c a litre, with limited more extreme fluctuations. Other Western nations, without our resources and certainly with higher average transport costs, had prices in general only 20c or less a litre more than the price on our domestic retail market. At the opposite end of the spectrum, those countries with greater oil reserves retail their fuel at a fraction of the Australian price. A few examples are: Indonesia, 16c a litre; Kuwait, 20c a litre; and Saudi Arabia, 7c a litre. Of course, I am not suggesting that deregulation of the Australian industry would produce these kinds of savings, but what the coalition does offer is a policy of deregulation which could achieve savings of up to 10 per cent on current market levels. Except in the finance and banking sector, the great disappointment of Labor's term in office has been its failure to support free market rhetoric with sufficient action to ensure that its reforms are introduced as soon as possible. I want to give the Minister at the table, the Minister assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) some credit because I know he does believe in the free market. He is one of the enlightened members of the Hawke Labor Government and I daresay he would have gone much further had he not been held back by some of the eager beaver regulatory characters in his Caucus. There is no doubt that if the oil industry is deregulated and competitive market forces are allowed to operate on the Australian petroleum scene we will have a far more efficient and a far less costly oil pricing policy in this country. The world parity pricing formula that is currently being used, based on the Saudi Arabian light crude price expressed in US dollars, could be the wrong basis on which to establish pricing in this country. It may have been satisfactory in times of a great shortage of oil, but on today's market, when there is a world surplus of oil, other forces should be allowed to operate- producing a more accurate reflection of the world market price which should of course include spot prices for oil. It is high time the Hawke Labor Government recognised that it cannot go on milking the fuel cow without doing a great deal of harm to the overall economic and social fabric of this country. Mr John Brown —Only a cocky could say that. Mr HUNT —The coalition parties are determined to implement policies which will cut the price of fuel to the Australian people. Yes, the Minister is pretty right when he says that it is only a cocky speaking. Really the fuel cost is a very important component in the overall cost of production. As the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks) would agree-he has a lot of wheat growers in his electorate just as I have a lot in my electorate-wheat growers' margins are getting so small they will have to look for savings in practically every input area to survive. In the Gwydir electorate where wheat farmers use a lot of fuel sowing their crops they have reached a stage where they have to harvest a crop of three-quarters of a tonne to the acre in order to break even. I believe that at the present time a lot of wheat growers are going broke, although a lot of them may not know it. Of course, fuel costs are one of the most serious input costs facing the agricultural industry at present. If world prices for the commodities continue to rise perhaps these costs can be absorbed. But there is no way that can be so with commodity prices remaining static in money terms but in fact declining in real terms. Revenue must not be allowed to become a primary consideration when important decisions affecting our oil industry are taken. Whether it be Labor's side- stepping of deregulation or its drafting of legislation such as the Petroleum ( Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill I believe the Treasury's greed shows through this legislation. In terms of this Bill our parties have held firm to the belief that revenue must not be the primary consideration when decisions are made about the rate of uplift from our oil fields. Controls must be implemented on a basis of good oilfields management. For this reason the Opposition is pleased that the Government has recognised its concern and acted on it. Therefore, the Opposition will support the passage of these Bills this evening so that the legislation can come into force as soon as it is practicable and possible to satisfy the needs of the industry. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(8.57) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I say at the outset that as this Thirty-Third parliament draws to a close I appreciate the opportunity of speaking to the House through you. I commend you for your excellent effort in your position over the last few months. (Quorum formed) As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, it has been a pleasure to address this place through you Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank you for the way in which you have handled the situation with authority, impartiality and complete finesse. In speaking to this Bill to amend the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act of 1967 it is convenient to refer to the reason for the introduction of the legislation in 1967. The original Bills introduced in that year provided a legislative framework governing exploration for petroleum resources. The Commonwealth Government and the several State governments joined together in a co-operative effort to ensure the legal effectiveness of titles authorising the search for or production of petroleum in and from our off-shore areas. In introducing that legislation, the States and the Commonwealth co-operated by pooling not only their jurisdictional powers, but also their administrative and technical resources to produce a legislative scheme which was at the time unique in the world and suited to a federal system of government. The basic instrument for allowing the whole of the joint legislative structure is an agreement entered into by the Federal Government and the governments of the several States . The previous speaker, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), did not advert to this legislation at all but gave a purely political speech suited to the cockies in the outback. I note that a few are now in the House; they have come down from the bush to the perches in this House. The purpose of this amending Bill is to introduce provisions for the exclusion of ships of over 200 tonnes gross tonnage from the area surrounding the Bass Strait oil platform, extending some 50 nautical miles from the coast, and for directions as to the rate of oil production to be given to the Joint Authority rather than to the State or Northern Territory Minister alone. It is a well recognised fact that there are dangers on oil drilling platforms of collision with large ships. This danger is heightened by the navigational difficulty for the ships in avoiding a single point fixed in mid-ocean. The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act of 1967 provides for a safety zone of up to 500 metres radius to surround a drilling platform, with excessive penalties for non- observance of $100,000 and 10 years imprisonment. Subsequently, advisory measures published by the International Maritime Organisation in October 1982 have been successful in excluding shipping from the much larger area specified in this Bill. The proposed area to be avoided covers an area extending 50 nautical miles from the Victorian coast and embraces all the off-shore platforms and associated submarine pipelines. Complementary legislation will be introduced in Victoria to cover the area between the coast and the outer limit of the sea. The outer boundary of the area is approximately five nautical miles beyond the platforms. It is intended that the complementary legislation of the Victorian Government will similarly exclude ships of over 200 tonnes gross tonnage within the territorial sea to three nautical miles from the coast. Where a state of emergency is declared in relation to the area to be avoided on grounds of a threat of terrorism, all marine vessels other than government vessels are totally excluded. I shall not continue at any length, but I note the comments of the honourable member for Gwydir who has agreed to the amending Bill in toto, but as I said previously he gave a political speech addressed to the cockies of this country. The powers of authorised persons to enforce these new provisions are set out in the Bill. They include, among other things, the power to board a vessel, to order the removal of a vessel from the area, and to order a disabled vessel to accept assistance. A person refusing to comply with the instructions of authorised persons acting within their powers may be fined up to $5,000. Provision is made for the issue of warrants to authorised persons and for the exercise of their powers without a warrant in emergency circumstances. The introduction of the area to be avoided is necessary to ensure the protection of one of Australia's most important resource development projects. It is also essential in order that the risk to the lives of those working on the production platforms and on ships passing through the area is minimised. Finally, the Bill removes a number of drafting inconsistencies that we inherited and ambiguities, many of which were identified during the preparation of complementary State- Northern Territory legislation. The amendments proposed in the Bill are essential to the continued effective administration of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, and I commend the Bill to the House. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(9.07) —I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on these three Bills. The Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) has outlined the Bills at length. They are a solidification of what occurred when the Fraser Government was in office. Mr Groom —A good word. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, it is a good word, that one. The legislation has been strengthened and it has been to the benefit of all service station proprietors in Australia, the consumers and also in the long term the oil companies. Mr Hunt —Thank God you're here. You are the only one who understands it. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, it is a very complicated industry. In 1976 when the report of the Collins Royal Commission on Petroleum was handed down, the main recommendation was that the oil industry was crying out for reform and that price discrimination was rife. Many men and women were losing their livelihood in an industry that needed reform. Mr Braithwaite —Small business people. Mr GOODLUCK —We talk about small business in this House but small business is identified more with a service station proprietor than anyone else. He puts up his own capital, he pays cash for his product in the main, he is on his own two feet alone. If he gets sick, he cannot get anybody to replace him. He has to survive in summer, winter-all the time. There were many good men who lost their livelihoods at the misunderstanding of the oil companies. My first speech in this House-this will not be my last one tonight, incidentally-was on the Royal Commission on Petroleum by Mr Justice Collins. Mr Hunt —A great speech, too. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, I feel it was my best one. Mr Reeves —This might be your last. Mr GOODLUCK —No, it will not be my last. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for Franklin will ignore the interjections. I ask honourable members to remain silent. Mr GOODLUCK —They are all right. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not want them to break the honourable member's concentration. Mr GOODLUCK —No, Mr Deputy Speaker, it will not break my concentration. The industry cried out for reform. When I look back to my days as a young man at the age of 24, it was then that I decided to leave a solid job. I was an accountant with the AMP Society and I left that company and took over a little business called Eastern Shore Motors which had a service station, car franchise and a mechanical side. That was the best lesson I have ever learned in my life. I took over that little business and it was then taken over by the Golden Fleece company. All of a sudden I was inundated with all these so-called experts on how to survive in the small market place. They would come to the service station early in the morning and say: 'You have to keep all this nice and clean, you have to wear nice clothes, you have to be polite to everybody.' Mr Scott —Do your hair daily. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, I was told to do my hair right and to put a hat on. I wondered what was going on. If one was to survive in that market place, one could not do so with all the information they supplied. But they meant well. They were theoretical people who had no understanding and no idea of what it was like to be out in the market place trying to survive and make a living. Mr Hunt —How many hours a week did they want you to work? Mr GOODLUCK —During my first three years in the industry I worked from 7 o'clock in the morning until 11 o'clock at night, seven days a week. Then I thought: ' Why don't I get involved in this industry?' I did. I got involved in the politics of the industry. I was president of the Australian Automobile Chamber of Commerce which encompassed the entire service station industry. I do not praise myself enough in this place. Mr Reeves —Why don't you go to the Senate. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, I would be good in the Senate. I decided to get involved because I knew that the industry cried out for reform. Price discrimination was rife. People started to realise that in Melbourne petrol was 10c a litre cheaper than it was in Tasmania. All over Australia there was price variation. We had a debate in this House about freight stabilisation or assistance to country people by making the price of petrol 1c above the relevant-- Mr Wells —You are supposed to be talking to the Bills. Mr GOODLUCK —I will come back to the Bills-the relevant city price. What was the relevant city price? Was it the discounted price or the high price? The entire industry needed reform. The poor fellows who put up their capital, mortgaged their homes and went into the service stations-- Mr John Brown —Why don't-- Mr GOODLUCK —Let me continue for a little, will you? You have done a good job in your ministry. Your officers over there have worked hard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for Franklin will address his remarks through the Chair. Although this is extremely entertaining and interesting, I ask him to remain somewhat relevant to the Bills. Mr GOODLUCK —I thought I was relevant. I am coming to the point. This is the history of these Bills. The reason why I was so outspoken in my earlier years in this Parliament was that I knew what was wrong with this industry. I had a bit of practical experience in this industry, whereas many others only had theories. Many others were being bought lunches by the oil companies. They had no idea what was going on in regard to the people in the market place. That was the reason why I got heavily involved. I tried to express what had happened to me over the years. I saw a number of people in service stations go broke. Mr Groom —It was a tough life. Mr GOODLUCK —It was a tough life. Of course, the oil companies started to realise that they had to do something better. If they wanted to attract good people to their businesses, they had to make certain that the people were protected. So we have had this slow development and it is now a fairly stabilised industry. The men and women who go into it have a fair chance of survival. They have a fair chance of getting a return on their capital. Mr Hunt —You had a lot to do with that. Mr GOODLUCK —I do not know whether I did. But that is good. We have seen changes . The oil industry is ever changing. The reason why royal commissions and inquiries into the oil industry were not very good was that every year the oil companies changed the ball game. The trouble is that, every time I talked about the oil industry, my colleagues and friends whom I knew in those days always seemed to get the impression that once I started to talk about it I started to make comparisons in regard to the price of petrol in the country areas and the city areas, particularly in Tasmania. Of course, the poor devils who were selling the petrol always got the blame. Motorists would drive onto their driveway and say: 'The price is too dear; in Melbourne it is 6c or 7c a litre cheaper'. Mr Reeves —It is the same in Darwin. Mr GOODLUCK —It is the same in Darwin and all over Australia. These poor fellows were the ones who copped the blame. In fact, the oil companies were to blame. Mr Milton —Why do you hate them? Mr GOODLUCK —I do not hate the oil companies now. I am starting to change a bit. They are spending a lot of money in Australia. We must give them credit for doing the right thing at the moment. They are starting to say: 'If we are going to survive, with governments looking at our prices and practices, we have to do the right thing'. The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) has always supported me. The honourable member should not smile because it is true. This may be his last night in the Parliament. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) always supported me too. My good friend the honourable member for Bass, Kevin Newman, is away. He was the responsible Minister at the time. I had a lot to do with him and we talked about this industry. He did not know very much about it. He had an Army background. But he acquainted himself with this industry. He was always of great support. This House will miss those two members , as well as other members who may leave. I wish them the very best. I do not want to talk any more about that. Getting back to the Bills- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! At the risk of breaking the honourable member's train of thought, I reiterate that the Chair requires some degree of relevance to the Bills. Mr GOODLUCK —I am sorry; I will finish off now. This has all been outlined by the Minister. The Opposition will support the three Bills. We support the strengthening of the legislation. We support the fact that it will give people in the market place a little more to hang on to and enable them to realise that if they spend money and work hard they will get the benefits. I would like to see a far better pricing system in Australia. I do not know how that can be achieved. Oil companies keep arguing the point that the market in Tasmania is small, the market in Sydney is large and that they can sell petrol there far more cheaply. There are not so many small sites that are dependent. There are lots of problems with the industry and all these sorts of things need looking at . In essence, I am pleased that the legislation has been strengthened. I hope that the oil industry will find its level to the satisfaction of not only the people who work in it and the oil companies but also the consumers. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.16) —in reply-I wish to sum up particularly in relation to the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Amendment Bill and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Bill. It is nice to find that on some subjects Government and Opposition can agree in this House. When this forum is almost always a cock pit for dissension and argument it is nice to find that at least we have a subject on which the Government and the Opposition agree. Mr Robert Brown —As a result of your compelling argument. Mr JOHN BROWN —Absolutely. The compelling arguments of the Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) have brought about this environment of consensus. I have some satisfaction in finding the former service station operator, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), agreeing with this legislation, as did the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). We have brought to fruition legislation that was foreshadowed by the previous Government but had not reached maturity by the end of that Government's term. I wish to pass on some comment to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, who, after a long series of consultations with the oil companies, the service station operators, the consumers and State governments, has been able to formulate these two Bills, which will solve almost all the problems that have beset this industry for such a long time. It gives me some satisfaction, because I was the shadow Minister when the previous Government was toying with this legislation, to see it at last come to fruition. I think it is in the long term interests of all Australians and all those people involved in the industry that this legislation goes through tonight. On behalf of the Government I thank all of those who took part in the debate, particularly my colleague the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler), who has disappeared. He made a very fine speech. The Government has great satisfaction in seeing this legislation come to fruition and even more satisfaction in finding that the Opposition fully supports these two Bills. The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill, the third Bill in this cognate debate, will be the subject of an amendment in the Committee stage so I will leave my comments on it until then. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Consideration resumed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.21) —On behalf of the Government, I formally move: Clause 12, page 3, lines 35 to 39, omit proposed sub-section (5), insert the following sub-section: '' '(5) Without limiting the matter that may be taken into account by the Joint Authority in determining whether to give a direction under sub-section (3) or (4 ), the Joint Authority may take into account matters relating to the effects on Commonwealth revenue of the proposed direction, but the Joint Authority shall not give a direction under sub-section (3) or (4) if the direction would require action to be taken that is contrary to good oil-field practice.'.''. I wish to speak very briefly to the amendment. I understand that the amendment has received the accord of the shadow Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Chaney. I hope that the amendment covers all of the questions that were quite legitimately and sincerely asked by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) during the second reading stage of the Bill. As I understand it, this amendment, which has received accord from both sides in the other House, will in fact answer all of those questions. I hope that is the spirit in which this amendment is received by the Committee. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(9.22) —The Opposition supports the amendment and commends the Government for having the good sense to introduce the amendment following discussions with Senator Chaney, the Leader of the Opposition in the other House . The amendment covers all the concerns that the Opposition had with respect to the original draft of the legislation. It also accords, I think, with the wishes of the industry itself. We support the amendment. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(9.23) —I forgot to mention something which does not actually relate to the clauses before the Committee but which indicates the need for protection to be given to some men and women. I refer to the case of an elderly service station proprietor of about 64 years of age who contacted my office. This man, who has suffered two heart attacks, told me that he had purchased a service station two years ago on a main arterial road in Hobart. He said that he had mortgaged his home to buy this property, which comprises a service station plus a shop-the normal sort of small business. The main arterial road is to be transferred from the front of his property to another location. I said: 'But wasn't this indicated in the lease? Didn't your solicitor indicate that the road would bypass the service station?'. He said it was not. Mr Reeves —Solicitors! They are no good, mate. Mr GOODLUCK —I am not here to condemn anyone. I said: 'What about the real estate agent-did he indicate that in two years time the road would bypass the service station?'. He said: 'No'. As a consequence this man has suffered two heart attacks. He is going to lose nearly all the money in the business. He will probably lose his home as well. He will be given no compensation-nothing at all. Surely the law should be strengthened so that a person buying a business in good faith is not caught in such a dilemma. The poor man will die as a result of this . He will lose everything-his house, his business and the ability to be able to go on. That is just an example of what can happen. I could cite thousands of examples such as this. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for Franklin is nowhere near being relevant to the Bill. Mr GOODLUCK —Sir, with the greatest respect- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I realise that, but the honourable member is not being relevant to the legislation. Mr GOODLUCK —I have said what I wanted to say. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.24) —Mr Deputy Chairman, you are correct. I think we are all interested in the examples given by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) of the difficulties that people face under this Bill. This is, of course, the reason why we introduced the amendments in the legislation before us tonight. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 30 May, on motion by Mr Young: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(9.26) —The Opposition does not oppose any aspect of the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill, although it raises questions concerning the Government's management of the Australian Federal Police and the support, or lack of support, that the Government exhibits for that very important arm of Commonwealth Government activity. The three main purposes of the Bill, as outlined in the second reading speech introduced by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), are: To remove from the relevant Act the references to the protective services responsibility now met by the Commonwealth police- Mr Reeves —The notes might be over on the chair. Mr STEELE HALL —The notes are in front of me. If the honourable member listens to what I have to say he will find that I will reiterate a number of things and inform him of some things of which he has not yet heard. I was about to say that the Bill seeks to remove from the Act the references to the protective services aspect of the Australian Federal Police; to allow the Commissioner to delegate powers, not police powers, but powers within his administrative area; and to allow the promotion within the rank of people sought to do specific tasks within the Australian Federal Police. The hypocrisy of the Government is clearly outlined in this move, a move which, as I said, we have supported but which the Australian Labor Party in opposition did not support. It is interesting to see how many times the Government has reversed its opinion about what ought to be done about a number of important matters within its control. The information I have about the separation of the protective services from the Australian Federal Police is reported in the Mark Report on Merger of Commonwealth Police and ACT Police of 1978. This report led to the establishment of the Australian Federal Police and stated, in part: Formal security duties are a wasteful use of police manpower, a disincentive to the better type of policeman, a cause of excessive overtime and premature wastage. A Guard, unless armed and authorised to use force, is no more than a means of summoning support. This can be just as well done by civilians not requiring the lengthy, complex and expensive training necessary for police duties. The effect of such a change would also be to release police officers for duties on which they could better be employed. The current Commissioner, General Grey, agreed with the need to separate these responsibilities in the annual report of 1982-83. In any event, it was the previous Minister for Administrative Services, Mr Newman, who, in a Press release on 24 December 1982, indicated that this move would be promoted by the previous Fraser Government. It was agreed that the move would go ahead and that the protective service component of the Australian Federal Police would be excised and put into a different area of government administration. It was interesting that Senator Gietzelt at that time, as reported in the Canberra Times of 18 February 1983, said: A Labor Government would reverse the decision to separate the Protective Service component from the AFP. I guess that looking at the reversals of decision making-one of which I referred to today in relation to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) who frequently, almost monthly, makes a major decision which is quite the opposite to what he had given notice of as his intention to do-it is not surprising therefore to find that this Government, in opposition, was clearly against the move that it is now supporting. Perhaps it is a pleasant aspect for the Opposition to realise that it is following the lead given by the previous Minister of the Fraser Government in proceeding in this way. So it came about that this Government has decided that what it thought was obviously wrong is now correct. One point about this move that I believe is defective is that there is apparently not to be any legislation setting up a protective services unit. It would seem that it is to be transferred to another responsibility and that we are to establish a type of pseudo police force without any enabling legislation. That cannot be the proper way to set up a new area of the Public Service which will have a direct impact on the community. It will have no legislative backing. Certainly the previous Minister, Mr Newman, as I have said, in his stated intention to take this move indicated that there would be legislation to set up the new protective services unit and that that legislation would be passed by both Houses of Parliament. That force would then have the parliamentary sanction which I believe it would want to have if it is to gain the respect that one would want it to gain in serving the community. Mr Newman in fact stated that the new service would be established by legislation when I believe he spoke to the Australian Federal Police Association at the time of his announcement. So at that time it was the intention to legitimise this new protective services unit by legislation. When this move was announced by the Minister, my office made inquiries of his and we were advised that there would be legislation, although the Department of Administrative Services had indicated that there would not be any. As it has turned out, the Minister does not intend to introduce legislation, and if I may say so, the Opposition very much regrets that. I will be moving an amendment in principle to put down the Opposition's view that the formation of the unit ought to be sanctioned in this way. One other question arises: What will be the effect on the Police of this separation? In the 1980-81 annual report of the Australian Federal Police this reference was made: It has been necessary during the year continually to draw upon the Protective Service Component to provide assistance in general police tasks, thus freeing more experienced police officers to undertake those major investigations which are essential to the well-being of the community. This has had the effect of reducing the number of guards available for strictly protection duties to dangerously low levels. I guess that is the good argument for what the Minister is doing and what we in the Opposition are supporting-that the two aspects should be quite clearly different. The transfer or the use of that other resource which has occurred in this descriptive aspect of the 1980-81 report will not occur in the future because of the separation. But it does raise the question of what the Government will do in relation to its support of the Australian Federal Police. We know that the Government has been very miserly in supporting the force at a time when there have been enormously increased demands upon its services. I suppose that the foremost of the bodies that comes to everyone's mind that would have required enormous police support is the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. But there have been many royal commissions and there is an increasing use of task forces which require personnel from the Australian Federal Police. It seems to the Opposition that the Government has been almost entirely deficient in looking at this increased demand on police services. In one of the previous debates in this House I drew attention to this year's funding vote for the force which, upon examination, we find has undercut completely the claim of the Minister and the Government that they have given increased support to the Australian Federal Police. If one removes from the vote of the Australian Federal Police the amount allocated for the Coastal Protection Unit and that allowed additionally for the protection of the Family Court of Australia, one finds on an inflation adjusted study of this year's vote, that that leaves a deficiency of some $300,000 in relation to the previous financial year. This is no way at all to support a police force which has the respect of the community but whose duties are beyond that which it can meet with its restricted resources. As I said in another debate this afternoon, we know that the difficulty of making arrangements for police officers to fill positions in high cost of living communities such as Sydney is just one example of the need for additional government financial support to the Australian Federal Police. We on this side of the House regret that the Government is not supporting the force as it ought to do. I close on one reference. This separation of the protective services unit from the Australian Federal Police has as its root cause the clearer definition of police duties and, as the excerpts from the reports that I have read tonight have said, the removal of extraneous police duties from the department. However, the Government, in following the previous Government's decision to do this, has gone in another direction in a major way; that is, to give the Australian Federal Police the task of Australian coastal surveillance. That is doing in the reverse sense what this Bill does. Putting the Australian coastal surveillance responsibility within the Australian Federal Police is again loading that force with extraneous responsibilities. That indeed is a retrograde step and it is highlighted by the effects of this Bill which, as I have said, the Opposition supports because it is a move following the Opposition's policy when in government. For that reason, because of the good sense of that previous decision , we support this Bill. We commend the Government for taking its lead from the previous Fraser Government in this matter. We regret very deeply that the Minister has not seen fit to bring in legislation with which to set up the new protective services unit. I say to the Minister that it is still not too late to do that. I guess that it is too late for him, as he has only a day to go in this House in his ministry. I can assure the Minister that the new Peacock Government and the public of Australia will quickly remedy that position and give the new protective services unit, separate from the Australian Federal Police, the legal sanction which I believe it ought to have. Having set down that view, I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'Whilst not opposing the provisions of the Bill, the House is of the opinion that legislation should be introduced to formally constitute the Australian Protective Service'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) — Is the amendment seconded? Mr Braithwaite —I second the amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(9.40) —I was very surprised to hear the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) stand up and say that the Opposition would support the Government in the passage of the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill and then accuse the Government of hypocrisy for introducing the Bill. It is unusual for the honourable member for Boothby to use such language. He is not an intemperate man; he is a man slow to anger and slow to indulge in reprobation. But for him to accuse us of hypocrisy for introducing a Bill which he says we opposed in Opposition is a little rough. This Government is prepared to be persuaded on the basis of new information as it comes in. We are open to argument and reason. This Government, when it came into possession of new information, which the honourable member for Boothby would regard as important, quite properly decided that this was the correct way to go. The Government cannot be accused of hypocrisy on those grounds. If anyone is to be accused of hypocrisy it is the honourable member for Boothby, who criticises us for doing something which the Opposition has been in favour of all along. I do not intend to keep the House very long on this Bill since it is obviously a rational move. The Federal Police in Canberra are at the moment performing two distinct and quite separate functions; the ordinary police function which is performed by police in every State and Territory of this Commonwealth and the protective function of ensuring the security of government buildings around Canberra. This Bill is designed to rationalise the situation by confining police to ordinary policing duties and establishing a new branch to perform the protective function in Canberra's public places. Such an arrangement obviously has a great deal to recommend it. In terms of public relations for government departments, it is much better that the first person the public see on walking into a public building should be a civilian attendant rather than a member of the police force. Secondly, the training and skills appropriate to policing functions are not generally required in the performance of protective functions and, to a lesser extent, the specialised task of providing a protective service in public areas requires skills which the policing function does not always call upon. Because of the sensitivity of some establishments, such as the Parliament itself, these will continue to be protected by officers of the Federal Police. However, other buildings in Canberra will benefit from the reorganisation. The advantages of this specialisation and rationalisation are so clear that once mentioned there is no need to go on any further. I merely record my support for the remarks of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) in his second reading speech concerning the detailed implementation of the policy and thank the House. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(9.44) —The purpose of the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill which we are debating tonight is to give effect to the Government's decision that the protective service component of the Federal Police should be abolished and most of the functions formerly undertaken by that component should be transferred to a separate protective service organisation to be established in the Department of Administrative Services. Apparently the decision has been taken because it is felt that the quality of service which can be offered by a specialised organisation is better than that which can be offered by an organisation responsible for other separate functions. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young), in his second reading speech, said that there was a clear distinction between the requirements and characteristics of an organisation intended to perform the range of duties required of a modern police force and those of an organisation dedicated to performing the more specialised functions of access control and the security of premises. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) in his speech explained the Opposition's attitude to this Bill and our concerns about related matters and because of the time factor I do not intend to go over those details again. As this is likely to be my final contribution in this House, I hope that the Chair will allow me to make one or two comments on matters not directly related to the Bill we are now discussing. I am sorry if my remarks sound a little serious, but they are points which I feel I should make on this occasion. I retire from the Parliament with an increased understanding of its importance to the democratic process, but quite frankly with some degree of concern about its long term future. Society does not stand still. There is a continuous process of evolution taking place and it would therefore be foolish for us to assume that the Parliament would automatically retain its power and influence or even that Australia would always remain a democracy. Indeed there is evidence suggesting that the power and influence of the Parliament are already to some extent in decline. This is due, I think at least in part, to the poor image of politicians and the Parliament in the eyes of the general community. It is not the member of Parliament working long and hard hours at his political tasks, as most do for perhaps 80 hours a week, or even more for some people, who typifies Parliament in the eyes of the people, but rather the members who become involved in some kind of controversy, who make allegations or who may be involved in some kind of prank who for some reason or another attract media attention and influence the image of the Parliament. The image of Parliament is clearly very important because if Parliament is to survive as an institution in the long term it must have the trust and respect of the people. I therefore leave the thought that Parliament needs to work very hard to improve its public image before the trend is irreversible. Apart from the need to improve its overall image, I think Parliament needs also to reassert its influence and to give itself more teeth. I would like to see in time an improved committee system under which a Minister, maybe even the Prime Minister, and other leaders of the community could be called before a committee to be questioned by members-of course, this might also involve senators-the proceedings being directly televised. This would make government a little more difficult perhaps for the Ministers concerned, but it would give ordinary people a chance directly to influence the Executive Government through their representatives. I think also that the relationship between the media and politicians could be improved. We must never forget that much of our communication with the public is through the media. The involvement of fairminded, well-trained and informed journalists is vital to the modern democratic process. I think that is something we overlook. We need a better dialogue with journalists and I think also we have a responsibility to provide them with proper working conditions. I hope that better working conditions will be available to everyone in the new Parliament House when the Parliament moves on to the hill. The conditions under which journalists in particular but also members work in this place I think are a national disgrace. My dog's kennel is bigger and better than some of the rat boxes that journalists have to work in. They are the brief points I want to make on this occasion. But I conclude my remarks by thanking all who have served the Parliament in various capacities for their help over the last nine years. I thank colleagues on both sides of the House for their co-operation. I have developed many friendships here over the last nine years. I want to thank particularly my Tasmanian colleagues, those outstanding members from Tasmania who serve in this House, especially the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) who showed at Question Time today why he is called the little Aussie battler back home in Tasmania. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(9.49) —in reply-I thank those honourable members who took part in the debate, including those who did not speak on the subject of the debate. May I say to the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) that it is not a good sign that a person of his age and health should see fit to resign from the national Parliament, and there must be other factors that played their part in that decision-making process. He is not of my political thought, but he has been a very honourable member of this Parliament and has been very deliberative in the views that he has expressed. I am certain he will be missed. It may well be that the Party he represents will have great difficulty in replacing him in his division. One of the great misfortunes of his life is that he played for Melbourne and not Collingwood. I know that you do not agree, Mr Speaker, and your wife certainly does not, as I saw her wearing the Essendon colours after the grand final in Melbourne. While I am dealing with the remarks made by the honourable member for Braddon, I also include in my remarks a reflection on the administration of the Australian Federal Police by the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman), who I understand has not returned because of illness for the last few weeks. I have taken over the portfolio he had, which in some ways is a very difficult one. It is very much misunderstood in terms of the relationship between the Minister and the Australian Federal Police. One of the things we are dealing with tonight is a measure initiated by the honourable member for Bass. Although we might argue backwards and forwards across the chamber about the way things were done and whether all the strings had been tied up, nevertheless the honourable member played quite a constructive role in the consolidation of the Australian Federal Police after the Commonwealth Police changeover. I do not know that the honourable member will be here tomorrow-I take it that he will not be-and I should like to place on record in this debate, on an issue in which he was so involved, a tribute to him. I know he is held in very high regard by the senior police officers of the Australian Federal Police. The legislation tonight puts into effect one of the major measures which he saw as being necessary for the proper role of the police force, not just in the Australian Capital Territory but in law enforcement areas relating to breaches of Commonwealth law throughout this country. The honourable member for Boothby has moved an amendment to the second reading motion in relation to enabling legislation. My understanding is that the Department of Administrative Services now has under consideration the need to initiate enabling legislation for the new Australian protective services unit. There is no doubt that what the previous Government started was correct. There is no doubt also, as I think the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) said, that we were incorrect in opposition in thinking that the two forces, the protective services and the Australian Federal Police, could be kept together. Our experience in government has shown that the previous Government was quite correct. They should be divided; they are quite different services. We have continued the initiative which the Opposition showed in government. Whilst there is no major difference between the political parties in the Parliament on this issue, I indicate to the honourable member for Boothby that we have taken the matter a little further. I cannot recall what the previous Government had in mind in terms of the administration of the protective services component, but it would not have been right for that component to remain with the Minister who had responsibility for the Australian Federal Police. In this case the Australian Federal Police will stay with the Special Minister of State and the protective services component will go to the Department of Administrative Services. This is a very complex matter. Some people might think it is easy in the bureaucracy to say that we will take a portion from a certain administration, but this has meant a lot of hard work for many people and a lot of heartburn for those who may have been affected in the decision to move the protective services area into its own unit. It is the correct decision and, hopefully, we have been able to meet the personal and collective problems that have been encountered by the people who have been involved in this move. I say in conclusion, because there is no great division in the Parliament on this matter, that the Government has done everything possible to meet the commitment given by the previous Government and by this Government to try to minimise the problems that will be felt by the people who will be moving over from the general duties of the Australian Federal Police into the new protective services unit. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide)(9.56) —Since I delivered the second reading speech on the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill 1984 on 30 May 1984 a number of matters have arisen which require additions to the original Bill. These matters are now set out in an addendum to the explanatory memorandum which was distributed to all honourable members today. Honourable members will recall that the principal purpose of the Bill was twofold. Firstly, it gives effect to the Government's decision that the protective service component of the Australian Federal Police should be abolished and that the bulk of the functions formerly undertaken by that component should be transferred to a separate protection service organisation which will be established within the Department of Administrative Services. It is expected that the transfer will take place on 20 October. Secondly, the Bill included two minor amendments to sections 15 and 36 of the Australian Federal Police Act which, had the Bill not been introduced, would have been incorporated in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The purpose of the amendment proposed to section 15 is to ensure flexibility in the day to day administration of the AFP by providing that delegations may follow functional lines acknowledging that administration functions of the Force are carried out jointly by police officers and public servants. The additions to which I have referred, and in respect of which I will move a motion that the Bill be amended, fall into four categories. First, provision is made to preserve appointments, promotions and transfers, oaths and undertakings made in relation to, and given by, persons who will continue to be members of the AFP after the protective service component has been abolished. Second, provision is made that an appeal arising out of a selection for promotion, which was made under the principal Act before this Bill becomes law, shall be heard and determined on the basis of the same criteria as that selected for promotion. This provision is necessary to ensure that rules under which appeals are heard do not change during the progress of an appeal. Third, a small number of the members of the Australian Federal Police, who were formerly members of the protective service component, are on long term sick leave prior to retirement. Provision is made to protect the terms and conditions of service of these members. Fourth, consistent with the recommendations of the recent joint management committee review of the AFP, provision is made that the rights of members to appeal against the promotion of other members to certain ranks may be limited. The purpose of this provision is to enable the making of regulations which will be consistent with the new arrangements for appointment to the Senior Executive Service of the Australian Public Service. These regulations, which have been agreed on by the Australian Federal Police Association, would provide that appeals should not lie against promotions in the AFP ranks above that of chief inspector. I seek leave to move my amendments together. Leave granted. Mr YOUNG —I move: (1) Clause 2, page 1, line 9, omit ''and sub-sections 18 (2) and (3)''. (2) After clause 16, page 5, insert the following new clause: Regulations may provide for certain other terms and conditions ''16A. Section 40 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in paragraph (c) 'to positions in such ranks as are prescribed' after other members'.'' (3) Clause 18, page 5, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Transitional and consequential ''18. (1) Where immediately before the commencement day, a person held a commissioned rank in the prescribed component by virtue of an appointment, promotion or transfer to that rank under sub-section 25 (1) of the Principal Act , the person holds, on and after the commencement day, such position within that commissioned rank as is specified in writing by the Commissioner as if the person had been appointed, promoted or transferred, as the case may be, to that position within that rank under sub-section 25 (1) of the amended Act. ''(2) Where, immediately before the commencement day, a person held a non- commissioned rank in the prescribed component by virtue of an appointment, promotion or transfer to that rank under sub-section 26 (1) of the Principal Act , the person holds, on and after the commencement day, such position within that non-commissioned rank as is specified in writing by the Commissioner as if the person had been appointed, promoted or transferred, as the case may be, to that position within that rank under sub-section 26 (1) of the amended Act. ''(3) Where, immediately before the commencement day, a direction by the Commissioner under sub-section 25 (2) or 26 (1) of the Principal Act to a person to act in a commissioned rank, or in a non-commissioned rank, within the prescribed component was in force, the direction has effect, on and after the commencement day, as if it were a direction given by the Commissioner under sub- section 25 (2) or 26 (1), as the case requires, of the amended Act to the person to act in such position within that rank as is specified in writing by the Commissioner. ''(4) Where, immediately before the commencement day, an appointment under section 27 of the Principal Act of a person as a special member of the Australian Federal Police to assist in the performance of the functions of the prescribed component was in force, the appointment has effect, on and after the commencement day, as if the person had been appointed as a special member of the Australian Federal Police under section 27 of the amended Act with such powers and duties as were specified in the instrument of appointment of the person. ''(5) An oath or affirmation made and subscribed before the commencement day in pursuance of a provision of the Principal Act by a person to whom sub-section (1 ), (2) or (4) of this section applies has effect on and after the day, while the person continues to be a member or a special member of the Australian Federal Police, as if it had been made and subscribed in pursuance of the corresponding provision of the amended Act. ''(6) Where immediately before the commencement day, a person held a rank in the prescribed component by virtue of a transfer to that rank under section 39 of the Principal Act, the person holds, on and after the commencement day, such position within that rank as is specified by the Commissioner as if the person had been transferred to that position within that rank under section 39 of the amended Act. ''(7) Where notification of a selection for promotion was published under regulation 17 of the Australian Federal Police Regulations before the commencement day, any appeal arising out of that selection shall be dealt with, or continue to be dealt with, as the case requires, as if the amendments of the Principal Act made by the provisions of this Act that come into operation on that day had not been made, but any promotion following the disposal of any such appeal shall be made in accordance with the amended Act. ''(8) Notwithstanding the amendment of section 68 of the Principal Act made by section 17 of this Act, paragraphs (1) (f) and (h) of that section of the Principal Act as in force before that amendment continue to apply, on and after the commencement day, in relation to any matter or thing that occurred before the commencement day. ''(9) Where, immediately before the commencement day, there was in force with respect to a member of the component of the Australian Federal Police referred to in sub-section 7 (2) of the Principal Act an instrument signed by the Commissioner, or a delegate of the Commissioner, retiring a member from the Australian Federal Police under section 38 of the Principal Act with effect on and from a day (in this sub-section referred to as the 'retirement day') after the commencement day, the member shall, until the retirement day, continue to be a member of the Australian Federal Police on the same terms and conditions of service that were, immediately before the commencement day, applicable to the member. ''(10) The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 19832 is amended- (a) by omitting sub-section 2 (2); and (b) by omitting from Schedule 1 the amendments of section 36 of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. ''(11) The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 2) 19833 is amended- (a) by omitting from sub-section 6 (2) 'and by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1983'; and (b) by omitting from Schedule 1 the amendments of sections 25, 26, 26A, 36 and 39 of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. ''(12) In this section- 'amended Act' means the Principal Act as in force on and after the commencement day; 'commencement day' means the day fixed under sub-section 2 (2); 'prescribed component' means the component of the Australian Federal Police referred to in sub-section 7 (1) of the Principal Act as in force before the commencement day.''. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Young)-by leave-read a third time. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HICKS(Riverina)(10.00) —Earlier this year I was privileged to join with the President of the Griffith Shire Council, Councillor John Dal Broi, his wife, Lurline, and a number of citizens from the Griffith area on a journey to Italy. The sojourn was undertaken to complete the Gemallagio or twinning of the town of Griffith in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and the Comunita Montana Del Grappa in the province of Treviso in northern Italy. Last year the first stage of the agreement had been commenced with a visit by a group of people from the Italian province to Griffith. From the day we arrived in Italy we were met with wonderful hospitality as we visited towns and cities of the region which included Passagno, Crespano Del Grappa, Paderno Del Grappa, Pederobba, Cavaso Del Tomba, Borso Del Grappa, Asolo San Zenone del Ezzelini, Riese, Venice, Treviso, Maser, Padua and many others. Many of the visitors from Australia or their parents or relatives had been born in the areas we visited. In the beautiful city of Venice we were hosted by the President of the Region of Venice , Professor Carlo Bernini. The President of the Province of Treviso, Guiseppe Marton, and his gracious wife were our hosts on many occasions. There are many people I would like to mention for their graciousness and hospitality while we were in their province and their nation. They were the sindici, or mayors, of the various towns and cities. Most of all, I wish to pay a tribute to Sebastiano Favero, the President of the Comunita Montana Del Grappa , Leonildo Torresan, Ezio and Mariella Andreatta, Marcello Cavarzan, Professor Francesco La Vale, the President of the Magnifica Comunita, Pedemontana Dal Piave al Brenta, and to the families of all of these people who worked tirelessly to see that we were given true Italian hospitality. The experience of my visit to Italy will be of great benefit to me because it increased my awareness of the tremendous contribution Italian migrants have made to the physical development of our nation and also of the indescribable richness of the culture they brought with them to Australia. It has also taught me of the great sacrifice that many have made in leaving not only their relatives and loved ones but also the country of great beauty and dignity that Italy is. In my opinion visits to countries such as my friends and I experienced must be of benefit in many ways but particularly in the heightening of levels of understanding of other nations. My thanks go to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for his message of goodwill, which I carried to the celebrations. This message was well received. I left Italy with a deep affection for the country and its people, which would possibly best be expressed in the words of the English poet, Robert Browning: Aprite il mio cuore-dentro, scolpito, vi leggerete, Italia. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(10.03) —Next month Australian maritime archaeology will enter a new and exciting chapter. The next phase of the excavation of HMS Pandora, which sank in Australian water, in 1791, will commence. The story of the Pandora is part of, and complementary to, the story of early Australia. After the mutiny on the Bounty, as every Australian knows, Captain William Bligh sailed with a small crew in an open boat across the Pacific Ocean and through the Great Barrier Reef to reach safety in Timor. When he returned to England with the news of the mutiny, a ship was despatched to recapture the Bounty and to bring the Bounty mutineers to trial. The HMS Pandora, under the command of Captain Edwards , was that ship. The Pandora was fitted out for two ships, since the idea was to bring the Bounty back with her. The Pandora caught up with many of the Bounty mutineers in Tahiti, but failed to capture Fletcher Christian and a number of the other mutineers who had sailed in the Bounty to Pitcairn Island where they had burnt the ship which was the last evidence of their mutiny. However, with most of the mutineers aboard, the Pandora set sail for England. She came to grief on a coral outcrop off the north Queensland coast north of Cooktown. There she sank and settled into the coral sands 110 feet down. She remains there today. The excavation of the Pandora is the most exciting piece of marine archaeology going on in Australia and, quite possibly, the world at the moment. Recognising that it is a project of national and, indeed, international significance, the Commonwealth provided $60,000 to the project last year. This year, the Commonwealth has granted $70,000, which was recently presented by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Barry Cohen. It is a project which has involved marine archaeologists from all over the nation, and it is a project which should, given the right conditions, capture the imagination of Australia. A very desirable development would be that the Pandora project should be recognised as an Australian bicentennial program. However, in order to achieve that status, it is first necessary for any project to achieve the required degree of community and corporate support. Whilst the project could not have gone ahead without the support that it has already received from the Commonwealth of Australia, nor could it have gone on without the corporate support it has received. Among the companies which have supported the Pandora project are: Comalco Pty Ltd, NEC Information Services, Castlemaine Tooheys, Inflatable Boat Centre, Castlemaine Perkins, Trans Australia Airlines, KLM, Air Queensland, Grace Brothers Removals, Grace Brothers Store (Warringah) Sydney, Treasure Enterprises and, last but not least, Atlas Copco, the firm which was very deeply involved in the exciting recovery of the Mary Rose, Henry VIII's flagship, which sank in 1545, and of the Swedish vessel Wasa. The Commonwealth Government provided $27,000 towards staff salaries at the Museum for people working on the project under the community employment program. The Commonwealth has also provided salary payments under the National Estate program. The enterprise has been served by first class divers and first class archaeologists from the Queensland Museum and from all over Australia. It has been fortunate in having the support of the Queensland Government which, as much as any archaeologist, has a fervent desire to recover Australia's lost past. The next period of excavation will produce many more exciting relics, similar to and perhaps even better than those already recovered. Among the best currently in the possession of the Queensland Museum are an exquisitely crafted silver watch and a self-propelling pencil, both exhibiting a degree of technological sophistication which few Australians would associate with the eighteenth century. Also, the Queensland Museum has in its possession brass cannon in the process of restoration, and more than a score remain to be retrieved. It is worth remembering, too, that the Pandora was carrying provisions for two ships, because the Admiralty could not have known that Fletcher Christian would burn the Bounty. The most historic and exciting part of the coming excavation will be the use of a sub-bottom profiler to obtain a picture of what lies beneath the ocean floor, and it is confidently expected that the sub-bottom profiler will reveal remains as impressive as the remains of the Mary Rose or of the Wasa. The Pandora is part of the excitement of early Australia. William Bligh, who was Governor of New South Wales between 1806 and 1808 was, of course, the commander of the Bounty on its last voyage. Interestingly, Captain Edwards, who commanded the Pandora, was a junior officer on an earlier trip of William Bligh' s and the young William Bligh some years before was a junior officer on one of Captain Cook's epic voyages. The famous mutiny on the Bounty had its land parallel on Australian soil when the notorious Rum Corps, the New South Wales Corps, revolted against Governor Bligh. This project has the capacity to make this turbulent period of Australian history and the turbulent actors in our historical drama come alive before the eyes of the nation, before the eyes of visitors to this country, and before the eyes of those young Australians who are learning about their heritage. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(10.08) —Mr Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.08 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 10 October 1984: Defence Act-Determinations-1984- No. 47-Reserve Allowance. No. 48-Attendance Allowance. No. 49-Operation Anon Allowance. Health Insurance Act-Statement of particulars of ministerial determination made pursuant to section 106AA relating to Dr Leopold Richard Klimowski, dated 2 October 1984. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 980) Mr Lloyd asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 December 1983: (1) Is the State Bank of Victoria required to pay company tax to the Federal Government. (2) Is he able to say (a) what rate of company tax will the bank be required to pay to the Government of Victoria and (b) whether this State tax conflicts with any federal legislation or constitutional power. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Under Section 23 (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act, public authorities constituted under any Commonwealth or State Act are exempt from income tax. In accordance with this provision, the State Bank of Victoria does not pay company tax to the Federal Government. (2) (a) and (b) I am aware that there are arrangements under which the State Bank of Victoria makes certain payments to the Government of Victoria. Such payments represent a share of the profits earned by the State Bank. However, no State government has adopted legislation that imposes tax on the income of companies. (Question No. 1012) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) Has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn to the Human Rights Commission report for 1982-83, in which the Commissioner for Community Relations notes that more than half the total complaints of discrimination against Aborigines came from Queensland and Western Australia. (2) Is it a fact that during the year 1982-83 staff at the Human Rights Commission did not undertake a field visit to Western Australia; if so, why was a field trip not undertaken to Western Australia. (3) Is that Attorney-General intending to take action to increase the staff establishment of the Human Rights Commission. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. As indicated by the Commissioner, there were 60 complaints from Queensland and 30 from Western Australia. (2) Yes. Field trips were not able to be made to Western Australia in 1982-83 because there was a high level of demand made upon the limited number of conciliation staff (3) from other areas of Australia, particularly Queensland. This, coupled with a generally higher degree of urgency of these demands and the absence at the time of a Commission Office in Queensland, resulted in the Commission field work activity being concentrated in Queensland and Northern New South Wales. Complaints arising out of Western Australia in 1982-83 were handled by Commission staff located in Canberra by telephone and correspondence. In addition, the Commission opened an Office in Perth (on 29 October 1982) which received and dealt with complaints arising in the Perth area and other parts of the State. In October and December 1983 (i.e. in the succeeding financial year), the Chairman of the Commission, the Commissioner for Community Relations and some Commission officers, were involved in conciliation work in Perth; and in December 1983, the Commissioner for Community Relations and Commission officers conducted a field trip to some regional towns, including Wiluna and Geraldton. In March and April of this year a conciliation team of six officers, accompanied for part of the time by a member of the Commission and the Commissioner for Community Relations carried out a field trip, principally in Western Australia. (3) The staff of the Human Rights Commission has been increased. The staff in the Commission in 1982-83, including casual and part-time staff was 34. In 1983- 84, the total staff was 43 and in 1984-85, the total staff number is 54. The increased staff in 1983-84 and 1984-85 reflects the expansion in activities by the Commission. A substantial financial commitment was made to the Human Rights Commission in the recent Budget with an 82.5 per cent increase over 1983-84, with funds of $4.5m for 1984-85. Of the additional staff, 7 are allocated to the work under the Sex Discrimination Act and 4 to the Brisbane office of the Human Rights Commission. The Commission also now has 2 full time officers in Perth. Agreements have been entered into with Victoria and New South Wales and an agreement is being negotiated with South Australia for functions of the Commission to be performed in these States by existing State agencies. Staff from Canberra will continue to be available to assist with operations in Queensland and Western Australia and to deal with complaints having implications going beyond their borders. (Question No. 1131) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) What consultants have been engaged to work for the Minister or the Minister 's Department since 1 April 1983. (2) What is the name of each consultant, or if a company or partnership, the name of the corporation or partnership. (3) For how long was each consultant engaged. (4) What fee is to be or has been paid to each consultant. (5) What special background and experience does each consultant possess to enable the consultant to undertake the engagement. (6) Was the merit principle applied in each case; if so, in what manner. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) to (6) I have not engaged any consultants in my office since 1 April 1983. Consultants engaged by my Department since that date are detailed in the following tables. Detailed guidelines on the engagement of consultants were issued by the Public Service Board, in consultation with the Department of Finance, in 1978. A copy of these have been provided to the honourable member. The guidelines cover situations where the consultant is selected from a competitive field and those where only one consultant can provide the required service. All consultants engaged up to 1 July 1984 were engaged on the approval of the Public Service Board. All consultancies since that date have been approved by the Board of Management of my Department. Consultant's Consultant's Consultant's Background Application of name firm assignment Duration Fee and experience merit principle 1. Andrew Menzies . . Establishment of National Crime Authority and the Director of Public Prosecutions together with the Criminal Investigation Bill 10 months $225 per day Former Acting Deputy Secretary to the Department. Acknowledged expert in the relevant areas The only person available with the necessary expertise and experience to take immediate carriage of the projects involved 2. James Monro . . Legislation in relation to the application of Imperial Acts and N.S.W. Acts in the A.C.T. 100 days $166.75 per day Formerly Second Parliamentary Counsel Special experience and expertise in the formulation and preparation of legislation. Proven ability to carry out drafting work as well as the legal analysis involved in the project 3. Verge Blunden . . To write the text of a recruitment booklet 55.5 hours $18.63 per hour Legal Reporter with the Sydney Morning Herald Selected from a panel of three, including two recommended by the Australian Journalists Association, on the basis of his special expertise on the public relations aspects of legal work and his availability to complete the project prior to campus interviews held in August 4. Professor Anthony Blackshield . . Human Rights Task Force. Assist with preparation of Australian Bill of Rights 6 months Total figure for both Professor Blackshield and Mr O'Neill was $10,500 Professor of Legal Studies, La Trobe University since 1979 Ability to contribute ideas, insights and perspectives not readily available elsewhere. Demonstrated expertise and experience in the human rights field. Leading academic in field of constitutional law with substantial knowledge of Indian and United States human rights constitutional provisions 5. Nicholas O'Neill . . Human Rights Task Force. Assist with preparation of Australian Bill of Rights 6 months Total figure for both Mr O'Neill and Professor Blackshield was $10,500 Mr O'Neill is a Senior Lecturer in Law, N.S.W. Institute of Technology. Established and teaches subject 'Human Rights' in Faculty of Law. Secretary, Papua New Guinea Law Reform Commission 1975-77 Experience with constitutional and human rights law in Australia and Papua New Guinea 6. Neil Rees . . Human Rights task force-restructuring of Human Rights Commission and review of Racial Discrimination Act (a) maxi- mum of 3 days per week for 6 months (b) maxi- mum of 2 days per week for 6 months $146 per day $152 per day Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of NSW, Director University of New South Wales' Clinical Legal Education Program, Kingsford Legal Centre. Consultant to NSW Government on amendments to NSW discrimination legislation Specialist practical involvement in anti-discrimination legislation and study of American legislation 7. Marcia Neave . . Human Rights Task Force-restructuring of the Human Rights Commission and review of the Racial Discrimination Act (a) maxi- mum of 3 days per week for 6 months (b) maxi- mum of 2 days per week for 6 months $146 per day $152 per day Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Melbourne. Extensive research experience. Director of Research NSW Law Reform Commission Extensive involvement in empirical legal research programs 8. A. J. Cummins Management Solutions Implementation of National Legal Aid Computer System May 1983 to June 1984 $375 per day plus travelling allowances and secretariat services up to a maximum of $81,000. It is anticipated that the Commonwealth will be reimbursed 6/7ths of the cost of the consultancy by the States Detailed knowledge of legal commission systems. Previous consultant on project Selected by the Directors of all Legal Aid Commissions and the Australian Legal Aid Office 9. Ian Temby . . Establish Director of Public Prosecutions 20 Jan. 1984 to 1 March 1984 $285 per day to a maximum of 2 days per week Senior Counsel with extensive experience in Criminal Law. President of the Law Council of Australia At that stage was D.P.P. Designate 10. Robert V. Goode R. V. Goode Consultants Pty Ltd Review of Departmental management and organisation 24 days $950 per day plus travel accommodation costs to equal $29,600 Wide experience in consultancy work for Government Departments and Authorities ( Commonwealth and State) Seven companies were invited to express an interest to undertake the consultancy . Five responded and were considered by the Steering Committee responsible for co-ordinating a review of the Department's structure and organisation. 11. Computer Power Computer Power Group Pty Ltd Systems specifications (Stage 1) for Legal Aid Computer System 3 months $50,000 Established systems specification company Public Tender. Ten companies applied. Computer Power was selected by a panel comprising Public Service Board, Departmental and Legal Aid Commission officers 12. Cost-a-Comp Cost-a-Comp To cost General Law Accounts. Later extended to include Family Law Accounts for the Australian Legal Aid Office Commenced October 1983 $40 per hour to a maximum of $10,000 Wide experience in costing of Legal accounts Only company available with experience in costing of legal accounts 13. G. Robertson . . Human Rights Task Force media and obscenity issues 3 months from 13 August 1984 $234.36 per day Ten years of practice mainly at London Bar; author, academic experience, media commentator Up-to-date knowledge and experience of English and European human rights and racial defamation issues; specialist knowledge and experience in media law 14. T. Beswick . . To advise the Department, in relation to the prevention of Repetition Strain Injury and to assist in the rehabilitation and redeployment of RSI sufferers 3 months from 22 August 1984 $60 per hour to a maximum of 6 hours per week Practising physiotherapist Selected at interview by members of the Departmental RSI Working Party from a panel of three recommended by the ACT physiotherapy Association (Question No. 1374) Mr Andrew asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: (1) When was section 31A of the Income Tax Assessment Act repealed. (2) What is the estimated revenue accruing to the Government as a consequence of the repeal of that section. (3) What amount (a) has been collected so far and (b) is still to be collected and from whom. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Section 31A of the Income Tax Assessment Act was repealed on 11 December 1973 by Act No. 165 of 1973 with effect from 1 July 1973. Special transitional arrangements, however, spread the effect of the change over a period of years. This period was initially set at 5 years but in 1976 was extended to 9 years, commencing from the 1973-74 income year. (2) and (3) Income tax statistics are not available in sufficient detail to enable an estimate to be prepared of the gain to revenue resulting from the repeal of the income tax provisions which had allowed winemakers a concessional basis for valuing their stocks. However, when the concession was repealed it was estimated at that time to result in an increase in income tax revenue of $15m when fully implemented. Actual details of the amounts of additional tax collected so far and the amounts, if any, of tax yet to be recouped as a result of the repeal of section 31A are not available. (Question No. 1539) Mr Cross asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 4 June 1984: (1) What is the location of all defence establishments, both civilian and military in Australia, broken down by federal Electoral Divisions. (2) How many people over 18 years of age are (a) employed and (b) resident within each establishment. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows, and is based on the electoral boundaries which existed before the recent redistribution , not all of which has been finalised: No. of people over 18 Electorate Establishment Service (a) Employed (b) Resident Adelaide Hampstead Barracks, Hampstead Army 47 . . Torrens Training Depot, Adelaide Army . . . . Balaclava Training Depot, East Brighton Army 6 . . Research Depot, Highett Air Force 29 . . Research Depot, Moorabbin Air Force . . . . Ballarat Training Depot, Ballarat Army 14 . . Training Depot, Kyneton Army . . . . Training Depot, Maryborough Army . . . . Training Depot, Ballarat Air Force . . . . Barker Training Depot, Mt Gambier Army . . . . Training Depot, Murray Bridge Army . . . . Rifle Range, Murray Bridge Army . . . . Bass Paterson Barracks, Launceston Army . . . . Training Depot, Scottsdale Army . . . . Training Depot, East Launceston Air Force 13 . . Bendigo Map Production Centre, Bendigo Army 264 54 Training & Logistic Centre, Puckapunyal Army 1,842 500 Logistic Centre, Seymour Army 77 . . Bennelong Water Transport Squadron, Woolwich Army 126 . . Bonython Training Centre, Smithfield Army 10 . . Air Force Base, Edinburgh Air Force 2,123 226 Boothby Woodside Army Camp, Woodside Army 359 69 Training Depot, Unley Army 11 . . Braddon Training Depot, Devonport Army . . . . Training Depot, Burnie Army . . . . Training Depot, Ulverstone Army . . . . Training Depot, Smithton Army . . . . Brisbane Enoggera Barracks, Brisbane Army 3,026 1,027 Burke Training Depot, Diggers Rest Army 15 15 Calare Training Depot, Bathurst Army 12 . . Training Depot, Lithgow Army 15 . . Training Depot, Orange Army . . . . Training Depot, Parkes Army . . . . Training Depot, Orange Air Force . . . . Canberra HMAS Harman, Canberra Navy 1,376 362 Capricornia Training and Logistic Centre, Rockhampton Army 29 7 Training Centre, Biloela Army . . . . Training Centre, Bundaberg Army . . . . Training Centre, Gladstone Army . . . . Casey Medical Training Centre, Healesville Army 117 72 Corangamite Training Centre, Queenscliff Army 140 23 Training Depot, Colac Army . . . . Corio Training Depot, Geelong Army 20 . . Training Depot, Geelong Air Force . . . . Cowper Training Depot, Bellingen Army . . . . Training Depot, Coffs Harbour Army . . . . Training Depot, Grafton Army . . . . Training Depot, Kempsey Army . . . . Training Depot, Macksville Army . . . . Cunningham Training Depot, Wollongong Army . . . . Training Depot, Wollongong Air Force . . . . Curtin Campbell Barracks, Swanbourne Army ) 68 ) 1,097 Irwin Barracks, Karrakatta Army ) 54 Logistic Centre, Claremont Air Force . . . . Darling Downs Logistic Support, Cabarlah Army 349 83 Training Depot, Toowoomba Army 14 . . Training Depot, Warwick Army . . . . Stores Depot, Toowoomba Air Force 321 62 Dawson Training Centre, Ayr Army . . . . Training Centre, Bousen Army . . . . Training Depot, Mackay Army . . . . Training Depot, Sarina Army . . . . Denison Fuel Depot, Hobart Navy . . . . HMAS Huon, Hobart Navy 48 . . Anglesea Barracks, Hobart Army 234 58 Training Depot, Hobart Air Force 13 . . Diamond Valley Watsonia Barracks, Watsonia Army 1,025 750 Dundas Naval Store, Rydalmere Navy . . . . Support Craft Facility, Putney Navy . . . . Timor Barracks, Dundas Army 146 . . Eden-Monaro Training Depot, Cooma Army . . . . Training Depot, Goulburn Army . . . . Training Depot, Goulburn Air Force . . . . Fadden Training Centre, Canungra Army 403 . . Farrer Training Centre, Kapooka Army 979 548 Training Depot, Wagga Wagga Army . . . . Stores Depot, Ettamogah Army . . . . Air Force Base, Wagga Wagga Air Force 1,435 642 Fisher Training Depot, Nambour Army . . . . Flinders HMAS Cerberus, Flinders Navy 1,669 645 Training Centre, Portsea Army 315 182 Training Depot, Frankston Army . . . . Forrest Training Depot, Bunbury Army . . . . Training Depot, Bunbury Air Force . . . . Franklin Training Depot, Huonville Army . . . . Fraser HMAS Belconnen, Canberra Navy 5 . . Russell/Campbell Park Offices, Canberra Navy 918 . . Russell/Campbell Park Offices, Canberra Army ) . . Training Centre, Duntroon Army ) 2,127 . . Training Depot, Canberra Army ) . . Air Force Base, Fairbairn Air Force 999 193 Russell/Campbell Park Offices Air Force 139 . . Russell/Campbell Park Offices Civilian 2,520 . . Fremantle Fuel Depot, Fremantle Navy 1 1 HMAS Leeuwin, Fremantle Navy 261 153 HMAS Stirling, Garden Island Navy 429 51 Naval Dockyard, Garden Island Navy . . . . Arms Depot, Garden Island Navy 17 . . Prohibited Area Exmouth Navy 1 . . NOCWA Garden Island Navy 17 . . Kingstown Barracks, Rottnest Island Army . . . . Artillery Barracks, Fremantle Army . . . . Gellibrand Naval Dockyard, Williamstown Navy . . . . Stores Depot, Maribyrnong Navy 118 . . Training Depot, Sunshine Army . . . . Stores Depot, Tottenham Air Force 534 166 Gippsland Training Depot, Bairnsdale Army . . . . Training Depot, Sale Army . . . . Training Depot, Traralgon Army . . . . Training Depot, Yallourn Army . . . . Air Force Base, East Sale Air Force 766 144 Grey Training Centre, Port Augusta Army . . . . Training Depot, Whyalla Army . . . . Training Depot, Whyalla Air Force 39 . . Griffith HMAS Moreton, New Farm Navy 251 . . Training Centre Bulimba, Brisbane Army 242 . . Training Centre Fortitude Valley, Brisbane Army 6 . . Logistic Centre, Kelvin Grove Army 76 . . Victoria Barracks, Brisbane Army 390 . . Training Centre, Kangaroo Pt Army 15 . . Training Centre, Kangaroo Pt Air Force 46 . . Gwydir Stores Depot, Bogan Gate Army 19 . . Training Centre, Dubbo Army . . . . Stores Depot, Dubbo Air Force 61 3 Hawker Keswick Barracks, Adelaide Army 509 96 Herbert Lavarack Barracks, Townsville Army ) ) Training Centre, Tully Army ) ) Training Centre, Ingham Army ) 3,107 )1,289 Jezzine Barracks, Townsville Army ) ) Recruiting Centre, Townsville Army ) ) Air Force Base, Townsville Air Force 630 68 Higgins Training Centre, Caulfield Army . . . . Hotham Training Centre, Oakleigh Army . . . . Hughes Training Depot, Port Kembla Army . . . . Training and Logistic, Holsworthy Army 2,576 855 Hume Training Depot, Cootamundra Army . . . . Training Depot, Cowra Army . . . . Hunter Training Depot, Cessnock Army . . . . Mooring Facilities, Newcastle Air Force 17 . . Indi Training & Logistic Centre, Bandiana Army ) 198 Training Centre, Bonegilla Army )1 649 660 Training Depot, Wangaratta Army ) . . Kalgoorlie Naval Dockyard, Exmouth Navy 48 . . Training Depot, Kalgoorlie Army . . . . Training Depot, Kambalda Army . . . . Training Depot, Geraldton Army . . . . Training Depot, Newman Army . . . . Training Depot, Tom Price Army . . . . Air Force Base, Learmouth Air Force 2 2 Training Depot, Kalgoorlie Air Force . . . . Kennedy Stores Depot, Macrossan Army . . . . Training Centre, Charters Towers Army . . . . Training Depot, Mt Isa Army . . . . Kingsford-Smith Stores Depot, Randwick Navy 24 . . Stores Depot, Zetland Navy 1,413 . . Randwick Barracks, Randwick Army 457 290 Camp Earmark Storehouse, Botany Army . . . . Training Depot, Zetland Army . . . . Sydney Workshops, Mascot Army 57 . . Anzac Rifle Range, Maroubra Army 1 . . Kingston Warradale Barracks, Warradale Army 94 . . Training Depot, Somerton Park Army 1 . . Kooyong Training Centre, Kew Army . . . . Training Centre, Hawthorn Army . . . . Training School, Canterbury Air Force 234 154 Lalor Air Force Base, Laverton Air Force 1,431 507 Air Force Base, Point Cook Air Force 1,089 468 Leichhardt Fuel Depot, Cairns Navy ) . . Fuel Depot, Thursday Island Navy ) 148 . . HMAS Cairns, Cairns Navy ) . . Training Centre, Atherton Army . . . . Training Centre, Cairns Army . . . . Training Centre, Innisfail Army . . . . Training Depot, Mareeba Army . . . . Training Depot, Innisfail Air Force . . . . Training Depot, Mareeba Air Force . . . . Lilley Training Depot, Sandgate Army . . . . Support Battalion, Banyo Army . . . . Support Battalion, Meeandah Army 275 . . Lowe Logistic Centre, Strathfield Army . . . . Medical Services Centre, Concord West Army . . . . Lyne Logistic Centre, Stockton Army 52 . . Training Depot, Maitland Army . . . . Training Depot, Taree Army . . . . Training Depot, Wauchope Army . . . . Air Force Base, Williamtown Air Force 1994 398 Macarthur HMAS Albatross, Nowra Navy 1,753 436 HMAS Creswell, Nowra Navy 450 200 Training Depot, Moss Vale Army . . . . Training Depot, Nowra Army . . . . Air Force Base, Penrith Air Force 477 111 Radio Receiving Station, Bringelly Air Force 21 . . Mackellar Communications Station, Beacon Hill Air Force 1 . . Macquarie Navy Supply Kingswood Navy 436 . . Air Force Base, Londonderry Air Force 27 . . Mallee Training Depot, Horsham Army . . . . Training Depot, Mildura Army . . . . Training Depot, Mildura Air Force . . . . Maranoa Military Airfield, Oakey Army 644 110 Stores Depot, Wallangarra Army 6 6 Training Centre, Chinchilla Army . . . . Training Centre, Dalby Army . . . . Training Depot, Kingaroy Army . . . . Training Depot, Roma Army . . . . Training Depot, Stanthorpe Army . . . . Maribyrnong EDE Maribyrnong Army . . . . Melbourne Training Centre, Moonee Ponds Army . . . . Training Centre, South Kensington Army . . . . Melbourne Ports HMAS Lonsdale, Melbourne Navy 401 72 Victoria Barracks, Melbourne Navy 157 . . Training Depot, Ripponlea Army . . . . Victoria Barracks, Melbourne Army 1,041 50 Training Centre, St Kilda Army . . . . Logistics Support, Melbourne Air Force 70 . . Training Depot, Melbourne Air Force . . . . GAF Fishermans Bend Air Force 25 . . Mitchell HMAS Nirimba, Quakers Hill Navy 631 185 Air Force Base, Richmond Air Force 2,469 497 Moore Lancelin Gunnery Range Navy 1 . . Training Depot, Bindoon Army . . . . Air Force Base, Pearce Air Force 1,094 229 Logistic Support, Bullsbrook Air Force . . . . Training Depot, Gin Gin Air Force . . . . Transmitting Station, Caversham Air Force 1 1 Bombing Range, Flat Rock Air Force . . . . Moreton Training Centre Annerley, Brisbane Army 18 . . Training Centre Coopers Plains, Brisbane Army 137 . . Training Centre Yeronga, Brisbane Army 165 . . Murray Training Depot, Cobram Army . . . . Training Depot, Echuca Army . . . . Training Depot, Shepparton Army . . . . McMillan Training Depot, Korumburra Army . . . . Training Depot, Warragul Army . . . . McPherson Training Depot, Southport Army . . . . Training Depot, Southport Air Force . . . . New England Training Depot, Armidale Army . . . . Training Depot, Inverell Army . . . . Training Depot, Tamworth Army 16 . . Training Depot, Inverell Air Force . . . . Newcastle Training Depot, Newcastle Army 13 . . Training Depot, Waratah Army . . . . North Sydney HMAS Platypus, Sydney Navy 306 . . HMAS Waterhen, Sydney Navy 261 . . Hydrographic Centre, North Sydney Navy 425 . . Training Centre, Crows Nest Army 16 . . Accommodation and Works, Chatswood Army 18 . . Northern Territory Fuel Depot, Doctors Gully Navy 2 . . Fuel Depot, Stokes Hill Navy 1 1 HMAS Coonawarra, Darwin Navy 482 178 Naval Dockyard, Frances Bay Navy . . . . Training Depot, Humpty Doo Navy 6 1 Training Depot, Shoal Bay Navy 4 1 Larrakeyah Barracks, Darwin Army 186 62 Training Depot, Alice Springs Army . . . . Training Depot, Gove Army . . . . Air Force, Darwin Air Force ) 3 Air Force, Tindal Air Force ) 985 2 Stores Depot, Alice Springs Air Force ) . . O'Connor Training Depot, Northam Army . . . . Training Depot, Katanning Army . . . . Training Depot, Albany Army . . . . Training Depot, Albany Air Force . . . . Oxley Training Depot, Ipswich Army 4 . . Training Depot, Lawes Army . . . . Range Control, Greenbank Army . . . . Air Force Base, Amberley Air Force 2,698 386 Paterson Training and Logistic, Singleton Army 611 564 Training Depot, Muswellbrook Army . . . . Perth Swan Barracks, Perth Army 163 . . Port Adelaide HMAS Encounter, Port Adelaide Navy 83 . . Dean Range, Taperoo Army . . . . Training Depot, Alberton Army . . . . DRCS Salisbury Army . . . . Logistic Support, Adelaide Air Force 39 17 Prospect RAAFTUS Wall Grove Air Force 99 . . Reid Stores Depot, Regents Park Air Force 583 90 Stores Depot, Villawood Air Force 99 . . Richmond Training Depot, Casino Army 5 . . Training Depot, Lismore Army 22 . . Training Depot, Murwillumbah Army . . . . Riverina Training Depot, Leeton Army . . . . Training Depot, Broken Hill Army . . . . Ryan Training Centre Indooroopilly, Brisbane Army 102 . . Training and Logistic Centre, Wacol Army 73 . . Training Depot, Toowong Air Force . . . . Shortland Training Centre, Adamstown Army . . . . Training Depot, Blacksmith Army . . . . Training Depot, Hamilton Army 35 . . Sturt Training Depot, Beulah Park Army . . . . Swan Logistic Centre, Midland Army ) 67 . . Cameron Barracks, Victoria Peak Army ) . . Sydney Fuel Depot, Woolloomooloo Navy . . . . HMAS Kuttabul, Sydney Navy 1,347 414 Naval Dockyard, Cockatoo Island Navy . . . . Naval Dockyard, Garden Island Navy 123 . . Remington Centre, Sydney Navy 350 . . Remington Centre, Sydney Army 36 . . Logistic Centre, Haberfield Army 12 . . Training Depot, Leichhardt Army 7 . . Millers Point, Dickson Road Air Force 11 . . Wakefield Training Depot, Berri Army . . . . Training Depot, Port Lincoln Army . . . . Training Depot, Port Wakefield Army 11 11 Training Depot, Penfield Army . . . . Training Depot, Clare Army . . . . Training Depot, Kadina Army . . . . Air Force Base, Renmark Air Force ) 39 . . Training Depot, Gawler Air Force ) . . Wannon Training Depot, Hamilton Army . . . . Training Depot, Portland Army . . . . Training Depot, Stawell Army . . . . Training Depot, Warrnambool Army . . . . Warringah Fuel Depot, Chowder Bay Navy . . . . HMAS Penguin, Sydney Navy 719 310 Training Centre, Georges Heights Army 254 153 Training Centre, North Head Army 232 125 Middle Head Barracks, Middle Head Army 254 . . Training Depot, Chowder Bay Army 126 . . Wentworth Degaussing Range, Shark Point Navy . . . . HMAS Watson, Sydney Navy 581 286 Victoria Barracks, Paddington Army 530 . . Moore Park Barracks, Moore Park Army 1,075 10 Logistic Centre, Neutral Bay Air Force 21 . . Moore Park Barracks, Moore Park Air Force 11 . . Werriwa Logistic Support, Moorebank Army *2,576 582 Training and Logistic, Ingleburn Army 845 52 Training Centre, Casula Army . . . . Wide Bay Training Centre, Gympie Army . . . . Training Depot, Maryborough Army . . . . Wills Logistic Centre, Broadmeadows Army 423 152 Training Centre, Preston Army . . . . Wilmot Training Depot, Deloraine Army . . . . Training Depot, Longford Army . . . . (Question No. 1598) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: Is he able to provide information relating to the trial of, or impending legal proceedings in the USSR against Latvian dissidents Gunars Freimanis, Lidija Lasmane-Doronina, Gederts Melngailis, Ints Calitis, Janis Rozkalns and Janis Veveris; if so, (a) where were the trials held, (b) on which dates were the trials held, (c) what charges were laid, (d) what sentences were handed down, (e ) did Australian Embassy officials attend, or attempt to attend, (f) what reasons were given for denial of access to Australian officials where applicable , and (g) what representatives from other countries attended, or attempted to attend the trials. Mr Hayden —The answer to honourable member's question is as follows: (a) All the trials referred to took place in the Latvian SSR. Gunars Freimanis: (b) The trial opened on 1 December 1983 and sentence was passed on 19 December. (c) Not known. (d) Four years strict regime camp, two years internal exile. Lidija Lasmane-Doronina: (b) 2-11 August 1984. (c) ''Anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda'' (article 65, criminal code of the Latvian SSR). (d) Five years labour camp, three years internal exile. Gederts Melngailis: (b) Trial opened 10 August 1983. Sentence was passed shortly thereafter; the exact date is not known. (c) ''Dissemination of knowingly false fabrications discrediting the Soviet political and social system'' (article 183, Latvian SSR criminal code). (d) three years imprisonment following compulsory psychiatric treatment of unspecified duration. Ints Calitis: (b) 15-23 September 1983. (c) ''Anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda'' (Article 65, Latvian SSR criminal code.) (d) Two years prison, four years strict regime camp. Janis Rozkalns: (b) 21 November-7 December 1983. (c) ''Anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda'' (Article 65, Latvian SSR criminal code). (d) Five years strict regime camp, three years internal exile. Janis Ververis: (b) 21 November-7 December 1983. (c) ''Anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda'' (Article 65, Latvian SSR criminal code). (d) Three years strict regime camp. (e), (f) and (g): Australian Embassy officers did not attempt to attend any of the above trials. Nor, as far as we are aware, did representatives of other countries. Embassy officers do regularly attempt to attend trials of dissidents when they learn that such trials are about to take place. Permission to travel outside Moscow for this purpose is usually refused and in any case, access to court proceedings is always barred by the authorities. Our staff have however persisted in their attempts to attend trials of dissidents. Australia, of course , does not recognise de jure the incorporation of the Baltic republics into the USSR, and in line with this policy, Australian officials do not usually travel to them. (Question No. 1601) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) Is it a fact that a firm of American brokers, Alexander and Alexander, was awarded the contract to arrange all insurance for the Australian Bicentennial Authority; if so, what consideration was given to whether this decision is in keeping with the purpose and spirit of bicentennial celebrations. (2) Did the Bicentennial Authority call for tenders for the insurance contract; if so, was the most competitive price accepted; if not, what criteria were used to select the successful broker and do the criteria conform to the objectives of the Authority. (3) Is it a fact that 12 Australian-owned brokers lodged submissions with the Authority expressing interest in the contract. (4) Is it also a fact that one of the brokers which tendered has a Australian staff of more than 100 people and a turnover exceeding $50 million per annum, and that this tenderer had supplied its services, at cost, to the Commonwealth Games and Challenge 12 America's Cup syndicate. (5) What particular quality does Alexander and Alexander possess that makes it a more suitable client of the Bicentennial Authority than Australian broking companies. (6) Has his attention been drawn to widespread concern that Australian firms with comparable expertise, financial standing and good national and international reputations were overlooked in the granting of this contract; if so, will he take steps to have this decision by the Authority quashed. (7) Will he take steps to have fresh tenders called and to ensure that an Australian-owned brokerage company be offered the contract and that, in association with his colleagues, and Australian-owned company be appointed to arrange insurance for Expo 88 and the Australian Games. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Australian Bicentennial Authority has informed me that it appointed Alexander and Alexander Australia Limited as its insurance broker in January 1984. This appointment followed the placing of public advertisements and an assessment by the Authority of the responses against relevant criteria. The criteria included: quality of submission; membership of the National Insurance Brokers Association of Australia; preparedness to cover all classes of insurance risk; client list; fee basis; location of offices throughout Australia; established international connections; ownership; length of time operating in Australia; referees' reports. Some brokers offered their services free of charge to the Authority but price alone was not the major determinant. Similarly, country of ownership was not the only determinant although the Authority recognised this as an important issue. Recognition of this general issue is reflected in the direction given by the Authority to Alexander and Alexander Australia Limited that, as far as possible, insurance is to be placed with Australian insurance companies. The Authority does not see its decision on the insurance broker as being contrary to the purpose and spirit of the Bicentennial celebrations. (3) Yes, although some of the 12 were only partially Australian owned. (4) One of the submitting brokers appears to fit this description. (5) See (1) and (2) above. (6) I am aware that concern has been expressed at the appointment, and the matter has been raised with the Authority. The Authority is, however, an independent company. I am advised that the ABA will be regularly reviewing its insurance arrangements. (7) See (6) above with respect to the Bicentennial celebrations. The responsibility for the planning and operation of Expo 88, Brisbane, has been given by the Queensland Government to a statutory body set up for those purposes . This body, the Brisbane Exposition and South Bank Development Authority will be responsible for insurance on the exposition site. The Commonwealth Government will not be involved in the appointment of insurance brokers or the arrangement of insurances. I am advised that responsibility for the planning and operation of the Australian Games lies with the Australia Games Foundation, which is also a private company, and similar arrangements will apply in relation to insurance for that event. (Question No. 1687) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 4 September 1984: (1) Did he at any time write to the ACT Electricity Authority, or any of its officers, directing that illegal connections of electricity to the former South Vietnamese Embassy in Forrest should not be disconnected, during the time it was occupied by squatters. (2) Has the Authority estimated that during the 2 month period of occupation by squatters of the Forrest premises, $1098.71 worth of electricity was consumed. (3) Was the electricity consumed as a result of the tampering with electricity connections in a way which was in breach of the law. (4) Will his Department be arranging payment of the account. (5) If not, will any other department be meeting the expense or will the account be a charge left uncollected and borne by Australian Capital Territory electricity consumers in general. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) No. (2) Yes. (3) Power, apparently consumed by squatters, was derived from two supply points . One, the former office of the embassy, had been connected by the insertion of three lengths of wire to compensate for the absence of service fuses. Through this connection power to the value of $914.81 had been consumed. On the face of it there would appear to have been a breach of section 38 of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act, which reads: 'A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, destroy damage or interfere with any apparatus, equipment or installation the property of the Authority. Penalty $1,000 or imprisonment for six months' The second point of supply, to the former embassy residence, had been left connected by arrangement with the Australian Federal Police to facilitate security inspections. Through it power to the value of $183.90 had been consumed . (4) No. (5) The account has been written off by the ACT Electricity Authority as a bad debt. (Question No. 1759) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 September 1984: (1) Did he, on 4 July 1984, authorise the preparation and production of a paper entitled 'Uranium, the Joint Facilities, Disarmament and Peace'. (2) If so, was the document published by the Australian Government Publishing Service. (3) What was the cost of the document. (4) What is its sale price, if sold through the Australian Government Publishing Service. (5) How many copies of the document (a) were produced and (b) have been sold up to the date of preparation of the answer to this question. (6) Has distribution of the document been made to (a) members of Parliament and (b) organisations outside of the Parliament; if so, to whom has it been distributed. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) First printing, 500 copies-$2,800. Run on for AGPS for sale, 150 copies. Second printing, 20,000 copies-$16,200. Third printing, 7,500 copies-$6,500. (4) $6.00 per copy. (5) (a) See answer to (3); (b) Approximately 130. (6) (a) Yes, (b) Yes. In accordance with the usual practice for Departmental publications of general public interest, the booklet has been widely distributed , including to Federal and State Government departments and agencies, educational institutions and business and community organisations, as well as to Australian overseas posts and selected overseas recipients, and foreign missions accredited to Australia. (Question No. 1818) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: How many (a) males (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 Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) Males (A) June 1984-Nil. (B) July 1984-Nil. (C) August 1984-Nil. (b) Females (A) June 1984-12. (B) July 1984-16. August 1984-16. (Question No. 1442) Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 29 May 1984: (1) What was the total cost of producing the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Four Corners program broadcast on Saturday, 31 March 1984, itemised into (a) salary, wages and allowances, (b) equipment hire or capital costs or equipment, (c) materials, (d) studio hire or capital costs of the studio, (e) accommodation and travel (A) overseas and (B) in Australia, (f) editing, (g) administration expenses and (h) sundry expenses detailed. (2) Who travelled overseas in producing the program and to which countries. (3) What percentage of the Four Corners annual budget was spent on producing the program. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is as follows: (1) (a) $40,518. (b) Nil. (c) $9,681. (d) Nil. (e) (A) $26,310; (B) $1,333. (f) and (g) These expenses are not separately costed for individual programs. (h) German Translator $288 French Translator $657 Hire of Stringer Film Crew in Darwin $180 $1,065 (2) Peter Manning-Producer; Jenny Brockie-Reporter; Richard Baillie-Mace-Cine Cameraman; Guntis Sics-Sound Recordist. The above team travelled to the United States of America, Canada, France, Germany and Austria. (3) 5.6% of specific program costs. The program in question represented one hour of an annual production of approximately 20 hours for Four Corners. (Question No. 1521) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities under the Community Employment Program, in (A) March, (B) April and (C) May 1984. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Department of Communications No males or females were engaged by the Department as temporary employees under the Community Employment Program in the period March 1984 to May 1984. Telecom Australia Telecom has so far made no application for Community Employment Program grants for employment creation. However, following discussions with officials of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, Telecom is currently in the process of identifying suitable projects and activities which could receive support under CEP. Following formulation of suitable projects and consultation with the relevant staff associations it is probable that Telecom will formally seek approval for a number of projects under CEP. Australia Post Male Female March 1984 3 5 April 1984 1 1 May 1984 1 3 OTC No males or females were engaged by OTC as temporary employees under the Community Employment Program in the period March 1984 to May 1984. AUSSAT No males or females were engaged by AUSSAT as temporary employees under the Community Employment Program in the period March 1984 to May 1984. Australian Broadcasting Corporation Male Female March 1984 nil 47 April 1984 nil nil May 1984 nil nil Australian Broadcasting Tribunal No males or females were engaged by the Tribunal as temporary employees under the Community Employment Program in the period March 1984 to May 1984. Special Broadcasting Service No males or females were engaged by the Special Broadcasting Service as temporary employees under the Community Employment Program in the period March 1984 to May 1984. (Question No. 1571) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: (1) Is it a fact that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has dropped its advertising agency of 11 years, Samuelson, Talbot and Partners, and hired Ogilvy and Mather. (2) Is the former an Australian-owned company and the latter foreign-owned. (3) Why did the ABC consider it necessary to use Ogilvy and Mather. (4) What amount does the ABC pay per annum to advertising agencies. (5) For what purposes and how are funds spent on advertising. (6) Is there a short term advertising campaign proposed to improve the image of the ABC; if so, (a) is it additional to budgeted advertising expenditure and (b) what amount has been allocated for it. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Samuelson, Talbot and Partners is an Australian-owned company. Ogilvy and Mather is an international group. The principals of Ogilvy and Mather (Australia ) are all Australians. (3) The ABC Board, noting a decisions by management, believed that Ogilvy and Mather would provide the best corporate advertising services at the most cost- effective price. The agency displayed excellent understanding of the ABC's requirements and its submission was the most comprehensive in its scope and the resources, including research, that it could offer to the Corporation. The decision was made purely on merit. (4) and (5) The total publicity and advertising budget for the ABC in 1983-84 is $2.4m, and includes moneys spent on corporate information, programs advertising, Radio Australia, ABC concerts, ABC merchandising, special events and employment vacancies. Only a small portion of the total amount is actually retained by advertising agencies, the rest-as is common practice-is distributed to newspapers, magazines, broadcasters and other media that carry the promotions and advertising material to the public. This overall figure is considerably less than that spent by commercial broadcasters and this emphasises the need for the Corporation to receive the maximum value for the public dollars spent. (6) A short-term campaign, designed to be consistent with the ABC's longer-term corporate strategies, is to be embarked upon. The campaign will be financed out of the total publicity and advertising budget and will cost an estimated $105, 000. (Question No. 1728) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 September 1984: (1) Does Article 22 of the United Nations Charter allow the General Assembly to set up a second assembly representing peoples and humanity, rather than national interests. (2) Will he support such a proposal, as suggested by the Second Conference of Professions for World Disarmament and Development, on 13 November 1983 in London , and reported by the Medical Association for Prevention of War. (3) Will he (a) take steps to arrange for the election of a people's representative from Australia to the United Nations at each federal general election, to have observer status with the Australian UN delegation for the period of the subsequent Parliament and (b) encourage other countries to do likewise to provide an informal second assembly. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Article 22 of the United Nations Charter states: 'The General Assembly may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.' Since its inception, the General Assembly has established over 200 committees, commissions, panels, special representatives, boards and agencies, exercising a wide variety of functions and responsible to the Assembly as a principal organ of the United Nations. Subsidiary organs are usually composed of member states of the United Nations or their representatives. Some such organs have been composed of experts serving in their individual capacities where the matter under consideration is of a technical or specialised nature. The purpose of article 22, as noted, is to allow the General Assembly to set up subsidiary bodies to assist the Assembly to carry out its (that is, the Assembly 's) functions. A second assembly of the sort envisaged in the question would be a body of a different character, and presumably of comparable status to the General Assembly-that is it would be equivalent to a principal organ of the United Nations. The principal organs of the United Nations, however, are identified in article 7 (1) of the Charter, so that at the least the establishment of a further principal organ would seem to require an amendment of the Charter. Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Charter are specific in providing that the United Nations Organisation is composed of and responsible to member states. There is no suggestion that the General Assembly, or other organ of the United Nations, has the authority to set up a further principal organ of the sort suggested. Such an action would also have significant financial implications. It would seem that, however worthy the idea, there is no basis in the Charter for action by the General Assembly to establish such a body. (2) See answer to (1). (3) See answer to (1). (Question No. 1730) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 6 September 1984 : (1) Has he reviewed the previous government's policies of selling provincial cities' airports to local authorities; if so, what alterations have been made; if not, will he make such a review. (2) What penalties will be imposed on Rockhampton and surrounding districts' residents if the Rockhampton City Council declines to take over the Rockhampton Airport. (3) Would a consenting Rockhampton City Council have all the responsibilities and obligations of financing the maintenance and expansion of the Rockhampton Airport. (4) Would the Council have power to impose landing and departure fees. (5) Would power be ceded to the Council to close the airport to companies for discounting fares, as recently happened in Melbourne to East-West Airways. (6) As taking over the Rockhampton Airport was not a policy objective of the present Labor Rockhampton City Council in the last Council elections, will he grant postponement of a decision by one year, and advise the Rockhampton City Council of this urgently, so that more local public discussion may take place. (7) Will he give favourable consideration to an alternative of contracting airport maintenance work to the Rockhampton City Council, in a manner similar to that of the Queensland Main Roads Departments contracting with local authorities for road works. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There is and has been no policy of selling provincial city airports to local authorities but under the Commonwealth's Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan ( ALOP) certain Commonwealth aerodromes may be transferred to local authorities free of cost. 270 Australian aerodromes currently receive Commonwealth support and a further 46 Commonwealth aerodromes serving local needs are eligible to be transferred to local authority ownership. A recent review of the ALOP by the Department of Aviation showed that local authority ownership led to substantial savings to the community and the review recommended no major changes to the broad intent of the policy. (2) There are no direct penalties associated with refusal. However in addition to the cost savings of the ALOP there is the further advantage that ALOP funding does not have to compete with funding for works at capital city airports which tend to have priority because of their national importance. Another factor which will further make local ownership attractive is the proposed introduction of separate aerodrome and airways charges which will result in the Commonwealth charging directly for the use of the aerodrome. (3) No. Under the ALOP, the Commonwealth meets half the cost of approved works. (4) Yes. (5) No. (6) The Commonwealth has not specified a time for transfer. Timing is a matter primarily for Council determination but local authority ownership would be a means of achieving earlier development of the aerodrome than under Commonwealth ownership. (7) Such arrangements have been achieved in the past with other local authorities as a prelude to transfer of aerodromes and could be considered in the case of Rockhampton. However, where development was also proposed it has been on the basis of local ownership with Commonwealth support. Council is currently discussing the situation with the Department of Aviation. (Question No. 1747) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Aviation, 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 Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The memorandum was brought to the attention of staff in my Department through an Administrative Circular dated 21 September 1984. The memorandum was not brought to the attention of staff in Qantas and Trans- Australia Airlines because both companies through continually assisting unions in recruitment of members estimate that approximately 90% of their total staff are union members. (3) Other action already taken in my Department's Central Office consists of inviting union delegates to address new recruits at induction courses, distributing union recruitment pamphlets, allowing union access to Departmental notice boards, and circulating a list of union delegates. (Question No. 1756) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, 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 Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) The content of the Board's memorandum, which was addressed to both my Department and the statutory authorities for which I am responsible, i.e. the Repatriation Commission, Repatriation Boards, the Repatriation Review Tribunal, the Defence Service Homes Corporation and the Office of Australian War Graves, was conveyed to all staff by means of the Staff Bulletin which is widely circulated throughout the Department and to statutory authorities within my responsibility. Staff Bulletins were issued in each State on the following dates: Central Office/ACT-15 June 1984 New South Wales-29 June 1984 Victoria-18 September 1984 Queensland-6 July 1984 Western Australia-21 June 1984 South Australia-13 September 1984 Tasmania-19 September 1984. (3) Before the issue of the Board's memorandum, practices to encourage union membership were operating in my Department and the statutory authorities which report to me. To ensure that positive measures were being taken in all States, the Central Office of my Department wrote to the State Branches on 12 July 1984 suggesting that, if they were not already doing so, they should adopt the following practices: advise all new employees, on commencement, of the existence of staff associations/unions and the name(s), number(s) and location(s) of their local representative(s); encourage, and make provision for, union officials to participate in Departmental induction courses; allow reasonable access by union officials, on legitimate union business, to the workplace; include, as a separate section, in Departmental phone books, the names, telephone numbers and location of union delegates; allow union officials reasonable space and access to Departmental notice boards . These measures are also applicable to staff employed in the statutory authorities within my portfolio. At the Departmental/Union National Consultative Council held recently in Melbourne, the Council decided that the Department should prepare and issue, in consultation with the Unions, a policy statement on Union membership. My Department also encourages staff, through their union representatives, to participate in formal consultative arrangements which have been established throughout the organisation in accordance with the concepts and principles of industrial democracy. (Question No. 1766) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 September 1984: What affirmative action for women is Qantas Airways Ltd taking in relation to its workforce. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Qantas has advised that it has had a policy of equal opportunity and non- discrimination in employment for several years, and has consistently taken into account the particular problems faced by women in the workforce. A program aimed at encouraging women to apply for a wider range of jobs than that previously considered and to seek training and promotional opportunities has been developed and approved in principle by the Company's Chief Executive. One of Qantas' longer term objectives is to place a greater number of suitably qualified women in senior positions. The program in broad terms defines objectives and action steps, and will be developed to cover other sections of the Company's workforce. A senior officer within the Corporate Personnel Branch under the direction of the Director of Personnel is responsible for company-wide co-ordination. This function is in addition to his normal duties which include co-ordination of staff development and training responsibilities throughout Qantas. The main responsibility for implementation of this program lies with Division General Managers, who each have appointed on a part-time basis a woman as their adviser on equal opportunity and women's issues in particular. Unions have been briefed through the Qantas Consultative Council and, through the auspices of the ACTU, their co-operation has been offered and accepted in development of Qantas' Equal Employment Opportunity Program. The initial phase is an educational process, and a segment of equal opportunity and discrimination has been incorporated in in-house supervisory training. Further educational programs for managers are being prepared. An integration agreement on promotional opportunities was reached last year with the cabin crew associations and a number of women have been promoted, including several to the rank of Flight Service Director, the most senior position in the aircraft cabin. Qantas has recruited female apprentices in the engineering and maintenance area since 1971, principally in the Instrument Overhaul Department. However, the pool of female applicants has been small and the retention rate low. This year two women have been selected in the Company's pilot intake, despite a relatively low number of female applicants. Statistical analysis has previously been carried out on the Qantas workforce, and further work is being done to assist in the identification of specific areas that require more immediate attention. Further details of the program are actively developed by a working party comprising Divisional employee relations managers, equal opportunity advisers and corporate personnel management. (Question No. 1810) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, 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 John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Temporary staff employed under the Community Employment Program are as follows: (i) Department of Industry and Commerce-Nil. (ii) Statutory Authorities-Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation. Males Females June 1984 1 nil July 1984 1 1 August 1984 nil nil (Question No. 1816) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, 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 Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) (i) Nil; (ii) Nil. (b) (i) Nil; (ii) Nil-for the months of June, July and August 1984. (Question No. 1824) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Aviation, 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 Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of Aviation has not directly employed any people under the Community Employment Program during the months June, July and August 1984. However, the Department of Housing and Construction has administered employment opportunities under the program in respect of employment on Airport Development projects. The Department of Housing and Construction is paid by my Department from funds allocated by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations for the Community Employment Program. (Question No. 1831) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, 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 Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: June July August Male Female Male Female Male Female Department of Home Affairs and Environment 1 2 1 2 1 2 Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service 44 26 43 28 37 21 National Library of Australia 1 2 1 2 1 2 Australian Film Commission . . 37 . . 33 . . 29 Australian National Gallery 12 8 12 9 10 11 Australia Council 3 1 6 4 6 5 Total 61 76 63 78 55 70