Wednesday, 18 September 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.01) —The Opposition welcomes the Foreign States Immunities Bill. It is based on the 1984 report of the Law Reform Commission on foreign state immunity. That report was produced by the Commission in response to a reference given to it in November 1982 by the present honourable member for Menzies and Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N. A. Brown), who was then the Acting Attorney-General. The Government and the present Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) are to be commended on adopting the recommendations made in the report and bringing the Bill to the House. I join with the Attorney-General in congratulating the Law Reform Commission on an excellent report. The purpose of the Bill is to state for the purposes of civil proceedings-but not, I emphasise criminal proceedings-in an Act of Parliament the law relating to the jurisdiction of Australian courts over foreign states, their agencies and instrumentalities, and in doing so to define the extent of immunity from jurisdiction of our courts of those states, agencies and instrumentalities, the scope of enforcement measures available against them and to deal with related procedural issues such as the service of process, waiver of immunity and discovery of documents, together with certain incidental matters. The reasons for the Bill are to be found in the present state of the law. Rules of civil immunity of states have evolved in the courts through judge-made law. The genesis of the present immunity doctrine is obscure. The classic formulation of the doctrine is to be found in the decision of Chief Justice Marshall of the United States Supreme Court, speaking on behalf of the court in the case of the Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon in 1812. That decision, as the Law Reform Commission points out, is based on the reasoning of general principles in regard to territorial sovereignty, the equality and independence of states and notions of implied consent and is confirmed by anology from the personal immunities for heads of state, ambassadors and visiting forces by reference to treaty and other practice. The Schooner Exchange case did not decide whether the trading activities of a foreign state were protected. These activities came before the courts of the United States and England at a later stage. In England the Court of Appeal in 1880 in the Parliament Belge case held that the ship in question was the public property of a state and was destined to its public use, and that the mere fact of the ship being used subordinately and partially for trading purposes did not take away the general immunity. Later in 1920 in England and in 1926 in the United States the English Court of Appeal in the Porto Alexandre case and the United States Supreme Court in the Berizzi Brothers Co. v. Steamship Pesaro decided that even state-owned merchant ships were exempt from local jurisdiction. Perhaps the most categorical statement of the absolute immunity rule is to be found in the decision of the House of Lords, England, in the Cristina case, another ship case, in 1938. Lord Aitkin, a famous and eminent English jurist, stated two explicit and broad propositions which he thought to be well established and beyond dispute. First the courts of a country will not implead a foreign sovereign-in contemporary language a foreign state-by forcing the foreign sovereign against his will to be a party to legal proceedings whether the proceedings involved process against his person or seek to recover from him specific property or damages. The second proposition went to the enforcement of judgments against a foreign sovereign. It was regardless of whether or not a foreign sovereign was party to proceedings the courts would not seize or detain property which is his of which he is in possession or control. Lord Aitkin held that this immunity extended to property used for commercial purposes. It is fundamental to the fabric of a civilised society that laws be as just as we are capable of making them. It is always difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at any abstract tests that may be applied to laws, whether made by the courts or by parliament, to determine whether they are just. Jurists and philosophers have endeavoured in Western civilisation since at least the days of Socrates to devise tests against which the justness of laws could be measured. On balance, no test has ever been devised which has been found to be applicable to all the many circumstances that can arise and the many laws that may be considered. However, it is frequently not difficult to get widespread agreement on the question of whether or not a particular law is capable of producing injustice and the effect of Lord Aitkin's rule necessarily raises a very obvious question of justice. Why, in respect of commercial dealings, should foreign states have immunity? Is it just that citizens of another country, who enter into commercial transactions with foreign states, their agencies or instrumentalities, should be denied redress if those states break their contracts? Quite clearly the rule stated by Lord Aitkin is unjust, however well founded that rule was. Nevertheless, for some 40 years it was applied to diverse situations in the courts of England and Australia. In England those situations included immunity to an action for libel against the official Soviet newspaper for a publication and news sheet called `The Soviet Monitor', and immunity to an action for breach of contract governed by English law and deemed to be made and performed there for the supply of German tanks. I was interested to note that the decision was given in 1951 so one can only assume that the tanks were somewhat shop soiled. The Germans have always been well known for making hardy and useful tanks. In Australia the immunity rule led to the dismissal of a claim for breach of contract made within Australia for employment with a colonial government. That case involved the Netherlands Indies Government, which perhaps did not have very long to run in any event, and more curiously the dismissal of a claim against the United States Government, which arose out of the termination of a contract to provide a clothes cleaning service for members of United States forces on leave in Sydney. However, as the Law Reform Commission points out, an uncomfortable awareness developed in the English courts that the absolute immunity rule was not necessarily required by international law and practice, nor was it consistent with the position in many European countries. In 1977, the Privy Council held that foreign state-owned merchant vessels were not immune from a suit in an Admiralty action in rem; that is to say, an action brought against the vessel-the ordinary form of an action in rem. In the Privy Council's decision, it said: In this country-and no doubt in most countries in the Western world-the state can be sued in its own courts on commercial contracts into which it has entered and there is no apparent reason why foreign states should not be equally liable to be sued there in respect of such transactions. Here we see the development of a doctrine of restrictive immunity. In the same year, the English Court of Appeal in Trendtex Trading Corporation v. Central Bank of Nigeria applied the restrictive immunity rule to an action in personam; that is to say, an action directly against the person. That action arose from a commercial transaction and was brought against a state bank. This decision has since been approved by the House of Lords in a case called I Congress del Parido. The arbitrary distinction between actions in rem and in personam which had been suggested by a decision of the Privy Council was not given support. Lord Wilberforce, one of the most distinguished jurists of the last 50 years, summarised the restrictive theory of foreign state immunity in the leading speech. He said: The relevant exception or limitation, which has been engrafted upon the principle of immunity of states, . . . arises from the willingness of states to enter into commercial or other private law, transactions with individuals . . . When therefore claim is brought against a state . . . and state immunity is claimed, it is necessary to consider what is the relevant act which forms the basis of the claim . . . is it a `private act' or is it a `sovereign or public act' a private act meaning in this context an act of a private law character such as a private citizen might have entered into. As Lord Denning pointed out in the Trendtex case, in some countries the governmental departments conduct all their business through their own offices-even ordinary commercial dealings without setting up separate corporations or legal entities. In other countries, separate corporations are set up under the complete control of a department but enter into commercial transactions, buying and selling goods, just as ordinary trading concerns do. The difference in internal arrangements ought not to affect the availability of immunity in international law. Moreover, the more the affairs of a country are the subject of government regulation, of which the prime example is the communist totalitarian states, where government control of commercial transactions is all pervasive, the more it will be found that perfectly ordinary commercial transactions will be entered into by bodies clothed with the outward indicia of the state, but which are, by any objective judgment, bodies entering into commercial transactions. Faced with a choice between developing case law to meet the many problems that can arise or adopting statute law to lay down wide-ranging rules, the leading countries in the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence have opted for the statutory solution. In 1976 the United States of America enacted the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. In 1978 the United Kingdom Parliament enacted the United Kingdom State Immunity Act to clarify the law of state immunity and to extend the scope of local jurisdiction and enforcement. Incidentally, and in light of the deregulation of the Australian financial sector-this is a matter of importance-a significant factor leading to the United Kingdom legislation, so the Law Reform Commission tells us, was pressure from London bankers and lawyers who were concerned at the possible loss of sovereign risk lending business to the United States. I might interpolate that since we have seen that some of that sovereign risk lending has been less than profitable to the lenders. In retrospect, that was something that they might have desired to stay out of, but certainly it is a field that one wishes to have the option of being in. The state immunity law has since been adopted with little change by Singapore, Pakistan and South Africa, while Canada has adopted an Act which reflects the approach of both the United Kingdom and the United States Acts. The choice faced by Australia is to leave matters to the common law and to await an international agreement on the subject, or to legislate. To leave matters to the common law-that is, to develop them through judicial decisions-is fraught with uncertainty. There have been few cases in Australia on foreign state immunity. Much remains to be done in refining the doctrine of restrictive immunity, and as the other leading common law countries have enacted statutory rules to deal with all or many of the problems of foreign state immunity in civil proceedings, we will be denied the help of being able to learn from developments in the common law of state immunity in those jurisdictions. In effect, they will be applying a set of statutory rules. Not only would leaving the law to be developed in the courts cause very great uncertainty as to what in particular cases the law may be, but also there are areas of state immunity which do not lend themselves easily, or in some cases at all, to developments through judge-made rules. These include the permissible scope of execution against foreign state assets. It is perfectly futile to have a judgment if it is not possible to satisfy that judgment, and indeed the costs of getting it, by execution against the assets of the defendant. The ambit of exceptions to state immunity relates to such matters as local property and trust funds, service of process, legal questions that can arise in such disparate areas as membership of corporations and partnerships, rights to trade marks, patents, copyright, registered design and trade or business names and actions to support those rights and liabilities on bills of exchange. Australian domestic legislation is therefore necessary to remove the many areas of uncertainty in the law relating to foreign state immunity. Although there have been few Australian cases in this area to date, with increasing involvement by foreign states in investment, banking and other activities in Australia, that may not be the situation in the future, particularly if, as I hope, and believe most of us here hope, Australia becomes the banking centre for our region. The legislation before the House will not affect any immunity or privilege conferred by the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1967, the Consular Privileges and Immunities Act 1972 and any other Commonwealth legislation which confers immunity on a foreign state. The approach taken by the Bill, which follows the United Kingdom State Immunity Act 1978, is to confer as a general rule absolute immunity on foreign states, subject to a number of exceptions, which are stated in the Bill. These exceptions include commercial transactions. There will be no immunity where the proceedings concern commercial, trading, business, professional or industrial or like transactions, including contracts for the supply of goods or services or for loans or guarantees. Also included are contracts of employment. As a general rule, and subject to specific exceptions, the foreign state will not be immune in proceedings concerning a contract of employment that was made in Australia or is to be performed in Australia. Another exception concerns torts. A foreign state will not be immune in proceedings concerning death or personal injury or loss or damage to property caused by an act or omission in Australia. This extends to motor vehicle accidents where the foreign state is liable vicariously for the actions of negligent drivers and to other torts, but not to the so-called economic torts such as defamation. Other areas in which the immunity of foreign states, their agencies and their instrumentalities is excluded or limited include actions involving immovable property; actions involving industrial or intellectual property; membership in locally formed partnerships, unincorporated bodies or corporations; liabilities arising out of bills of exchange and actions in rem against a ship if at the time the cause of action arose the ship was in use for commercial purposes. The Bill will enable service of certain foreign states to be carried out by the Department of Foreign Affairs using diplomatic channels and extends the time limit for the entering of an appearance by foreign states. The property of foreign states will in certain circumstances not be immune from judgments obtained against it. The immunity from execution conferred on foreign state property will not apply to the commercial property of the foreign state. As I said earlier, the importance of the availability of execution against the property of a foreign state is paramount, as otherwise one goes through the toil and incurs the costs of obtaining judgment but is left without any effective remedy. Other matters with which the Bill deals concern questions arising in arbitration, discovery of documents, submission to the jurisdiction of Australian courts and immunities in related proceedings-that is, proceedings related to what may be described as the main action. The Bill is a substantial step forward over the uncertain situation which presently exists in the area of law relating to foreign state immunity. In welcoming the Bill and commending the Government and the Attorney-General for bringing it forward, I would add only one last observation. It is possible that an international convention will be devised dealing with the question of foreign state immunity in civil proceedings. I would adopt the suggestion made in the report of the Law Reform Commission in paragraph 62 where the following is said: In enacting legislation, the Commonwealth should express its willingness to reconsider the legislation in the event that a generally acceptable convention emerges from the work of the International Commission. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(10.25) —I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate because, whilst this matter is one which I think lay persons would see as a fairly erudite and rather boring subject, to those of us who know the impact that it can have in the lives of ordinary individuals it is no such thing. The Foreign States Immunities Bill reforms and codifies the proper behaviour of the Commonwealth of Australia towards foreign states which have representation in this country and also codifies the behaviour that Australia expects of foreign states by limiting their diplomatic immunity, especially in the area of trade and commercial transactions. Legislation of this type, I might say, is long overdue. This does not mean that in general foreign states have been remiss in their behaviour in Australia although there have been some cases which have required action if justice were to be given and in those cases justice was not available. This legislation recognises the fact that foreign states since the early nineteenth century have been entitled to some immunity from the courts of other countries. While immunity has been covered by common law in Australia, the limits which might be expected to be reasonable have been difficult to define. There is no doubt that progressive common law judgments have restricted diplomatic immunity to some extent. In those countries which do not have a common law background immunity of foreign states has been clearly defined. In some states with a common law background, that is, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore and South Africa, common law developments have been arrested by the advent of limiting legislation. There are good arguments for both extending some diplomatic immunity and limiting its scope which are based on restrictive immunity. There is not of course a single point of distinction between cases which should have immunity extended to them and those in which it should be limited. However, common law developments, before they were arrested by legislation in other common law countries, have been unclear and uncertain in a number of ways and this has presented a number of difficulties. The uncertainties were highlighted in the Law Reform Commission report referred to in the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). That report listed them as follows: The necessity for closer jurisdictional links with state transactions than in other cases; the ambit of exception relating to local property, trust funds, et cetera; the permissible scope of execution against foreign state assets; and the proper methods of service of process and related procedural questions. These issues of course are extremely important if justice is to be done in dealing with foreign states. There are a number of reasons why these uncertainties must be clarified apart from the closing off of common law developments. These arise from the unsatisfactory nature of apparently settled common law questions such as waiver of immunity and the rigidity of the distinction between immune and non-immune transactions which is inappropriate and inadequate to deal with the complex issues now facing Australian courts. There are other reasons why codification of the laws relating to foreign state immunity is required. These relate to the rights of the Australian public to day to day dealings with foreign states through commercial and domestic relations and the political rights of Australians to follow certain foreign policy options without their legality being challenged in the courts. The Law Reform Commission recommended in its report that codification of legislation was required in Australia. This Bill is in fact that recommended by the Commission with only minor drafting amendments which do not alter in any way the substance of the recommendations. The Commission, I might say, has done an excellent job in relation to this issue and should be congratulated. It has dealt with a sensitive subject and provided clear legislative guidelines for the Parliament to follow. The Commission recommended, and this Bill provides for, a broad definition of `foreign state' which includes the Executive arm of the state plus departments and organs which act as agents or instrumentalities of the state in question. It makes no distinction between component political units of federal states but includes political subdivisions such as provinces, States and self-governing territories. This is an excellent recommendation which, if adopted internationally, would be another nail in the coffin of the ambiguity and uncertainty which has arisen in the relations between the states of independent nations and their former colonial masters. The Bill provides that a foreign state may submit in advance to the jurisdiction of the Australian courts. Submissions can extend to prior agreement subject to specified limitations, exclusions or conditions. Immunity is deemed to be waived where a foreign state initiates proceedings or intervenes for purposes other than asserting immunity. The Bill also provides for some very important exceptions to jurisdictional immunity, especially in the commercial and industrial arenas. It provides that commercial transactions be defined to include commercial trading, business, professional or industrial activities, in particular contracts for the supply of goods and services and agreements for loans for the provision of finance and guarantees for indemnities in respect of financial obligations. This is an important provision given the extent of state-owned commercial entities which now operate. In the days before the trend towards internationally greater government commercial activity such a Bill would have been less necessary, but since 1917 and 1949, to mark two notable shifts in the direction of government enterprise and activity on the world scale, quite obviously a Bill of this sort has become even more important. For the benefit of the House I recall the great difficulty that the South Australian Government had when a ship, which belonged to the Chinese Government, rammed the pier at Wallaroo in about 1974. The Chinese Government, having caused some millions of dollars worth of damage to a facility in this country, immediately sought to exercise immunity on the basis that the ship was owned and operated by the appropriate department in China and, as it was a governmnent department, it could claim immunity and, therefore, not be liable for the damage. Fortunately, after proceedings through the courts to the higher courts, the common law was upheld as defeating that claim, but in order to do that-if I may make a comment about the judgment-there was a need for the court to extend the common law to protect the undoubted justice of ensuring that the Chinese should pay for the damage that had been caused by their wrong doing. The Bill allows for Australian jurisdiction in the industrial area where contracts of employment are between a foreign state and a citizen or permanent resident of Australia. While this will not stop some unsavoury industrial relations practices to which some embassies have resorted in the past-notoriously, of course, the Philippines Embassy-it will, in most cases, protect Australians who work for foreign states, expecially in commercial areas. The rights of the Australian public will be guaranteed by the Bill with respect to ownership and protection of inventions, trade marks and copyright, and where they are locally established or controlled. They will be guaranteed by explicit non-immunity in proceedings concerning death or personal injury or loss of or damage to tangible property caused by an act or omission in Australia. That is a long overdue clarification of the law. Likewise, they will be protected in cases of bankruptcy, administration of trusts of deceased estates, et cetera. These are only some of the provisions of the Bill, although they are among the most important. The Law Reform Commission has made recommendations which, when adopted by the passage of the Bill into law, will put Australia in the forefront of the codification of diplomatic immunity, its extent and its limits. It is long overdue and will afford Australians as individuals and Australia as a nation the protection which they should expect and have operating in this country. I congratulate the Government on bringing the Bill forward. Mr SMITH(Bass)(10.34) —I am delighted to follow the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan). There will not be many occasions on which I will agree with him on matters before this House, but I am pleased to say that I join him in supporting the Foreign States Immunities Bill which the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has brought in. The reasons for the Bill are valid. We on this side of the House, as was discussed by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), in what I might say was a most detailed and excellent expose of the law on this subject, are pleased to support the Bill. Obviously the topic is one that does not captivate the attention of all honourable members; nevertheless it is an extremely important matter. In 1982 a report of the Joint Committee of the Law Council of Australia and the Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand on Admiralty Jurisdiction in Australia recommended to the Federal Government that it consider enacting legislation comparable with the State Immunity Act 1978 of the United Kingdom. In October 1984 the Australian Law Reform Commission report No. 24 entitled `Foreign State Immunity' was tabled in this Parliament. As the honourable member for Makin said, it is an excellent report. The legislation we are discussing today is in broadly similar terms to that of the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States of America, which adopts a policy of `restrictive' immunity rather than the `absolute' immunity, which was the policy adopted by the common law until the 1970s. In very summary terms, because I do not think it is necessary to go into the detail that has been given by previous speakers, a foreign state will not be immune from the jurisdiction of local courts in disputes arising out of commercial transactions-this is the key to this legislation-ownership or use of local real property, local torts causing death, personal injury or damage to tangible property and a number of other matters to which the honourable member for North Sydney referred. The advantages of the legislation are covered by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech. However, paramount amongst them is the certainty and predictability such Federal legislation will bring to an area of the common law which suffers from uncertainty. Additionally, there is no recent Australian case dealing with these issues and, thus, no direct authority for the restrictive immunity rule. Furthermore, as the Law Reform Commission correctly points out in my view, there would be doubt in an area such as this as to whether the common law unaided would keep pace with the community acceptance of local jurisdiction over such matters as personal injury arising as a result of a foreign state activity. So the `absolute' immunity doctrine is clearly not appropriate. I would like to draw attention to clause 18 of the Bill which deals with actions in rem. Things maritime are, of course, of interest to me as a Tasmanian and having, as I do, the Australian Maritime College in my electorate. I might add that this college is the only one of its type in Australia. As a sometimes visiting lecturer at the College, I know that the complexity of the maritime legal jurisdiction gives both students and legal practitioners many concerns. We are moving slowly in this country to bring our maritime law into the twenty-first century. At the forefront of this move is the Australian and New Zealand Maritime Law Association; which, as I have already said, in 1982 joined with the Law Council of Australia to begin work on the Bill which we are finally discussing today. As a nation ever more dependent on a successful export trade, we ought not to forget the strategic importance of our shipping laws in facilitating such trade. The Association does great work and it ought to be congratulated on its efforts. Clause 18 of the Bill seeks to remove a foreign state's immunity in actions in rem-that is, as was explained by the honourable member for North Sydney, an action against the object-so long as the vessel is engaged in commercial purposes. An important step is contained in clause 18 (2), which concerns `sister ship' arrest. At present, Australian admiralty jurisdiction, which is dependent on the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 of the United Kingdom, does not allow for such arrest. This change has the practical result of being able to pursue a `sister ship' in an action in rem if the primary ship has departed. Both ships must be in use or intended for use for commercial purposes. In effect, it means that if a ship of government X calls to collect perhaps a live sheep shipment and departs prior to payment of all obligations, the next ship from government X to call to collect a following sheep shipment will not be immune. So an act in rem can commence to make good the prior ship's default. I think the example that was given by the honourable member for Makin about the Chinese incident is also particularly important bearing in mind the difficulties that we face or have faced in trying to pursue common law remedies against ships owned by foreign governments or their agencies. I believe that this measure is particularly important to Australian trade. Indeed, the whole Bill is extremely important. I have great pleasure in supporting the Attorney-General. I congratulate him on introducing this Bill. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.40) —The question of foreign states immunity and diplomatic immunity is of great importance to Australia. The first experience of this matter that I had was when I was a law student working at the High Court of Australia with people from Canberra. They told all sorts of horrendous stories about diplomats and diplomatic staff running people down as they drove around this fair city. Such injured people could allegedly make no claim. They were denied their common law damages awards. Fortunately that situation has been resolved. The whole issue and all the side issues contained in the Foreign States Immunities Bill 1985 have been canvassed in a very worthwhile report brought down by the Law Reform Commission. I congratulate the former Chairman, the Hon. Justice Kirby, and the members of the Commission, on bringing down an excellent report which other speakers have dealt with at some length. Our nation plays host to a million tourists a year. We are told that there are vast numbers of illegal migrants in our country. Many Australians, as we all know-in particular, members of parliament know-marry overseas, marry tourists who are visiting the country or non- Australians. There are many situations in which foreign law prevails. People get in touch with their embassies and claim that they are outside the jurisdiction of Australia and are not subject to the laws of Australian courts. Some people seek to claim immunity from the criminal process, and from being arrested. The Law Reform Commission's report pointed out that the common law remains unclear. That was one of the points made in Mr Justice Kirby's report. It detailed a number of areas in which the common law should be clarified. In particular, it pointed out the necessity for closer jurisdictional links with state transactions than in other cases. It also stated that the ambit of exceptions relating to local property, trust funds, et cetera, should be clarified, that the permissible scope of execution against foreign state assets should be clarified and that the proper methods of service of process and related procedural questions should be sorted out. In places such as Sydney, which has a very large diplomatic corps, and Canberra, which has an even bigger diplomatic and consular representation, this is important in the case of trades people, and servicemen and all sorts of people who deal with embassies. Historically, at common law, embassies and consular buildings have been exempt from town planning regulations, rates, taxation and public health and safety laws that apply to everyone else in our nation. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) introduced the legislation that we are debating today. The essence of the legislation is that until the 1970s it was generally thought that at common law foreign states and their agencies were entitled to absolute immunity from jurisdiction. Under this legislation exceptions will be clearly laid down. Essentially, the legislation will decline to accord immunity in respect of commercial transactions. Many nations-and political divisions within nations-provinces and states conduct commercial transactions. It has been essential for Australia to codify the situation. Commercial transactions will no longer be immune. The second reading speech of the Attorney stated: This includes all contracts for the supply of goods or services or for loans or guarantees . . . It is an essential step if Australia is to develop as an international banking centre conducting sovereign risk lending. The Attorney also highlighted the following point: Torts resulting in death, physical injury or damage to tangible property will not be immune if committed in Australia by the foreign state or by its servants acting in the course of their employment. Tort is a legal word for a wrong, hurt or injury of some kind. The Attorney gave an example of a person injured in a road accident involving diplomatic personnel acting in the course of their employment. The person so injured and aggrieved will be able to sue the state for damages. The diplomatic person, of course, will be protected but the foreign state may be sued. The Attorney pointed out also that where only an economic loss is suffered by a tort such as defamation, misrepresentation, deceit or negligent misstatement, unless it is a commercial misstatement, there will be no liability. This harks back to the point made by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) that in one of the early British decisions the Soviet Embassy in Britain was held immune from defamation proceedings when it published apparently defamatory material which was a reprint of a Soviet newspaper article. The Soviet Embassy regurgitated this material. Proceedings were taken in Britain, yet there was deemed to be no legal claim for defamation. The other areas the legislation covers involve employment contracts concerning Australians entered into by foreign governments. But, of course, foreign nationals who are not permanent residents or Australian nationals will not be so protected. Disputes concerning immovable property-for example, land-will not be immune. If an embassy buys a building or enters into a lease or timesharing arrangement in a capital city in Australia, there is no immunity if the embassy refuses to pay. There are rights for the vendor to take proceedings against the embassy. The other matters for which immunity will to some extent be removed include disputes involving industrial and intellectual property, membership by the foreign state in locally formed partnerships, companies or bodies corporate and the conduct of arbitrations. The legislation provides for voluntary submission to the jurisdiction. The legislation has been extensively dealt with by the other speakers. There are provisions whereby the Attorney-General can arrange for the service of writs through the Department of Foreign Affairs using diplomatic services. The legislation essentially follows legislation in the United Kingdom and other countries. Without delaying the House further, I commend the Bill to the House. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.48) —I join with my colleagues the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), together with the members of the Government, in welcoming the Foreign States Immunities Bill. I thank the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), who preceded me, for his contribution. I hasten to add, however, that the immunity for diplomats to whom he referred continues to extend for any criminal liability they may incur. This legislation will allow the people who are hurt in a case such as the example the honourable member for Lowe gave-by a diplomat driving a motor vehicle-to commence civil actions against the state as the diplomat's employer. However, the previous exemptions relating to a diplomat's immunity under criminal legislation will continue. The legislation will not affect any immunity or privilege conferred by the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1964, the Consular Privileges and Immunities Act 1972 and any other Commonwealth legislation which confers immunity on a foreign state. The purpose of this Bill is to put to rest many of the uncertainties relating to the jurisdiction of Australian courts over foreign states. As honourable members have been informed, since the early nineteenth century Australia has recognised that foreign states are in a special position when brought as defendants before the courts. A fundamental plank of our common law system is that these states are entitled to some immunity from jurisdiction of the courts. Nonetheless, over the passage of time a distinction has arisen between a state's act of sovereignty as opposed to its private law or business transactions. It is, in my view, correct to draw that distinction and to allow a foreign state to be brought before the courts as a defendant when it is engaging in private law or business transactions. A great many doubts and criticisms over the absolute immunities provided to foreign states have arisen, particularly over the last 15 or 20 years, in light of the trend in international law and the position of civil law in other countries that have long distinguished between governmental and private transactions of those states. Therefore, this legislation will do much to clarify the position of foreign states' immunities in Australia. The legislation results from a report and recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission on foreign states immunities and the draft Bill which was included in that report. I join with the honourable member for North Sydney in congratulating the Commission on its very detailed and productive study. The Commission's report no doubt will be studied closely by both scholars and legislators in other countries, with a view perhaps to codifying at least to some extent their own jurisdiction in this area. As honourable members will know, many common law jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom and Canada, have already legislated to restrict immunity of foreign states. At present common law governs the question of foreign state immunity in Australia and I believe legislation is vitally necessary to clarify areas of uncertainty in the law. It must be said that the present law in Australia is uncertain and that there are few, if any, recent Australian cases which can be referred to as authority. It is likely that prior to this legislation Australian courts would have had to follow the English precedents, as I understand earlier Australian cases did. Needless to say, changes in international law and foreign relations mean that Australia cannot afford such a vulnerability. It is true to say that much of the approach in this Bill follows the United Kingdom State Immunity Act 1978. It confers as a general rule absolute immunity on foreign states, subject to a number of exceptions. The exceptions enumerated in the Bill include commercial transactions. There will be no immunity where the proceedings involve commercial, trading, business or professional transactions, including contracts for the supply of goods or services or for loans or guarantees. As honourable members will know, this will simply bring Australian law into line with the law in other financial centres, such as New York, London and Singapore. As the honourable member for North Sydney mentioned, if ever we are to become the international banking capital of at least the Pacific basin, measures such as this will have to be tackled by the Federal Government so that we can compete with those other centres of Singapore and Hong Kong. Another exception enumerated in the Bill will be contracts of employment. Unless the employee is a foreign national and not a permanent resident or national of Australia, employment contracts entered into by foreign states will not be immune from proceedings in Australia. Looking at the law of torts, a foreign state will not be immune where it wrongfully causes death or personal injury or damages property within Australia. However, immunity will be retained by the foreign state in respect of the so-called economic torts, such as defamation, deceit and misrepresentation unless the tort occurs in the course of a commercial transaction. Other matters from which immunity will be removed include disputes concerning immovable property, such as land actions involving industrial and intellectual property, membership by the foreign state in a locally formed partnership company or body corporate, and the conduct of arbitrations. The legislation makes provision for a foreign state to submit voluntarily to the jurisdiction of Australian courts. This may be done by written agreement or by submission to the court. I may say, perhaps with the cynicism acquired from some years practice in the law, that it is difficult to understand a defendant voluntarily submitting to be brought before the courts. However, we trust that the need to preserve good relations with many of our trading partners will be such that they will in many cases voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the Australian courts. If over the years a practice has arisen where that is not adhered to by a number of international bodies, it may well be that this legislation will have to be looked at further. The legislation will enable service of certain foreign states to be carried out by the Department of Foreign Affairs using diplomatic channels, and also extends the time limit for the entering of an appearance by a foreign state. They are matters which are to be welcomed and are a natural progression of allowing the issuing of proceedings to be freed. After all, there is not a great deal of point in allowing proceedings to be issued against foreign states if the service of documents and the entering of appearance are restricted. Furthermore, property of foreign states will be immune from execution to satisfy judgments obtained against them, subject to specified exemptions. Commercial property, property used by a foreign state substantially for commercial purposes is not immune from execution, nor is immovable property once a successful judgment has been brought against such property. In conclusion, I advise the House that the legislation will clarify the law relating to the immunity of a head of state acting in a private capacity. The legislation confers the same immunities on a head of state and spouse as on a head of a diplomatic mission similarly acting. I welcome the legislation. I echo the comments of my colleagues that it is well overdue and will do much to bring Australian law into line with the common law countries, such as the United Kingdom and Canada. It will do much to assist corporations as well as individuals to obtain justice where previously justice was unobtainable Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.58) —I support the contributions made by colleagues on this side of the House, particularly that offered by my National Party colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). As always, his approach was thought provoking and worth while. It is interesting that the attitudes taken by parties represented in this place to the Foriegn States Immunities Bill are bipartisan or, should I say, tripartisan. Honourable members would agree with me that this is not really a regular occurrence. The contents of the legislation have emanated from much worthwhile work by the Law Reform Commission and it is a credit to that body. I believe that everyone should congratulate the Commission on its sterling efforts. The initial reference to the Commission was made by the former National Party-Liberal Party Government. The Bill traverses areas which technically have been covered in the past by common law and is in keeping with similar steps taken by many overseas countries, by codifying the law in this area. As other jurisdictions move away from common law, it has become more difficult for us not to do likewise. I am pleased that the Bill closely follows a similar United Kingdom Act of Parliament. As the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) says in his explanatory memorandum, the purpose of the Bill is to set out in clear and accessible form the law relating to the jurisdiction of Australian courts over foreign states, their agencies and instrumentalities. The fundamental principle is that foreign states and their entities are conferred with immunity and that is very important. This principle comes to us from the idea of the sovereign equality of states. Essentially though in today's society, this immunity is to be subject to specific exceptions principally involving situations of a commercial nature. One very positive step is where there is no immunity from the jurisdiction of Australian courts it will be possible to enforce judgments by execution on commercial assets. There is also provision for a secure and accepted method of service of process on foreign states through the Department of Foreign Affairs and diplomatic channels. This will overcome a very practical difficulty experienced by prospective litigants in the past. I commend the Government for including this element in the Bill. Certain other areas are also covered, such as default judgments and the immunity of foreign heads of state in their private capacities. While we are looking at immunities and obligations undertaken by Australian governments and administrations overseas, I would like to touch briefly on the complete failure of the Hawke Government to observe its obligations under the Vienna Convention. I refer to the illegal Trades and Labour Council picket which seeks to intimidate and harass the South African Embassy in Rhodes Place, its personnel and employees in the discharge of diplomatic duties. I had heard about this blight on the horizon of Canberra but could not believe that even this Government would so completely ignore its responsibilities. I have inspected the site and was disgusted to see a fire burning, people squatting in a caravan and a mobile toilet. It seems to be very much like other alternative lifestyle communities, such as the Wyuna community, which constantly receive such enthusiastic support from some honourable members opposite. The Government should hang its head in shame. Paint has been thrown on the walls of the Embassy, a two month-old car has been splattered with paint, there have been death threats-- Mr Gear —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I believe that the substance of the honourable member's remarks has nothing at all to do with the Bill. I ask you to direct him back to the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —I ask the honourable member to keep his remarks within the bounds of the Bill. Mr SLIPPER —The point I was raising was that this Bill canvasses the questions of international obligations and immunities. This Government-indeed, all governments in this country-should observe those obligations. I would be just as opposed to a picket if it were outside the Soviet Embassy, because we must treat diplomatic representatives with the respect they deserve. I am pleased to see this Bill before the House and to hear speakers from both sides supporting it. It is a major advance in the area of the law being covered. The Attorney-General should be commended for and congratulated on this very positive and forthright step. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(11.04) —in reply-I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this debate. It is an occasion on which everyone is prepared to support the legislation. It is important. The Law Reform Commission has done excellent work. Its report has been tabled for some time. I make the point that there are still immunities-let us not misunderstand the situation-and they certainly apply in a number of areas, not the least of which would be criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, for example, in bills of exchange, taxation and commercial areas there is a rationalisation of obligations. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) asked whether the Government would indicate what its position would be should a future international convention in some way conflict with the suggested law. I now indicate our willingness to consider any change to this legislation should it be appropriate in accordance with subsequent international conventions. I know that the House has plenty of other work to do. I just thank honourable members for their acceptance of this legislation. 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. Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment. Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Tobacco Charge (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1985 Tobacco Charge (No. 2) Amendment Bill 1985 Tobacco Charge (No. 3) Amendment Bill 1985 Poultry Industry Levy Amendment Bill 1985 Poultry Industry Assistance Amendment Bill 1985 Debate resumed from 11 September, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Interstate Road Transport Bill concurrently with the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(11.09) —Today we are debating the Interstate Road Transport Bill 1985 and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill 1985, which are the result of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry. I commend the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) for his initiative in establishing the inquiry and maintaining the momentum to this point. The coalition supports the overall aim of the legislation but it is concerned about the questions of adequate consultation, reliance and regulation and unresolved details of implementation. I will refer to these in greater detail later in my comments and at the Committee stage. The road transport industry is of great importance to the Australian economy. The vastness of Australia has provided a particular challenge for the reliable and efficient movement of freight and people. The road freight industry is the principal mover of all freight except for bulk commodities such as wheat and coal. Interstate coach and bus services have developed remarkably in recent years and now offer a most comprehensive, cost-efficient and flexible service for a rapidly increasing number of Australians. However, the interstate road freight industry has a turbulent history of instability, a high number of owner-operator bankruptcies, low morale, price cutting, speeding, maintenance and safety standard problems and pressure on drivers. This is apparent to anyone who lives in a regional centre or a suburb with a concentration of truckies or to someone who travels along major interstate highways such as the Hume. Most Hume Highway travellers have special stories of being pursued downhill at 140 kilometres an hour by a 38-tonne truck or having to pass a long line of slow-moving, closely-packed heavy transports up a hill. Road safety statistics verify some of the additional and special problems created by heavy vehicles moving too fast or too slowly or problems with safety and maintenance standards. The industry has been acutely aware of its problems, including the lack of uniformity between the States in registration arrrangements, speed limits, axle loadings, safety checks and so on. Therefore the proposal of the Minister for Transport to conduct a national inquiry had the wholehearted support of the industry, as well as that of the State and Territory Ministers responsible for transport and roads, at the July 1983 meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council, ATAC. On 12 September 1983 the Minister announced that he had appointed a committee to conduct the inquiry comprising three members-Mr Thomas May, the Chairman, Professor Gordon Mills and Mr Jim Scully. This committee presented its report in 1984 and on 11 October 1984, Stephen Lusher, the then shadow Minister for Transport and honourable member for Hume, indicated in Parliament the general support of the Opposition parties for the recommendations. The inquiry produced about 98 recommendations designed for implementation on a national basis to cover both Federal and State spheres, but principally the State sphere. The recommendations provided a basis for action in a wide range of areas affecting the trucking industry such as cost recovery, licensing, safety, vehicle mass and load limits, finance and insurance for the trucking industry, and research and consultation with the industry and government. Today's legislation encompasses an immediate objective of implementing two Federal and five State government initiatives which are complementary and which cannot be fully effective without complete adoption by all governments. Federally, they are the introduction of legislation providing for the registration of vehicles and the licensing of operators engaged in interstate trade and commerce and the establishment of the Australian Road Freight Transport Advisory Committee within the Transport Industry Advisory Council. For the States, they are, firstly, the introduction of graduated truck driver licences which will require that the drivers operating the large interstate vehicles have had appropriate experience. Secondly, improvements in railway cost recovery are to match any improvements in cost recovery in the road freight industry. That would also apply to Australian National. I understand that it applies to inter-system or interstate rail freight. Thirdly, they include the introduction of the May committee's reforms relating to finance and insurance and to providing owner-operators with access to existing consumer protection arrangements. Fourthly, fees charged by some States on vehicles already registered in another State are to be removed. Finally, they include the removal of the speed limit differential between trucks and other vehicles outside built-up areas. There is also provision for the implementation of other recommendations including those concerning safety standards and, possibly, mandatory monitoring devices. I understand that these and the operators' licence scheme will be introduced at a later stage. These cause the most concern to the Opposition. I have been advised that the earliest that the first stage-or fast track package, as the Minister likes to call it-can be implemented is 1 July 1986, because the States will not pass their necessary legislation on speed limits and so on until the 1986 autumn sessions of parliament. The Inter-state Commission will also report at the end of April 1986 on cost recovery for interstate road and rail services. The road freight industry has suffered from State regulation over the years but the freedom of interstate trade provisions in the Constitution have allowed interstate operators to pay considerably less than their intrastate colleagues, particularly for registration. For example, the standard registration cost for a typical State-registered truck in New South Wales is $2,543 or $27 for interstate registration. In Victoria, it costs $1,500 for State registration and there is no charge for interstate registration. South Australia charges $1,543 or $10 for interstate registration and Western Australia charges $1,606 for State registration and $9.50 for interstate. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the table supplied to me by the Department of Transport showing the comparison of annual registration charges for a typical truck. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMPARISION OF ANNUAL REGISTRATION CHARGES FOR A TYPICAL TRUCK Standard Registration Charge Registration Charge for Vehicles solely engaged in Interstate Trade $ $ NSW... 2,543.70 27.00 Vic.... 1,500.00 nil Qld.... 1,401.00 n.a. SA... 1,543.00 10.00 WA... 1,606.87 9.50 Tas.... 1,218.00 18.00 NT... 195.00 n.a. ACT... 1,699.20 n.a. Mr LLOYD —I thank the House. The May report recommended $1,400 as a suitable Federal interstate registration charge for the maximum weight vehicle, to which should be added approximately $300 for third party insurance-hence the $1,700 figure. This is lower that the average of the State charges to which I have just referred. There are approximately 15,000 interstate registration trucks at present. This legislation offers their owners, or for that matter the owners of any trucks engaged in interstate trade, three choices of registration. The first is to use State registration. The second is to pay the Federal annual fees of $1,400 for the heaviest 38-tonne vehicle. The fee is graduated accordingly for vehicles below that weight and thirdly, consequent upon the installation of a monitoring device, a charge per kilometre may be paid. The annual fee could alter when the Inter-State Commission reports on cost recovery. The issuing and collection of Federal fees will be administered by the States. It has been said that only one additional officer would be needed in the Department of Transport to cover the Federal responsibility for not only the Federal registration arrangements but all the aspects of the legislation. I ask the Minister whether this is so. The fees collected from Federal registration will be paid into a trust fund. All those moneys will be allocated to the States for the actual repair of roads frequently used by interstate transports. The safeguard that all the money will be so used is that to do otherwise could result in a constitutional challenge. I understand that the Minister will determine the actual allocation to be made each year. It is estimated that if approximately two-thirds of the owners of the presently interstate registered vehicles opt for the Federal annual fee about $14m could be collected. However, in time this percentage could fall if there is seen to be no advantage in Federal registration. I hope that this actually happens so that we have increasingly State-only registration. The States will also charge a $20 processing fee for Federal registrations. I ask the Minister: Is this correct? Will there be an additional fee for anyone accepting the option of having a truck registered as a Federal interstate vehicle? The road transport industry organisations must be congratulated for their continuing support for the removal of the anomaly between interstate and State registrations of vehicles. They are well aware of the cost pressure in the industry where rates have fallen in recent years while fuel, spare parts and replacement vehicle costs have risen dramatically. An additional $1,400 is extra pain for them, but individual operators I have spoken to, as well as the organisations, accept that this is part of a package which they believe will overall improve the standard of the industry. They have mentioned to me the possibility of payment of the registration fee by instalments, and I put this point to the Minister also. I hope that the questions that I am putting sincerely to the Minister will be responded to, either in the Minister's closing remarks or during the Committee stage, because they are questions that concern not only me but also everyone in the industry, and at least some of the States, and we all want an answer. The differences between the extremes of $2,500 and nil cannot be sustained, particularly when one considers the oft quoted statistic that one journey by a 38 tonne six-axle rig does as much road damage as 10,000 cars and when one also takes into account that the ordinary private motorist is paying $150 to $200 for annual registration fees. There is also industry concern that the States and the Federal Government in concert will periodically raise the cost of registration charges beyond a reasonable level once the interstate loophole is blocked. The report of the Inter-state Commission is of considerable importance here as a check to such a practice. If the Commission believes that $1,400, together with the several thousands of dollars collected from fuel excise, is adequate cost recovery for damage to roads done by those vehicles, the Federal annual fee should act as a barrier to such a practice. However, I do raise with the Minister the comment on page 243 of the May report that once a fee which is a suitable cost recovery fee is established, State fees should or will be lowered to that level. This is of considerable concern to the industry. Will this happen? Will all of the fees come to a uniform charge-and that could mean the lowering of those higher State fees-or will the State fees continue to be at a higher level? I also raise for the Minister's response that on the same page of the May report is the statement that government authority vehicles engaged in commercial activity, such as Telecom and Australia Post, should be subject to the same charges and conditions. Will this happen? Where we have authorities, correctly in many cases, engaging more and more in commercial activity in competition with the private sector, I consider it only right and proper that they should be subject to the same charges, including the same vehicle registration operator licence safety standard requirements, et cetera. In fact, the road transport industry support for this package of legislation is one of faith in two ways. The first way is that Federal involvement is to assist the States and the industry to obtain better standards and uniformity of standards and it is not for the Commonwealth to interfere in the State area of responsibility or to push the States and the industry. The second way is for the Minister not to proclaim any of the legislation until all of the five State requirements are met in full and are actually in operation. I emphasise that requirement-that all of the five State requirements are met in full and are actually in operation. For the Minister to do otherwise would be a breach of faith and could cause chaos in the industry. For example, for the new fees to be in place while the States are only considering intersystem rail freight increases but not having those rail freight increases actually in place, would be completely unfair and unacceptable to an industry which is already committed, if the registration fee is proclaimed, to a higher charge or a higher operating cost without any ability to recover those charges in freight rates. The goodwill of the industry and the credibility of the Minister relies on the requirement that one will not happen without the other. I am concerned that in his second reading speech the Minister states: I expect the vehicle registrations scheme to be proclaimed once substantial progress has been made on implementing the other parts of the fast-track package. I draw the attention of the Minister, the House and the industry to the words `substantial progress'-not complete progress or not everything in place and in operation before any proclamation takes place. I have been told that there is a memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the States on this package. I ask the Minister to release publicly that memorandum so that everyone has confidence that all the parties will play their part and will play their part in the correct way at the correct time. Motorists and responsible truck operators also want the assurance of the State governments that if trucks with adequate braking standards are permitted to travel legally at 100 kilometres per hour or whatever the general State limit is they are subject to police enforcement of that limit and not subject to the present apparent lack of any enforcement. Unless there is far greater police enforcement of the road speed limits in relation to interstate trucks than at present all we will have done is substitute an 80 kilometre starting point, which one can exceed, with a 100 kilometre limit which one can exceed by a similar amount. I believe that responsible truck operators-and that is obviously the vast majority-are just as anxious as the ordinary motorists to have that assurance because they can then feel that they can safely and securely abide by that new speed limit requirement in this most competitive industry. I understand that general support has been given to the legislation at Australian Transport Advisory Council meetings and that State officials and industry representatives were recently and briefly shown the draft legislation. Several proposed amendments have been accepted and I commend the Minister for that. However, the States were led to believe that they would be consulted again on the final legislation before it was introduced to Parliament. Several State Ministers were surprised to hear from me of its introduction last Wednesday and even more surprised to hear of its intended passage through the House today. My posting to them of the Bills and speeches et cetera was their first opportunity to view the final legislation, and some received this material only on Monday. This raises the general concern that the Opposition has about the legislation and is the reason why I will move an amendment for the legislation to be withdrawn, redrafted and reintroduced at the beginning of the autumn session so that greater consultation can take place and many of the uncertainties of this legislation can be overcome. We believe that more exposure of the legislation is necessary because of the uncertainty as to how many of the aspects will be implemented, possible gaps and contradictions in the legislation, the too great a dependence on regulations and the uncertainty of the definitions. As the main purpose of the legislation is to provide an umbrella for the States to achieve greater uniformity, as no State government to my knowledge will be legislating before the autumn session next year-in fact, they have given me the impression that they are in no great hurry or urgency actually to introduce legislation-and as the Inter-state Commission will be reporting at the end of April and therefore the earliest possible date of implementation is 1 July 1986, we believe our action is responsible and constructive. I want to mention a few of the uncertainties which the Opposition, the industry and the States want clarified. I will discuss them in more detail in Committee. The States are anxious to have a more definite formula for the distribution of the trust fund money. Country people want an assurance that local and arterial roads used by interstate operators will receive a fair share of that trust fund. They also want to know that all of the fund proceeds, including interest, go to roads, and that none of it goes to Federal or State administration. The Opposition and the industry want to know how much the States will charge for the Federal registration and for the mandatory safety checks as they are introduced at State level. Will there be an additional charge for federally registered vehicles? In other words, will anyone who takes that option really be paying more? Mr Hollis —No. Mr LLOYD —Well, we already have the figure of $20 for the registration fee. I certainly want that clarified. How much will the States charge for operator licences, both originally and annually? Once again, will there be a loading on federally registered operators? I have heard figures ranging from $30 to $50 for the issuing of those licences. Is there really a need for annual operator licences? Why not have three-year licences as recommended, as this would reduce the paper work at the State level? Will the smaller States be assisted in establishing inspection facilities? If not, will Federal and State registration be easier and cheaper in some States where these facilities are not in place? That certainly is one of the problems at the moment, as the level of safety requirements varies from State to State. What guarantee is there that the States will remove all their restrictions on out-of-State or federally registered vehicles so that there is a complete Australia-wide acceptability of any Federal or any State registration? For example, I am told that New South Wales has a special limited bus registration for certain tourist situations. There is particular concern that the whole subject of safety is contained in one general paragraph. Clause 34 of the Interstate Road Transport Bill reads: For the purpose of this Part, the Minister may, by order in writing, declare standards, to be known as federal road safety standards, with respect to road safety matters. I do not believe that that is good enough. It relies completely on statutory rules and, although subject to parliamentary disallowance, this does not cover the objections from the Opposition or the industry on the grounds of vagueness. Will the Minister just invoke the necessary rules to complement those agreed to by the States, or will the Commonwealth become a pace-setter? How inclusive will these safety standards be? Will they be so embracing that the petty non-safety matters presently complained about by operators in New South Wales will be generally applied? Will Federal standards conflict with State standards? If so, which will prevail? A further safeguard for the industry against hasty and ill-considered regulations would be a requirement, presently in place in some State legislation, that the industry be given 30 days notice before any regulations are introduced. I sincerely put that proposition to the Minister for consideration. There is also confusion over registration charges and the separate registration of the prime mover and the trailer. To be fair and uniform a 38 tonne rig should be charged $1,400 whether it is a total rig or a separately registered prime mover and trailer. The present schedule of fees does not appear to me to indicate that this will be the case. There is also the question of graduated charges below that. There is also the problem of differences between the States on how prime movers and trailers are registered. I have been told that in Victoria one can register both the prime mover and the trailer on the one number plate and then transfer the trailer part of the plate to another trailer-that poses some interesting questions on safety standards-but that in other States the two have to be registered separately. There is also the point about reimbursement for part intrastate work with an interstate licence. Does that mean that a State registration is also necessary or is that a loophole that allows lower cost registration? Monitoring devices also cause concern in relation to both civil liberties in police and road authority action and the provision for them to be mandatory. I understand that such devices are mandatory in a number of countries and could be so in the future in several Australian States. Will the Commonwealth require their installation for a federally registered vehicle even if all the States do not and the operator has opted for the annual rather than the per kilometre fee? I understand that at least one State will not require the mandatory fitting of such devices. The Minister has also indicated that all of the administration and enforcement of the registration and operator licences and safety standards will be carried out by State officials and that the only exception will be the option for a case to be heard in a Federal court. I want his assurance that this will be so and that a new Federal bureaucracy duplicating the States will not be established. I also put to the Minister the option of deleting altogether from the legislation some of those provisions to be implemented later so that the Bill is restricted to the first stage, for which there is more detailed information and agreement. There are also definition problems. As I understand it, one of them includes a possible problem with the 100 kilometre exemption, the exemption for vehicles moving across State borders for distances of less than 100 kilometres, in that such vehicles are exempted from the need for an operator's licence. If they are so exempted, does that mean that they have to have State registration as well? Is their Federal registration useless outside that 100 kilometre limit? I could go on. I also acknowledge the value of the Australian Road Freight Transport Advisory Committee which the Minister is establishing within the Transport Industry Advisory Committee, and the need for it to be operating as soon as possible. To my knowledge, that is not dependent upon the passage of this legislation. A valuable starting point for that Committee would be the clarification and redrafting of this legislation for presentation in the autumn session. I, therefore, move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst supporting the overall aim of the Bill, the House is of the opinion that the Bill be withdrawn and, following more adequate consultation of its details with the industry and the States, be redrafted to remove its current excessive reliance on regulation, for presentation in redrafted form at the commencement of the 1986 Autumn sittings'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Peter Fisher —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak later. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(11.38) —I am pleased to speak in support of the Interstate Road Transport Bill and Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill. I oppose the amendment moved by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). Few industries are as misunderstood in Australia as the trucking industry. I can speak from some personal experience on this subject. My father was in the industry for many years and my brother and two brothers-in-law are in the industry now. In Australia, the road transport industry is fairly easy to get into; yet, once in, operators find it virtually impossible to leave of their own accord. The problems and instability are reflected by the rate of bankruptcy-amongst the highest of any industry in Australia. The life of the truckie, in reality, is far removed from the somewhat romantic picture portrayed in some trucking songs. The hours are long; the work is arduous and often dangerous; the pressure on health is serious; and the pressure on home life must be almost as severe as the pressure on a politician's family life. We may ask why anyone enters the industry. Many do so for a variety of reasons. I feel that often when people start out, especially as owner operators, they do not fully appreciate what they are letting themselves or, indeed, their families, in for. But whatever motivates them, these circumstances have their human face. The small businessman who, having invested everything in his trucking operation, may find that he loses not only his business but also his house and often his family. Those who stay in the industry face the prospect of a continuing battle of living hand to mouth, often working long hours and pushing themselves and their trucks to the limit. Whilst claims are often made that some even go beyond limits to endanger safety, the vast majority in the industry attempt to do a good, honest job in a most professional manner. The importance of the road transport industry to Australia cannot be overemphasised. Some 70 per cent of all freight is moved at some stage by this industry, but despite the industry's role and importance it has lacked clear national direction. Previous governments have all but ignored pleas for help from the industry. It was not until the Hawke Labor Government came to power that there was a Federal government prepared to take a comprehensive look at the industry. Not least of these measures was the commissioning of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry. The legislation being debated is a first step in implementing the recommendations of that report, commonly referred to as the May report. It is landmark legislation. It also represents another element in achieving the Federal Government's national transport objectives which include the development of safe and efficient transport systems for the movement of goods and people both within Australia and in international trade, providing the opportunity for all Australians to have reasonable access to transport services for employment, business, recreational and other needs, and implementing these aims in the most socially effective way. The legislation should also be seen in the context of the principles which guide this Government's involvement in transport. Simply stated, these principles include investing in transport infrastructure where there is a clear economic and social justification and requiring users to meet the full costs of government-provided infrastructure and services to improve economic efficiency. The only exception should be where there are clearly identified social requirements. There has been extensive consultation with State and Territory governments and the industry. Most have strongly supported the Government's moves. I was therefore somewhat surprised to read in the Australian Financial Review of Friday, 13 September this year, that the Executive Director of the Australian Road Transport Federation, Mr Tony Hargreaves, had criticised the legislation, saying that it could be disastrous for small transport operators. He argued that there will be difficulties with administration and immediate cost increases, but throughout the industry there has been a favourable reaction to this legislation. I might add that there has always been within the industry a high expectation that this Government would act quickly to introduce worthwhile reforms, and discussions will continue to be held with industry representatives on the legislation and the method of its operation. This indicates this Government's recognition of the need for consultation in the reform process. As we are undertaking taxation reform in consultation, so it will be with transport reform. We are a government that not only is prepared to talk to all sections of the industry but also welcomes consultation with them. The general thrust of the inquiry's report was endorsed in December 1984 by the Australian Transport Advisory Council, which comprises Federal, State and Territory Ministers responsible for transport and marine matters and an initial fast-track package of reforms based on the inquiry's recommendations was subsequently endorsed by ATAC in June 1985. The report and the subsequent fast-track package have received broad industry and general community support as these groups have recognised that the recommendations must be implemented as a package. The fast-track package endorsed by ATAC involved the following initiatives: For the Federal Government, the introduction of legislation providing for the registration of vehicles and the licensing of operators engaged in interstate trade and commerce and the establishment of the Australian Road Freight Transport Advisory Committee-ARFTAC-within the Transport Industry Advisory Council. For the State governments, there will be the introduction of graduated truck driving licences which will require that the drivers operating the large interstate vehicles have had appropriate experience; improvements in railway cost recovery to match any improvement in cost recovery in the road freight industry-this would also apply to the Australian National Railways Commission; the introduction of the May reforms relating to finance and insurance to provide owner-operators with access to existing consumer protection arrangements; the removal of fees charged by some States on vehicles already registered in another State; and removal of the speed limit differential between truck and other vehicles outside built-up areas. The fast-track package represents a balanced set of reforms for the industry designed to increase professionalism, improve overall safety and set in place a workable cost recovery program. This legislation is of great importance to the industry and will lead not only to greater efficiencies but also to an improved image for the industry. Too often we hear truck drivers referred to as highway cowboys, causing carnage and death as they race to make a delivery or a quick buck. Then there is the truckies' unreal reputation as free-wheeling, loose-living hell's angels on 40-tonne steeds. Of course, as in all industries, there are rogue truck drivers and there are a few who bring discredit to the industry. Although there are a few who may bring discredit to the industry, there are many, the vast majority, who do a great job for Australia and do it with great safety. Many of the rogues in the business are not the drivers but the owners, owners who in the past have not carried out adequate maintenance on their vehicles and who have put unrealistic demands on the drivers. This legislation will go some way to overcoming these practices and thus to making our roads safer. When we talk about road safety sometimes I think there is too much emphasis on the drivers and not enough on, say, the operators or the companies. We hear about accidents but, as the May report rightly says, the level of involvement of trucks in road accidents is not excessive when account is taken of the great distance travelled by trucks. Perhaps we could do more in road safety. One area which I am particularly interested in and which we should look at some time is the possibility of having a lighted triangle on the front of road trains. This would be of great benefit in places such as the Northern Territory where these road trains operate. Perhaps governments should also accept some of the blame for the condition of our roads. At least this Government is doing something to improve the condition of our roads. If the previous Government had done more for road improvement and put more money into roads, many truckies and road users would be alive today. But it is not all the truckies' fault. Caravans, in my view, are a greater menace on the road than big rigs. Caravans trundle along the road and up hills causing huge traffic jams and frustrations. If ever anything should be barred from the roads or require a special licence, in my view it is caravans. I hope that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport Safety will examine caravans. Car drivers are also at fault in the way that they behave on the road. Far be it from me to suggest that all truck drivers are blameless. I have driven too frequently on the Picton-Appin road when a ship has been at the coal loader in Port Kembla to make this claim that they are all blameless. I particularly welcome the introduction by State governments of graduated truck driver licences and finance and insurance reforms for private owner-drivers. Regarding licences, it has for some time worried me that there is no graduated scheme. I have felt, with today's potentially lethal trucks in the hands of the inexperienced, that more categories and more experience on the road should be required before a driver can move up to the big rigs. The days when one could go out and get a licence on a little Bedford without a load and then buy a Kenworth and go out on the road with it fully loaded are over, and this will be welcomed by the industry. Truckies are often accused of treating the road laws with contempt. Many of the laws they break, some claim, are out of line with modern society and absurd in the light of today's high powered trucks. But considering the number of trucks on the road, an indication of which is that as many as 4,000 heavy vehicles pass over the weighbridges at Marulan in the southern highlands of New South Wales in a single night, in the main they do obey the law. It is almost unbelievable that in Australia today an operator can commence a journey complying with regulations governing vehicle weight, speed limits and conditions for registration and before completing his journey into another State find himself in breach of that State's laws governing weight, speeds and the like. This will change. In winding up, I inform the House that it was my pleasure to be at the truck drivers cabaret in Shellharbour last Saturday night, and at the truck show last Sunday. Mr Nehl —Have you ever driven a truck? Mr HOLLIS —I have and my father has. He lives in the honourable member's electorate. I had the pleasure to present the Truckie of the Year award last weekend. Had the award been presented in the honourable member's electorate it would have gone to my father. This legislation represents a major advance for Australia's land transport. As I emphasised earlier, it is part of a broad package of balanced measures to continue the development of the road transport industry. It is legislation that is long overdue. The legislation complements our land transport initiatives. With these measures, the Hawke Government has established the first comprehensive and coherent land transport strategy for this nation. It will go down in history as the truckies'-not Tuckey's-friend and as a government that understands the industry. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr SMITH(Bass)(11.51) —I do not know the truckies award about which the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) talked, but we have a few awards which we give to the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) now and again. He will be speaking later in this debate. As the House has been made aware by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), we support the overall principles behind the Interstate Road Transport Bill and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill, although we are of the view that there are ought to be a delay, because the earliest that the legislation can be dealt with fully, because it is a fast-track package that involves the States, is 1 July 1986. So the fundamental question we ask the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) is: Why the hurry? The Bills which we are debating cognately flow from the May National Road Freight Industry Inquiry. Obviously, as was made well clear by the inquiry, road freight is important to Australia. Thirty per cent of the total domestic transport task is provided by road freight. If we cast our minds back to Professor Blainey's term `tyranny of distance' that is a concept which is applicable today as much as it was at the time about which he was writing. The Minister, of course, is the Minister for everything that moves. The Bills are very important. The operators in this industry are primarily small business people who chance their arm in what is a competitive and hard business. Reference has been made to the large number of bankruptcies in this business. In the past the legislation in this area has been mainly the province of the States. The Bills mark a major step by this House to legislate in this field. Thus it must be done properly. There has been, to this point, a very broad co-operative spirit within both the industry and the States about the direction that the May inquiry indicated. However, the speed with which the legislation has been introduced has caused a great deal of concern. The question is: Why is there such a hurry? The Bills are the first of a Federal-State package and were introduced only last Wednesday. There has been no time to receive the views of all the States or all sectors of the industry. The concept of consensus was introduced into the political lexicon by the Minister's side of politics. One hopes that on a matter as important as this the initial spirit of co-operation will continue. Consultation on a matter such as this is vital. What level of consultation has taken place? The Tasmanian Government, for one, has several reservations relating primarily to two key points. They remain for resolution at ministerial level. They are the funding of the setting-up costs in each individual State and the arrangements for the distribution of fees and charges collected under the scheme. In regard to the first, the scheme will involve each State authority registering vehicles in a similar manner, in particular ensuring that each vehicle complies with the appropriate Australian design rules, is in a roadworthy condition and is presented annually for inspection. As is known to the Minister, Tasmania does not have an inspection scheme for vehicles other than licensed passenger vehicles and, in order to carry out its responsibilities under the Act, it will have to invest in sophisticated inspection facilities. Tasmania has been moving towards construction of such facilities for its own purposes for some time, but the timing of the State's heavy vehicle inspection scheme does not take account of the Interstate Road Transport Bill. If Tasmania is to participate the Commonwealth should provide funds to advance the construction program for inspection facilities envisaged by Tasmania. Under the Bill, the Commonwealth Minister has responsibility for determining how the fees and charges collected under the Bill are distributed. As the sole rationale for State participation in the scheme is to receive some funds out of it, all States should have an input in determining the distribution formula. It would seem reasonable that all States be consulted before the Minister determines the allocation each year and, in particular, before he nominates the roads on which the funds are to be spent. It is also interesting to note that, besides the reservations expressed by Tasmania, other reservations have been expressed. The Australian Financial Review of 13 September quoted Mr Tony Hargreaves of the Australian Road Transport Federation as saying: While the Government argues that greater efficiencies will result from the legislation, the immediate cost increases and the administrative nightmares will be disastrous for the smaller transport operators caught in its web. These are the people that are vital to the economy and deserve our strong support. Whilst there has been consultation we query, quite sincerely, whether the consultation has been broad enough. One of the points which Mr Hargreaves would have been referring to concerned Part VI of the Bill concerning monitoring devices under clause 36 of the Bill. The use of such a device raises all sorts of questions to which the honourable member for Murray alluded, but it is at the option of the operator whether the device be installed at present. For a small shorter distance operator, it may be cheaper than paying the fee, but I understand that the installation cost is in the vicinity of $1,400, a rather prohibitive figure for those small operators. I question the Minister as to whether he has sought the views of the industry about the level of the charge and ask whether consideration was given to a graduated charge. Most interesting of all is the letter that the Minister wrote to the Victorian Minister for Transport, Mr Roper. Obviously the Victorians saw the legislation as early as 16 August becaust the Minister's letter commences: Thank you for your letter of 16 August in which you suggested a number of amendments . . . On 23 August 1985 all State transport officials discussed the Victorian letter. I wonder whether in this instance we have an example of some preferred consultation and whether in looking at the legislation Victoria was given precedence over some other parties to the legislation. On page 2 of your letter, Minister, you say that you see no difficulty in accepting a number of the amendments proposed by Mr Roper, but the concluding paragraph is quite interesting: The progress that we have achieved in addressing the issues facing the road transport industry is largely due to the co-operation of all those involved. You may be assured that in moving to implement this legislation, associated administrative arrangements and the other elements of the fast-track package, I will be looking to maintain that co-operation through full consultation with State and Territory Governments. Fair enough. That is a sentiment with which we would all agree, but obviously that has not happened. I wonder why it is so necessary for you to proceed so quickly. A delay now might well ensure that you can live up to your own words in that letter to the Minister in Victoria. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Will the honourable member speak to the Chair and not to the Minister? Mr SMITH —Certainly. The legislation revolves in part around section 92 of the Constitution. Clause 49 of the Interstate Road Transport Bill ensures that trade and commerce between the States will be absolutely free. Section 92 is well known to all honourable members in this House and is the most litigated section in our Constitution. The method of distribution of the funds collected is thus of paramount importance if any potential challenge is to be averted. We should ensure that all States understand the method of distribution. As I have already outlined, reservations have already been expressed by Tasmania. It is important to remember that the Hughes and Vale cases of 1955, about the question of whether regulations were or were not a breach of section 92, indicated that there is a fine line in such distinctions. This Bill is full of regulatory power being vested in others at a later date. I hope that the Minister has obtained clear advice about each and every regulation so intended. The High Court of Australia has dealt with such questions with difficulty for many years. It is really a matter of deciding what restraints are necessary having regard to the demands of civilised society. The question is, thus, partly philosophical-when does social necessity justify restriction of individual freedom? I worry about this Bill in that it has the potential, by regulation, to impede the individual entrepreneur. We must ensure that the many regulations that are proposed do not overstep the mark. The honourable member for Murray outlined several areas of our concern. I support the amendment of the honourable member for Murray. However, in conclusion I draw attention to the blanket clause 34 which concerns safety. The Minister should act to produce Federal road safety regulations only in order to resolve specific conflicts between State authorities and then only with the agreement of the States through the Australian Transport Advisory Council. I believe that ATAC will gradually be subsumed and would become irrelevant if things as vital as safety are not dealt with through that body. I support the sensible amendment of the honourable member for Murray, which has been moved in the spirit of trying to provide this House with an opportunity to consider what is an important piece of legislation which the Liberal Party and the National Party support in principle. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(12.02) —The Interstate Road Transport Bill 1985 and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill 1985 provide for the registration of vehicles and the licensing of operators engaged in interstate trade and commerce. Funds collected by the registration scheme are to be applied for the maintenance and upkeep of roads used by registered vehicles. I think it is important at the outset to establish the terms of reference of those two Bills because some of the comments that have been made already by some honourable members opposite clearly indicate that perhaps they do not appreciate the work that this Government has done in putting these Bills together. I therefore cannot accept or support the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). I would like to pick up later in my speech a couple of the points that were raised in this debate by honourable members opposite. What is the problem which this Government has seen fit to attack in the way in which it has and to try and resolve for the benefit of all of those in the road freight industry? The problem is that the road freight industry is subject to booms and busts. This happens generally because of the industry's very competitive nature and the role which it has as a service industry. In addition, drivers and their families have had to bear unnecessary burdens. Earlier today the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) alluded to these from personal experience. Safety is an ever present issue in an industry which, of necessity, shares roads with the general public. Again, that point has been canvassed in the debate today. I believe that the legislation makes adequate provision for that. In fact, this legislation underscores the special need for close attention from the industry and government to this very question of road safety. Road safety also has an occupational health and safety concept which is equally important. The industry in fact has suffered from ill-informed new entrants who unwisely have signed large finance agreements to buy trucks which can cost up to $150,000. This immediately puts an impost on I guess that what those on the opposite benches would classify as being small businessmen. These people often have to face up to the prospect of losing their homes and their families because of the difficult circumstances to which this industry is subject. Additionally, the people who move in, who have been ill-informed and who have not gone into all of the details of the industry, feel pressured to push road safety and personal health to the limits. This in turn greatly disadvantages the general public who use our road systems. These people can also cause financial problems for all by under cutting their rates in a desperate attempt to keep going. So I believe it is timely and incumbent upon this Government to try to grasp the nettle and do something about this problem. I think these Bills go a great deal of the way to doing that. The pressures on long distance heavy trucking, which have been mentioned by the honourable member for Throsby, also have been particularly intense. The focus of road safety laws is on drivers and the significant role and responsibility of operators and companies are often neglected. The drivers have become alienated by the wide gap between speed limits on the statute book and the speed at which law enforcement agencies usually permit trucks to travel. I can speak with some authority on this, particularly in respect of the roads on which the honourable member for Throsby said he travels. The Appin Road and the Picton Road are in my electorate. I am pleased to see that the honourable member comes into neighbouring electorates to find out how the other half lives. The accident record of coal trucks and general trucks which use these roads and the Mt Ousley Road, which I am sure is well known to many members of this House, clearly demonstrates the need for careful consideration of safety matters. There is a solution. The solution is that this Government needs to give leadership. I believe that we are doing that by introducing these Bills. We are working in close co-operation with State and Territory governments and the industry to tackle the industry's problems on a broad front. Some earlier discussion took place about the level of consultation that has occurred between the industry and the Government. In fact, the Opposition's amendment seeks to defer the Bills because of what is perceived to be an apparent lack of consultation. Indeed, this Government has held extensive consultations with the industry. It is now two years since the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry-the May inquiry-was initiated. The process of consultation has been maintained throughout that period. The report of the inquiry has received widespread support at all levels including, in particular, support from the leadership of the Australian Road Transport Federation. I, and every member of this House, would expect that total agreement will not be reached. There has been some dissent in respect of the cost recovery portion of the fast track package to which the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has referred. However, this has partly been a reflection of the attempt by the ARTF staff to establish themselves after a period of bloodletting within the Federation. I think that perhaps that point could be taken a little further. Consultation with the industry is a keynote of the implementation process. Some consideration was also directed to the cost implications of these Bills and the associated measures. I refer honourable gentlemen opposite to the explanatory memorandum on these Bills. Under the heading `Financial Impact Statement' on page three of the memorandum the following point is made: There will no net budgetary impact arising from the Interstate Road Transport Bill or the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill. All revenue received by the Commonwealth from road user charges is to be paid into the Interstate Road Transport Trust Fund and distributed in full amongst the States and Territories for maintenance and upkeep of roads. I am sure that that is a most desirable and most laudable aim. Quite clearly, there are no financial impacts. I would like to refer again to the question of administration. The honourable member for Murray wanted to be given some indication about the bureaucracy that might be set up. The honourable member sought assurances that massive bureaucracies would not be established to oversee the development of this program. Once again, I would like to allay those fears. The administrative costs are to be minimised by utilising the existing State administrative resources. So there will be no impost on the Commonwealth. In addition, on the basis that there are to be no additional costs, the Federal Government has added only one person to the average operating staff level of the Department. I think that that is a worthwhile point. There are to be no increases in the bureaucracy. I hope that what I have said helps to overcome some of the difficulties. I can see that the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) is smiling. Perhaps he has some knowledge of other things or perhaps he just has a set against the bureaucracy and Federal governments anyway. I would like to turn to another issue which I think is most important as part of this legislative program. I am sure it is a matter which appeals to the economic dries on the other side. A question was raised about the setting of freight rates as a means of improving the returns to owner-operators. We were asked why the Government does not set freight rates. This really goes to the heart of one of the problems that we have talked about in this place. In fact, an attempt was made to raise this matter during discussion on a Bill which was before this place the other evening. Unfortunately, the matter did not get a guernsey. I refer, of course, to the question of government interference or government subsidisation in various private or quasi private enterprises. I think the whole question of the setting of freight rates by government needs to be looked at. In examining the arguments in favour of government regulation of freight rates and/or restrictions on entry to the industry, the May report, which has been referred to earlier, concluded that this type of economic regulation favours only some of those operators who are already in the industry and that is often to the detriment of the users and prospective entrants. I think it is important that those opposite who purport to represent the interests of small businessmen should take that into consideration. It also leads to excessive freight rates. It inhibits the efficiency and effectiveness of operations. It reduces the flexibility of the industry to adjust to changing market conditions. It is difficult and costly to administer. I am sure the honourable member for O'Connor would agree with that assertion and would certainly agree that we should try to minimise all administration costs, particularly if they increase the size of bureaucracy. Also, it does not have a significant bearing on the question of improved road safety. On the other hand, the May inquiry did find that the current and largely free market arrangements are flexible, efficient and offer good service to the customer. Surely, if we are looking at the most efficient way in which the road freight industry can operate, by looking to those people who are in it and those people who will come into it through the improved entrance requirements that these Bills put forward, this must be lauded also as being a most desirable way in which to proceed. Accordingly, the May inquiry strongly rejected the economic regulation of the industry. It considered it more appropriate to introduce measures to improve the competence and professionalism amongst owner-operators; hence the reason for operator licensing. That is, I believe, a most important point that has tended to be overlooked in the discussions so far about this legislation. The May report concluded that economic regulation is not a panacea for the industry's ills. Again, this Government is not suggesting that it is. Freight rate setting and capacity licensing schemes would be difficult and costly to enforce, while offering little substantial assistance to owner-operators. In fact, the report recommended measures which focus on quality rather than capacity regulation. I am sure we would all agree that that is most desirable. The upgrading of levels of professionalism within the industry will lead to greater stability as well as improved efficiency and services. Finally, as I said at the outset, the Federal Government's approach on this issue is consistent with the Opposition's calls for reduced regulation and less government intervention. The economic dries on the other side are calling for less government intervention. Here is a classic case in which it has been proposed. We have seen that the consultation process has been lengthy. It has been ongoing for two years. The Minister has indicated also that there will be continued consultation within the industry-among owner-operators, the drivers' associations and so on-over the next few months. The calls, therefore, to have this matter deferred entirely until next year seem somewhat ludicrous, given the fine work that has already gone into the preparation of these Bills. Accordingly, I support these Bills wholeheartedly. I commend in particular the Minister and the Government for their initiative in introducing them at this time. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(12.13) —As members on this side of the House who have spoken earlier have indicated, the coalition supports the principles behind the Interstate Road Transport Bill 1985 and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill 1985. But I would be neglectful of my electorate-although nowhere near as neglectful as this Government has constantly shown itself to be-if I did not draw the attention of honourable members to the parlous state of Australia's north-south transport routes. In particular, I point out how this Government has not only breached the undertakings it has given to my electors, but has compounded this with a second breach of faith, despite the recommendations of its own tame advisers. The accelerated Stuart Highway program, known as ASH, came about as a direct result of the now discredited report of the Hill Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory. Dust to dust and ashes to ashes could well be adopted as the slogan of this Government's transport policies, because not only has the Alice Springs-Darwin railway now been abandoned, but also the ASH program, which was put in place as inadequate compensation for the abandoned road project, has been disbanded after just one year of a promised three-year program of upgrading. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) made much of the accelerated Stuart Highway funding, stating that there would be expenditure of $27m on upgrading of the only transport link with Australia's north. This was the sop to the Northern Territory which went hand in glove with the announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that his promise on the railway was off. In the 1984-85 Budget, just one-tenth-$2.7m-of the allocation was committed to commence the three-year program. This year we discover that, apart from an unavoidable $2.6m to complete the works already commenced, even the totally inadequate ASH funding is to cease. ASH is to be absorbed, we are told, into the Australian land transport program and works already approved-I repeat, already approved-by this Government for upgrading of the Stuart Highway are to be scrapped. This will also mean that other urgent works on northern roads, such as the Victoria Highway between Katherine and Western Australia, will have to be deferred. It is incredible that this Government can continue to behave with such unconcealed arrogance in its dealings with the Northern Territory. Such behaviour goes beyond mere neglect. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I suggest to the honourable member that he now return to the Bill. Mr EVERINGHAM —Madam Deputy Speaker, I am speaking about interstate road transport links. With great respect, northern roads are certainly interstate links. I have just mentioned that the roadwork on the interstate highway between Katherine and Western Australia will have to be deferred. This behaviour goes as far as deliberate, fully conscious, political and economic victimisation of Northern Territorians and their aspirations. Such tactics should not be used against the Northern Territory in the essential area of roads when this Government has shamefully dealt with us in regard to the north-south railway which when built, would transform both the transport and economic picture across Australia. Interstate road transport is critical to the Territory because we have no rail or shipping services due to decisions taken by this Government. I question the relevance of this legislation to road trains which are commonly in use in the Northern Territory. Of course, in road maintenance terms, one road train is the equivalent of 10,000 ordinary motor vehicles. Because of that, a railway makes a lot of economic sense. The employment benefits available-in terms of real jobs, not make-work jobs-on the construction of the Alice Springs-Darwin rail link would provide for 700 people in the construction phase and 300 permanent positions on the completed railway line. I know that South Australian members are well aware of the potential for jobs in their State's iron triangle, which would have to supply 156,000 tonnes of steel-a $200m boost to that area. I presume that New South Wales members are aware of the orders that would be placed for locomotives and freight wagons in workshops in their State. There would be more jobs too in new mining ventures which would be made feasible directly by the railway and, of course, there would be incalculable employment spin-offs from new trade opportunity. In late 1984 Canadian Pacific railway consultants reported that, contrary to the Hill inquiry on transport needs for the Northern Territory, the railway would be a break-even proposition, while the importance of the railway to defence considerations was validated by the Australian National University's Centre for Strategic and Defence Studies. Mr Peter Morris —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I know that the honourable member absolutely detests the trucking industry, but could you ask him to return to the legislation, which concerns interstate road transport? We can debate the Alice Springs-Darwin railway on another occasion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —I think there has been a free-ranging debate, but the honourable member is digressing considerably from the Bill. I ask him to take the advice of the Chair and return to the Bill. Mr EVERINGHAM —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me say that this genuinely independent and expert report by Canadian Pacific railway consultants will debunk Hill's conclusion on interstate- Mr Peter Morris —Mr Deputy Speaker, are you going to allow your ruling to be flouted in such an arrogant way? He hates the road transport industry. He is besotted with railways. I ask you to apply the Standing Orders. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has made his point. I believe there has been a free-ranging debate and it has allowed members to canvass many parts of the transport industry. But once again, I remind the honourable member of the Bill. I will allow him to finish making the point that he is making now, but after that he should return to the Bill. Mr EVERINGHAM —Mr Deputy Speaker, I would be grateful if I could be allowed to make this point because it does relate to road transport. I note that the Minister for Transport said that I have some antipathy for road transport. Let me say that that is manifestly not the case, because when I came into office in the Northern Territory in 1978 I found that the Federal Administration, over a period of 70 years of benign neglect, had left us with a road system that was utterly incapable of catering to the climatic conditions in the Northern Territory. In every wet season the Northern Territory was cut off from the south by road. Obviously, we did not have a rail service. At least in those days we had a shipping service to the east coast which this Minister for Transport has cancelled. The Northern Territory was basically dependent on the road services from South Australia and Queensland. The Northern Territory Government embarked on a road construction program to attempt to make the Stuart Highway and the Barkly Highway all-weather roads. I think that program has succeeded to a large extent. Obviously we cannot be responsible for roads outside the Northern Territory border. We have encouraged the South Australian Government to upgrade the Stuart Highway in South Australia. Of course, that Government, with Commonwealth funding assistance, is working towards sealing the road to the Northern Territory border. On the Queensland side we have been encouraging the Queensland Government to upgrade the interstate links with the Northern Territory. Those works are taking place slowly also. I come back to the report to which I was referring. In an attempt to make this point-I certainly do not want to flout your authority, Mr Deputy Speaker-I simply say that the Canadian Pacific report will debunk Hill's conclusion. Hill was appointed by this Minister to examine interstate transport requirements into the Northern Territory. He reported, essentially, that interstate road transport would be more effective. Canadian Pacific will report that the rail project will operate at even better than break even and will, in fact, generate substantial savings to the Australian community. In conclusion I must refute the Transport Minister's assertion that the Territory has fared well under the Australian land transport program. The slight increase under the ALTP by comparison with the Australian road grant is, in fact, some $2m less that the Northern Territory anticipated. Combined with the Australian bicentennial roads development program it does no more than make up some of the underspending imposed when the Minister froze funds on projects, which had already been committed for over six months, while the Hill inquiry concluded its report. I am well aware why this Minister does not want the Hill report referred to in this House. That is because the Hill inquiry was a travesty of an inquiry which produced a report that was nothing more than a compendium of bunkum. The Northern Territory relies more than any other part of Australia on good roads. It is an indictment of this Government that even in this matter it has failed to meet its special responsibilities to its northern citizens. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(12.23) —It is always a pleasure to follow the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) in a debate. Having lived in the Northern Territory for some time I am aware of the conditions of the roads there. In fact, I was bogged for three days on one of the roads near the Katherine River. I believe that was during the time of the Federal Liberal Government. I do not think it did anything about those roads for many years. Mr Cowan —Tell us how you got out. Mr CHYNOWETH —Actually, the only way I could get out was when the road dried out. I had to turn around and I could not cross over to Western Australia where I was going. I had to go back through Alice Springs. But I have had experience with the roads in the Northern Territory. The Interstate Road Transport Bill and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill form part of a basis for a Federal system of registering vehicles engaged in interstate trade and commerce. Funds collected by the registration scheme are to be applied for the maintenance and upkeep of roads used by these registered vehicles. Before my election I worked for Mayne Nickless Ltd in the armoured guard division. That is the division that spreads the money around and looks after the working people of Victoria and, I believe, Australia. I was also a member of the Transport Workers Union of Australia, so I feel that I can speak with some knowledge of this industry. For over 30 years the Opposition refused to speak to the industry. It ignored the industry. It shut its eyes to the breakdown of the relationship between the truckie and his family, the bankruptcy and the pressure that was put on the owner-drivers by the employers of those times. The industry wants this legislation now. The industry has been neglected for many years. It has discussed the legislation with the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) and I am certain that the industry will do all it can to implement the legislation when it is passed through this House. The Interstate Road Transport Bill provides for an interstate vehicle registration scheme and a trust fund, while the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill provides for charges to be levied to recover the cost of road damage. The Bills provide for the registration of motor vehicles engaged in interstate, State and Territory or Territory and Territory trade and commerce; collection of charges from registered vehicles to recover the costs of road damage; payment of vehicle registration charges into a trust fund; and the distribution of the trust funds to the States and Territories for expenditure on roads used by registered vehicles. The Interstate Road Transport Bill replaces with Federal registration State provisions for registering vehicles solely engaged in arrangements existing interstate trade and commerce. Vehicles engaged in interstate trade, or both intrastate and interstate trade, will continue to be registered under existing State laws. As a consequence, all classes of vehicle will pay either Federal or State registration charges. The Interstate Road Transport Bill and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill together provide the owner of an interstate vehicle with two options for paying the registration charge. These options are that a charge may be paid on the basis of the actual distance travelled by the vehicle as measured by approved distance monitoring equipment installed in the vehicle or, alternatively, provision is made for a registration charge to be paid on the basis of an assessment of the number of kilometres which the vehicle could be expected to travel during the registration period. This approach offers simplicity in administration and would apply to those vehicles not fitted with approved monitoring equipment. Under both options provision is made for a uniform charge per tonne kilometre to be set to recover a portion of road damage cost. Our roads were left in a disgraceful state because of our predecessor's inaction. For many years our roads, which are the lifeline of our nation, have been left to decay and have not been repaired. The mixture of the traffic on our roads-that is, the number of push bikes, motor bikes, cars, trailers, caravans, trucks, mobile homes, et cetera-makes driving a considerable feat. This feat is made more difficult if our roads are badly constructed and maintenance has been miserable. I believe that this has occurred in the past. Our Government has corrected this problem. I must agree with my colleague the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) about the dangers of caravans. One of Australia's great pleasures is to be able to drive on a holiday with one's caravan or mobile home. However, many of these drivers have no real experience in the handling of a caravan. Some are definite menaces on our roads. They cause untold frustrations not only to our truck drivers but also to other users of the roads. They cause annoyance amongst many other drivers. Maybe the States should look at issuing a special licence for owners of caravans. I return to the charges. At the outset the uniform charge will be set in reference to the report of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry. The charges, which are to be collected by State and Territory registration authorities, are to be paid to an interstate road transport fund. Many problems have existed which serve to highlight the need for a tightening up of transport legislation. Safety is the most obvious issue. The transport industry daily shares the road with members of the general public who are going about their own business. We need to look continually to ensure the ongoing safety of the public, as well as to address the area of road safety being an occupational health and safety issue. At this point I must draw to the attention of the House the great work that has been done by the Mornington Peninsula road safety committee which operates out of Frankston and looks after the road conditions and some of the problems that occur on the Mornington Peninsula. It has a tremendous record and is staffed by volunteers. It has put submissions to the Government, some of which have been taken up by the Minister. It is an important committee for the people on the Mornington Peninsula. There is another danger to be considered. The pressure of long distance heavy trucking is an extreme danger to the public and also to owner-drivers. For too long the emphasis and focus of road safety laws have been on the drivers. Emphasis has not been focused on the responsibilities of the management and operators of these companies. I have a friend who is an interstate truck driver who met and spoke with the Minister of Transport in my office in Frankston. My friend has told me of the many problems that he has experienced when driving from Melbourne to Western Australia, which was a regular run. He has driven straight over to Perth, been backloaded and then, because of the pressures that were put on him by the company, has had to drive straight back again. This is the sort of life many truckies live. It is a harsh life. It is harsh on the families, too. By the time drivers get home they are exhausted. My friend got to Frankston, he was three miles from his home after driving from Melbourne to Perth, and back from Perth to Melbourne, and went to sleep at the wheel. Pressure was on him to get back to meet his payments and pressure was put on him by the company he was working for at the time. He had problems in his family life because of the fact he was never home; excess pressure was put on him because the banks demanded their money. The companies also put pressure on him to drive further and further in less and less time, and he was paid less and less money. Many times I have seen him totally exhausted and having to go off to work somewhere else. When I was establishing my own business and things were tough, I dug sewers with him. He worked hard so that he, after working many hours driving the truck, could make enough money to live on and to make certain his family was well cared for. He has been pushed to do this because of what he was paid and because of large companies putting pressure on him. Now, with the new law, he will be able to live a fairly normal life. Mr Tuckey —Tell us how this legislation achieves that. You have the time to do so. Mr CHYNOWETH —It achieves it by giving them a fair return for the work they have done. It gives them fair conditions which they have never had in the past-fair conditions that will come out of this legislation. So far in this debate I have not heard Opposition members speak once about the owner-drivers, who have had to put up with these conditions for many years. They are only interested in the monetary and technical points and how they can use some sort of technical means to knock this legislation. I believe that this small point illustrates the philosophical differences between the two parties. We believe in caring and acting for people, but all Opposition members are interested in is caring and acting in relation to profit. There was a great need for the Federal Government to give leadership and direction in this area. The National Road Freight Industry Inquiry initiated by the Federal Government in September 1983, in co-operation with State and Territory governments, strongly recommended against controlling either capacity or freight rates. It is clear that this will compromise efficiency with no long term gain to the community or the industry. This Government has taken the lead. The Government has initiated action in this area. That inquiry recommended that drivers be better trained; that competition with railways be put on an equitable basis; that small owner-drivers be given access to existing consumer protection-something they have never had in the past; that additional state imposts on vehicles registered in another State be removed; and that the Federal Government legislate so that the States could collect registration charges from interstate vehicles, many of these recommendations have been taken up by our Government. Our Government has taken the lead in this area and has addressed these problems. The Minister for Transport has done this, and once again the Hawke Labor Government has initiated action that has been long overdue. For 30 years, I reiterate, past governments did nothing. We have now taken steps to rectify problems in the transport industry, and I congratulate the Minister on addressing this area. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(12.36) —One becomes accustomed in this place to listening to Government members acting either as mindless propagandists or as apologists for the Government, but I feel that the comments made by the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) exceeded even the usual standard adopted by Government members. We all have great understanding and, I trust, sympathy for hard working owner-operators as well as for drivers in the transport industry. Many of us know operators personally. Some of us have taken the trouble to drive in their cabins to better understand their industry. The comments of the honourable member delve into the realms of the ridiculous by suggesting that this legislation, which merely provides a legislative umbrella for the States, will in any way put more money into a truckie's pocket. That is an absurdity. For the honourable member to claim that previous governments for some 30 years ignored the needs of truck operators flies in the face of logic, not to say honesty. To suggest that is to slur the truck operators' organisations and their ability to communicate with successive Ministers. I suggest that the honourable member for Dunkley contact a number of trucking organisations and offer an apology for the aspersions cast on their competence. If the honourable member for Dunkley were sincere, he would have referred to the 15 per cent increase in fuel costs this year. He would have referred to the pending capital gains tax. He would have referred to the State Labor governments' enormous increases in costs and charges, if he were concerned about the plight of truck operators. They are the measures which have affected the truckies' pockets, not the legislation now before the House. I invite the honourable member for Dunkley to refer to the clauses in this legislation that will put one penny into the pocket of an operator and allow a truck operator a normal stable life, something the honourable member suggested would result from these two bills. The real purpose of the Interstate Road Transport Bill and its associated Bill is to implement some of the recommendations of the Thomas May report into the national road freight industry. The report of that committee of three was tabled in the Parliament in October last year, and included some 98 recommendations for the Federal and State governments to adopt-they being mostly the responsibility of State governments. The implications for the Federal Government in this legislation are twofold. First, the registration of vehicles and the licensing of operators engaged in interstate trade and commerce; and secondly, the establishment of the Australian Road Freight Transport Advisory Committee, better known as ARFTAC, within the Transport Industries Advisory Council. At present there are some 15,000 trucks with interstate registration plates which are issued by the State vehicle registration authorities. This legislation before the Parliament will allow the truck and bus operator the choice at his State office to obtain either State or Federal registration. The Federal registration fees will then be paid into a Federal trust fund and all the moneys in the fund will be allocated to the States for road maintenance. Indeed, the truck operator can choose between two methods of registration, namely, an annual fee of $1,400 for the maximum weight truck, or the installation of a monitoring device on a charge per kilometre basis. One inhibiting factor to installing that device will be the cost of approximately $1,000. It is estimated that this trust fund will receive some $14m in its first year, but it is suspected that that amount will decrease in succeeding years as more truck operators opt for the State registration fee. This legislation requires fees from a truck operator; it does not, as the honourable member for Dunkley suggested, return funds in any shape or form to the operator. I hasten to add that for a number of legal reasons which relate to section 92 of the Constitution it is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that none of the Trust Fund receipts are used for administration. We need the entire amount returned for either the maintenance or the construction of roads. The States have agreed to legislate for a number of factors, principally the introduction of graduated truck driver licences which will require drivers operating large interstate vehicles to have had appropriate experience. Furthermore, the States will introduce a number of the May reforms relating to finance and insurance to provide owner-operators with access to existing consumer protection arrangements. Other matters include the removal of the speed limit differential between trucks and other vehicles outside built-up areas. I am extremely uneasy about this legislation before the Parliament for two reasons. The first is that I do not believe proper consultation has been undertaken by the Minister for Transport with either the States or the trucking industry. Secondly, I feel uneasy about the number of regulations that are referred to in the Bills. There is a lack of detail and the legislation relies very heavily upon regulations. I ask the Minister-I would be grateful for an answer-whether these two Bills have been subject to the scrutiny of the Business Regulation Review Unit within the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. As the Minister would be aware, that body should have the responsibility of examining all regulations with a view to reducing unnecessary complexity or the burden on business. I note no reference to scrutiny of those regulations by the Business Regulation Review Unit in the Minister's second reading speech. If the Minister has not referred these two Bills to the body I believe that he has erred in his responsibility. It may well be that the Minister was concerned that that review unit would have found there was an unnecessarily heavy dependence on regulations in this legislation. We all know that in many ways the trucking industry is extremely unstable. It has a number of problems relating to safety, high cost, price cutting and, of course, the need to speed in order to meet deadlines and make a return on the heavy repayments that so many owner-operators have to make on their trucks. Interestingly, in the last month the Victorian police have announced a blitz on the Hume Highway against what they call rogue truck drivers. Anyone who has had experience in driving on the Hume Highway in particular knows that a number of truck operators-I hasten to add a small proportion-quite openly flaunt speed regulations as well as accepted safety practices. At times I have had to take evasive action against trucks careering from lane to lane as the tailstream in an effort to reduce fuel use. I have had to brake suddenly. Also, I have heard a number of horror stories about trucks from constituents. Therefore, it is necessary for all State governments to ensure that policing of road speed limits, as well as general behaviour on the roads, is in the interests of all other road users and that the small number of rogue drivers are not permitted to blacken the reputation of the whole industry. It is not possible to speak about interstate transport without referring to the state of our roads. The Minister would be aware that his Victorian State counterpart, the Hon. Tom Roper, has alleged that the Commonwealth has diverted some $10m to the Hume Highway from Princes Highway east. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to his Treasurer's statement yesterday that the Government's tax package to be announced tomorrow will be the largest and most significant tax reform in the country's living memory. In view of the fact that Parliament is scheduled to rise for two weeks only hours after the tax package is released, will the Prime Minister extend the sitting of the House to next week, so that there can be a full and detailed debate on the tax package, or does the Prime Minister intend to scuttle and run the minute the tax package is introduced? Mr HAWKE —I sincerely thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question because, whenever he opens up the area of tax, smiles come across the faces of Government members. I assure the Leader of the Opposition in this order: The Treasurer will make his statement to the House tomorrow. Mr Spender —At what time, or don't you know? Mr HAWKE —I believe that it will be in the late afternoon, in time for the media to have the benefit of the excellence of the package. First, I assure the Leader of the Opposition of that. Secondly, I assure him that in the normal course of the parliamentary sittings we will provide full opportunity to him and to those from whom he receives such excellent assistance-particularly in the form of his shadow Treasurer who has quickly made his impact in the economic area. All those opposite will have the opportunity of examining and studying the package. Thirdly, I make it clear to the Leader of the Opposition that we will all have the opportunity of examining the consistencies of position of people on this side of the House, which so concerns the Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that a number of people in his own party, on this side of the House and throughout Australia will examine closely in that context and beyond the consistency of the position of the Leader of the Opposition. I refer briefly to the Leader of the Opposition and his position on important areas of tax. I refer to the report in the Sun Herald of 8 September. It is very fascinating. It says: Federal Opposition Leader John Howard intends to revive the idea of a flat-rate income tax when reviewing the Liberal Party's tax policy. Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr HAWKE —The National Party members will love the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Howard said yesterday that he wants the Party to have another look at the idea. He then went on to say that he realised that there were a number of problems with implementing a flat rate of tax, but that there were also a lot of things in its favour. Is that not a nice euphemism, that there are some problems about it? The Leader of the Opposition will recall what he said on 7 February 1981 on this subject. I will read to the House what he said then concerning a flat rate of tax. He said that the proposals would `unfairly and severely' disadvantage those in the community least able to afford a `massive' taxation increase. I ask all members of the House to cherish and dwell upon what he then said: Whatever may be the superficial attraction it may have for some people, it simply dosen't work. On this subject which he will now ask his Party to look at again, he concluded: It has the element of fairyland about it. The Leader of the Opposition is taking his Party and those around him back into the land of the fairies. Mr SNOW —Will the Minister for Territories advise the House whether extension of the Australian Capital Territory boundaries is being contemplated by the Government and whether the current consideration of a metropolitan plan for Canberra will lead to consultation between all three levels of government-local, State and Federal-outside as well as inside the Territory? Mr SCHOLES —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. Firstly, I know of no consultations or considerations which are underway or imminent relating to changes in the borders of the Australian Capital Territory. For all practical reasons any such considerations have very much a fairy tale connotation. I do not think that argeement could ever be reached between New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory about that. As far as the metropolitan plan for Canberra and planning in the general region of the national capital is concerned, arrangements have been made whereby the relevant Commonwealth and New South Wales Ministers will consult on the future development of the areas adjacent to the Australian Capital Territory to ensure that the planning development of those areas is in accordance with the best interests of the future development of the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales and the shires and residents involved. It is an area in which considerable pressure, because of the limited future growth potential of the Australian Capital Territory for residential and other purposes, will be applied in the next 10 to 12 years. It is important that planning decisions are taken now on a co-operative basis between the New South Wales Government and the Federal Parliament. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of his rather confused answer on the subject yesterday and this morning's overwhelming opposition to a capital gains tax as demonstrated by today's Morgan gallup poll, why has he abandoned principle 9 of his expressed preconditions for tax reform that `any reform must have widespread community support'? Mr HAWKE —When the Treasurer hands down the Government's tax package tomorrow, this Government will be able to demonstrate that in its totality it is a package which will have the support of the community. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —I think in the circumstances I can understand some members getting excited but this is getting beyond the limits of what is reasonable. I will consider the next person offending being named without warning. Mr HAWKE —I have it on no lesser authority than the Leader of the Opposition that when one looks at the question of a capital gains tax one must consider it in the totality of a package that is put. Honourable members will recall, as the Treasurer said with very little prompting yesterday, that the Leader of the Opposition had had something to say about capital gains taxation. The Leader of the Opposition said: I think I was asked at the last National Press Club luncheon the same question by Max Walsh and I said then that there are arguments within a total restructuring of the system for what you have said. In other words, the Leader of the Opposition has said that within the total restructuring of the tax system there are arguments for a capital gains tax. What I am saying is that when the Treasurer puts the total package tomorrow, all parts of that will be seen as part of a whole and this Government will stand up, not only tomorrow but in the weeks and months ahead, and support and gain support for its package, as against the miserable alternatives to which the Leader of the Opposition will be forced. Remember this, honest John, if I am allowed to use that sort of familiarity: You are going to have to do what you accused your predecessor of not being prepared to do. Let us have on the record the intentions with which you have come into this office and the contumely which you have heaped upon your predecessor. I refer to the National Times of 13 to 19 September where the Leader of the Oppposition made it quite clear why he should be Leader of the Opposition and why he should take the job from his predecessor. When he got this hard of hearing problem of not knowing to whom he was talking, when he thought he was talking to Peter Reith and not Peter Reid- Mr Goodluck —That's a bit rough. Mr HAWKE —The honourable member for Franklin should not talk about it being a bit rough. What sort of morality does the Leader of the Opposition bring to politics? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest to the Prime Minister that he get back to the answer. Mr HAWKE —This is what happened in terms of the exposition by the now Leader of the Opposition as to what he thought about his predecessor. According to the article in the National Times, the now Leader of the Opposition, when asked for his response to that view, replied: `Andrew Peacock has had his chance. We do not really know what he stands for'. The article continued: With extraordinary frankness Howard went on to make certain other blunt statements. I do not think Andrew is ever going to be Prime Minister. and this is the important point- He has some fundamental weaknesses. We have been directionless for 18 months. That was the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the problem with the Opposition under the then Leader of the Opposition was that the Opposition did not know what the then Leader of the Opposition stood for and that he was directionless. It is not for me to make a judgment about those great statements of loyalty by the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but it is for me and it is for the Government, as it will be for the people of Australia when the Leader of the Opposition gets on to this issue of tax, to ask whether the great honest John, who criticised and ridiculed his predecessor for not being consistent and for not having positions, will get into the tax debate. We will then find out whether honest John as Leader of the Opposition retains his honesty on the things he said before which were matters of principle-that the Opposition would get rid of fringe benefits-and whether he will support the Government on that because that is what he said before. We will see how honest and consistent he is then. We will see whether in fact, when people come to make comparisons between his predecessor and himself, they will not start to wonder whether they did not come to a bad bargain. Mr KEOGH —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of claims that social security expenditure was cut back in this year's Budget? Is it a fact that a fall in the number of unemployed under the Labor Government has resulted in a significant drop in expenditure on unemployment benefits? Can the Minister tell the House whether projections in the Budget of a further fall in the number of unemployed this financial year are being fulfilled? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for his question. It is true that some people within the welfare sector have mistakenly seen in terms of this year's Budget a cutback in social security expenditure. What they should have seen are the results of more successful economic policy and policies of social responsibility. In the Budget there was additional expenditure and new programs of more than $245m. It is true that there was not an increase in total expenditure. The reason was that the Government is having continuing success in tackling the problem of unemployment. I do not believe that this Government or any government can achieve a reduction in poverty in this country-and there is signficant poverty-if governments do not tackle correctly the underlying problems. The underlying problem and the reason for the significant increase in social security expenditure over the last decade has clearly been the massive growth in unemployment benefits. It is estimated that the number of people on unemployment benefit will fall by 40,000 this year. At the end of August the number of people on unemployment benefit had fallen to about 540,000-the first time since the Howard recession that numbers have fallen below 550,000. That is about 30,000 or 5.2 per cent lower than the corresponding period last year. The picture, while it is generally improving, is not improving in Queensland where we see an increase of 2.8 per cent or about 2,500. Queensland is rapidly overtaking Victoria, despite its much smaller population. It is the State with the highest concentration of unemployment. Clearly these figures have produced some savings in terms of social security expenditure. Together with the assets test, that has made it possible for the Government to direct some additional assistance to people in greatest need. In the Budget there was assistance to women in poverty. There was some assistance to their children-and we have, as I have said before, a massive problem of poverty amongst something like three-quarters of a million children within this country-and some further assistance to the long term unemployed. I repeat that we are not into fairyland or looney economics, as it has been referred to, but we are on about responsible economic and social policy. Those two arms of policy are working together to achieve some real improvement in the situation of low income people. Mr SPEAKER —I advise the House that we have in the upstairs gallery this afternoon a distinguished delegation from the Diet of Japan. On behalf of the House I extend to members of the delegation a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr CONNOLLY —I refer the Prime Minister to the second paragraph of his Press release of 11 September last. In his discussions with Mr Reid referred to in that Press statement, was Dr Armstrong's future discussed? If so, why did he omit any reference to that part of those discussions in his Press release of 11 September? Further, why did he repeat that omission in his answer yesterday when he said only that he was aware of the terms of the settlement? Will he tell the House what he is trying to hide? Mr HAWKE —I am trying to hide nothing. I remind the House of the terms of the Press release of 11 September, which was a totally accurate statement of what had transpired. In the answer I gave to the House yesterday I made it clear that I had had discussions with the Chairman of the Authority and obviously in that I was talking about the criticisms that had been directed to the Authority. Obviously included in those discussions were discussions about Dr Armstrong. Mr Howard —Ah! Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition should not ah that. For him to say `ah' is a magnificent observation when he knows the facts. As the honourable member for Bradfield has tried to come around this issue in this way, let me make a further observation in regard to the comments that he is reported to have made on this matter following my answer to the Parliament yesterday. He is apparently seeking to draw a distinction between that part of Dr Armstrong's settlement, which he concedes that the Australian Bicentennial Authority already had financial authority to make, and supplementary payments which he contends I could formally have directed not to be made. The legal basis for this, he seems to be suggesting, is section 6 of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Act which refers to directions with respect to policies being given to the Board by the Minister. Of course, he is wrong on that. In fact, the legal situation is that the relevant references in this matter are article 41 of the Articles of Association and sections 11 and 12 of the Act. I quote from Article 41 because it is relevant to this question as it has been asked here again today. Article 41 states, quite specifically: The Chairman shall, for the purpose of his performance functions, have such powers as may be exercised by him under or by virtue of these articles, including the approval of the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer and of other senior appointments to the staff of the Authority and of the terms and conditions of employment, including the termination of employment of the staff of the Authority. Section 11 (2) of the Act states: Moneys of the Authority shall not be expended by the Authority otherwise than in accordance with estimates of expenditure approved by the Minister. Section 12 of the Act states, in part: Moneys of the Authority shall be applied only- (a) in payment of any remuneration and allowances payable to any person under the Memorandum of Association or the Articles of Association of the Authority. As regards these sections of the Act, I am advised that the settlement payment to Dr Armstrong was paid under the heading `Salaries and Payments in the nature of Salary' for which $2.85m had been approved by the Minister assisting me for the Bicentenary, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, in estimates for the 1985-86 Supply period on 26 June this year. If as a consequence of Mr Reid's determination of a settlement payment to Dr Armstrong the Authority comes to the view that some variation to its approval estimates will be required before the end of the Supply period, the Authority will need to seek my approval in accordance with section 11 of the Act. It will be open to me to approve or disapprove any such request for variation in the approved estimates. All this was conveyed to Mr Reid in my reply to him on 30 August, to which I referred yesterday and a copy of which I have shown to the Leader of the Opposition. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, I have had no letter of demurral at all from the Chairman of the Authority. In other words, as I made clear in my Press statement, I have provided a totally accurate statement of the position. I repeat that when this matter first arose I attempted not to stifle the opportunity for the Opposition to ask questions, I have since then attempted to handle the matter in a way which will guarantee as far as possible that this important issue of the Bicentenary will not be allowed to degenerate into a question of political point scoring-by me from the Opposition or by the Opposition from us. I repeat that on all points I am prepared to take the Leader of the Opposition totally into my confidence on this matter. I have done so already. I do not seek to bind him or to say that that prevents the Opposition from asking questions. Despite the fact that these questions have been asked, I continue to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I will provide him with all the information that he seeks on this matter, I will put him totally in my confidence in relation to all that has happened and all that continues to transpire. I hope that he will take up the offer that I made to him. Despite the legislation with which we are saddled which gives me as Prime Minister no authority to determine who shall be the Authority's next chief executive, I hope that he will be prepared to consult with me on this issue. Mr CAMPBELL —Is the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment aware that at the recently concluded homes exhibition in Hamburg in Germany a well-publicised stall was manned by a group purporting to save the kangaroo in Australia? Is the Minister aware that these ill-informed groups are grotesquely distorting the realities of our kangaroo management strategy but have the ability to do enormous damage? Can the Minister say whether his Department is in a position to supply material that could be used to counter this very bad publicity and make people in foreign countries aware of the necessary humane management policy that is being undertaken in Australia? Mr COHEN —I thank the honourable member for Kalgoorlie for his question. I am aware of some outlandish and quite outrageous statements that have emanated from some elements of the environment movement. I stress the word `some', because the overwhelmingly majority of conservation bodies in Australia take a responsible and sensible attitude. However, a couple of groups have gone abroad and done enormous damage to Australia's reputation. I think it is about time that the bona fides of some of these groups were examined. I am not going to name names, but one particular group-- Opposition members-Go on. Mr COHEN —No, not this time; later on. One particular body receives an annual income of around $400,000 a year from direct mail contributions that it solicits throughout Australia. Its members pay themselves very significant salaries. They have a nice suite of offices and travel around the world on this continuing campaign. Only a couple of groups are involved in this. This does not apply to 98 per cent of conservation groups, which constitute bona fide people genuinely working for the environment; they are not doing what the groups in question are doing. These groups are making uneducated and ill-informed statements which, as I said before, are damaging to Australia's reputation. They have claimed that kangaroos are an endangered species in this country. Some species are in danger but there are enormous numbers of the species that are culled. It is claimed that Australians skin kangaroos alive to save themselves the price of a bullet. People might be able to sell that line overseas but they would have some difficulty convincing Australians. Another claim is that the kangaroo population is down to something of the order of six million. At the moment we are in the process of collating the kangaroo population estimates. As a result of the the lifting of the drought in Australia in recent years, the population trends are upwards. Although we cannot give an exact figure at this stage, we estimate that the population is probably closer to 16 million. I do not think Australians, including members of this House, should underestimate the damage being done to Australia overseas. One of the arguments being put for the attack being made on Australia is that the Canadians distorted the story regarding the harp seal. I am not responsible and this House is not responsible for what happened in Canada with regard to the harp seal. We are responsible for the Australian kangaroo management plan, which I believe is one that can be defended throughout the length and breadth of this world. To answer the honourable member's question, I inform him that to combat this vicious propaganda against Australia I have had to send Professor Ovington to the European Parliament. Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr COHEN —Honourable members opposite may find this terribly funny, but let me assure them that the Prime Minister has received 34,000 letters on this issue from overseas. Mr Hawke —He has answered every one personally! Mr COHEN —He has answered every one personally! We are producing a film which I hope will be shown in Australia and on international television and which certainly will be available to our embassies and high commissions overseas, and a booklet and a pamphlet will be produced. I have just received notification today that a European delegation of 14 members is coming to Australia to look at the kangaroo situation. We will be only too happy to oblige them by showing them around and showing them the true picture of a kangaroo management program that stands up to world scrutiny. Mr CONNOLLY —I direct my question again to the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister is responsible under the Australian Bicentennial Authority Act, and having admitted to the House that Mr Reid discussed the terms of settlement with him, I ask him about the extraordinary payment to Dr Armstrong of some $240,000, classified as compensation for restraints and releases. Will the Prime Minister inform the House of the nature of these restraints and releases, for example, whether they are free of tax? On what basis did he satisfy himself that all the legal preconditions for the payment had been met? From whom did he receive indepedent legal advice? Finally, will he advise the House whether he informed Mr Reid that these proposed payments were in any way excessive? Mr HAWKE —I can say to the honourable member that the composition and description of the elements of the payments to Dr Armstrong have raised a question in my mind and I have in fact, both orally and in writing, raised with the Chairman of the Authority the explanation of what is involved in the payments in terms of the question asked by the honourable member. I have asked for a response from Mr Reid. That letter has gone to him and I am awaiting a response from him. It is not appropriate, until I get that response, to say anything further. Mr BLANCHARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Communications. In view of certain concerns that have been expressed by ethnic community leaders in Perth, is the Minister in a position to confirm the date that the Special Broadcasting Service television network is scheduled to be extended to Perth? Mr DUFFY —The proposed date of the extension of SBS to Perth is January 1986. Mr MACPHEE —I refer the Minister for Communications to the long-standing registered post system which Australia Post is planning to change by stealth next Monday. Is he aware that a standard article which can currently be sent with up to $500 cover by registered post for $3.98 will next week cost $11.33-an increase of nearly 200 per cent? Is he likewise aware that under this new system items of up to $2,000 in value will be sent through the post `with no special security arrangements'? Finally, can the Minister confirm that he has received telegrams from small business people all around Australia protesting at the clandestine way in which these costly and time-consuming changes are being introduced? Will he now in fairness to those people request Australia Post to delay the introduction of these changes until it has consulted representatives of small business? Mr DUFFY —I was interested when the honourable member stated that Australia Post had made the decision by itself. There seemed to be some implication in that that it had to consult with somebody in relation to it and I think he ought to understand at this stage that that sort of decision is not a Government decision. It is not a standard postage matter and it is within the prerogative of Australia Post management to make that decision. Let us make that clear for a start. The last part of the question asked whether I had recieved telegrams and communications of complaint. Yes, I have. Australia Post conducted research at the end of 1984 which showed that the current system of registered mail was unsatisfactory for various reasons-for example, lack of flexibility in the system and a low ceiling of compensation. Secondly-and this will interest the economic dries-it was operating at a loss. Thirdly, the price paid did not reflect the possible value of lost articles. The price paid for registered mail did not sufficiently reflect the value of articles that may be lost. A new service was then examined by Australia Post. It was based more on insurance principles than on the old system of registered post. As I indicated earlier, it was not a Government decision. Hoever, I support the view taken by Australia Post that the existing system clearly needed to be examined, and examined closely. As a result of the criticism of the proposed new system, Australia Post has decided to delay its introduction for about a month in order that it can consider the criticisms of the bodies referred to by the honourable member for Goldstein. It is also worth pointing out that these services are not, of course, monopoly services. They are not within the monopoly of Australia Post within the Act. Therefore, if, after the matter has been given further consideration, the judgment of Australia Post is that this is the way to go and it turns out that it does not change its view, although it may do so, and if Australia Post has not judged the market in a correct fashion, customers can take their business elsewhere because it is not a matter within the monopoly. This will obviously commend itself to those opposite. While on the question of costs, I think it worth pointing out to the honourable member for Goldstein, who is now the shadow Minister for Communications, and worth while advising him of the position- Mr Cadman —Come on! Get on with it. Mr DUFFY —I was asked a question and I propose to answer it. I think it worth spelling out the situation in relation to postage charges in this country, particularly for the honourable member who asked the question and those who are interested. The honourable member for Mitchell obviously is not, and that does not surprise me. It is worth spelling out the position of Australia Post in a comparison of the costs of posting a standard mail item in this country with those other countries. In figures converted to Australian currency, probably the highest is West Germany at 42.1c. The second is Japan at 37.9c. Then come Canada at 37.1c, Italy at 37.1c, France at 36.3c and the United Kingdom at 34.5c. One has to go to the eighth or ninth position on the list before one comes to Australia at 33c. As I indicated, the proposal is under examination because of the criticism that has been made, but I repeat the point that I made when I started: It was a decision to be taken by Australia Post because it is within its management prerogative. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Is the Minister for Health aware of concern about the transmission of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome virus in schools? Can the Minister state whether any significant risk of aids transmission occurs in cases where a child carrying AIDS antibodies is attending school? Dr BLEWETT —I think we all fully understand the concern and anxiety expressed by parents in relation to these issues. At the outset it is very important for all of us to recognise that somebody who is AIDS antibody positive or sero-positive to AIDS does not necessarily have the disease and will not necessarily develop the disease. It simply means that someone has had contact with the virus and the body has developed antibodies against it. I am aware that the New South Wales, Victorian and Australian Capital Territory schools authorities have recently published very comprehensive guidelines for handling these difficult cases in school situations. I think that those guidelines are both responsible and compassionate. These guidelines have been developed by the various governments in collaboration with the National Aids Task Force. Central to all those guidelines is the fact that, on the best medical advice we have, AIDS is not passed on through casual contact or by airborne means. If it were passed on by those means we would have a very different pattern of the disease in this society. Indeed, one of the few features of small comfort in relation to this disease is that it seems to be fairly difficult to pass on. I know that the anxieties of those parents to whom the honourable member referred will be relieved only by the provision of prompt, accurate and comprehensive information. The Commonwealth will continue to underwrite programs in the preventive and education fields in conjunction with the States. I would like to note here that a national AIDS conference underwritten by the Commonwealth will be held in Melbourne from 15 to 16 November. I am also grateful to note that every State will be represented at that conference at a high level. This will provide an invaluable opportunity for health workers, administrators, doctors, researchers and community groups together to review the progress that has been made to date and advise us on further policy developments. If I may finally make one brief advertisement, tomorrow Dr James Curran, who is perhaps the leading epidemiologist in the world on AIDS, will be in Canberra. He will be speaking at the National Press Club but, as I realise that many honourable members on both sides of the House would like to meet him informally, arrangements for that have been made and all members have been circulated. Mr HOWARD —My question, which is addressed to the Prime Minister, relates to the Australian Bicentennial Authority. I refer to his previous answers to the honourable member for Bradfield. In view of the concerns that the Prime Minister now apparently has about certain aspects of the matter and the obvious public interest in what appears, on the face of it, to be a large payment, and picking up his expressed desire to treat this matter in a bipartisan fashion, is the honourable gentleman willing to do two things: Firstly, will he table the relevant documents and, secondly, will he undertake to the House that no additional funds will be made available to the authority or subject to Ministerial authorisation until such time as an independent arbitrator, acceptable to both him and me, certifies that in all of the circumstances the payment made by the Authority to Dr Armstrong is appropriate? Mr HAWKE —I appreciate the question that has been put by the Leader of the Opposition and I respond in these terms: In regard to the relevant documents, I am prepared to do what I have already done; that is, to show the Leader of the Opposition the relevant documents. Mr Howard —You didn't show me the one you wrote to Reid. Mr HAWKE —I have had discussions with the Leader of the Opposition on this matter and I have said here that I am prepared to show him-- Mr Cadman —What have you got to hide? Mr HAWKE —There is nothing to hide on this matter as far as I am concerned and as far as the Government is concerned. The Leader of the Opposition, having had a conversation with me and then having got some of his people to ask questions-he has only come into it at this stage-knows that I asked him to discuss this issue with the Chairman of the Authority. I made no attempt to place any inhibitions either as far as I was concerned or as far as the Chairman of the Authority was concerned. In fact, I went out of my way to arrange that he should be able to speak with the Chairman of the Authority as well as with me. I say this in regard to the two questions: I will show the Leader of the Opposition the relevant documents. As far as the second question, which relates to additional funds, is concerned, the Leader of the Opposition has seen what I said in my letter of 30 August. In the light of the letter which I have written to the Chairman of the Authority and to which I referred in my previous answer, obviously it would be appropriate to wait until I receive the response to that letter before responding in any way to any requests that he may make for any additional funds following my letter of 30 August. It follows as a matter of logic that if I have written to him saying `I want you to respond to my question about the composition of this', there is not going to be any decision about some requests for additional funds until I have that response from him. That is obvious. I would assume that the Leader of the Opposition would regard that as the appropriate course of action and relevant to his second question. Mr LINDSAY —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Has the Government recently made a decision on the level of subsidy payable in respect of rental for Defence Force housing? If so, what changes, if any, have been made in the level of rental subsidy for Defence Force housing? Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member for Herbert is most assiduous in the protection of the substantial number of his constituents who are members of the Australian Armed Services, and so is a raft of people behind me. The final report of the task force addressing housing assistance for members of the Australian Public Service and members of the Defence Force has recently been presented to the Government. However, with the exception of aspects of the defence service homes scheme, which were dealt with in the May statement, the Government has yet to commence consideration of the task force's final proposals. In carrying out this program effectiveness review, the task force called for proposals and submissions, published an extensive interim report as a basis for discussion and revision of its proposals and consulted widely with departments and employee groups, including the Armed Forces Federation of Australia. It will be their views and also the views of the task force that will be taken into account when we make our final decisions on the proposals that are put to us. At this stage I can say only that the objectives of housing assistance as set out in the interim report of the task force have been endorsed by the Government. For the information of honourable members, they include: That personnel be compensated for housing-related disabilities arising from frequent relocation where this is a required condition of service; that adequate accommodation be provided where personnel are required to reside in locations where suitable alternative accommodation is not available; that financial disabilities due to inter-regional differences in housing costs be minimised for those required to relocate frequently; and that detriment to morale caused by housing matters be minimised. In response not only to this question from the honourable gentleman but also to the many that have been put to me on this matter, this Government stands second to none in its concern for service conditions. In the area of wages, we overthrew a situation in which the Services were experiencing a wage freeze. They have been subject, since then, to all the community moves that have occurred with the cost of living adjustments of wages. In addition, an independently arbitrated wage increase of 5.9 per cent has been awarded to them. In the area of housing, which is an enormously sensitive area-it was rendered sensitive largely by the fact that it was shamefully neglected for a three-year period when all the housing developments were put on hold-we now confront a very substantial problem, which is one of those problems to which the task force is addressing itself. That was done under the previous Government. As an earnest of our good faith in this area we have incorporated in the current defence budget an amount of $61m for Defence Force housing, both in terms of the construction of new houses-some 680 new houses-and in terms of refurbishment of old houses. Nobody is going to kid himself that that will be sufficient for the task. We have a considerable backlog to overcome. That will be achieved only over a period. The point is that in critical areas of service conditions, which were not being addressed, which were neglected and which have now posed a very serious problem for us, we are addressing those matters seriously and with reasonable expedition. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister for Communications has sought my indulgence to correct an answer he gave in Question Time. Mr DUFFY —In answering a question by the honourable member for Moore as to the date of the extension of the Special Broadcasting Service to Perth, I think I said that the date was January 1986. That may have been a little ambitious. I would like to correct that answer by saying that it will be early in 1986. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 18 of the National Debt Sinking Fund Act 1966, I present the National Debt Commission annual report for the year ended 30 June 1985. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 99 (3) of the Telecommunications Act 1975, I present the Australian Telecommunications Commission annual report and financial statements for the year ended 30 June 1985. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Joint Review Report of Hostel Care Subsidies Arrangements, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Community Services relating to the report. I inform honourable members that only one copy of this report is available for perusal in the Parliamentary Library. Copies of the report will be available shortly and will be sent to all honourable members. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SLIPPER —I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SLIPPER —Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) in his speech in reply on the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1985 misrepresented me on three occasions. Firstly, the Minister alleged I said that Opposition policy in respect of Qantas is that espoused at the last election-that a minority of shareholding in Qantas could be transferred to employees. The simple fact is that while I believe a proportion of shares should undoubtedly be made available to employees, what I said in the debate was that we would privatise Qantas because we believe that Qantas ought to be owned by the men and women of Australia. The second misrepresentation occurred- Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Would honourable members on my right remain silent. The question of personal explanations has become recently one requiring very definite guidelines. I wish to be able to hear what the honourable member for Fisher is saying so that he may fairly use the indulgence of the Chair and that I may fairly judge that he is correctly using that indulgence. Mr SLIPPER —Thank you, Mr Speaker. The second misrepresentation occurred when the Minister claimed that I referred to freight capacity as being addressed by the review of international air freight of primary produce, which is due to report later in the year. The truth is that this was not even mentioned in my speech. The third misrepresentation happened when the Minister accused me of saying that, if Qantas refused to do what the Opposition wants, it will be blackmailed into bankruptcy. What I actually said was that, if Qantas is not prepared to carry the goods of this country, it will have to contend with the National Party and the Liberal Party. With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I have corrected the record. I thank you for the opportunity to do so. Mr GEAR(Canning) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr GEAR —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr GEAR —Mr Speaker, I would like to refer to an article that appeared in the Sunday Times of 15 September entitled `Politicians Escape the Law of Libel-Gear and Georges go too far' by Mr Howard Sattler. In the article Mr Sattler made allegations directly and by implication that are clearly unture. I would like to place on the public record the following corrections. Firstly, Mr Sattler accuses me by implication of character assassination. I reject this without reservation. Secondly, he accuses me of not making exhaustive investigations, including talking with the Australian Scholarship Trust. This is not true. I have had representations from a number of constituents over the last 2 1/2 years and I have spoken at length with the head office of the Trust in Melbourne. Finally I reject the accusation that my address to the House was libellous, a view shared by the office of the Attorney-General. I find it totally offensive that I should have been misrepresented as I was in Mr Sattler's article. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CONNOLLY —Yes, I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CONNOLLY —Thank you, Mr Speaker. In response to a question during Question Time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) alluded to the transcript of a PM interview I gave yesterday relating to his current difficulties with the Australian Bicentennial Authority. He claimed that I was wrong in stating that his powers are restricted entirely to section 6 of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Act relating to directions which Ministers may give to the Authority. Unfortunately, as usual, he quoted me out of context because while that statement stands, the remainder of the interview referred to the fact that the Prime Minister is required to give approval for matters such as this and that he also did not need to agree to the terms which Mr Reid put to him. He totally ignored that point. Of course, all of that comes within the context of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 7 of the same Act where the Minister's responsibility is quite clearly laid out. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective worldpeace initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all, fulfilling employment, a sustainable society conserving natural resources and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: 1. Create an Australian Ministry for Peace specifically devoted to peace-building and the non-violent resolution of conflict; 2. Convene a national summit for survival to discuss the issues of world disarmament, security and national and international co-operation; 3. Fully support the United Nations World Disarmament Campaign by allocating the equivalent of at least 10% of the defence budget to fund peace activities; 4. Actively assist the International Year of Peace in 1986 by initiating programs for peace education, self help development and environmental repair; 5. Develop National Employment Programs to give priority to the planting and growing of forests, food-producing trees and other crops; 6. Implement National Recycling Programs to reuse water and to compost all presently wasted sewage-sludge and organic garbage into hygienic humus, a natural fertiliser, for use in rehabilitating impoverished soils; 7. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin,Mr Blanchard,Mr Cowan,Mr Dobie and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective worldpeace initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all, fulfilling employment, a sustainable society conserving natural resources and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively assisting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reducing our military expenditure by at least 10% and allocating this to fund environmental repair programs; (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted sewage-sludge and organic garbage mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to the planting and growing of forests, food-producing trees and other crops to assist the greening of Australia. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: (1) Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. (2) Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms Fatin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established to work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover for the needs of present and future generations. By working these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: (1) Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. (2) Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs giving priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation including environmental sound use and reuse of water to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kerin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established to work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover for the needs of present and future generations. By working for these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: (1) Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. (2) Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs giving priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation including environmental sound use and reuse of water to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reducing our military expenditure by at least 10 per cent and allocating this to fund environmental repair programs; (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted sewage-sludge and organic garbage mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of forests, food-producing trees and other crops to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs; (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Uren. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of The House of Representatives, the Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the recent cuts announced in the Mini-Budget to Preschools and Day Care Services are a reversal of A.L.P. policy to make child care services available to all at an affordable cost. Further, that the fee rises arising from the cuts will cause great hardship to the majority of families using these services. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin,Mr Gorman,Mr Hollis,Ms McHugh, and Mr Tickner. 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 completly 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 humbly pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Beale and Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The Humble Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. THAT the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely statisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. THAT we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, including farms, destroying incentives and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small enterprises finally sell these assets are not ``windfall gains'', but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business or farm by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business or farm to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses and farms often depend on a capital gain-which is simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their assets to sustain them in retirement; Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron and Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of Australia respectfully show their desire that your Honourable House (The Government) act immediately to raise the Tertiary Education Assistance allowance to the level of the Unemployment Benefit. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray: by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: 1. That the functions of local government involve assessing local demand for services and either providing, or facilitating the provision of, those services; 2. That a transfer of responsibility for the provision of services from one level of government to another must be accompanied by a corresponding transfer of funds; 3. That local government in Victoria is becoming increasingly involved in the planning and provision of human services in particular; 4. That the level of services currently provided by or through local government cannot be maintained, and certainly cannot be increased, if the funds made available to local government through the personal income tax-sharing arrangement are not maintained at the present level; 5. That we are totally opposed to any reduction in the percentage of personal income tax allocated to local government. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the funding of local government without the consent of representatives of local government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging rural residents with regard to access to the Arts. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will allocate sufficient funds to the Australia Council specifically to ensure ongoing funding to State Arts Councils to enable those organisations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in country areas. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian 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 sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in 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 assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the Government's stated intention to hand over to the Mulitjula Community Ownership of Ayers Rock and Uluru National Park, which have until now belonged to all the people of Australia. We believe that Ayers Rock and the park are part of the natural heritage of Australia and should be retained by the crown on behalf of all living and future generations of Australians. Your petitioners therefore pray that the house oppose any action that would give ownership of these national treasures to any single group in the community. by Mr Everingham. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. We are completely disatisfied with the pricing policy of petrol in this country. 2. We are aware that it has an adverse effect on the living standards of the average wage earner of this country. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that the price of petrol be reduced by 3c a litre in line with a commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck. To the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble Petition of the South Australian Country Women's Association Incorporated and the Undersigned shall showeth: The necessity to restore the concessional price of fuel in rural areas-without which there will be increased freight and production costs. Your Petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will restore concessional price of fuel in rural areas for the benefit of all Australians. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hurford. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of ABC listeners and viewers showeth that the autonomy and non-commercial independant broadcasting services of the ABC is in jeopardy because the ABC is currently having to bear additional costs involved in the AUSSAT satellite operation. Your petitioners therefor humbly pray that: 1. The Government restores $20 million to the ABC's budget for 1985-86 to ensure that the services the ABC provides the Australian public are maintained and improved, particularly in terms of educational and rural programs, and that ABC staff are not needlessly retrenched. 2. The Government will not introduce corporate sponsorship or any form of advertising into the ABC since this would destroy the independance and autonomy of the ABC. The non-commercial independant broadcasting service provided by the ABC is fundamental to Australian democracy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hurford. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully show: As a part of the world wide campaign by women in the final year of the United Nations' Decade for Women for `Equality, Development and Peace' (1976-1985) and in view of the grave possibility of nuclear catastrophe, the Union of Australian Women calls for the Australian Government to: intensify its efforts for nuclear disarmament. remove U.S. bases from Australian soil. keep the Pacific and Indian Oceans nuclear free. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the brumby declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House follow the example of President Nixon in the U.S.A. by declaring our wild horses protected from industry and discriminate slaughter. And your petitioners, and in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. 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 the Veterans' Entitlement Bill dated May 1985 is taking a fair ``earned service'' from the men and women of Australia, who kept this country free so that Governments of today could have the freedom to be able to govern fairly. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensure that the previous legislation in respect of war veterans' and their dependants entitlements be restored. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Webster. 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 progressive reform of the Australian Taxation System is long overdue and that the burden has to be lifted from the poor and low to middle income earners. Also, sufficient tax revenue needs to be gained to support and extend public services and to reform the social security system. Specifically we support: 1. The introduction of appropriate capital gains and wealth taxes. 2. The elimination of all forms of tax avoidance and evasion. 3. Reduced PAYE rates for low to middle income earners, and the elimination of ``Poverty Traps''. Your petitioners humbly pray for: 1. Elimination of income tax concessions that assist the wealthy. 2. Increased company tax. 3. Improved pensions and other social security benefits, particularly increased allowances for dependent children. 4. Expansion of the public sector to create permanent jobs. 5. No action to be taken to introduce a new universal consumption tax as it would harm those who already pay an unfair burden of taxation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Webster. The Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of residents of Nhulunbuy, Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, draw to the attention of the House our objection at being discriminated against by an abuse of the Commonwealth N.T. Aboriginal Land Rights Act and Complementary N.T. Legislation wherein the Northern Land Council on behalf of traditional owners has the right to restrict access in and out of Aboriginal Land (Nhulunbuy). Residents of Nhulunbuy are currently being discriminated against by the Northern Land Council by an abuse of powers vested in them under the above Legislation by restricting the issue of permits and placing unreasonable conditions on such permits which allow access in and out of Nhulunbuy. Residents of Nhulunbuy have always abided by the terms and conditions of the permit system and to the best knowledge available no resident of Nhulunbuy has been fined for violating these conditions. Your petitioners so pray that the House obtain an assurance from the Northern Land Council that residents be granted unrestricted access by permit, in and out of Gove upon the offical opening and until the official closing of the Track by the Police each dry season, failing this we ask that the legislation be amended in order that we are not discriminated against in the future. by Mr Everingham. To the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned electors in the State of South Australia sheweth that we strongly object to the cruel slaughter of brumbies in Northern Queensland and demand its cessation. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will do all in its power to stop the slaughter of brumbies, or, if this is not possible, to have it carried out in a humane manner. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hurford. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the house of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the Division of Cowper respectfully showeth: That the introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties would not be economically benficial for Australia, as any introduction of such taxes would. First, adversely affect small and medium sized businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; Secondly, disadvantage the Australian economy by stifling employment in particular, which is heavily reliant on growth in small and medium sized businesses; Thirdly, any capital gains that might result when owners of small and medium sized businesses finally sell the business are not ``windfall gains'' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; and Finally, the owners of small and medium sized businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives oppose any attempt to introduce any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties, which would be to the detriment of the economic well-being of the nation, and repeal any existing captial gains taxes, wealth taxes, or death duties, which are to the economic disadvantage of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia showeth that: Without any warning and at the worst possible moment, the Federal Government has abandoned the pensioner patients in South Australia's Nursing Homes. These people are suffering undeserving hardship and trauma as a result of the Federal Government's decision to freeze the nursing home benefit levels in South Australia. The pensioner patients and those on fixed incomes now cannot expect any relief from recent significant fee increases approved by the Department of Community Services and which have coincided with the decision to freeze benefits. 80-85% of nursing home patients are pensioners and the majority are now required to pay in excess of their pension for their nursing care for the very first time. Some are paying over $5 per day on top of their pension. Many are looking for cheaper nursing care that doesn't exist We request that the Federal Government: 1. alleviate the distress of South Australia's nursing home patients and their families by effective restoration of the principle that pensioner patients should not have to pay more than their pension for nursing home care 2. restore the review of the benefit rates in November 1985 3. resolve its concerns over health care costs with the South Australian Government rather than inflicting unnecessary suffering on nursing home patients. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Wilson. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N. A. Brown) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The escalation of the Mudginberri dispute resulting from the failure of the Government and the ACTU to accept decisions of the Arbitration Commission and the Federal Court. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their place. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(2.58) —The statements made yesterday by Mr Simon Crean, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, have resulted in the Mudginberri dispute being escalated. That dispute is no longer simply an industrial dispute. It has now become a test case of whether the courts and their judgments are to be accepted, enforced and complied with; it has become a test case of whether one privileged group in the community can put itself above the law; and it has become a test case of whether this Govenment will allow one privileged group to put itself above the law. On the evidence that we have had so far, we cannot come to any conclusion other than the ACTU and the Government have failed in their responsibilities. The Mudginberri dispute until yesterday was bad enough. In the first place, individual men had entered into a free bargain with their employer. They got want they wanted. That agreement meant that the men received higher wages. It meant that productivity was increased. It meant that the employer remained viable. It meant that he could provide employment. That agreement was approved by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and it was put into practice after having gone before the Commission. Against that free agreement, which contained all of those features which no one could deny were desirable, the trade union movement set its face. It set its face against this agreement because it could not bear to see free people doing their own thing and making their own bargains without the domination of the work place by a trade union and without a trade union dictating the wages and terms of employment that would apply. So there was an issue, clear and stark. If anything became obvious during the conduct of that dispute it was that the union cared nothing for the rights of the individual. It cared nothing for the productivity of the abattoir concerned and it cared nothing for the rights of men who wanted to do no more than work. What was the role of the Government in this dispute? This Government aligned itself with a union which imposed pickets, which stopped men from going to work and which denied to ordinary Australians their rights to do their own thing on the terms and conditions on which they wanted to do them. That was a discreditable and entirely unjustified position for the Government to maintain. But it has maintained it throughout this dispute. It was doubly worse for the Government to maintain that attitude because the union's case was completely baseless and had no merit whatsoever. If there is any doubt about that, let us remember once again those memorable words of one of the two Minister so intimately involved in this matter, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). We know what his contribution was. He said: `Blind Freddy's dog knows that the union is in the wrong on this matter.' There has been a shameful performance by the ACTU and a shameful performance by this Government which supported it. That was bad enough. That was the situation until yesterday so far as this dispute was concerned. But the matter has now been escalated and it has been escalated by the ACTU, particularly by its President. It has been escalated by the union, the ACTU, by its President and, we would say, also by the Government because of its continued inactivity in this matter. The union and the ACTU have been aided, step by step in this escalation, by the Government's support and by the failure of the Government to live up to its responsibilities. The dispute has escalated because this matter has been to the Federal Court of Australia and not just to the Arbitration Commission, which we are continually being told is the sole repository in which industrial disputes should be resolved. Yesterday the court rejected appeals by the union against the $44,000 fine and the sequestration order of the union's assets because of its breach of the law. So the matter has been not only to the Arbitration Commission but also to the Federal Court. It should be remembered that the Federal Court was applying the law of this land. Section 45D of the Trade Practices Act is part of the law. The Government and the ACTU may not like it, but the fact is that it is the law and it should be enforced. The Government should stand behind the enforcement of that law. What was the response of the ACTU? In response to the matter having been before the court and court orders having been made, the ACTU has made a declaration of war on the law. It says it will go on the attack. It will go on the attack against the court, against the enforcement of court decisions and against the claim for damages being made in the court. What we say is short and to the point: No government can tolerate that situation. No government should tolerate that situation. No government should stand by and see court orders treated with contempt. The responsibility of this Government is to stand firmly behind the court, firmly behind the orders made by the court and firmly behind the enforcement of the law. It has completely abrogated its responsibility in this regard. We have given the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) ample opportunity to say that the Government will use its authority, its standing and its influence with the trade unions to ensure that the orders of the court are complied with. He has refused to do so. The choice was clearly before him but he refused to take it up. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has also failed in his responsibility and has done nothing but pour scorn over the whole dispute from beginning to end. For him it is a piddling dispute. That is the way he describes it-a piddling dispute. For him, as he said the other day: `There are only 25 workers involved and the matter is not worth bothering about'. This Minister, when faced with a clear case of a union which is in conflict with the workers, the Arbitration Commission, the Federal Court and the enforcement of the law, does nothing. He has said nothing to persuade the union to comply with the law. He does nothing even to encourage support of the Arbitration Commission which approved this agreement in the first place. He, like the Government does nothing despite all of its grand words about having some special relationship with the trade unions and some special influence in the way in which they move and the decisions they make. He does nothing, despite that special relationship, to bring this rogue union into line. There are further issues that are of concern to us. The first is the rights of the individual. How does the ACTU President see the rights of the individual? We now know, because he made his contribution yesterday. He said that the rights of the individual are a theory. They are not something to be enforced or put into practice, but they are a mere theory. He said it is nothing more than a theory that individuals have rights. He said: `The reality is that we have to deal with collective representative groups'. We believe that the rights of the individual are more than some mere theory. They are rights which people have exercised year in, year out, year after year, and they should be maintained. We on this side of the House support the right of individuals to act as free individuals, to make their own agreements and to do so with confidence that they will be able to have them carried out and that the Government, with all the authority that it has, will support them. Let us get back to the basic principles in this matter and recognise that what is at issue at the very outset is the right of free individuals living in a free society to do their own thing. What is at issue is the responsibility of the Government to respect and support those rights. But the Government pours scorn on those rights. It has completely abandoned its responsibility to support them and to enforce them. That is a matter of great concern to members on this side of the House. The second matter of concern is that we can now see, as a result of the dispute that is unfolding before our eyes, what a complete sham the prices and incomes accord is. Only last week the Government published a glossy publication, lauding and praising to the skies the great achievements of the prices and incomes accord. It was produced apparently at a cost of three quarters of a million dollars. It extols the virtues of the prices and incomes accord. I refer to the introductory remarks of the Minister in this memorable document. Mr Howard —Is there a glossy photo? Mr N. A. BROWN —Yes, complete with a ministerial photograph. We are told in the Minister's introductory remarks that this accord heralds a bold and innovative approach. The bold and innovative approach, so far as we can see in relation to this dispute, is that one should thumb one's nose at Federal Court orders. One should not worry about whether people have entered into agreements with their employers. One should not even worry if the agreement has been sanctioned by the Arbitration Commission. Honourable members should read this document. They should look at the superman comics scattered throughout it and the colourful illustrations. It is a quite extraordinary document. When we read the print we find the following statement: The Accord agreement firmly rejects confrontational industrial relations. Are we asked to believe that there has been no confrontation in the Mudginberri dispute? The point about this dispute is that there has been confrontation-and new confrontation as from yesterday-and it has come from the union, from the ACTU and, more importantly for our purposes, it is actively supported by the Government. We go on, if we can muster enough courage, to read: In place of confrontation, it-- the accord- calls for a more co-operative approach to solving industrial problems. We know now from the present Mudginberri dispute what all this rubbish in the published document means. We know now that when the union wants to use confrontation, which is condemned in the document, the union will use it. We know that the Government will support the union in confrontation if the union can gain another inch of power. What about co-operation, praised to the skies in this document? We know now what that means. We know that there is to be no co-operation in solving industrial disputes if the rights of the union are at stake and if the dominant power of this privileged and exclusive group is to be threatened to the slightest degree. If that is the situation there will be no co-operation. The attitude of the Government is that the union-its paymaster-must win at all costs, no matter what the merits of the case. We have the Government day after day crowing in this place about its great industrial disputation record. What a hollow claim it is. Of course, when we look at and think of Mudginberri and we look at the statistics, we will not have industrial disputes if everyone knows that the union will be supported by the Government in bludgeoning into submission anyone who dares to disagree with it. Of course, there will be fewer industrial disputes if the Government gives way every time and does not stand up to protect individual rights. Mr Coleman —It is just a theory. Mr N. A. BROWN —Individual rights are just a theory, according to the ACTU and the Government. We say that if these fine words about rejecting confrontation and calling for co-operation are to be given any substance at all and if we are to believe that there is an ounce of truth in what the Government says, the Government should step in and stop the confrontation. It claims that it can do that. Let us see the Government do that in this case. The Government should use its authority and should bring more common sense and a better co-operative approach to this matter. In this case there has been co-operation-co-operation between the employees and their employer. That is the co-operation which this society wants to see but which the Government simply cannot stomach. It is time the Government lent its support to that co-operation. As I have said before, this matter has been to the Arbitration Commission. It has been through the Federal Court. It is time the Government woke up to itself and brought this union and the ACTU to their senses. If it does not, it will stand condemned in the eyes of all Australians as having completely abrogated its responsibility. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, that case has already been made out. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.13) —We have just heard a speech from the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), which is very much a rerun of what was said by his Leader, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), last week and by other people who have participated in debate on this issue. Let me say that much of that rerun includes the rerun of accusations which have been fully repudiated in this House but which have not prevented the honourable member from repeating those absolutely false accusations as though there had not been a thorough refutation. Let met address some of those false accusations that we have heard from the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. Firstly, he said that the Government has aligned itself with the union that imposed pickets. As I have said on various occasions in this House, the Government has not supported in any way the imposition of pickets by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union against a decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We have said that that was a wrong thing to have done and that the decision of the Commission should be respected. That does not prevent a union or any other party in any dispute, once an award has been made, from seeking to have a variation made to that award at some subsequent time. But when any party seeks to take direct action against a decision of the Commission, the Government certainly cannot uphold that. That has been our consistent position in this House. It is thoroughly mischievous, at least for the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, to repeat the lie that this Government has aligned itself with the union in the imposition of pickets. Let me say secondly that another absolutely false accusation was repeated about 20 times in the course of the repetitious speech by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, and that was that this Government had not defended the law. That is absolutely and totally untrue. He did not produce one skerrick of evidence nor can he produce any evidence to demonstrate that this Government is not upholding the law. I say absolutely that this Government has not supported section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. Nevertheless, we agree that as it is part of the law, the law must be upheld. We have most certainly done nothing which could be construed in any way as seeking to undermine the law. The Federal Court of Australia, because of action taken very much against our wishes in relation to section 45D, has made a decision in respect of that matter which imposes fines on the union. We are not in any way preventing the collection of those fines. Nothing this Government has done could in any way be said to be stopping the collection of those fines. The union has said that it will not willingly pay. But the reality is, as has been fully explained in this House and as the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party knows full well, that when this accusation was made by the Liberal Party Leader last week I explained then and I explain now that there is a sequestration order which covers some $2m of assets of the union. Regardless of whether the union likes it, the reality is that there is a sufficiency of funds-indeed, far in excess of the amount that is involved in these fines-which are subject to the sequestration order. Therefore, there is no doubt that the fine will be paid from the union's fund. In that situation the charge that this Government is not upholding the law is an absolutely false, malicious and scurrilous accusation and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party knows that full well. His constant repetition of that lie, I think, demeans his position in this House very much. He also said that the Government was not upholding decisions of the Commission. That also is absolutely untrue. This Government stands behind the Arbitration Commission. Unlike the Opposition, which would seek to destroy the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, we support the system of conciliation and arbitration. Indeed, we are justified in doing that by a tripartite review of the system by the Hancock Committee of Review into the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, which unanimously agreed that the system of conciliation and arbitration should be maintained. Therefore, we will do nothing to undermine that system. We will be making various amendments to the law to improve that system. But nothing we have done in this dispute can be said to be reducing in any way the status of the Commission, undermining the Commission or not upholding decisions of the Commission. As I have said, we have not supported or condoned in any way the action of the union in taking direct action against the Commission's decision. Nevertheless, it is the fact, as I have said, that a party can take an application to the Commission for variation of an award. That is what the union has now done. I believe that all this would have been done some time ago if, indeed, there had not been the 45D action, which greatly exacerbated the level of this dispute. That forced the dispute into a situation where the temperature was increased enormously. It resulted in a distraction from the issues at stake. It meant that the obvious course for resolution was postponed for a considerable length of time. Now we have reached a situation where the matter is back before the Commission. The Commission has listed it for hearing on 3 and 4 October. At that time it will hear what the union has to say about why there should be some variation of the award. The union will be able to put its case. The Commission will make its decision on that. Whatever decision comes out of that should certainly be upheld. That is the simple situation in regard to the Commission. The Government in no way can be said to be undermining the position of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It stands firmly for the system and for the decisions of the Commission being upheld by the parties in not taking industrial action against them. But where parties have a dispute about the conditions in an award, they of course have the right to go back to the Commission and argue that there should be some change. It is also said that the Government is guilty somehow because the ACTU made a decision yesterday that it would have some form of industrial campaign in relation to Mudginberri in retaliation for the fines which have been imposed. The Government is in no way involved with that decision of the ACTU. We cannot condone an industrial campaign of that kind if it involves the taking of direct action or placing bans, as I presume it does, although no detail is available at this stage. Nor is there any industrial campaign; it is simply, as I understand it, something that it said will be undertaken in the next couple of weeks. We cannot condone that course at all. I shall certainly be talking to the ACTU about it and seeking to persuade the ACTU and the unions that might be involved in any such campaign not to take part in such a course. I believe that would be counter-productive to an effective resolution of the Mudginberri dispute, which should be found within the confines of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and not by taking retaliatory action of the kind which has been foreshadowed. That is our position on that and the Government cannot be said in any way to be guilty of any action which makes us responsible for any industriual campaign that may take place in this matter. That leads me to the hypocrisy of the Opposition's position on industrial relations, particularly on section 45D. Opposition members want to say, as the Leader of the Opposition said in this debate last time, that section 45D is an efficient means of resolving industrial disputes. That was his term-an efficient means. It is said that the Mudginberri dispute showed that. Despite the flurry of section 45D action, the picket was there for 120 days before it was lifted. It was lifted, not because of the 45D action which had been going on for months, but only because the matter had got back in the hands of the Commission. It is our clear belief that section 45D has done nothing in the Mudginberri dispute to assist in its resolution. Indeed, it made the whole thing infinitely more difficult to resolve. We have maintained all along that section 45D was counter-productive to good industrial relations. Not only does it make individual disputes more difficult to settle, but it also means that it is likely that there will be retaliatory action and a spreading of the action. This has been the experience over the years that 45D has been on the statute book. Mr Tuckey —Do you approve of that? Mr WILLIS —Of course I do not agree with it. I am saying that that is the reality of what has happened. During the time that you were in government, time and time again 45D action led to a spreading of the dispute. That is the kind of experience there has been in the past. Read my second reading speech last year as to why section 45D should be abolished and all will be revealed to you. I recommend it to you. Mr N. A. Brown —I have put in more 45D cases than you have. They are often settled. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I suggest to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he stop interjecting, or the Chair will need to deal with him. Mr N. A. Brown —He is making direct comments to me. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr WILLIS —The experience is that section 45D not only makes it more difficult to solve individual disputes, but on many occasions in the past it led and on this occasion perhaps it will lead-although I will do my best to prevent it-to a spreading of the dispute to other areas and to other kinds of action taking place in retaliation. That makes the whole situation infinitely more difficult to resolve. When that course develops the original dispute gets lost in the mayhem that develops in the spreading of the dispute. Opposition members cannot have it both ways: They cannot argue in this place that 45D is an efficient means of resolving industrial disputes and then bitch and complain here about the fact that 45D actions have led to a spreading of industrial disputes. They cannot have it both ways. If 45D is such a great means of resolving industrial disputes, do not complain in here to us once people have taken action on it that now there is more industrial disputation. That is part of our argument, that 45D is not an efficient means of resolving disputes. It does not help resolve the basic dispute and leads to a spreading of industrial disputation, which can be avoided completely by taking the alternative course which we outlined in this Parliament last year when we suggested that 45D should be abolished and a replacement provision put in the Act. In this case it would most certainly have meant that the matter would have been back in the hands of the Commission months before it got there. We would most likely have had an amical resolution of this dispute, which is just not possible once 45D gets involved. That is the reality of the situation. The Opposition is being hypocritical in this place in trying to have it completely both ways-wanting to say that 45D is the greatest way of resolving industrial disputes since creation, and at the same time saying: `Isn't this terrible; we have industrial disputes occurring because somebody took 45D action'. I ask Opposition members to make up their minds what they want. If they have a sensible think about the matter they will see that the appropriate course is to accept alternative proposals which we proposed putting in the legislation last year and which would avoid this mad spreading of disputation in a totally unnecessary way. I would also like to refer to one other matter in the course of my dissertation, and that is that the National Farmers Federation, as I have said previously, has played an unsavoury role in the whole of this dispute. It has done so in the sense of not being a direct party but nevertheless goading and inspiring the employer in this case to take 45D action. I believe that the Federation's motives in this are highly questionable. One of the reasons that has been given for its taking this action is that it supports the destruction of the tally system, and that this is a means of achieving it. I point out in that regard that a firm called F. J. Walker, which operates an abattoir in the Northern Territory, recently reached an agreement with the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union to continue the tally system and it was registered in the Arbitration Commission last week. F.J. Walker is owned by Elders IXL and a director of IXL is Mr Ian McLachlan, who happens to be the President of the National Farmers Federation. If Mr McLachlan thinks it is such a great idea to have the tally system operating in a company of which he is a director, why is it such a bad thing to be operating in another abattoir in the Northern Territory? I believe it goes beyond the tally system to a desire by the NFF to take on trade union power to bring about industrial confrontation, and for the same reasons as the Opposition. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(3.28) —This has been one of the most miserable responses to matter of this type I can remember. No wonder we have the trouble we are having at present at Mudginberri, because the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) does not have the courage, the will, to try to overcome an illegal dispute that has been brought on by a union that is not prepared to accept agreements between employers and employees. In spite of the limp claim of support for the courts and the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the fact is that the Government has not enforced or upheld the law. The Minister is following the example of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) by claiming faults on both sides. There is no fault on both sides so far as the workers and the employees are concerned. This is a dispute between the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and those people it has kicked out of the union because they were not prepared to accept the tally system. The union was not prepared to accept an agreement that was reached between the employers and the employees and ratified by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I ask: Why has not the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations or the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) taken action under sections 45D or 45E of the Trade Practices Act on those meat inspectors who refused to cross the illegal picket line? The Ministers sat by and allowed them to flout the law and the ruling of the courts. Who did give permission to those people to camp and to picket in the Kakadu National Park? Were they camped there illegally? I do not think the Government has ever tried to come to grips with that problem. They were camped on Commonwealth administrative territory and they were there for a very extensive period-over 100 days. The Government has condoned illegal pickets; it has condoned illegal camping in the Kakadu National Park; it has refused to make sure that Commonwealth meat inspectors carried out their duty. During the dispute they were on full pay although they were not working. The Government has acted in a very gutless manner on this issue. The cosy relationship between the Hawke Labor Government and the new commissar of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has already cost this country several million dollars in lost export meat contracts. The irresponsible actions of the Transport Workers Union of Australia, which acted in sympathy with the illegal actions of the AMIEU Mudginberri, are now sabotaging the efforts being made by the Australian sheep meat, lamb and beef industry to try to capture new markets in a very competitive world marketing situation. The selective TWU ban on air-freighted meat to a number of destinations is discriminatory and contemptuous. We now have an extraordinary set of circumstances which not only points to complicity between the ACTU and the the AMIEU in the Mudginberri dispute but also suggests government involvement. A number of factors lead me to the conclusion that Ministers have been receiving their riding instructions on a number of actions that have taken place right throughout this Mudginberri issue. Clearly, the trade union movement will fight to the last ditch the right of employers and employees to enter into their own contractual arrangements. The unions are fighting an agreement reached between the employers and the employees at Mudginberri which had the blessing of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission simply because the union was not involved. Mr Braithwaite —Shameful conduct. Mr HUNT —It is shameful. The unions are fighting the right of employees to negotiate an agreement under which they could receive up to $1,000 a week as against the $450 to $500 a week maximum they can earn under the tally system which is the system which this union was trying to force upon the 25 workers. The tally system is a rigid and discredited system in many of the abattoirs around Australia. Commissar Crean warned employers that the union movement will retaliate against all similar attacks on fundamental union principles. Are these fundamental union principles trying to force people to accept a lower level of pay under an agreement than they would receive under some award that the AMIEU believes is the right and proper award under which people should work? Commissar Crean tells us: There is going to be on-going action in relation to the Mudginberri dispute by virtue of pursuit of Section 45D proceedings. He warns us: If anyone uses the law and has the support of the law the movement has no alternative but to go on the attack. What an outrageous statement from one who has studied law and who undertook a law degree. What arrogance from commissar Crean! In other words, he is exhorting the trade union movement to defy the law and to support illegal action such as those of the AMIEU. Commissar Crean warned the Opposition that agreements between employers and employees, such as that achieved at Mudginberri, should not be viewed as an alternative to centralised wage fixing even though the employees are better off. He rejects the argument that the Mudginberri agreement is a viable alternative to the laborious union dominated centralised wage fixation system. What he is rejecting is the rights of the individual and groups to achieve a better deal for themselves than they could get under the reactionary involvement of discredited unions. The ACTU is not prepared to accept that other people should have the right to reach agreement without the intervention or involvement of people such as commissar Crean. It is arrogant in the extreme for the commissar to assume that the trade union movement is the only protector of living standards in this country. Who is he to claim that those living standards would be threatened if the unions were not involved in every agreement reached between employers and employees? Look at what has happened to youth unemployment in this country as a result of the adoption of the same principles. Some 25 per cent of our kids under the age of 25 are unemployed because of the inflexibility of and the way in which youth wages were structured by the union movement thus bringing pressure to bear on the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission back in 1974-5 in the days of Minister Cameron. There is a growing number of unanswered questions over the Hawke Government's complicity in these disputes. The Government's performance on Mudginberri has been absolutely gutless and compliant. A number of curious happenings at Mudginberri have given rise to a belief amongst many people that there has been complicity between the Government, the ACTU and the leaders of the meat employees' union. Prior to the disgraceful illegal picketing by the union at Mudginberri, the Department of Primary Industry moved the Commonwealth meat inspectors from Mudginberri to Jabiru. We were told that the housing conditions at Mudginberri were unsatisfactory and that alternative, more satisfactory, accommodation was available in Jabiru. I have it on informed authority that this is a nonsense because the Jabiru accommodation is, at best, no better than that at Mudginberri. No one else is permitted to stay over night or lodge at Jabiru. Why are the meat inspectors permitted to stay at Jabiru? Who gave permission to the meat inspectors to lodge at Jabiru? When was the decision made to move the Commonwealth inspectors? Did the Minister give an instruction or was he aware of the decision and timing of the move? Was it decided to shift these inspectors to Jabiru so that they would have to cross the picket lines in order to undertake meat inspections to satisfy export requirements? A number of other facts need to be publicly aired so that people can make their own judgments about the conspiracy theory. Firstly, the Minister for Primary Industry refused to grant approval to accept Northern Territory qualified meat inspectors and veterinary officers as Commonwealth meat inspectors. They are sufficiently experienced and qualified for such a designation. The Minister claimed he had made this decision because he did not want to inflame the situation. Quite clearly, the Commonwealth meat veterinary officer who was on duty was prepared to perform his duty. I ask the Minister to answer these questions. Did the Commonwealth veterinary officer refuse to perform his duties? Was he requested to work? What duties was he asked to carry out? Honourable members should remember that it was a Commonwealth veterinary inspector who decided to cross the picket line and stay on duty. Were his regular reports to the Department ignored during the pickets at Mudginberri? I ask the Minister if he is fair dinkum to table the regular reports of the Commonwealth veterinary officer. If the Minister does not, he is trying to cover up his own actions. Those reports are the key to whether the works or killings were carried out in accordance with Export Inspection Service requirements. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(3.38) —It was interesting to talk to two members of the National Party of Australia over the luncheon break. They said to me: `The trouble is we haven't got another issue to run on and our leaders can't agree on what our next issue will be'. That is why we have had Mudginberri, Mudginberri and more Mudginberri. That is the problem. The Opposition cannot agree on what to bring before the House next. I think I should refer at the outset to the editorial in today's Melbourne Age, which states: The National Farmers Federation would be well advised to stop gloating at the victories it has had over the AMIEU lest its bragging raises the stakes too high for the ACTU to ignore. Its behaviour has already guaranteed bad industrial relations in the meat industry for years to come. I would have thought that the National Party, particularly the Deputy Leader, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), would be pleading with the parties involved in this dispute to settle it so that it does not adversely affect, or put at risk, our overseas markets. I say to Opposition honourable members who are farmers- Mr White —There is no dispute at the meatworks. Mr Tuckey —There is no dispute with the workers. Mr HAND —There is a dispute. If honourable members do not think there is a dispute, they are mad. A dispute is certainly taking place. There is the risk of it damaging our overseas trade. The National Party has shown once again that it is not interested in the rural sector. It is more interested in the mining sector-it has shown that over recent years-so it is quite prepared to let our great meat industry flounder. It is not prepared to do anything to solve the problem. It is openly encouraging the dispute by assisting the National Farmers Federation. It is also interesting to note that employers in general have made it clear, certainly to the union, that they have told the National Farmers Federation to keep out of this dispute. Employers have told the union that they support the tally system. They do not want anything to do with the National Farmers Federation. Employers are opposed to the deregistration talk by the National Farmers Federation and to any fines being placed on the union through actions by the Federation. They have told it that once the stock leaves the farm it becomes the property of the processors; therefore, the Farmers Federation ought to keep its bib out of industrial relations. That is something that the Federation does not understand. That goes for the National Party because it certainly does not understand industrial relations. That is quite clear. Let us consider the company R. J. Gilbertson Pty Ltd. It has written to the Federal Secretary of the union totally dissociating itself from the blue in Mudginberri and wanting nothing to do with it. It told the union that what is happening at Mudginberri is a crime in terms of good relations within the industrial arena of the meat industry. That is quite clear. Those opposite can look at the letter. It is there to be seen. Mr White —Have you been to Mudginberri? Mr HAND —Of course I have been to Mudginberri. Has the honourable member been to Mudginberri? Mr White —Yes, I have. Mr HAND —It is a wonder that the honourable member got away alive. In 1984 the National Farmers Federation, through its industrial spokesperson said: However, deregistration of the Queensland AMIEU is only the first step in the NFF's plan. Quite clearly, the National Farmers Federation is in league with the Opposition in trying to bring about industrial unrest in this country. Under this Government we have had extraordinarily good industrial relations, far better than the Opposition was ever able to achieve. I take the opportunity, as Simon Crean was mentioned, to put on record my congratulations to him and also to Jack O'Toole for his leadership of the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union in this dispute at Mudginberri. Who is the owner of Mudginberri and from where did he come? His name is Mr Pendarvis. From where is the money coming to bankroll this operation? It is coming from the National Farmers Federation, the Queensland Government and, I understand, from the Westpac Banking Corporation. Is Westpac not the bank that orchestrated the change of leadership of the Liberal Party recently? I understand that someone from Westpac was on the phone on the morning of the ballot and told the Opposition to change leaders. I also understand that Westpac is bankrolling Pendarvis in this dispute. It is outrageous that this has been allowed to occur. Mr Ian Cameron —Who is bankrolling the union? Mr HAND —No one is bankrolling the union, other than its members. The members will win out in this dispute. They will be shown to have behaved in an honourable way and they will win the dispute as it goes through the system. On a number of occasions the AMIEU has tried to settle this dispute. That can be shown by the fact that it applied for a variation of the award. That was agreed to by Sir John Moore on 5 September. As the Minister pointed out, the matter has now been sent back to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It will be considered by the Commission in October. In contrast, the National Farmers Federation and the owner of the operation, Pendarvis, have refused invitations by the Government and others to sit around the table in the normal industrial relations way to solve the dispute. They have boycotted it and done everything they can to inflame the situation. The Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), knows that. These people have gone out of their way to aggravate the situation. They stand condemned. The National Farmers Federation and the National Party, its puppet in this place, stand condemned for the disruption that they are causing within the industry. The Minister also referred to Ian McLachlan, the President of the National Farmers Federation. He is a very interesting gentleman. On the one hand, he took part in a debate on television with Jack O'Toole, the Federal Secretary of the union, saying how bad it was that the Mudginberri dispute was proceeding in such a way. On the other hand, he is a director of Elders IXL. That company owns a number of plants throughout Australia, including some in the Northern Territory. Mr McLachlan cannot have his cake and eat it too. He cannot argue on behalf of the National Farmers Federation that the system operating at Mudginberri be the rule for the industry and, at the same time, through Elders, approach the union asking it to give an undertaking to operate under the tally system at Tennant Creek. That operation is Elders-owned. That seems to smack of hypocrisy-asking the union to comply with two different systems. That cannot be done in industrial relations. McLachlan is playing a very dangerous game. Other operators ought to watch out because, at the same time, Elders is negotiating with the union for the killing and supply of buffalo-feral meat-to markets in the south. McLachlan needs to be examined very closely. The Tennant Creek operation, as the Minister said, is under the F. J. Walker Ltd award. It has been registered with the Arbitration Commission. As I pointed out, Elders is trying to break into other areas. It seems that the National Farmers Federation and the National Party need to do a bit of explaining to the general community. It is quite clear that the Opposition has set about, through its supporters in the National Farmers Federation, creating havoc in the industrial relations arena. It is attempting to do this through this dispute. The National Farmers Federation has proved that its members are nothing but a bunch of brigands and blackmailing thugs who are withholding stock. Those opposite know that it is true that the Federation is withholding stock from any abattoir that does not comply with its wishes. How can McLachlan be paid, on the one hand, to withhold stock from certain plants and, at the same time, support Pendarvis and those at Mudginberri? The Federation members are behaving like brigands. Mr Hunt —What about the trade union movement? Mr HAND —Those opposite should not worry about the trade union movement. We are ready to go back to the Commission where the dispute ought to be. We are acting in accordance with proper industrial relations rules. The Federation is on a path to destroy industrial relations in this country. Those opposite are part of it because they want to deregulate the industrial relations area. They are on record as saying that. There is no doubt that this is a conspiracy-dare I use the word-between the National Party, the Liberal Party and their lackeys in the National Farmers Federation to try to bring about disruption. Who are the members of the National Farmers Federation? In no way do they represent the decent, hard-working farming community throughout Australia. They are a bunch of elite, wealthy pastoralists who are trying to destroy industrial relations. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that that is true. Mr Cowan —I raise a point of order. I have a lot of small farmers in my electorate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —There is no point of order. The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Mr Speaker has received advice from the National Party Whip that he has nominated Mr McGauran to be a member of the Standing Committee on Transport Safety, in place of Mr Tim Fischer. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Mr Speaker has received advice from the Leader of the Opposition that he has nominated the honourable member for Kooyong to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in place of the honourable member for Mackellar. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.49) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill repeals sub-section 69 (3) of the Judiciary Act 1903. The sub-section is one of the original provisions of the Judiciary Act, and has remained in substantially unaltered terms since 1903. At that time, there were few arrangements for legal aid in Australia and, as such, section 69 (3) was a most useful and necessary provision. It was consistent with similar provisions in the United Kingdom and some Australian States. However, in the words of a Supreme Court judge considering the sub-section earlier this year, it can now only be described as an `historical anachronism'. I would go further and say that it is not only out of step with modern developments in the provision of legal aid but also ripe for exploitation. Under section 69 (3) a person charged with an offence against the laws of the Commonwealth may apply to a judge of the High Court of Australia or a supreme court of a State for the appointment of counsel for his or her defence. If the judge certifies that the person is without adequate means to provide for his or her own defence and that it is desirable in the interests of justice that counsel be appointed, the Attorney-General is then to make arrangements for that defence. The principle underlining this provision is one which will all would accept. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a party, recognises this. Article 14.3(d) of the Covenant provides: everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees- . . . to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it. The question which the Bill addresses is the most appropriate mechanism to provide legal aid for those facing criminal charges. Since sub-section 69 (3) was enacted, and particularly since the 1970s and the work of the previous Labor Administration, this country has seen the development of a very comprehensive and integrated system of legal aid based on the provision of funding through State and Territory legal aid commissions and the Australian Legal Aid Office. In addition, there is a very valuable network of community legal centres in all States. Commonwealth funding for these centres has been increased by approximately 35 per cent to $1.5m within the total Commonwealth legal aid budget. The Commonwealth provides substantial funding from the operation of various elements of legal aid, currently spending about $1.2m per week or $70.26m in 1985-86, an increase of 22 per cent over the figure for 1984-85. This system provides for legal aid in relation to indictable Commonwealth criminal offences with slight variations among jurisdictions as to means and merits tests. The various legal aid authorities throughout Australia provide legal aid on the basis of the ability of the applicant to meet the cost of proceedings. That is the fundamental test in every case. The system also provides for comprehensive review and appeal procedures where an applicant is dissatisfied with the amount of aid granted or with a refusal of aid. Until this year, certificates had rarely been sought under section 69 (3). It has now become apparent, however, that applicants are using section 69 (3) either to supplement assistance already obtained or to seek assistance which they have otherwise been refused by legal aid bodies in accordance with the accepted tests. The increase in use of section 69 (3) has followed publicity given to a Federal Court decision earlier this year. In effect, the decision places the Attorney-General in a position where he has no discretion to exercise independent judgment. For example, he has no discretion as to whether the accused is in fact without adequate means to provide his or her defence, or is able to obtain assistance from some other source. If this state of affairs continues, it is anticipated that the costs to the Commonwealth could be substantial. Assistance given pursuant to the certificate issued in the first case this year is likely to amount to $225,000. Since then, two further certificates have been issued to other applicants. The extent of assistance has not yet been ascertained in relation to these but in one case assistance may well be in the order of $1m. While it was always intended that legal aid would be available to persons meeting guidelines laid down by legal aid bodies, it was not intended that applicants would, in effect, be able to circumvent those bodies established to administer the legal aid funds and go direct to the Commonwealth. Nor was it intended that the courts would be asked to make decisions on questions such as whether or not an accused person has adequate means to provide for his own defence. Such questions are essentially administrative questions and not suited to determination by courts whose procedures on these questions are necessarily expensive and more cumbersome. Following the establishment of their legal aid commissions, the States have already recognised the inconsistency of retaining provisions similar to section 69 (3). Consequently, New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland have repealed such provisions in the Poor Prisoner Defence Acts or similar legislation. Given that legal aid will continue to be available through the ALAO and State legal aid commissions, the repeal of section 69 (3) should not have any effect on Australia's international obligations and, in particular, on its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The legal aid schemes operating in each jurisdiction today, in the Government's view, satisfy the provisions of the International Covenant. Compared with the provisions available in 1903, the current system provides a far greater service and coverage for those in need. The requirement which we and the community face is to spread the legal aid dollar fairly and equitably. A provision such as section 69 (3) can operate to distort the normal legal aid processes and is redundant. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.56) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, which is part of a package of revised assistance arrangements for the commercial motor vehicle industry in Australia, proposes the phasing out over a three-year period commencing on 1 January 1986 of the bounty assistance on certain components used in the assembly of general purpose heavy commercial vehicles. The bounty, which was introduced in 1978, had been due to terminate on 30 June 1985. However, in order to avoid any disruption to the industry pending a final decision by the Government on the future assistance arrangements for the industry, it was extended by the Government until 31 December 1985. New assistance arrangements for this industry were announced by the Government on 6 August 1985 and will have the effect of ensuring that the level of assistance currently provided by the bounty will be maintained through an equivalent level of tariff assistance on most components presently covered by the bounty scheme. Thus, while the form of assistance will change from a bounty on local production to a tariff on imported components, the level of assistance will generally be maintained. Proposed section 14D of the Bill proposes that during the three-year phasing period the bounty will be reduced from its current level of 20 per cent to nil by 1 January 1989. At the same time it is proposed that the relevant tariff assistance be progressively increased from nil to 25 per cent by 1 January 1989. The appropriate customs tariff alterations will be contained in a Customs Tariff Amendment Bill to be introduced later in the sittings. In developing the new assistance package the Government took into account the comments made by the Industries Assistance Commission-the IAC-in its 1984 report on heavy commercial vehicles parts and accessories. The Commission's preferred option was for the existing bounty and by-law arrangements on components to be phased out over five years with duty rates on completely built-up vehicles to be increased to 25 per cent. The Commission proposed that at the end of the phasing period, components which currently attract by-law would be dutiable at the general rate of 25 per cent. The Government accepted the finding of the IAC that the level of assistance accorded vehicle assembly was too high and had resulted in an unacceptable level of fragmentation in the industry. However, it was hard to see any benefits in the IAC's preferred package since it involved both a contraction in industry activity and increased prices to consumers. The IAC proposal aimed at a massive reduction in assistance levels to assembly. The reduction envisaged was in fact more substantial than that set for the passenger motor vehicle sector under the Government's current policy. If assistance levels were to be reduced on the scale proposed by the Commission, a very substantial contraction in both local assembly and component production would be inevitable. Similar views were expressed by the majority of the industry. In developing the new assistance package the Government also took into consideration submissions from industry which noted that the bounty had not been successful in encouraging the use of local components in the assembly of heavy commercial vehicles. Rockwell Standard of Australia Ltd, for instance, once the largest manufacturer of bountiable components, which used to be in my electorate, was unable to sustain its manufacturing activities in spite of the relatively high level of assistance accorded by the bounty redistribution. A number of manufacturers of bountiable components requested that bounty assistance be replaced by a tariff, generally at the rate of 25 per cent. As a consequence of criticism of the existing arrangements, the Government is concerned to simplify the current assistance which involves a mix of tariff and bounty assistance on a small range of components. The new arrangements will place assistance on a tariff only basis, by 1 January 1989, generally at a uniform rate of 25 per cent. I mentioned earlier that this Bill only covers the bounty part of the Government's new assistance package. It may be helpful if I were to outline briefly the other aspects of the Government's package which are not covered by the Bill. The other main elements of the package are: (1) There will be a reduction in the general tariff rate for general purpose heavy commercial vehicles and most special purpose vehicles from the present rates of 22.5 per cent and 25 per cent respectively to 20 per cent. Crane lorries, which are currently dutiable at 35 per cent on the crane section and 25 per cent on the lorry, will attract a single rate of 30 per cent; (2) Duty at the existing rates for non-bountiable components, except those for fire engines less than 2.72 tonnes gross vehicle mass, which will increase from 2 per cent to 25 per cent will be maintained. The reason for the increase on these fire engine components is that most components for fire engines under 2.72 tonnes GVM are indistinguishable from components for other vehicles; (3) By-law entry is to be restricted to components for use in the assembly of the cab-chassis only of general purpose vehicles and driveable chassis only in the case of buses. This is designed to remove an anomaly whereby assemblers of general purpose vehicles could import body components duty free whereas body builders were denied similar access. To amend the by-law to enable body builders and others to obtain access to duty free componentry would result in a substantial reduction in assistance to producers of components for truck and bus bodies; (4) A tariff of 25 per cent is to apply to bodies and trailers when imported separately. When imported with or as part of a completely built-up vehicle, these components attract the same duty rate as the vehicle. This is being done to avoid the situation whereby two different rates could apply to a complete vehicle, for example, 20 per cent on the cab-chassis and 25 per cent on the body. Such split rates cause administrative complexities for exporters, importers and the Australian Customs Service and the Government feels that they should be avoided wherever possible; and (5) A uniform tariff of 25 per cent is to apply to filters other than filters from New Zealand, which will remain dutiable at existing rates. Filters are currently dutiable at rates ranging from 2 per cent to 35 per cent, with about 80 per cent of imports being dutiable at 25 per cent. Many filters which are dutiable at 2 per cent are exactly the same as others dutiable as 25 per cent, and this has created difficulties in the past for Customs administration. This decision removes that anomaly and a uniform rate of 25 per cent will apply. New Zealand rates on filters have to remain at current levels under the provisions of the Australia-New Zealand closer economic relations trade agreement. The advice of the Automotive Industry Authority is being sought on what additional components, if any, would be competitive with imports at the general rate of 25 per cent. Further announcements will be made on this aspect in due course. The new arrangements I have just outlined seek a more moderate reduction in assistance to assembly activity than that suggested by the IAC. The Government expects that they will lead to a reduction in prices to consumers and to a much healthier and more competitive local industry. The majority of the provisions in the Bill, notably provisions in Parts 2, 3 and 4, relates to changes to modernise the administrative provisions in the existing Act. The new provisions are similar to provisions incorporated in other bounty legislation since 1984. Financial Impact Statement It is estimated that the cost of bounty assistance during the phase-out period will be $1.25m for the period 1 January 1986 to 30 June 1986, $2m in the fiscal year 1986-87, $1.4m in 1987-88 and $0.6m from 1 July 1988 to 31 December 1988. All values are at current prices. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill 1985. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(4.07) —Prior to the suspension of the sitting at 12.45 p.m., I was addressing the problem of funding for roads and the effect that has on the safe and economic passage of road transporters. I was using as an example the Princes Highway east of Dandenong. The Victorian Minister of Transport, the Hon. Tom Roper, has alleged that the Commonwealth has diverted some $10m from the Princes Highway east to the Hume Highway. As a result, whether or not that allegation proves correct-I invite the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) who is at the table, to respond to it-large sections of construction of a dual carriageway east of Dandenong remain uncompleted. This matter has been of tremendous concern for a great many Victorians-not just for the residents of Gippsland, my electorate, and the residents of the electorate of the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) but also for the tens of thousands of visitors and tourists who journey east. It is nothing short of a scandal that so much of that highway remains single lane and, more importantly, dangerously so. Half-completed works on a dual carriageway stretch for kilometre after kilometre. It is galling to be travelling at a slow speed parallel to an unfinished dual carriageway on which no work has been undertaken for some weeks. Any work that is under way on some parts is progressing at a snail's pace. I ask the Minister whether the allegation by the State Minister that funds have been diverted to the perhaps more politically sensitive Hume Highway are true or, if the $10m figure is not accurate, to what extent funds have been diverted. I may say that State-Commonwealth clashes over road funding have far more to do with the need to satisfy different constituencies than with party politics or party rivalries. I accept that, as would every member of the Opposition. If the claims by the State Minister are incorrect, I certainly wish to know so that I may respond to my constituents, who have laid the blame fair and square at the feet of the Commonwealth. I mentioned before the suspension of the sitting my unease about a number of aspects of this legislation, none more important than the failure of the Minister to consult properly with both the industry and the States. We know that the States must enact legislation to complement the legislation before the Parliament today. Sadly, looking at their timetables, it is unlikely that the States will pass such complementary legislation until the middle of 1986 at the earliest. In one or two States there are indications that the legislation may not even be passed until late next year. I am puzzled-and again I ask the Minister for an answer-why the legislation has been introduced in this fashion. Moreover, I question the logic of the Minister introducing legislation covering only some aspects of the Commonwealth's response to the May committee's recommendations. Why does he not wish to bring in a compact package of legislation rather than what seems to be piecemeal legislation dealing with part of the May committee's recommendations which will necessitate further legislation in the future to deal with other aspects? Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that before the luncheon suspension I asked the Minister whether the regulations under this legislation had been referred to the regulation review unit within the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. Whilst in the process of asking the Minister to respond to specific questions, I further ask him whether he agrees with the rate regulation for interstate road freight referred to and rejected by the May committee, as the Minister is only too well aware, which recommendation I understand the Government accepted. Does the Minister support the Australian Road Transport Federation and the Transport Workers Union in setting minimumn interstate rates for owner-drivers? You will realise, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this is a matter of crucial importance. If the Minister-and the Government, by extension-does not support the Federation's and union's agreements for rate setting, will he please say so to alleviate the many doubts and concerns that this agreement is causing to operators in the industry? In conclusion I wish to say that there are many aspects of this legislation which I support enthusiastically. It is in my view a good initial response to the May committee's recommendations, but I do not believe it is a complete response and I do not agree that it ought to be brought in at this time when it is demonstrably obvious that the States and the industry have not been properly consulted and have not considered the fine print, if you like. For that reason I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Murray in which, whilst not withdrawing the support of the Opposition for the Bill, we seek its delay until a later date-the commencement of the 1986 autumn sittings. Failure to do otherwise will mean that this piece of legislation will operate on a trial and error basis and I do not believe that this legislation has the inherent certainty so needed in this field. I invite the Minister to take up the Opposition's amendment and to defer the legislation until the several concerns I and my colleagues have raised, not least the honourable member for Murray, are properly answered. Mr GEAR(Canning)(4.14) —I support the Interstate Road Transport Bill and oppose the amendment moved by the Opposition. In the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) the importance of the road transport industry was emphasised when he informed us that 75 per cent of all the freight carried in Australia is at some time carried by this industry and that, of the total freight in Australia, 30 per cent is carried by the industry. I think it is true to say that in the past the industry has been left with no national direction to find solutions to the many problems it faces. It seems to me that this is more of a philosophical arrangement because of the navel-gazing exercise that went on under the previous Government. The States righters, the proponents of small government and of getting governments off people's backs, would look at this industry and say that if a truck happened to be in Western Australia it was a Western Australian problem, when that truck went into South Australia it was a South Australian problem and that there was no relationship between the two. This Government takes a very much different view and recognises the importance of this industry as a national industry. We are prepared as a national government to tackle the problems, to work with the industry to come up with solutions to the many problems that have confronted it and held it back in the past. Members of the previous Government did nothing more than sit on their hands while demonstrations such as the Razorback blockade in 1979 were portrayed in front of them. This Government, on the other hand, has consulted. In fact the Minister for Transport, who is at the table, early in this Government's tenure commissioned the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry. We have consulted with the States and Territories, with the industry itself, with the unions involved and with the users. There is a clear distinction between the way in which this Government works and the way in which the previous Government did in that this Government consults and tries to tackle the problem on a broad front; that is, it is bringing together people who are involved in the industry to try to reach some consensus on ways in which we can overcome this problem. When the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) made his initial contribution before the luncheon suspension he said that governments could not put money into the truckies' pockets. That is true, and I do not think anybody on this side would say that that is the intention of the Government. We on this side certainly take the view that governments should stay out of it as much as they can and let the truckies get on with making a profit. One thing this Government can do and has done is to give economic growth to this country so that there is more economic activity and so that the truckies have more opportunity of making a profit. It stands to reason-in fact it is axiomatic-that the level of economic activity in the country is reflected in the profitability that people in this industry enjoy. When the previous Government was kicked out of office there was negative growth and the number of bankruptcies in this industry was skyrocketing. Profit levels in this industry, as in the whole of the economy, have now been restored. We have had 5 per cent growth in the last two years and in the present financial year it will once again reach 5 per cent. In fact we may well admit that it will exceed that. The National Road Freight Industry Inquiry identified a number of problems. Some of these are not new and have been around for a long time. Boom-busts in the industry at times when the industry is undergoing a very slow period can lead to the playing off of one small operator against another. We can draw an analogy with the industrial relations policy being espoused by dry members of the Opposition. They talk about playing one person off against the other and in that way hope to get the cheapest price. This has happened in the trucking industry. It does no good to the operators or the industry. All this impacts on the families of the drivers. Interstate truck drivers are away for long periods and having the economic base of their operations threatened in the way I have just outlined has a severe impact on the families. Of course, road safety is something which we as a national government think is a national responsibility, and the inquiry looked at that aspect. There is also a need to educate prospective new entrants. Certainly I do not think anybody who goes into this industry should go into it with his eyes closed or be induced into it by the smooth talking of people who might want to sell him some equipment. I am told that it is very easy to get into the industry but, once one is trapped in it, it is virtually impossible to get out. Another recommendation which arose out of the inquiry concerned speed limits; that is, the necessity to rationalise speed limits so that trucks are not forced to go at a slower rate than other road users. I remember that a couple of years ago a company in Western Australia advertised its overnight freight rates from Perth to Port Hedland and if one did one's mathematics one soon came to the conclusion that the only way the promise could be fulfilled was if the trucking company actually broke the speed limits. So one can see that that was one of the important findings of the inquiry. Another recommendation concerned consumer protection. I have spoken briefly about the role played by some over-zealous salesmen who would seek to get people enrolled in the industry by selling them this expensive equipment. I think that the rights of the people buying this expensive equipment should be looked at. This applies not only to this industry but also right across the Australian community. It is not only the truck drivers who are in need of consumer protection but also the Australian public at large. Also arising out of this inquiry will be a fair code of conduct. I do not think that anybody goes into any enterprise and asks for any advantage over his competitors, but I believe people would like to think that the codes of conduct which they employ are being employed by their competitors. If we are to have private enterprise, free enterprise, let us all do it on the same bases. The introduction of the Bills complements the Government's excellent record on the provision of highways in Australia. No government in the history of Australia has spent more on its roads than this Government. This year we will spend $1,245m on our national highways. As I said, that record has not been surpassed. I wish to take up one of the comments made by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) about the Hume and Princes highways and the interrelationship between the funding of those two highways. One thing which this Government will not do that the previous Government did is use road funding for the pork barrelling exercises that were rampant during the term of the previous Government. The honourable member for Gippsland might be comforted to know that the only reason, I would think, that the Princes Highway was left undone was because the previous member for Gippsland resigned his seat and the previous Government was defeated. As far as this Government is concerned priorities will be based on need rather than on pork barrelling. That is the reason why the highways which need the funds will receive them. The only Commonwealth cost to interstate freight transport is the fuel levy. That fact has not been recognised by the Opposition. The Commonwealth Government makes no change on that industry apart from the fuel levy. On looking at the cost to the Government of that industry, I was told that one interstate truck trip causes as much damage and wear and tear to our national highways as 10,000 cars. The Government has played its part in introducing this legislation today. It has conducted the inquiry over 12 months. As I have said, it has consulted everybody who is in any way associated with industry. One of the criticisms coming from the other side-in fact, it is the intent of the Opposition's amendment-is that the Government is being too hasty and that it should put off this legislation. All I can say to the Opposition is that the report has been out for 12 months. That is long enough to receive fair comment and to have the matter considered in depth; I do not think the Opposition's amendment helps. This problem has been around ever since the first truck went over a State border, and that was many years ago. The Government has played its part in ensuring that the interstate transport industry in this country is at last getting the recognition that it deserves. It is now up to the States to implement the complementary legislation necessary to allow the provisions of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry to be realised. I conclude by congratulating the Government on this initiative and congratulating the Minister on the excellent way in which he has handled the inquiry and the negotiations, as I said, with all the people who are associated with the industry. I support the legislation before the House today and oppose the amendment on behalf of the people of Canning. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(4.25) —I am deeply concerned as to the need for and the haste with which this legislation has been introduced. The honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) was at pains to tell us that the report of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry has been around about 12 months. That has nothing to do with the legislation. Everybody has seen the report. This is the first week in the history of Australia that anyone has seen the legislation. Legislation is the sharp end. It is from legislation that penalties and all the pressures that can be added to the life of a truck driver occur. I thought it was rather remarkable that the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) told us this morning that the legislation was all about helping truck drivers. There is nothing in it, that I can see, that will help truck drivers. Nevertheless, I accept that the multiplicity of State road transport law is a problem. I accept that the financial return to the small business truckie is severely depressed. I also accept the criticisms of the safety and general operating conditions of the road transport industry. These things are realities and facts. I do not accept that the involvement of the Federal Government is desirable or necessary. That is clearly evidenced by the fact that all of this is for nothing if State governments do not pass the appropriate complementary legislation. If they intend to pass complementary legislation-the good offices of this Government has managed to get them to that point-why the necessity for this legislation? Why could it not be that, one by one, they put together the necessary uniform legislation and police it as the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) told us it would be policed? He said: `We are not going to police the legislation. The Commonwealth Government is going to have the States as agents, et cetera'. So why is it necessary for us to rush this piece of legislation through the Parliament? Let me tell honourable members. There is good reason for that. This legislation has a very real purpose; that is, it reintroduces and gives constitutional validity to imposing road maintenance taxes on interstate trucking. That is what the legislation is for. It is most unfortunate that at this stage of the game the trucking industry has not woken up to it. A few comments have been made today in regard to the various abilities and qualifications of people addressing this subject. One might call the attention of the House to the fact that I am licensed to drive an articulated vehicle, including a road train, up to 100 feet long and I have done so. I have owned quite a number of such vehicles. I have had to be confronted with the economics of operating them. I was a founding director of a very successful medium sized trucking company which dealt solely with owner-drivers. I was able-I urged it from the beginning-to pay those men 70c in the freight dollar, which was something quite unique. I know a bit about the business and I know how truckers live and work. Far too much has been said today that any person without qualification or substantial financial backing can wander into a finance company and buy a new truck. I have not met such a person yet. Such people might exist-I have heard the talk about it-but I have been in the position of guaranteeing a number of drivers so that they could buy a truck. They were good men with some financial backing, but they could not get the finance on their own. I do not know where they get it from. Some sales people might try to talk them into buying a truck but it is the finance companies which take the final decision. I think that is worth knowing. The legislation does not address that problem any more than it addresses the problem raised by the honourable member for Dunkley of getting the bloke home on time to see his wife. There is nothing about that in the legislation. This legislation is about raising revenue. If the Minister wants to be critical in any way about what I have to say in respect of the trucking industry, I want him to know that my qualifications and my knowledge based on experience are better than a promotional ride for television between Sydney and Newcastle which he undertook on one occasion. I think it is foolish to say that the legislation will not lead to Commonwealth involvement. In fact, over time it will result in the creation of a large Federal bureaucracy. The Minister might give us a tip as to what coloured flashing lights vehicles driven by Commonwealth officers will have. I would like to speculate that in line with the current mode of the Government's thinking the lights might be coloured green and gold. It will be quite interesting to see what does happen. The reality is that the legislation makes plenty of provision for that sort of thing. My recollection is that clause 44 of the Bill is concerned with the definitions of various people who can pull up a truck and demand all sorts of things. The clause defines a Commonwealth officer as a person who: (a) is in the service or employment of the Commonwealth or an authority of the Commonwealth; or (b) holds or performs the duties of any office or position under a law of the Commonwealth; If such a person is going to be running around the countryside in a vehicle with green and gold lights, for how long can the community be guaranteed that only one person will be involved? The legislation makes provision for that, and consequently will get it. The trucking industry has to be warned. We are asked to give carte blanche to regulations. Clause 13 of the Bill is preceded by the heading `Regulations may make further provision with respect to registered motor vehicles'. The clause then lists all the things in respect of which the Commonwealth can make regulations. It is very strange that everybody throughout Australia, including the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), is against regulation at the moment. They are taking this view for a very good reason-they have had enough of regulation. However, the Government is seeking to impose even more regulations on all of the industries that are over-regulated. The Institute of Public Affairs told us recently that for every dollar the Federal Government spends on business regulation the private sector must spend at least $3 just to comply. The cost to the private sector of Federal and State business regulation in 1978-79 has been estimated at $3,720m. The private sector at that time was estimated to have had to provide 16,000 people to comply with Federal Government regulations and a further 38,000 people to comply with State Government regulations. Here we are being offered more regulation in the time honoured system of rush the legislation through the place and come out with the regulations later. We are well and truly aware that the sharp end of this legislation-the complementary State legislation-will not be ready for months and probably even a year. This Government has been embarrassed with its attempts to regulate the insurance brokers industry to which there is even some cross-reference in this legislation. What has happened in this area? Although the Government rushed token legislation through this place in respect of the insurance brokers industry, regulations in that area have still not been finalised. So what is the rush in this case? The way in which the Government is proceeding is dangerous and is not fair. I personally believe that new and, if one likes, ground breaking legislation of this nature should not be presented to the Parliament unless the regulations are attached. That is the way it should be. One does not get fined thousands of dollars by this legislation. A fine is imposed in accordance with the regulations. This Bill makes provision for regulations under which a driver can be disqualified and lose his livelihood. That is what is in this legislation for the trucking industry. Let us look at what the trucking industry has got already. We have been told that the Government wants to get more money from the industry. This Bill is all about getting more money off truck drivers who are at present contributing 30 per cent of their revenues in taxes of one form or another. I presented to the House on a previous occasion some examples of that. The sales tax that is amortised on a decent prime mover is about $7,300 per annum. On a trailer it is $1,176. Fuel tax can be estimated at $38,500 per annum. The figure is probably more in view of recent increases. Sales tax on tyres over a year amounts to $4,600. All of these taxes are really Federal Government revenue. The honourable member for Canning said that these things are not being done to truck operators. These people should not have to pay any more Commonwealth revenue to be used to build or service the roads that they use. They should not have to pay the $1,400 plus that this Bill sets out to extract from them because they are making a substantial contribution already. Even sales tax on tarps, dogs and chains cost them $175 a year. Stamp duty on insurance costs them about $400 a year. In some cases licence fees, which already cost them about $1,400 a year, is to be transferred over to the Federal area. Bank charges-this is bad tax-cost a further $237 a year. Of course, they have to pay sales tax on other things. On a turnover of just $158,000 operators have to pay all of those taxes. In fact, a truck owner-driver working an average of 12 hours a day, 330 days a year pays $12.33 an hour in tax and that amount does not include income tax. What does the Government have in mind for him in the tax area? I do not think there is any doubt that we are going to get a capital gains tax. No one will deny that. Anybody who knows anything about the trucking industry knows that when one trades in a leased vehicle one tries to buy it out. One usually has some equity in the truck which then becomes a capital gain when one trades it in on a new vehicle. The Government is going to tax that capital gain. There will be no inflationary component because everything takes place too quickly. That is just another little thing that will be introduced tomorrow afternoon. Is it not amazing that negative gearing will also come in tomorrow afternoon? Mr Lloyd —That should put the industry into reverse, shouldn't it? Mr TUCKEY —We are talking about trucks and gear boxes. I just wonder whether all the clocks in the house of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) go backwards on account of negative gearing. It is very probable that they do. I bet that all the investment clocks that he has are negatively geared. Honourable members can take it from me that those negatively geared clocks that all go backwards are not included in any of the tax proposals. It is only people like poor little truckies who will have to carry the burden of government. Truckies also have to carry the burden of devaluation of the currency. Nearly all of the line haul operators are using imported trucks which are the only ones available. The Australian Financial Review of 13 May indicated that a Kenworth truck worth $147,000 in March will be worth $200,000 in January 1986. In addition, truck operators are trapped by interest rates. What sort of interest rate will they have to pay on a new hire purchase or lease agreement if they have to turn their truck over because it does not meet the rules and requirements of the new legislation because it is getting a little bit old and shaky? The result will be diabolical. The real problem faced by the industry is the burden of government. Truck operators do not need to be helped by this legislation which State governments could introduce. I believe that the Minister had other means at his disposal to influence the States. He has just re-negotiated the road grants agreements. Do not tell me that he could not have used that as a bit of weight if he thought it was necessary to overcome the silly situation that exists. However, the Minister has a total commitment to a total bureaucracy in this area. He has demonstrated that already with the Department of Aviation. For example, he totally insulted Dick Smith who tried to tell him that he had some problems in respect of that industry. There was no need to do that to the man who came to tell him how better to run his bureaucracy. The Minister is totally linked to bureaucracy which he is going to make bigger. As I said, the Department of Aviation is an example of that. I do not know how anyone can justify the stupid statistic that one 38-tonne truck is worse than 10,000 cars in terms of road wear. I know a lot about trucking. A well-equipped truck on recently made roads is not going to do any sort of damage of that nature. People are kidding themselves if they think it will. It is like the lions and the blasted sharks statistic in Western Australia. It may be true that lions have killed more people in Western Australia than have sharks, but that is a meaningless statistic and so too is the one about trucks and motor cars. It is about time we stopped using such comparisons. Trucking is a very economical way of serving the Australian community and meeting its freight needs. The industry does not need all of this additional involvement. I think that truck operators have to be warned, and warned again, that this is a very insidious piece of legislation that will be used to collect more money from them. the people in the industry are being herded into a flock which will be at the mercy of the big trucking companies, the railways and, of course, the Transport Workers Union which has no time for small truckies, does not want them around and is constantly working to erode their chances of making a living. We see this happening almost daily in the fuel industry. It is a shame that this is happening. I would like to touch upon some of the other problems that this rather mild piece of legislation will create. Minister, in his second reading speech, talks about disqualification. Of course, we find that disqualification can occur if a person interferes with a measuring device, the device that a person will be required to put on his truck in order to tell the tax collector how many miles he has done. That provision is contained in the legislation. One ground for disqualification will be that a person has interfered with that device. I guess that one some occasions someone else may interfere with the device and a truck owner will have his livelihood taken away from him because he is found guilty of this terrible crime. That is why I say that this Bill is about revenue. It will provide more revenue for the Government. It imposes an additional burden on the trucking industry. The legislation contains nothing for member's of the trucking industry. They have been told by the honourable member for Dunkley that they will be able to get home to see their wives more often. Someone else has told them that they will get better rates of pay. Let us look at the fraudulent suggestion that the railways will lift their charges as a result of these measures. Of course, that will be believed when it is seen. We do not know what the State governments will do, but the second reading speech states that there will be improvements in railway cost recovery to match any improvements in cost recovery in road freight. What does that mean? I understand that to mean that, for ever extra dollar that is taken from the road industry, there will be some obligation-if it can be made to stick-on the part of the railways to raise their freight rates proportionately. That is all that that means. How does that advantage the trucking industry? The additional cost has already been imposed. There is no suggestion that I can find in the legislation or in the Minister's second reading speech that the railways will stop making subsidised losses of $50m, $100m or $150m a year and compete on a proper cost basis. That is what the truckies believe is being done for them today. That is not what the second reading speech states. It states that the railways will match the amount of money that goes into this fund. They will do some nice old fiddles in that regard; do not worry about that. Anyone who has tried to look at the books of a State railway will know-as I well know, in trying to represent farmers and to compare the prices charged for grain freights with those charged for mineral freights, and things like that-that the railways work the books to suit themselves. That is the biggest fraud of all. I think the truckies are hanging their hopes on a belief that the Government will stop State governments imposing predatory prices and will deal, of course, with the freight forwarders, the other great enemy of the small owner-driver truckie. Let us look at what has happened to the truckie in recent times. I will cite freight rate figures for the period 1975 to 1985 between Adelaide and Perth. In 1975 in actual dollars the figure was $64 a tonne, which in real dollars today would be $165.30 a tonne. The rate is $115 a tonne. That shows how much the truckies have been screwed to date. The Government in this legislation will impose additional costs on them. It will appoint another heap of inspectors but it will do nothing else. There is nothing in the legislation for them. It is a useless piece of legislation. If the Government wants to address the questions of safety and uniform requirements, I applaud that, but they are matters for State Governments, anyway. The Government's responsibility was to use its influence to straighten matters out. The figure for freight rates between Melbourne and Perth is now $147 a tonne. But using the 1975-85 comparison, in 1985 dollars it ought to be $170 a tonne. We find that inflation has gone up by 158 per cent in that decade. Freight rates have increased by 79.7 per cent. That is the message for truckies. Throughout that time the Government has increased their tax burden. It will now impose a capital gains tax. In time, if their interest payments exceed their revenue, which could happen in some circumstances, it will probably want to attack them for using negative gearing. Honourable members should remember what I said: The next time someone talks about negative gearing in this place he should talk about the clocks of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I think they all go backwards because they are negatively geared. I bet the Treasurer does not deny that fact. The Government is bringing unnecessary legislation before this Parliament. It is being brought in well ahead of time. We have not told people what the regulations will state. Even though the Minister will deny it, I will say it again: We are getting ready to create another bureaucracy. We will have another heap of cars spread out across the Nullabor Plain and along the Hume Highway, hiding behind things, using radars which have to be certified in law. People talk about human rights. The scales on which things are weighed in a shop are checked by an inspector. Honourable members should check what the law says about scales on which trucks are weighed. They are `deemed' to be accurate. Of course, there is not a man in the world who could say that a radar can tell which vehicle's speed is being measured. Yet the poor truckies travelling on busy highways are pulled off the road. Under this legislation they will have their livelihood taken away from them because it contains provisions to disqualify them, for instance, they can be disqualified and lose their livelihood if they are charged with mucking around with any device on their truck. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(4.46) —Despite utterances to the contrary by honourable members opposite, the Interstate Road Transport Bill 1985 and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill 1985 that are before the House at present represent a further example of the Hawke Government's commitment to consultation to achieve solutions in areas of difference and conflict. I refer the House to the complimentary comments of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) on the importance of the co-operation he received from the States, Territories, industry, unions and users in the industry. As was mentioned earlier today by my colleague the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), these Bills complement the Government's Australian land transport program legislation, which was a benchmark in Australian transport history. A cognate debate on the Interstate Road Transport Bill and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill is necessary because one provides for the interstate vehicle registration scheme and trust fund, while the other permits the necessary charges to be levied to recover the costs of road maintenance and upkeep. Distribution of trust funds to the States and the Territories for expenditure on relevant roads is also provided for in these Bills. The interstate vehicle registration scheme will remove the anomaly of vehicles solely engaged in interstate trade avoiding the payment of reasonable registration charges which recover the costs of road damage, as this legislation replaces existing State provisions for registering such vehicles. Previously, under State provisions, a rather nominal fee was charged to interstate vehicles. Obviously, vehicles which are engaged in intrastate trade, or a combination of intrastate and interstate trade, would still be subject to registration under existing State laws. As has been mentioned by my colleague the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), owners of interstate vehicles may choose one of two methods for paying the registration charge. They may pay either on the basis of actual distance travelled, as measured by approved distance monitoring equipment installed in the vehicle-which, I hasten to add, is tamper free-or on assessment of the number of kilometres which the vehicle could be expected to travel during the registration period. Both of these options provide for a uniform charge per tonne-kilometre to be set, the initial level of which is to be set in line with the recommendations of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry-that is, $1,400 for a 38 tonne unit. The interstate road transport operators licensing scheme proposed in these Bills will provide for operators' licences to be issued to businesses engaged in heavy long distance interstate vehicle operations. Under the Interstate Road Transport Bill, there is provision for a court to withdraw such operator licences when licensing authorities detect persistent breaches of road safety laws or Federal road safety standards. Clauses 10 and 11 of the primary Bill provide that, where a vehicle does not meet safety requirements or have appropriate insurance, it should not be driven on the roads and the appropriate authority can cancel or suspend registration. Clause 34 permits the Minister to establish Federal road safety standards which may be used as part of the criteria against which the conduct of those engaged in interstate transport can be judged in order to determine whether public safety is at risk. Like my colleague, the honourable member for Dunkley, I am particularly concerned about road safety. Accordingly, I am gratified that the Minister for Transport has seen fit to approach this legislation with road users and road safety in mind. In America the lifestyle and plight of the truckie has become the stuff of folklore, if not legend. Although the exploitation of drivers by owners and operators in that country may not be mirrored in the Australian road transport system, it is certainly the case that long haul drivers, such as those transporting goods to Western Australia, must cope with incredible pressures in terms of turnaround times and general conditions of work. I am not sure whether honourable members present are aware that even a tube of toothpaste is generally road transported to Western Australia. So we are pretty dependent on long haulage by road in this country. While relatively few truck drivers may actually resort to popping pep pills or other stimulants to keep them awake on long journeys, many continue to put their health at risk in other ways-by driving for too long at high speeds and by failing to eat proper meals or to take regular breathers while on the road. In doing so they obviously place at risk the safety of other road users. I can recall having driven across a white line after nearly falling asleep at the wheel while driving from Melbourne to Perth. I am sure that it is much more difficult when one is in charge of a heavy vehicle. Road transport in this country has been subject to deep-seated problems which particularly affect owner-drivers and their families. It is an extremely competitive and unstable industry in which bankruptcies abound. Through the use of appropriate monitoring devices the Federal scheme will contribute to greater professionalism and safer operating arrangements within the industry. Proper maintenance of vehicles is crucial to the safety of truck drivers and other road users. I am pleased that these Bills address questions such as that and also the ability of heavy road transport users to drive their trucks in a competent manner. I congratulate the Minister on his endeavours to achieve agreement on this legislation. It is, indeed, unfortunate that some members of the Opposition choose to claim that consultation has not taken place with State and Territory governments and people in the industry. These are important legislative provisions governing an area of our industry which covers at some stage 75 per cent of all freight being moved throughout Australia. Overall, the industry performs almost 30 per cent of the total domestic transport task. I am very concerned about the need for the provisions contained in these Bills and I commend the legislation to the House. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(4.53) —In addressing the Interstate Road Transport Bill and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill I intend to confine my remarks to very few. The House has been served with some very worthwhile contributions in the course of the debate and I see little point in retracing all the comments and circumstances that were advanced in that process. But I must say that the amendment emanating from the Opposition warrants the serious consideration of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). The Minister, to his credit, predisposed a climate in which peace and harmony would prevail. The degree and nature of consultation with the States and all interested parties is highly commendable. There was a strong suggestion by the relatively precipitate address to the Bills following their introduction last week which seemed to be totally inconsistent with the objective as originally indicated by the Minister; that is, that there would be full and thorough consultation. The consultation that has taken place thus far is fully consistent with that spirit advanced by the Minister, but we see now somewhat of a reversal in that process. There seems to be an indecent haste, virtually, to resolve the matter. On that score it would seem to be prudent to support the amendment of the Opposition to ensure that the best of all deliberations will be manifest in the Bills when they are enacted. It must be said also that the measures inherent in the Bills are definitely measures for the good. The problems facing this country, with its great distances and comparative sparsity of population, put us in a unique position. It is thoroughly reasonable that the users of the roads should make a contribution to the maintenance of those roads. Figures have been advanced which suggest that there is a damage ratio between passenger vehicles and heavy transports to the extent of 10,000:1. Over the years, under existing arrangments, interstate registration has been at a very nominal level, if it has been applied at all. On the basis of pure logic that could be regarded only as being totally inconsistent. That can easily be defended. But that also suggests that we are dedicated to a continuing expansion of interstate transport by road which will seriously tax our capacity to keep our highways open. It is a nice thought to believe that in time we can emulate the Americans where, because of the population and the distribution of that population, there is a financial ability to bring highways up to a level of having multi-lanes so that they do not seriously impede the flow of ordinary traffic. We cannot assume that within our resources we can go on accommodating the interstate veins to facilitate the easy flow of traffic. I notice that in the legislation there is a requirement for rail transport to be more cost-effective. At first blush that could seem to be eminently fair. If road transport is to be subjected to added imposts it is not unreasonable that the railways should not derive an advantage from that circumstance. Theoretically, the damage to road transport should be offset by the railways becoming more efficient. That brings me to the modal systems of transport. I think it is high time that we paid more purposeful address to the need to make the best of our resources and to accelerate the process of going towards intermodal transport. We ignore that at our peril because our highways will become more and more congested. Added costs for the road transport of goods will be reflected in time in the consumer price index and all other indices which affect the overall well-being of our nation. I put it to the Minister that the very spirit of this measure, which has been advanced from the beginning, would be enhanced rather than diminished if he were to allow time to dispel these notions that all is not as benign as it was when they were first advanced. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), in his inimitable fashion, raised a number of points. Without necessarily agreeing with him at short notice, having not had time to process those thoughts, unquestionably they gave food for thought. No doubt many others would want to ponder at some length at least the merits of his submission. But I think there certainly is merit in allowing time for the further address of these matters. In conclusion I digress a shade without, hopefully, losing relevance. I have mentioned the honourable member for O'Connor and the points he brought to this debate very late in the proceedings. Because of that I am encouraged again to believe that it is high time the House gave thought to the procedures of the House so that we can take benefit from submissions made in the course of the debate. It would be a happy circumstance if we could address immediately the points raised by the honourable member for O'Connor. Perhaps the Minister will touch on them. We have these set piece presentations to the House which do not necessarily relate to the continuing theme of debate. In making that comment I digress to some extent, but it is relevant to this legislation and to all other Bills that come before the House. As I said in the first place, it was not my intention to retrace all the points that have been put forward in the course of the debate. We support our shadow Minister, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). In typical fashion, he presented the case in fine style to the House. I thank the House for the opportunity to address these Bills very briefly. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(5.00) —Before I address the main body of the Interstate Road Transport Bill and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill I wish to congratulate the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). One does not often have the opportunity to speak to an issue of this kind with a Minister who has been so diligent and industrious in carrying out the duties and responsibilities of his portfolio. I do not think there is anybody on either side of the House who would in anyway disagree with me in that respect. I recall having worked with the Minister in the Parliament during the time of the previous Government. He was secretary and chairman of the transport committee of the Labor Caucus during the two Labor governments. On all occasions I have been thoroughly impressed by the great efforts he has put into ensuring that Australian transport industries are given the opportunity to upgrade their standards to ensure that they make a more worthwhile contribution to the Australian community itself. The honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar), again a gentleman for whom we all have the highest regard, referred to some comments made on this legislation in the chamber this afternoon by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). It might be a little misleading to suggest that the passage of this legislation is precipitate. The effort put in over the last couple of years by the Minister for Transport, first in establishing the National Road Freight Inquiry and then in the last 12 months discussing matters with the industry itself-with the operators, drivers, conveyors-and also with the States and Territories causes me to be somewhat mystified as to why that suggestion was made. If we continue to act without some regard to the need to ensure that the industry gets on its feet, we will probably repeat the mistakes which have been made year in year out without adequate action having been taken. We know that part of our problem has been the lack of uniformity in regulation and licensing throughout the States and Territories. The very fine report of the National Road Freight Inquiry has given us a great deal of direction. It is around this that the industry has been seeking action from the Minister and it is through this that the Minister has brought in this legislation. I imagine that there are issues that will be dealt with as a result of this legislation being put through the Parliament, but at least those issues will have some basis on which decisions can now be taken. The States, Territories and also the industry will now at least be able to prepare for the necessary action to be taken to ensure that the industry is put on a national footing rather than continuing to limp along on a State and territorial basis. Much has been said regarding those people in the industry who have not necessarily gained the advantages that should have been gained over the years from the transport industry. My colleagues on this side of the House, and I am sure some honourable members opposite, have repeatedly referred to the number of people in the industry who have gone bankrupt. When a person is borrowing the best part of $150,000 odd and mortgaging every asset he has, he places himself in an extraordinarily vulnerable position. The people who operate only as independent drivers, owner operators, and who have only one vehicle have no protection against some of the difficulties they encounter such as illness or damage to their vehicle or what might happen if they come across one of the less reputable members of the industry who will squeeze them until they go backwards. As we know, the industry has one of the highest bankruptcy rates of any Australian industry. This legislation will help to ensure that those who come into the industry will have the same kinds of conditions applying to them wherever they drive throughout Australia. It brings into uniformity the regulations, registration and licencing in all States and in the Commonwealth. I do not want to go into any more detail because I am sure that this matter has been adequately covered by every other speaker and, I might suggest, on legislation of this kind ad nauseam. I suggest that the House recognise that it is time that this legislation be enacted so that the States will be able to operate on the basis of a federal piece of legislation which they knew was to be introduced and which will also give all aspects of the industry the incentive to go ahead and put their house in order so that the industry can have adequate status for it to progress. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(5.08) —I appreciate the fact also that honourable members who have taken part in this debate have outlined many of the facts concerning the Interstate Road Transport Bill and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill as well as the problems and the advantages. I for one appreciate that there have been conferences between the Commonwealth and the States on the future of the trucking and the coach industry throughout Australia, and that there is general agreement within the industry that measures should be adopted that may assist in overcoming some of the problems and place the industry on a much sounder basis than is the case at present. One must appreciate that it has been only in the last ten to 15 years that road transport has developed throughout the continent. Prior to that because of convenience transport was chiefly by rail. It was necessary for the large and smaller transport operators to play their part as the demand arose. Although in principle I support the legislation because the industry itself has requested it, I too would like to sound some warnings. I am always concerned when the Commonwealth intrudes on what one could assume is the responsibility of the States. Throughout the debate on this Bill and in the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), it has been said that the matters we are principally concerned about are safety, the training of drivers and the standard of trucks. I believe that the intervention of the Commonwealth in this field is only another measure of Commonwealth control and a move to attract greater revenue from the trucking industry throughout the Commonwealth. I do not believe that the legislation is necessary. I do not believe that it is necessary for the Commonwealth to intrude at all onto these measures I mentioned earlier, which basically are the responsibility of the States. In the years to come I can see that down the line there will be greater control brought about by legislation and regulations. Today the Minister has been asked what will follow so far as the regulations are concerned. Problems will arise. We have only to think about our bus and coach industries in our local districts to see the restrictions that have been placed on them. Admittedly, they have been principally State restrictions. One sees the same thing in the taxi industry. Councils or States have control over entry into that field. I am worried that in the long term-maybe even the short term-such industries will be controlled by the Commonwealth, in consultation with the States. This will ultimately mean that the people who will be involved in the trucking industry throughout this country will be the bigger companies. I am concerned about where smaller truckies finish up. It is of no use our talking about tax. I know that the truckie using the roads should pay a certain tax towards their upkeep. Earlier in this debate the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) pointed out that today the truckie is paying tremendous taxes. He is paying tremendous taxes on his fuel, on the vehicle he buys, on the parts that he buys for the vehicle and on his insurance. Most of this revenue is going into government coffers, either Commonwealth or State. We need to realise this. I advise the House to be on guard against the innovations that could arise in years to come following the introduction of this measure. This legislation gives Big Brother, the Commonwealth, for the first time control over a tax on the truckies of this country who are travelling interstate. While it may be necessary for some conformity between the Commonwealth and the States perhaps for registration fees or certain conditions of transport-sure it is necessary to have these-do not tell me that the States have to come to the Commonwealth and say: `You have to bring in the legislation and impose a fee'. I would like to question where the $14m will be spent. I want to see it spent not only on national highways but also on the arterial, rural and local roads of this country. This is very important. We know that roads have to be upgraded. A fair amount of funding is now going into roads. I am wondering whether truckies will be overburdened by their financial responsibility to meet the challenge. Where have we gone wrong? Possibly the Minister and I would agree on this matter. I give him credit for many things which he does. We have to realise that where this country has gone wrong is in our rail and road transport system generally. A train is the only thing that travels on a railway line. What travels on a road? All types of vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles and all nature of things move on a road, but there is no conflict on a railway line. A train goes either one way or the other. We are not using our railway system throughout this country as much as we should for freight. I will tell honourable members what will happen if we have a balance between road costs and rail costs. The consumer right down the line will be the person who will cop the result of the legislation. If we are to get cost recovery from road transport and if we are to parallel that with cost recovery from railways, it is a natural thing that freight costs will have to rise. That is why I question this entire legislation. I see many inefficiencies in our State railway system, particularly the New South Wales system which is running at about a $400m a year loss. Will we recover sufficient costs from rail freight to meet that? All road freight in this country should be sent by rail and I have said why. Only a train travels on a railway line. Surely we can have a more efficient service than we have at present. I accept the fact that there are instances, particularly with country industry and decentralisation, where certain industries are established only because they are able to load their product at A and take it directly to B without having to handle it two, three and four times. Road transport is essential. It is essential in every country, even the British Isles which has motorways and efficient railway systems. However, they still require road transport. So the road and rail systems should be able to run much more in harmony and much more satisfactorily than what they are at present. Let me go back to what I said at the beginning of my remarks. We are facing a period when the road transport of this country is still developing. It will develop further. But for goodness sake, the Commonwealth should keep its dirty fingers out of it because we do not need it. Let the States handle this matter. This afternoon we have heard such nonsense from a lot of Government members who have spoken about the personal effect this legislation will have on drivers. We live in a competitive world. If I am prepared to borrow money to start an enterprise of my own I have to compete with the other fellow-big and small. Is it not fair that we do that? How much can we protect every enterprise in the community? Sure, we have a responsibility to protect the safety standard of a vehicle and the qualifications of the person who will drive it. I do not know whether it is a Commonwealth responsibility; I believe it is a State one. This legislation is accepted on both sides of the House because the industry has sought it and has consulted with the Minister about it. However, is the industry becoming a little too frantic too early? Should it not look at other measures that it should adopt, sit back and wait and see what the results of the legislation will be? The Minister brought in the legislation and the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), moved a very sensible amendment. Let us steady down a little and look at the legislation. Let us wait and see what the States will do. Let us see whether the States do agree with it. I am not so sure that all the States of Australia do agree with the legislation. I doubt that they do. My word is one of warning. We should be very careful because we are building something gigantic and over the years ahead its cost will be very considerable indeed so far as all types of transport are concerned. I do not want to see us take any measure which, down the line, will place the road and coach transport industries of this nation into the hands of a few big operators throughout Australia. We should look after the industry. The Minister's intention with this legislation might be very good. I may be a little older than the Minister. I may not have had any more experience than he has but I respect him. Let me say this: There are dangers for road transport in the legislation that is before the Parliament at present. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.19) —I wish to address only two aspects of the Interstate Road Transport Bill and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill: Firstly, the quality of the legislation and, secondly, the steady erosion of individual liberties which one of its clauses exemplifies. We have heard from the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) that this is a comprehensive package and he has extolled the virtues of his own work. Of course, he has denigrated the work of the previous Government-not his Government, but ours. Yet, if we look at just one clause-clause 34-of the Bill we will see immediately how well founded is the Opposition's case that this Bill should be redrafted. What does it deal with? It deals with Federal road safety standards. What does it say? Laconically, it says: For the purposes of this Part, the Minister may, by order in writing, declare standards, to be known as federal road safety standards with respect to road safety matters. Given the aims of this Bill, one would think that a matter of prime importance would be the standards that the truck drivers will be asked to meet. Yet we do not know what they are. Presumably the Minister does not know what they are. It would certainly seem that the industry does not know what they are. I wonder whether his Department has any idea what they should be. If it has any idea, it is not telling us. What will happen? At some later stage some regulations will be put in place. They will set up safety standards-standards which may be quite arbitrary and beyond anything which is reasonable-on which we will have no opportunity whatsoever to express a view. So much for the quality of the legislation. Let me turn to clause 45. It is described in the explanatory memorandum, which states: Sub-clause (1) empowers a Regulatory Authority to require a person to furnish information or produce documents relating to the performance of the Authority's functions or to contraventions of this Bill and its regulations:- regulations we have not seen- or relevant safety provisions. Failure to comply with such a request without reasonable excuse is an offence under the Bill. It continues: Sub-clause (3) provides that self-incrimination does not constitute an excuse for refusing to furnish information or produce documents. However self-incriminating information or documents are not admissable as evidence except in specified types of prosecutions such as those involving criminal conspiracy. Is it not kind of the legislation before the House to allow that amount of exculpation. Many years ago we developed the concept of the right to remain silent. It has been in the law for hundreds of years. I acknowledge immediately that it has been infringed by past governments. There are occasions and circumstances which require that answers should be compelled; for example, special investigations under the Companies Act, certain inquiries into criminal matters of the kind conducted by royal commissions and by the National Crime Authority committee. But the case for them has to be compelling. What do we find in this legislation? Anyone requested pursuant to this power is compelled to produce information. True it is that, except for certain special purposes, that information cannot be used directly against him in evidence in criminal proceedings. But anybody who has any understanding of how criminal inquiries work knows that once the facts are known it is not a hard job to prove an offence by different means. The important thing is to know what are the facts. This legislation provides a power of compulsion. What else does it say? I would like the Minister to provide an answer on this because perhaps there is an answer. Sub-clause (4) of clause 45 contains a provision to the effect that a person is not excused from giving information because it may incriminate. Earlier in the legislation we see that a person is bound unless, in effect, there is lawful excuse, to produce a document or information when required to do so by a regulatory authority and to do that in writing, and sign it. Will the Minister advise the House whether legal and professional communications are excluded under this clause? There certainly were similar provisions in other Acts-I have not checked whether they are still there; perhaps the Minister has checked. I speak particularly of the Companies Code-which provides that the provisions are not intended to overcome legal professional privilege. A provision may be found-if not in this legislation, elsewhere-which would protect legal professional privilege. I should be glad if the Minister would tell us where it is to be found. If it is not to be found, under no circumstances could this House allow legal professional privilege to be invaded in such a casual manner. It is sometimes said by this Government that it is the great defender of rights. Yet we know and the Australian people are learning that it divides rights into two categories. There are those who are entitled to rights, for example Mr Crean and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and those not entitled to rights, for example the workers at Mudginberri, who are quite deluded when they think that they have rights. Abattoir workers and owner-drivers fall into the category of persons who, according to this Government and the Australian Labour Party, do not have rights. Once more we witness a small instance, some may think, but a very clear instance of a further erosion of basic rights, the right being the right to remain silent. If someone is stopped by a policeman in New South Wales or the Australian Capital Territory for killing somebody, the law says that he has the right to remain silent. Courts cannot compel someone to give evidence against himself yet, by the means in this Bill, that right is abrogated in a fundamental way. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(5.27) —I would like to thank the 11 members who have participated in the very wide-ranging and in many ways reasonably positive debate. In other ways, it has been a rather vindictive and personalised misinterpretation of what the Interstate Road Transport Bill and Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill are all about. I thank particularly the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar), the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jacobson), the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis)-- Mr McGauran —What a coincidence. We are all in Opposition. Mr PETER MORRIS —I am listing other members. Mr McGauran —You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Mr PETER MORRIS —I think that my friend has a persecution complex. If the cap fits wear it. He is welcome. I was going on to mention the honourable member for Throsby, the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) and the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren). I will deal with the remarks made by each honourable member during my response. It is also appropriate on this occasion-I see this as landmark legislation which deals with an issue that no previous government or administration has been able to resolve-to recognise the contribution made by the road transport industry, by the members of the Bus and Coach Association, the Transport Workers Union of Australia, the Australian Road Transport Federation, and the Long Distance Road Transport Association of Australia-I note that its Executive Director, Mrs Kathy Robertson, is in the gallery-State governments, local government, the multitude of independent operators and employees of the industry, who all participated in the review chaired by Mr Tom May. The fact that we have brought the legislation to this stage is a recognition that if people genuinely try to recognise the problems that face us as a nation or an industry we can find a solution. That is what this legislation is a product of. I am disappointed in that it is clear from listening to some of the comments of honourable members opposite that a number of them just do not understand the legislation or the context in which it has been developed. Really what they are saying to the Government is that when they were in government they did nothing for 30 years, the problem was too hard, and that we ought to leave it a bit longer. That is not acceptable. The thrust of the amendment is that nothing has been done to date, nothing has been done for 30 years. I recall very very vividly the Razorback blockade, the parades of semi-trailers at the front of this building and the meetings with owner-operators and members of the Transport Workers Union. It does not matter whether people are employed on their own behalf or employed by others in the industry, they are a fundamental part of the transport system of this nation. It was a problem that nobody else was prepared to face. For that reason it is regrettable that the Opposition sees this package of two Bills not as a great step forward and evidence of what Australians can achieve together, but rather as some sort of monstrous device that is going to create a bureaucracy, something that is going to have some terrible all invading power on business again. That misses the real point, which is that it is going to put this industry on a much more stable, secure basis, and I have every confidence that in the years ahead it will become a more efficient industry. We cannot accept the amendment moved by the honourable member for Murray. The industry itself has been critical of government over recent months because this legislation has not been introduced and has not been through the Parliament. The legislation was originally planned to be introduced and passed in the autumn session. That was not possible because of pressures on the Parliamentary Counsel but it has been brought in at the first opportunity. Unless this legislation is dealt with this week, the likelihood is that it will not get through the later program this session and get from this House across to the Senate in time. There is no sinister reason why it is going through this week. If we did not have the timetable which industry expects of us, it may have been better and more preferable in other circumstances if there was more time for the Opposition to look at the legislation and to go through it. If I could have provided that, I would have been happy to do so. That is the spirit in which this whole issue has been dealt with. The recommendations of the May committee, on which this legislation is based, were supported by the Opposition. That is why I was disappointed this afternoon with some of the responses that have come forward, although admittedly not from honourable members who were present when the report came forward last year. In the preparation of the legislation the States were consulted fully. Industry has been consulted. The States had the draft legislation as long ago as a month. Maybe somebody is trying to score points. I understand that occurs in the parliamentary toing and froing, but the fact is that there has been extensive consultation with the States and with industry. This Government has been under pressure to pass this legislation. We are behind the timetable and it should have been passed earlier. The industry would be very unhappy if it were not to go through in this session. There is no other way of getting it through. I shall deal quickly with the points raised by honourable members. The honourable member for Murray asked that I not proclaim the legislation until all the States had fulfilled their obligations. The intention is that the legislation will not be proclaimed until there has been substantial progress by each of the States. That is understood by the industry and by the States. That was the undertaking at the Australian Transport Advisory Council at its last meeting. In our position we have to recognise in the spirit of this issue that each of the States has traditional ways of handling this industry and each of the States has its particular problems. As long as the thrust and the spirit is there, I believe we can reach the stage where industry, the States and the governments will be satisfied that substantial progress has been made to enable the proclamation of the legislation. The honourable member for Murray said that rail freight increases must occur first. I make the point to the House that when we look at the transport system in this country we are not looking at road or rail-and that is the great tragedy of the past and a tragedy of some of the present. It is a matter of road and rail. Each form of transport carrying out that task for which it is technically and socially efficient is the economic answer to the problem at hand in that particular form of transport. In that way we will get the best possible result in export performance and economic performance for this country. We undertook to give a reference to the Inter-State Commission concerning the rate of cost recovering in road and rail. It has that reference and that investigation is under way. We are establishing for the first time in this nation the actual rate of cost recovery in road and rail. There were guesstimates in the past and there have been advised estimates, but that is now the task of the Inter-State Commission. It is not a matter of regulation, as some would suggest. The honourable member for Murray also wants completion of progress before proclamation. I think I have covered that adequately in the remarks I have already made. The Opposition previously indicated its support for the recommendations and the Government is acting on them. A number of honourable members on the other side made reference to some sort of bloated Commonwealth bureaucracy. No matter what the legislation contained, they said that they knew this was going to happen, that there would be this army of public servants. I am sorry to disappoint them, but there will be one officer. I do not have any spare staff in my Department to devote to that purpose. What we are doing in effect with this legislation is providing legislation to fill a gap between State and Federal responsibilities in respect of road transport. Having provided the Federal legislation, we will then utilise the State administrative systems. The Commonwealth will legislate and the States will collect the charges and do the inspections utilising their existing administrative structures. They will collect the revenue, which will be paid back to the Commonwealth, as the second reading speech shows, and put in a trust fund which the Commonwealth will hold until it is dispensed in full to the States again. That gets around the problem that nobody has been able to solve in the past. To speculate that there is some kind of enormous bureaucracy is just fantasy. It is not on. In decades ahead, if the Opposition is elected to government maybe it would want to do that, but certainly that is not the intention of this Government. It will not happen under this Government. The honourable member for Murray also raised the question of payment by instalments. The Interstate Road Transport Bill provides for that under clause 9 and the frequency of instalments will be left to the States to determine, whether it be six-monthly or whatever they want to arrange, but that is being provided for. He also said that government authority vehicles should be subject to the same fees. That is a matter that I am discussing with my colleagues. He also raised the matter of police enforcement of the new speed limits. I think we all agree that the real test of speed limits is whether they are actually being observed by the community. We know what they are. In respect of trucks, that ground has been covered, but suffice to say if the limits are to be raised-having a common limit for all vehicles outside built-up areas-there has to be visible enforcement of the speed limits. That is a recommendation of the inquiry and that is certainly what we will be putting to the States. That is part of the package overall. Also raised was how much the operators licence fees will be. That is a matter that has not yet been resolved by the States. The honourable Member for Murray asked for notice about new regulations to be given to industry. That is not always practical but I will repeat again that in the spirit of this legislation and in the approach to this problem that will be discussed with industry. There will be consultation on the regulations. This legislation is only going to work on that basis, and I underline that point. It has got this far because there has been good will and good faith on the part of all parties concerned and the Government will continue on that basis. The honourable member for Murray also asked whether there would be a combined fee for a prime mover and trailer. The answer is yes, but the cost for the prime mover and trailer will be combined into one figure. In the case of independent operators, who in some cases own only a prime mover and the freight forwarder provides the trailer, there will be a split fee. Those fees will be determined on the basis of axle loadings. In discussions with industry we have found that that is the fairest way to deal with that problem and I provide that information for the honourable member. I am currently examining the proposed membership of the Australian Transport Advisory Committee, ATAC, and I hope in the next few weeks to be able to announce the composition of that Committee. This matter has gone forward on the basis of frankness and good faith between all parties and I am quite confident that will continue. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) complained about the speed of this legislation and I have responded to that. He referred to Minister Roper's letter from Victoria. I assume that he has a copy of that letter. My response to Minister Roper was a response to all State Ministers, so it was not some coup for the honourable member for Bass to have that information, it was not some secret piece of information. My response, as I said, was provided to all State Ministers and referred to a letter that the Victorian Minister had earlier written to me on the matter. He did not have any advance start on anybody else. The contribution of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) I think is the classic of them all. Here we have a landmark piece of road transport legislation dealing with a problem that this federation has not been able to resolve in the past, and the honourable member for the Northern Territory has seen it as appropriate to confine most of his comments to the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. I am sure that the truckies of the Territory have No. 1 interest in the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. The honourable member referred to the `parlous state' of the north-south highway route. As I have said to him before in this chamber-I will say it again in his absence-when, as chief Minister, he was negotiating with our Government about the Alice Springs-Darwin railway and it was put to him that the alternative was the upgrading of the national highway between Alice Springs and Darwin, his response, on a number of occasions, was that the road was adequate in its then existing condition. I am talking about May-June 1983, more than two years ago. For him to address this chamber from the Opposition benches this afternoon and have the temerity to refer to the `parlous state' of the highway system between Alice Springs and Darwin personifies cheek and impudence, and it does explain a flexibility in expressions from the honourable member. He said that the shipping services to the Territory were cancelled. I have to say that the business enterprises of this Government are operating on the basis of providing those services that earn their keep. He said at the time that private industry would rush in to provide these other shipping services. Two years later they have not yet materialised. We are not in the business of running services which are not used and which are a call upon taxpayers when they cannot pay their way. I say to the honourable member for the Northern Territory that those days are over. That fairy godmother flew away about 2 1/2 years ago. There is strict control of Government expenditure. It is responsible government expenditure; it does not take the form of handouts for individual members as the former Chief Minister wanted. In his confused argument he went on about there being a case for the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. All I have to say to him is that the Hill Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory, an inquiry of competence and validity, showed quite clearly that to proceed with the construction of that line would be a serious misallocation of resources. But since then another report has been put forward, to which the honourable member has referred, by some Canadian group. I say to him and to all those who espouse the view put forward in that report that the Alice Springs-Darwin railway is an intra-Territory route. It does not involve Federal government; it is simply a matter for Territory decision. Mr Beale —In the 1983 campaign the Prime Minister promised to build it. Mr PETER MORRIS —We have no time for spendthrifts like my friend opposite. Those days are over. But if the railway is such a good proposition, as the honourable member has put, the Territory Government will rush in to build it. I am sure that, given the competence, the resources and the expertise in business of those who sit opposite now-they say that they know how to run a business-they will be rushing to put their money into it. It will be such a good thing! They will want to be in to float it. Why do honourable members opposite need government assistance? They should get their hands out of the taxpayer's pocket. Those days are over; they are gone. But honourable members opposite will be rushing to put their own resources into the project. I suggest to the honourable member that he take that proposition back to his colleagues. But there is one beautiful twist to the story. Back on 14 July 1983 a special Press conference was held in Darwin, attended by the now leader of the Opposition in South Australia and the present honourable member for the Northern Territory, and with the approval of the Premier of Queensland. At that Press conference a wonderful scheme was announced to build that railway, financed by the Queensland Government, from Mount Isa to Darwin via Alice Springs and down to Adelaide. The Queensland Government was going to fund it. It was all go. I noticed a couple of weeks ago in a report in the Daily Telegraph that the Premier of Queensland was scathing in some criticism he made of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, who has now suggested that the private sector could build that railway. The Premier of Queensland feels that he has been betrayed. He wanted to be in on that deal; he wanted to build that railway. So why bring a request for assistance here? The Premier of Queensland announced on 14 July 1983, that he wanted to build the railway. The former Chief Minister has said that this is a wonderful goer and that business would want to be in it, and the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) says that it is a great proposition and that it ought to be built, that he can find the money, that they have the money and the expertise. They should get their hands out of the taxpayer's pocket. The railway is not a problem for this Government; it is a problem for the Territory and, if need be, the private sector. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) referred to the neglect of the trucking industry. That is a neglect of the past, of the previous Government. As I said, this Government has moved on that issue and I thank the industry and the organisations and governments concerned for their co-operation. The honourable member complained about road expenditure. We are also correcting that failing of the present Opposition. Suffice to say that in some seven years it slashed road funding in this country by some half a billion dollars. The highway to which the honourable member referred is part of a total allocation for Victoria. It is being considered along with other proposed expenditure items. At the time the response to which he referred was made, we had not received any proposals from the Minister of Transport in Victoria. Those proposals were received subsequently and will be considered in line with other requests. The honourable member for Gippsland raised the matter of rate regulation rejected by the May National Road Freight Industry Inquiry. The mere fact that we accepted the May inquiry's recommendations that we reject rate regulation is sufficient evidence of our support of them. We have rejected that proposal. We have not entertained the idea of regulating either rates or capacity. Rather, we are concentrating on strengthening the industry and making it safer. Then we had the contribution of the honourable member for O'Connor-this self-proclaimed expert on the road industry (Mr Tuckey)-that was the most disappointing contribution of all. He displayed his usual negative attitude. If ever there was evidence of somebody who was out of touch with industry it was that contribution. The honourable member is completely out of touch. It may have been his particular approach to industry, but it was out of touch with the mainstream thinking of the industry. He went on to say that a new charge would be placed on operators. Sure, it is a new charge, but it is a charge that the industry and the State governments want. We have agreed to legislate for it. We get no benefit out of it. There is no net reward to this Government; we are just providing the legislative means for it. But it will put all operators in the industry on a fairer basis. That is what it is all about. The honourable member in his other argument referred to all the taxes that the industry has to pay. All I can say to him about that is that those taxes are common to all industries. If anybody is to blame for the price of fuel in this country it is those who sit opposite, who introduced the import parity pricing policy, who trebled the price of petrol and quadrupled the Federal fuel rated revenue take in their seven years of office. Again they come along and bleat to us. It is their problem and we are trying to make the best of it that we can. With this legislation the industry will be in a much better position. The real objective is to get the economy growing. There was 5 per cent growth in 1983-84, almost 5 per cent last year, and there has been a 4 1/2 per cent growth in the current year. That is what business wants. It does not want excuses; it wants strong economy that is growing, lifting demand and lifting cargoes. That is the answer to the problem, not handouts. For heaven's sake, honourable members opposite should get their hands out of the taxpayer's pocket. There is an end to the spendthrifts opposite. We are getting back to building the economy. I think I have covered all the questions that have been asked by members of the Opposition. I thank the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) for his reasoned contribution. I stress to him that it is not a matter of road or rail but of road and rail each performing a particular task. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) spoke of the intrusion of the Commonwealth tax and big brother. I say to him that he has misinterpreted and misunderstood what the legislation is about. Here are sufficient controls in the legislation. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has argued for uniformity, yet he does not want the provisions which would ensure that uniformity. Mr Spender —No, that is not what I said. What I said was that we should have the safety standard provisions in front of us. Mr PETER MORRIS —Well, I do not want to take more of the time of the House going through them. I will give the honourable member a note, to save the time of the House, on road safety standards. (Extension of time granted) I thank the House. The standards will be discussed with industry. They could be modelled along the lines of the dangerous goods case. As I said, none of this will work without proper consultation with the industry. In respect of clause 45, he addressed the issue of information being difficult to obtain yet easy to destroy. It does not affect the honest operator and is clearly aimed at those who might otherwise cheat on the system or on their mates in the industry. I am advised that the High Court held that there is implied privilege for legal professional advice in a similar provision in the Income Tax Assessment Act. I thank the House for the contributions. I commend the Bill to the House and reject the amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Lloyd's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H.Brown, John Langmore, J. V.Brown, Robert Lee, M.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Martin, S. P.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cleeland, P. R. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. G. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott. J. L. (Teller)Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Humphreys, B. C. Rocher, A. C.Dawkins, J. S. Aldred, K. J.Jacobi, R. Edwards, Harry Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(6.02) —I thank the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) for answering many of the questions that I and other members put during the second reading debate, but there are still many questions that have not been answered. I sincerely want to obtain more information on this subject, as I think others do too-some in the industry and some in the other States. The first question I pose concerns the three separate definitions for a monitoring device. The first is a monitoring device; the second is a charge monitoring device, and the third is a standard monitoring device. In each of the definitions the device has the ability to be any of the others. When one tries to find out what is actually different about a charge monitoring device, all one can find in clause 36 is that it is a device in which the word `charge' is used. I would like to know what the difference is between a charge monitoring device and any other form of monitoring device. What function does it fulfil? What purpose is it for? What type of charge does it actually cover, quantify or allocate? My next question concerns clause 8 of the Interstate Road Transport Bill. A number of people have asked questions in this respect. The clause states: Motor vehicles and trailers to be registered A person shall not- drive on a road; cause or permit to be driven on a road; or cause or permit to be left standing on a road; a motor vehicle or trailer- It continues. Many people consider that these practices are already unlawful under State legislation. If enforcement is quite capable of being carried out under State legislation, why is there any need to have it enshrined in Federal legislation? My third question concerns May's recommendation-the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry recommendation-that once a Federal registration fee is established State fees should be reduced to that same level so that a uniform fee is applicable throughout Australia. What will happen when this Federal registration fee is established-either the fee that we have now, that follows on from May, or whatever fee may follow on from the Inter-State Commission? The Minister also has not answered whether the States are charging, or being allowed to charge additional fees when a Federal registration option is being taken up, and the figure of $20 has been suggested. We have not been told how the money that is paid into the Interstate Road Transport Trust Fund will actually be distributed. I know that the Minister has the power to do this. I know that the States are interested-I certainly am-to learn how he intends to distribute the money; what formula will apply; which roads will be eligible and so forth. My next question concerns operator licences. Why are annual operator licences being required when my understanding is that the recommendation was for three-year licences? It seems to me that there is no difference between an operator's licence under Federal law and a State driver's licence which is for either three or five years. Clause 34 deals with road safety standards and the wide powers which are given to the Minister. Will the Minister be endeavouring at any stage to force safety standards on the States or will he be there purely in the collective role of whatever the States agree to for safety standards that will be implemented as necessary, or for the Federal registration arrangements? In other words, will there at any stage be any potential conflict as a result of the Commonwealth's forcing its way into safety standards which could conflict with those applied by the States? I would be interested to know what the Minister's intentions are with respect to monitoring devices because there is provision in the legislation for monitoring devices to be made mandatory. I have asked the question: What will happen if not all of the States are in favour of making monitoring devices mandatory? I understand that at least one State is not prepared to go to that extent. I ask where this leaves the Minister and that part of the legislation, clause 37, which states: the regulations may require a registered motor vehicle to be fitted with a standard monitoring device. Will that be the Commonwealth forcing itself on the States or will it be only in response to something completely uniformly requested by the States? Clause 32 relates to annual notice by the holder of a federal operator's licence. Sub-clause 32 (d) (ii) provides that the operator, in applying for the licence, may have to provide . . . such other information, if any, with respect to any long distance interstate road transport business that is being or may be carried on by the person, as is required by the form to be given. I share the concern of some people in the industry that confidential or commercial information for that business could be required for a licence which it is no business of any licensing authority to require. That is the initial list, at least, of questions that I have to put to the Minister. Once again, I thank the Minister for his concluding remarks in which he gave answers to my earlier list of questions, and for that I would put him as above average for Ministers in respect of answers that they actually provide. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(6.08) —One area which I wish to raise with the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) concerns the cost recovery processes envisaged by the Minister in regard to rail transport. It seems to me that this is a most difficult and complex area regarding the national pride being expressed by State governments that their railway is the best in Australia and that their management is superb and beyond question. The processes which the Minister has enunciated seek to collect a new and additional charge from the road freight industry but also to insist on a matching rail cost recovery process. What undertakings has he received from the State governments? Are those undertakings in written form? Are they precise in their commitment, are they in general terms, or is the undertaking by way of a minute of the Australian Transport Advisory Council which is expressed in fairly general and non-committal terms? I and the Committee need to have information as to whether the Government intends to proceed along this line or whether the State governments will eventually block it. The words which the Minister used at the end of the second reading debate were that we must have the best technical and social efficiency. He waved his hands and said that it is not a matter of rail or road but a matter of rail and road. Who is going to make these assessments? Who is going to make the decisions on the best technical and social efficiencies? How are the shortfalls for rail operations going to be expressed? Is the Minister going to seek a part recovery of the shortfall or the deficits of rail freight industries in Australia? Is he going to seek a partial recovery? Is he going to seek a matching recovery in dollar terms or a total recovery? What is the Minister's intention? How is he going to do it? What agreement has been entered into? I wish to offer the opinion to the Minister that if he intends to pursue this matter properly and accurately the result will be a rise in rail freight charges. State governments will adopt a different policy towards their rail and rail freight industries. There will be a moving away from the exclusive rights which they claim for some routes and for some commodities. I want to know what the precision of the agreement is. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(6.12) —I want to refer the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) to clause 27, which relates to disqualified persons. Sub-clause (2) states: Where- (a) a person (in this sub-section referred to as the `convicted person') is convicted before a court of an offence against regulations made for the purposes of section 37 or 39 or against section 40, 41, 44, 45 or 47 in relation to an act or omission; and (b) the court is satisfied that the purpose of, or one of the purposes of, the act of omission was to prevent or frustrate the collection of evidence relevant to proceedings that have been or could be instituted under sub-section (1) against the convicted person or another person, . . . . Sub-clause (1) (a) states: the person has, after the commencement of this section, on one or more occasions, contravened, attempted to contravene, or been involved in a contravention of, one or more relevant safety provisions; and The sections that are mentioned-that is sections 37, 39 and 40 through to 47-relate mostly to monitoring devices. Clause 37 states: The regulations may require a registered motor vehicle to be fitted with a standard monitoring device. Clause 39 is concerned with regulations which relate to the owner of a registered motor vehicle fitted with a standard monitoring device or a registered motor vehicle or trailer fitted with a charge measuring device. The Minister might explain how the charge measuring device in particular could provide any form of evidence relative to road safety. After all, I know what a tachometre does. I am well aware of the inability to maintain these devices under certain conditions. At what stage does the Minister see someone losing his livelihood? Will this regulation be taken to the point where a person could lose his livelihood because he has interfered with a charging mechanism? In fact, is the Government's concern going to be more with the charge than with the safety aspect? I can find a definition for `owner'. However, unless it is included in some other definition, I cannot find a definition listed in alphabetical order for `operator'. I think I understand what an operator is. An operator must be different from an owner. A person can be the operator of a firm, although the legislation does not tell us that. According to the Bill a `long distance interstate fleet operator' means a person who carries on a business that involves the carriage by the person of goods or passengers by heavy motor vehicles between prescribed places. What happens if one of the employees of the operator is guilty of certain acts and is disqualified because he is the licensed operator? Does that mean that the owner of the vehicles would also be left without a livelihood? I think some of these question have to be anwered. However, I have a funny feeling that clause 27 could almost create a situation in which somebody could have his livelihood taken off him on the grounds that he had in fact interfered or was believed to have interfered with equipment that is subject to normal damage during normal operations of. The evidence of an inspector-and inspectors frequently do not seem to have a lot of background experience in trucking-to a court could result in someone losing his livelihood. It could be argued that a person had interfered with a charge monitoring device and that that in some way was removing evidence that might have assisted in a prosecution in regard to safety matters. That is drawing a pretty long bow. No doubt the Minister has all the answers to this because he is not even listening to what I am saying. However, I do not see any reason to include in the legislation a reference to charge monitoring devices when we are talking about interference with equipment. Perhaps the Minister has some sinister motive in regard to disqualifying people for what might be a form of tax dodging. Let us face it, not even the Commissioner of Taxation does that. I say that it is draconian and unnecessary to impose that sort of penalty for interfering with something that is to do with charging. Again, I bring the Minister back to the comments that I made at the second reading stage, when I said that this legislation was all about raising revenue. It is about precious little else at this time. The Minister might direct his attention to clause 27. He might tell the Committee why it is necessary to include it and all of the other clauses in the Bill that deal with disqualification. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(6.17) —Clause 10 (1) states: A person shall not, without reasonable excuse- (a) drive on a road; (b) cause or permit to be driven on a road; or (c) cause or permit to be left standing on a road, . . . . . . . if the motor vehicle . . . is in an unsafe or dangerous condition. Who will determine what is an unsafe or dangerous condition? Will it be something that the Commonwealth will independently determine or will it be something that will result from consensus with the States? Presumably this will be done by regulation. Will the industry have access to those regulations before they are actually gazetted? My other question concerns the disqualification of operator licences. What happens where an operator is disqualified from holding a Federal licence? Is there a provision that prevents him from obtaining a State licence? If a company has its operator's licence disqualified because of a lack of standards and the people who are notified as the operators are fired from that company because they have not done their job properly, can the company immediately through new operators obtain a new operator's licence so that it can keep going in business? Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(6.18) —I contrast this afternoon's proceedings, willing and keen as I am to assist the Committee where I can, with my experience during the time I was in opposition, when during debate after debate there was no response from the Minister at the table, let alone a reply to a series of questions. I am not going to delay the Committee by engaging in a long exercise and answering every one of the some 40 questions that have been asked. I will answer those questions in writing or include the answers in Hansard at a later stage. I can give a number of the answers now. However, I do not think it is fair to the chamber to go through such a process. We had an extended second reading debate at the conclusion of which I answered all of the questions that had been raised to that stage. Another series of questions have been asked during the Committee stage. Those questions could have been answered quite readily if they had been asked during the second reading debate. I will be quite happy to provide answers to honourable members at the conclusion of the debate. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(6.19) —Half of the questions that I asked the Minister during the Committee stage were asked during my speech in the second reading debate. I believe that I, and those in the industry for whom I am speaking, have every right to have answers to those questions. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(6.20) —Let us look at the matter. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) asked: What are monitoring devices? There are three types of monitoring device. There is the standard type, which registers only the distance travelled; the charge type, which could provide other information along with the distance travelled; and the reference to new technology concerns the fact that there is new computer-type technology. Mr May specifically recommended that the installation of tachograph be examined, but was aware that there were other new forms of device being developed as a spin-off from microchip technology. It may well be that in the future there will be available far better means to measure the performance of vehicles than those that are presently available. That leaves us an option to pick that up. At the same time the legislation provides an option for the licensee of the vehicle to elect whether he wants to pay an annual charge or a usage type charge. He has that choice. In regard to clause 10 (1) (c), as to who will decide whether the vehicle is unsafe, at this stage I expect that that will be done by the States because they are registered under State laws, and State regulations will apply. In response to the question from the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), I answered that road safety standards will be developed in consultation with the States at a later stage. There will be an opportunity for industry to be involved. Certainly, they can still be disallowed by the Parliament. They are subject to parliamentary disallowance. So there is every safeguard. Firstly, there will be consultation and, secondly, there is provision for parliamentary disallowance. How the money will be distributed has yet to be determined. We have not yet received the first dollar. But honourable members may be aware, if they think back to the legislation in relation to the Australian land transport program, that I gave a commitment at that time that we would set up an independent inquiry into the State relativities in regard to the distribution of road funds. I am not far away from appointing people to carry out that independent review. Later down the track, when the money comes in, we will be looking at what happens to the road funds and the disbursement of them. But that is a long way ahead. In relation to the question about where the money will be spent, it will include all categories of roads-national, urban and rural arterial roads and local roads. I repeat: We are providing the mechanism. There are no dollars in this for the Federal Government; it is simply a means of the States collecting the revenue. There is nothing in it for us other than that it will contribute to a more efficient and a fairer industry. The questions raised by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) included questions as to the cost recovery for rail and what undertakings had been received from State governments. He wants this precise information. I wish I could have asked those kinds of questions-and received answers-of Ministers in the previous Government. But I will give the honourable member an answer. I mentioned in my reply to the second reading debate that the Inter-State Commission has already been given a reference by me to carry out an investigation into the relationship between road and rail cost recovery. Those consultations have already been held with the States. Already, a number of State rail organisations have appeared before the Inter-State Commission. In this case the Commission has the capacity to obtain the information. But the State rail systems are co-operating. The honourable member quoted some words that I have used previously about rail and road each performing the task for which it is best suited technically, economically and socially. The answer as to who decides which method performs which task is very simple. I would have thought the honourable member would have known the answer. The answer is that the market decides. It is not a regulatory function. The honourable member has a conspiracy theory in his mind. It is simply how business works. If each form of transport is carrying those charges and costs that are properly attributable to it, its cost structure will in turn contribute to its price structure. The market, on the basis of the pricing mechanism, will determine which one is used. It is not a matter of a government interfering by saying `You are going to use road' or `You are going to use rail'. I thought the honourable member would have understood that point. That is the answer to the question. The honourable member went on to say that if pursued-- Opposition members interjecting-- Mr PETER MORRIS —For heaven's sake, honourable members opposite might not like the answers, but if they ask questions they should have the grace to listen to the answer. Mr Cadman —Well, give us an answer. Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member might not like it, but that is the answer. The honourable member stated that this could mean that rail charges might increase. He should talk to my friend the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan). He has a deep concern about price increases for rail freight. He should talk to some of the Western Australian and South Australian members who are making representations about rail freight charges for grain being increased. Business is business. If the Opposition wants the industry properly to reflect economic efficiency, it must expect whatever consequences flow from that process. But we are not in the business of directing industry as to what it should do in regard to its pricing mechanism. I will not delay the Committee by answering the other matters at the moment. I think I have been more than generous on the Government's behalf. I will be very happy to provide the information in regard to the questions that I have not answered to the appropriate honourable members at the first opportunity. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 11 September, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(6.27) —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: Construction of a submarine escape training facility, HMAS Stirling, Garden Island, Western Australia This proposal was referred to the Public Works Committee on 20 March 1985 and is for the construction of a simulated submarine environment with design aspects representative of those in present and future submarines. The training facility will comprise: a submarine escape training tank incorporating a submarine escape training module; a shallow training module; support services for the training tank and modules; an eight level reinforced concrete building to house the tank, associated teaching areas and support services; site works, building and engineering services. The limit of cost of the works is $10.3m at February 1985 prices. With adjustment for cost escalation, due entirely to increases in building industry prices, the current estimate is $11.3m at August 1985 prices. The Committee has reported favourably on the proposal and has recommended construction of the works. The primary requirement of the proposal is to construct a facility in which submariners may be trained in methods of underwater escape from a stricken submarine by, firstly, classroom instruction and, secondly, instruction and drill in simulated conditions. A secondary requirement is that the facility will support training in special diving techniques. A joint Department of Defence-Department of Housing and Construction fact finding mission inspected a number of similar facilities in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and Norway. The appraisal of these overseas facilities has enabled the two departments to incorporate the combined experience of those facilities into this proposal. Subject to the approval of this House, it is intended to commence calling tenders in October 1985 and to award the first contract in early December 1985. Actual construction would commence in January 1986. An expenditure of $1m is anticipated this financial year and the completion target date is August 1987. It is expected that these works will generate average employment on site of 40 positions, peaking to 80 with off-site employment of approximately 100 engaged in prefabrication, the escape tank and the modules. I thank the Public Works Committee for its effort in examining this proposal and for the support it has given. I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(6.31) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making the information available to me. The Opposition does not object to this work being approved. However, we would like to say this to the Minister: Because of these facilities being at a distance from a major centre of population, and with the usual dirth of employment opportunities in this kind of area, it seems to us to be a prime target for maximisation of use of private enterprise rather than departmental employees. In that respect we note the Minister's statement on employment numbers. In this case the Department of Housing and Construction should really act in the role of managing agent. As such it should make sure that most of the work is given to private enterprise, that the use of local tradesmen and subcontractors is optimised, that employment opportunities in the area are widely publicised, that the most competitive quotes are obtained from tradespeople in the area and that the role of the Department is minimised. We wish the Department well with the project. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(6.33) —I wish to speak very briefly to the motion which, as Deputy Chairman of the Joint Committee on Public Works, I am more than happy to support. I must confess that when we approached this inquiry we were very conscious of its relative remoteness. We were very conscious of the environmental issues about which many people in that part of the world could quite excusably have had some apprehension. We as a Committee are enormously pleased to find that the submarine escape training facility, which honourable members will appreciate is a tower building, will be strategically placed so that it will be non-intrusive on the environment. One found in that inquiry that in peacetime the greatest hazard to which the Royal Australian Navy is exposed rests in quite an achievement. There was a time not long ago when a marsupial peculiar to Garden Island was faced with extinction. Subsequent to the comparatively exclusive use by the Navy of the island the marsupial has increased in numbers to the extent that after sundown motor vehicles move around the base only with some considerable risk because at any time one can see a number of these marsupials which are thoroughly at home. If my memory serves me correctly they are the tamars which are peculiar to Garden Island. I feel quite free to say on behalf of my colleagues that the Committee was impressed enormously. In brief, HMAS Stirling is a very tidy ship. We are pleased to see the motion proposed by the Minister for the approval of the work. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(6.35) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of new ward block and out-patients department, Repatriation General Hospital, Heidelberg, for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The proposal comprises construction of a new four-storey ward block to provide 144 beds, together with a new single storey out-patients department. Some elements of the now disused nurses home No. 1 will be incorporated in the out-patients facility. The new ward block will be a long-awaited improvement for veterans receiving treatment at Heidelberg, and it will replace, with modern facilities, six obsolete pavilion wards that were built during the 1940s. Services to out-patients will also be greatly improved under this proposal. Current facilities are dispersed throughout the site causing considerable inefficiencies in the hospital's operations and much confusion and inconvenience to its patients. The estimated cost of these proposals at January 1985 prices is $6.67m for the ward block and $3.17m for the out-patients department. I table plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(6.36) —Again I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making the papers available to me. The Opposition does not object to the proposed work being referred to the Joint Committee on Public Works, but we would like to draw attention to the report of the Auditor-General of September 1985 in relation to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Under the heading `Audit objective' the report states: The general objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of management systems and procedures employed by the Department . . . In the `Summary of Audit Findings and Recommendations' the report states: The audit revealed scope for improvement in the Department's procedures . . . Under the heading `Audit findings' the report states: adequate control and management review of completed aquisition and installation projects were largely non-existent and instances of poor liaison or co-ordination with the Department of Housing and Construction . . . were noted in respect of the installation of major equipment facilities One of the recommendations of the report is: DVA should explore with DHC ways in which co-ordination problems on equipment installations could be overcome. We believe that it really takes two to tango in relation to this matter. Pages 71 and 80 of the Auditor-General's report on the Department of Housing and Construction reveal certain inadequacies of that Department. It appears to us that both departments need to improve their performance. My colleague the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) will shortly be commenting in more detail on the Repatriation General Hospital at Heidelberg. Also we believe that the Public Works Committee in its deliberations should give attention to encouraging private enterprise to be more involved in this project. We wish the Committee well in its deliberations. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(6.39) —I support the comments of my colleague in relation to this reference to the Joint Committee on Public Works of the construction of a new ward block and out-patients department at the Re- patriation General Hospital, Heidelberg, for the Department of Veterans' Affairs, which I am shadowing. I make an appeal that the Committee, in carrying out those investigations, should take into account another aspect with regard to and arising from the Auditor-General's report. In fact, I submit to the House that it would be very wrong for the Committee to come back to this Parliament in some four or six months time without having addressed specifically a project detailed on cost overrun. On page 160 of the Auditor-General's report we saw the cost of a laundry building reconstruction project move from an amount of $24,500 in 1982 to $436,000 this year without there being even the raising of a hammer or the turning of the first sod. It is a chapter of errors and a lack of liaison between the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Housing and Construction. They relate to a laundry building reconstruction project at Heidelberg. This reference must be carefully investigated by the Public Works Committee because in dealing with this motion we are looking at expenditure of $6.7m for the ward block and $3.17m for the out-patients department at Heidelberg. If, in proceeding with the macro-project at Heidelberg, this Parliament suffers the ignominy of having to address once again the laundry building reconstruction project, which has blown out so extravagantly over the last three years, it will be a most regrettable affair indeed. What we in the coalition are about is the extraction of maximum value for every dollar expended by the Department of Housing and Construction and by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We seek a maximising of efficiency so that the right kinds of facilities shall be made available for veterans and in respect of the middle stages of the repatriation hospital system as it moves into its newer role under the Brand Committee of Review of the Repatriation Hospital System which is at present the subject of government investigation. In conclusion, may I highlight the blow-out associated with this laundry building reconstruction project because the Public Works Committee must address the matter if it is to do its job properly in investigating this reference. Initially, this was listed as a mere $24,500 project, but in March 1983 the cost of the work was estimated to have increased to $80,000. This again was subsequently increased in September-November 1983 to $185,000. Nice little increments without any work being commenced! In May 1984 the Department of Veterans' Affairs requested changes to the scope of the works, including air-conditioning to the laundry area and certain specialised floors throughout. In July 1984 the estimated cost was then upgraded to $281,000-still without the work actually commencing. Then, in the event, the lowest tender received in December 1984 for the construction work was $436,000. Audit was informed that no decision to go ahead with the program has yet been made. Even if funds were approved shortly, the earliest date works could commence would be October 1985, and the program could not be completed in respect of both works and equipment before March 1986-more than six years from the time that the need to re-equip the laundry at Heidelberg was first identified. What we have seen is a mere $24,500 project become a $436,000 project without one blow being struck in respect of providing those benefits at this repatriation general hospital. Mr West —How do you know it is the same hospital? Mr TIM FISCHER —This Parliament is about to approve a reference to the Public Works Committee of many millions of dollars of work associated with Heidelberg, and the work is to be carried out at the same repatriation general hospital at Heidelberg, in Melbourne. It is essential that in dealing with that reference the Committee should address itself to the peripheral but vitally important aspects, so that the House can have an honest and direct answer in the report on the sort of waste that is detailed in the Auditor-General's report. Even if the report does not address in detail the project to which I have referred, the House will have a guarantee that there will not be similar percentage sized blow-outs in respect of the major projects involved in the reference-one of which has increased by more than eighteen times-relating to the expenditure of $6.67m and $3.17m. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(6.45) —I will not delay the House for very long in dealing with the Census and Statistics Amendment Bill, which involves a relatively minor amendment to the Census and Statistics Act 1905. The major amendment seeks to extend the ambit of the census statistics to enable external Territories to be included in the 1986 census and future censuses of population and housing conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The earlier censuses were conducted under local ordinances. This means that the inhabitants of the Terri- tories will be treated in exactly the same way as other Australians but, because of cost benefit considerations, the Territories to be included in the census will be prescribed by regulation. It is estimated that the additional cost of extending the census to the Territories will be $58,000. The Opposition supports the Bill. There is another amendment relating to section 14 of the Act which covers the provisions allowing a person to avoid stating religious denomination or sect. There is a technical change to the wording of that section which does not remove the right of the person to omit such declarations. The Opposition supports that. We note also that the amendments in this Bill do not extend Part III of the Census and Statistics Act to external territories and the Part III provisions of the Act relate to statistical gatherings outside the census. These might not be relevant to the particular Territories, which have their own requirements, and they will be dealt with in the ordinary manner. I will now conclude my remarks to allow my colleagues to speak to this Bill. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(6.48) —The Census and Statistics Amendment Bill will do two things. First, it will bring the external Territories clearly within the ambit of the Act so that the populations of the external Territories will be included in the Census and Statistics Act. Secondly, the amendments will clarify section 14 of the Act so that the original intention is no longer in question-that is, that a person is not liable to any penalty for not answering a question relating to what religious denomination or sect he may belong to. The first amendment inserts a new section 2 into the Act so that the Government's policy of equal treatment of all citizens is carried out. Instead of each census in the external Territories being carried out through local ordinances, the inhabitants of the external Territories will be treated in the same way as other Australians. It is extremely important that the Government of the day has at its fingertips an up-to-date data bank of basic information about the Australian population if it is to bring about relevant and appropriate legislation and changes for the betterment of the Australian way of life. Ignorance and guesswork about our citizens lead to poor government; enlightenment and information, coupled with an appropriate comprehension of what is best for Australia, lead to good government. But, platitudes aside, what does our census, taken every five years, tell us about our population and what analysis should government apply to the information gathered? Every time prior to a census being taken there is a public debate on what questions should or should not be included in the census. Most of the heated debate is around privacy and the right to inquire into personal affairs, particularly the pecuniary standing and wealth of individuals and households. I strongly suspect that the concern for privacy is not always genuine, but often a cloak, a screen, to hide the shame of being poor and the guilt of being wealthy when there is so much poverty around. The concern for privacy is too often a sham. The census and the statistician, and indeed the government, are not concerned with details of an individual-only in aggregate information which will build a comprehensive picture of the Australian population which, in turn, will provide a basis for macro-economic and social policies. Section 13 (3) of the Act protects that privacy and will continue to do so. It quite clearly prohibits the release of information which could lead to identification of any individual. I believe it is important to gain information on the spread of incomes in the population and the distribution of wealth in Australia. Would a census establish in 1986 the trend of the statistical sampling carried out by the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty which showed that in 1973 8.2 per cent of the Australian population-that is, 780,000 people lived below the poverty line? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I do not desire to intrude into the honourable member's speech, but I would remind him that this Bill is a pretty narrow one. Mr LAMB —In 1984 the census showed that 18 per cent or 2.8 million people, including some 800,000 children, lived below the poverty line. Both Labor and Liberal governments enjoyed office in that time-the Liberal Government for 7 1/2 years of those 11 years. Undoubtedly the growth in unemployment and inflation contributed greatly to the growth in poverty. Would a census confirm some 1968 studies which showed that the top 10 per cent of income earners earned 10 times the income of the bottom 10 per cent of income earners? How has our wealth been distributed since 1982, when the wealthiest 2,500 Australians earned, or had assets which totalled as much as those earned or possessed by the poorest 2 1/2 million people? I strongly suspect that the massive redistribution of wealth and disparity of income that have occurred over the last 20 years are continuing unabated. The debate on tax reform and the Goverment's measures over the next few days should keep in mind the increasing imbalance and maldistribution of income and wealth in this country. Honourable members may be surprised to learn that the only census in this country to measure the distribution of wealth and income was held in 1915-70 years ago. That census was unique in that it covered all individuals in the population but not those in the external territories over 18 years. Thus, it had the broadest coverage of all studies of income and wealth distribution in Australia. It also provided comprehensive, detailed information on the forms that assets took but not of the income from each of those assets. Without going into details, the most significant findings were that the distribution of wealth and income were highly unequal and that inequalities of income and wealth were closely related. The prime purpose of the 1915 war census into wealth and income was to establish the private wealth of the community so as to measure what resources were available for the World War I war effort. The distribution of income and wealth was a secondary consideration. If we really do mean to make war against poverty we will need to know our total wealth and how that wealth is distributed. Any war against poverty will require the best weapons to investigate and monitor its extent and incidence-absolute poverty and relative poverty, the latter, of course, requiring information on the distribution of wealth and income. Private individual information must become public aggregate information through the Census and Statistics Act. It will mean that if questions on income and wealth are included on the census form, it must be obligatory that they be answered; otherwise the necessary information may not be forthcoming. The census should not be seen as the sole source of information on wealth and income. Other weapons in the armory against poverty include comprehensive inquiries as has been suggested by my colleague the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), and sample data techniques. Each method has its deficiencies but together, over time, they would paint an accurate and complete dynamic picture of the distribution of wealth and income of the Australian population. The census has the advantage that the whole population would be covered and could be used as a base check against sampling. The census has the disadvantage that it may not be able to provide the details and checks on valuations that can be determined through surveys. In both inquiries there is always the danger of respondents unwittingly, or deliberately, misstating asset values and incomes or misinterpreting questions. However, for all that, I believe that census data and inquiries can complement each other with some of the broader details such as the incidence of shareholding being asked in the census and more detailed questions, such as the value of such shareholding, being obtained from an inquiry. The Commonwealth Statistician at the time, Mr Knibbs, in the conclusion to his report on the war census published in 1918, stated: . . . in view of the fact that the wealth and income census gives important results in respect of the community which are not obtainable by any other method of estimation, it appears desirable that such a census should be taken every ten years in conjunction with the ordinary population census- That is under the Act, we are dealing with, which was in place before the war census was conducted. Mr Knibb's final conclusion was that the most satisfactory wealth estimates will be obtained by a means of a combination of the wealth census and inventory methods. In conclusion, my message tonight is to recommend to the Government that questions on wealth and income be part of the general five-year census and that it be first held next year so that the war against poverty can be stepped up. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(6.56) —I will respond briefly to the comments of the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb), who referred to people having created controversy prior to a census on the grounds of some ill-conceived notion of false concern for privacy. I remind the honourable member that some years ago even the Law Reform Commission told the Australian Statistician to smarten up his act. I have spoken frequently on the Australian Bureau of Statistics. What aroused me originally was seeing several stacks of census forms around the edge of a lounge room where a private party of 30 to 40 people was being held in the late 1960s or the early 1970s. The person involved was a superviser. In that situation there was as much concern about privacy as there would be in a prison. I also remember when the Bureau eventually agreed to provide envelopes. This followed little notes being left by census collectors stating: `Leave it in the letterbox or under the doormat'. People were expected to tick their income levels and there was considerable outrage and disappointment about what went on. Thus, the Bureau introduced the envelopes. To get one of those envelopes was like trying to pull a tooth out of an old chook. The envelopes were hardly available. I remember the big controversy in the mid-1970s when the Statistician had two or three of his top men visit me in my Canberra office. They told me that the envelopes would be available. When the census started they were locked away in some Brisbane warehouse and people could not get them. That is an historical account for the honourable member for Streeton, and every bit of it is true. So he should not think that the concern about privacy by people such as me has been misplaced. I am not going to spend my time talking about the past because I want to raise a matter for the Government, honourable members on this side of the House and perhaps the Statistician's office to consider. During the recent recess-as a result of my interest in the Bureau being reawakened, so to speak, by its ramming some old man through the courts in Brisbane because he had failed to comply with the legislation-I started to look in a positive way at the structure of the Statistician's office and at how much it was costing Australia. I conducted my own overseas research. I had an interesting conversation with the United States statistician, the statistician of Great Britain and also the statistician of Canada. It suddenly unfolded that the Australian Statistician's office staff of 3,500 people has a ratio of one statistician for every 4,400 Australians. In the United States of America there is one statistician for every 18,500 of the population and in the United Kingdom there is one for about every 15,500 people. This information was available from the statisticians of those countries. I concede that it is a very difficult area in which to make absolute comparisons because one is comparing like with partly like in some instances. Many countries have different arrangements. I am endeavouring to make the point that when there is a disparity of having one statistician for every 4,400 people in Australia, compared with one for 18,500 in the United States, or one for 15,500 in the United Kingdom, we are entitled to examine this matter further. I went further and discovered that the Australian Statistician recoups less than half a per cent of the Bureau's annual expenditure as a result of the sale of his information, whereas in the United States of America 30 per cent in recouped. I know that many honourable members on the other side will squirm about privatisation and portray it as a dirty word. But I hope that they see beyond that. There is a message that one can question the quality and the timing of the material that we are producing in Australia. Perhaps the Americans, who are more market-orientated, are producing information that people will buy. In Australia the Bureau can often hardly give it away. Most of the publications cost somewhere between $1 and $5 at the most. There are about 500 of its publications-I am relying on memory-and about 375 attract a price that is a mere pittance. In the few minutes available I will make some positive suggestions about what the Government should be looking at to restructure the ABS. In doing so, bearing in mind that if in the United States there is one statistician for every 18,500 people and one for 15,500 in the United Kingdom, it would not be fair to say that the ABS, servicing a country with a smaller population, should have its staff at a similar level. But let us have, for example, one statistician for every 10,000 people. That is reasonable. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) nods his head in agreement with the suggestion that if the other countries have such levels, one in 10,000 is not an unfair level for us. I repeat the suggestion that we should improve the quality of information and put it on a user-pays basis for both governments and private users. I refer again to the fact that we get less than half of one per cent of revenues from sales of information whereas the United States gains about 30 per cent. Secondly, the Bureau should charge those organisations and departments which ask for surveys to be conducted on their behalf rather than doing it free of charge, as at present. Many government departments ask for surveys to be conducted although not all requests are satisfied at the moment. If a charge were made the more frivolous or unnecessary requests would cease to see the light of day. For example, of the 99 requests for surveys made to the ABS in 1984-85, 11 were made by the Office of the Status of Women. Almost 12 per cent of requests were made by this new little organisation that has been recently established. Were this office and others forced to pay for these surveys from a limited budget, they might examine the desirability or the necessity of collecting the information in the first place. As well, if cost recovery pricing were adopted, it would provide a mechanism for private enterprise to pay for and receive the results of specialised surveys, conducted at their behest, using the Bureau's expertise and legislative powers. This purchasing facility is not available at present to private enterprise. Thirdly, some or all of the Bureau's computer operations should be contracted to private enterprise. About 625 members of its staff are locked into this aspect. Fourthly, if the computer operations are found to be too integrally involved with other ABS functions, entire areas of statistical collection, processing and dissemination would be contracted out to private enterprise. Although the ABS believes that private enterprise organisations-such as the Morgan (Roy) Research Centre Pty Ltd-are not sufficiently professional to collect, process and disseminate statistical information of national importance, not only does the private sector disagree, as expected, but also it can point to highly complicated surveys which have been successfully completed for such organisations as the Bureau of Labour Market Research. The observation has been made by some in the business sector that most of the Bureau's statistics are useless to them because they are so out of date by the time they become available. This is another strong argument for selling entire areas of statistics collection to private enterprise, which would be obliged to provide timely information for its users, otherwise it would find itself without customers. Fifthly, the Bureau should encourage and charge commercially for the outplacement of professional Bureau staff who advise others on survey methodology. Sixthly, it should establish an external oversight body which has the power to examine: All existing forms and surveys to ensure that they are relevant, easy to fill out, and not too burdensome; all proposed surveys and forms for the same criteria; and the Bureau's entire budget each year using zero-base budgeting, rather than the requests for yearly increases. This oversight task would be comparable to that of the Office of Management and Budget in the United States which performs these tasks for the Bureau of the Census. The seventh point is that an independent inquiry should be established into the ABS in particular, and government statistical collection, processing and dissemination in general. The inquiry should comprise public service and private enterprise users and providers of statistical information, with importance being placed on the input from small business. The head of the inquiry should be drawn from the private sector and its terms of reference should be to increase efficiency and to promote cost-cutting and revenue-increasing measures. The eighth point is that the census should be ten-yearly or decennial-this would be a bomb to the minds of honourable members such as the honourable member for Streeton-with interim sample surveys to compensate for the loss of information. From information available on manning and budgetary levels in overseas statistical agencies, there is evidence of a correlation between high expenditure and frequency of census, over and above the actual costs of the census. As I said before, in the United States, which has a ten-yearly census, there is one statistician for every 18,000 people, and Great Britain has one for every 15,500. But I repeat that Australia has one for every 4,411 people. There are possibly more statisticians than there are members of the Royal Australian Air Force. Other countries such as Germany, South Africa, Great Britain, Norway and the United States have a ten-yearly census. Japan has three every twenty years, as does France. Our five-yearly census has been born more out of historical precedent than from a defined need. The powers that we gave to the Statistician earlier this year by altering the Census and Statistics Act to give him access to the Australian Taxation Office would allow him to supplement the information. If the honourable member for Streeton really wants a proper picture of wealth, this facility would provide it and give a greater update of the system than he suggested. His suggestion was simply for an enlargement of the existing system. I would then establish, encourage, strongly market and charge for on a full cost-recovery basis, an electronic statistical dissemination system for major users. If it were really updated, groups wanting information, such as newspapers, could plug in and the cost for that information could be related to the cost of collection. Now, the Bureau makes itself Mr Nice Guy to everybody. It boasts that if school kids want to take part in debates, both sides of the debate will be supplied with information. If people ring in, although it might take a little time, information is supplied. But if people were made to pay I am sure that a lot of this wasted time and wasted public money would stop because people would ask only for what they truly needed. Even the newspaper industry could use it this way. The Bureau seeks to be just `Mr Nice Guy' who is liked by helping often very mediocre people look good by supplying them with information. I notice that the newly upgraded shadow Minister, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), is shaking his head in agreement. I also suggest that the compliance rates on surveys could be reduced to accommodate the conscientious objectors. If the Bureau does not obtain a 100 per cent kill, it railroads people through the courts. It wants everybody to answer its requests for information, yet Canada and other places settle on a 95 per cent or 96 per cent response. I believe that if a person feels strongly about not providing information that the Bureau could leave him or her be. I have seen the Bureau pursue people like fox terriers pursue rats. It is like the Mountie always getting his man-the Statisticians office must get compliance 100 per cent of the time. That is a ridiculous and unnecessary goal. As a by-product of this situation, I suggest that a lot of the information that the Statistician collects in this country is inaccurate because when people feel resentment about the system they simply fill in anything or everything just for the sake of it. In my research during the recess I spoke to a lot of businessmen who privately confessed that when it came to providing information they just settled with close to what they thought because they find Bureau requirements virtually a pain in the neck. Some carelessly comply just to keep themselves out of trouble and the courts. I suggest that the Bureau could smarten up its act in terms of accuracy if the Government, in conjunction with the Bureau, was prepared to acknowledge the hours that people are often required to spend on Bureau returns. If Myers, David Jones or a brewery are asked information on a monthly basis, those companies have a capacity to offset the time spent on filling in forms against income. Those companies employ people on wages to do that and it all works out in the profit and loss. Therefore, the Statistician or the Australian taxpayer is contributing towards the cost of that information gathering. There is no recognition of the efforts of the little businessman. I believe that if the Bureau wants a form filled in, and if that takes say four hours, it should allow that small businessman to deduct $80 off his income, or if he has to fill in a form three times a year, he deducts $240 off his income, so that there is some financial compensation. At the moment people are forced to comply by pointing a virtual gun at the head. I am quite sure that this frequently leads to inaccurate information. When it comes to efficiency in government departments, I suggest that it is high time that the Government started looking at the cost of office administration space in the main cities. Honourable members in this Parliament are moving out into the suburbs from the capital city Commonwealth parliament offices. I think that initiative is saving the Government a lot of money, and this is something further that government departments could be looking at. Rather than having an office in a main city area housing hundreds of people at great expense, office accommodation in the suburbs should be considered. The current expenditure of the Bureau is some $120m per annum and it's time we understood a completely new approach. I am sure with this we could halve the number of staff from 3500 to 1750, be more efficient and save the people of Australia $60m. We should hand some of the Bureau's work out to the private sector where people would have to respond with quality information and avoid producing it years later when people have no earthly interest in it. I could have easily spoken for another hour on this subject, but I sadly notice it is time to finish. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(7.14) —The previous speaker, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), expressed scepticism about the quality of the work of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. That is very surprising because it has the reputation of being one of the best statistical organisations in the world. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Kerin-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr LANGMORE —The proposals that the honourable member for Moreton made, if they were introduced, would have the effect of reducing the quality of statistical work done by the ABS and therefore are generally quite irresponsible. The Census and Statistics Amendment Bill, although a brief and unexceptional Bill, provides an opportunity for two brief comments, one on the 1986 census and the other on the issue of whether or not to retain census forms. In 1976 there was some controversy about aspects of the census. There was less controversy in 1981 and I hope that there will be less next year because an accurate regular census is a necessary requirement for good government. Effective policy making and administration requires accurate, comprehensive information about the number and characteristics of the popualtion. There are innumerable uses of census data by all levels of government, non-government bodies, community groups, research institutions and businesses. Everyone of us benefits from the use of data collected in a census because government, business and community groups can all plan and target their activities more cost effectively. It is the responsibility, therefore, of every person to co-operate with the collection of complete census data. No one is an island. Every person is part of a community to which they have responsibilities and from which they can expect recognition of rights and support. Completion of the census form is a small way of contributing towards the provision of information needed by all major community organisations. A few people, including the honourable member who spoke previously, have been concerned that the census may be unjustifiably intrusive as it involves asking questions about family, education, employment, income, ethnicicity and so on. However, these questions are essential if useful information is to be obtained. Intrusiveness is minimised as far as possible and one of the amendments we are discussing today makes it quite clear that respondents do not have to state their religion if they do not want to. Also, there are rigorous confidentiality requirements which ensure that privacy is preserved by census collectors and compilers. That leads to the second issue I want to briefly mention-whether or not completed census forms should be destroyed. In Australia at present census forms are pulped once the information has been collated so as to reassure those who are seriously concerned about privacy. No names or addresses are permanently recorded once the statistical information has been extracted. Australia is unusual in doing this. In Canada, the United States of America and Britain all census forms are preserved. In New Zealand, every second census is retained indefinitely. Census forms in Australia have been destroyed immediately the data has been collated only since 1971. Before that they were retained for a period to allow new cross-tabulations once the initial analysis had been completed. Some colonial censuses were preserved and these are now an important research source for historians and genealologists in particular. Census material can be of use for epidemiological research as well. There are many people in Australia who support retention of the forms for these reasons. One other reason is simply that it is wasteful to destroy the results of so much hard work when the benefits of retention are considerable and the risk negligible. In the United States and Britain access to census forms for historical, genealogical, sociological and other research is allowed only after 72 years and 100 years respectively. Similar constraints could be imposed on the use of Australian forms if they were retained. I hope that the general acceptance of the 1986 census throughout the community will reassure the planners and encourage re-consideration of the retention of the 1991 census forms. In the meantime, I conclude by expressing warm appreciation of the professionalism and careful planning which is going into preparing the 1986 census and I wish the Acting Statistician and his excellent staff well for the effective completion of this massive task. Mr HODGMAN(Tasmania)(7.20) —The purpose of the Census and Statistics Amendment Bill is to extend the ambit of the Census and Statistics Act. The Bill is part of a continuing campaign by the Hawke socialist Government to find out more and more of the private information of the citizens of Australia. When the Wahlvorbereitung or, as it is otherwise known, the Parteitagung, of the Habichtsozialistherrshcaft met over the last few days, one of the decisions it took was to inflict upon the people of Australia, an additional means of acquiring information about the citizens of Australia, the Schutzstaffel identification card. This is precisely a further step along the line to the establishment of an Orwellian Australia. Mrs Kelly —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This has nothing to do with the Bill. The honourable member should stick to the Bill. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member has not been here. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the honourable member for Denison. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Speaker. If the honourable member spent a bit more time- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member should not try the tolerance of the Chair too much. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is the collection of information relating to ordinary Australians to which this Bill relates and to which I wish to speak. It will shortly be followed by the infliction on this Parliament of the Hawke Schutzstaffel identification card proposal for compulsory identification cards for all Australians, with code numbers relating to every private thing concerning their lives, individual properties, with whom they trade, when they talk to government and when they speak with anybody. The proposed Hawke Schutzstaffel identification card is wrong in principle. It will be non-cost effective. It will prove to be a golden bonanza for organised crime. It is totally alien to the Australian way of life. Those responsible for smashing organised crime in this country have bluntly told the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that it will not work. Worse still, the Australian mafia will make millions out of a brand new industry-the production of counterfeit cards issued in the names of people long since dead, many of whose bodies will never be found. Mr Hollis —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This has nothing to do with the Bill under discussion. It is about ID cards. We are talking about the statistics Bill, which has nothing to do with ID cards. Mr SPEAKER —There is a great deal of substance to the honourable member's point of order. I ask the honourable member for Denison to relate his remarks in some way to the Bill. Mr HODGMAN —Yes, I will, Mr Speaker. The information on the cards will be going on to the computer of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. If honourable members opposite had studied the legislation, they would realise that. A monster computer, the largest ever in this country, is being prepared to compile and collate the private information relating to citizens of this country. I have nearly finished, Mr Speaker, so it will save time for everybody if we do not have any more frivolous points of order. The Hawke Schutzstaffel identification card is to be carried wherever a person goes, and whenever he goes anywhere. The proposal is being camouflaged with a bluff that we will not have to carry the card. That is not so; we will. I have actually been informed-since I left our shadow ministry, information has flowed to me very much more easily-that the penalty for failing to carry the Hawke Schutzstaffel identification card for a first offender will be a fine of $10,000 or twelve months imprisonment and, for a second offence a fine of $25,000 or five years imprisonment. The honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) might like to ask how the members of the Canberra nudist club are going to get on. I will stop at this stage, Mr Speaker, but I warn the people of Australia that we are about to go down a track from which there will be no turning back. I will speak further on this matter. I support the Bill. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(7.24) —For the information of the demented honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), I inform the House that the Census and Statistics Amendment Bill is about enabling the external territories to be included in the 1986 and future censuses. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) has supported it, as has the Opposition. I do not know what all these schutzstaffels are but it is pretty obvious that the honourable member for Denison, as usual, schut himself in the foot. Mr Hodgman —I have never used the SS on the people of Australia. Mr KERIN —The honourable member should wake up to himself. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) proved again that he is ineducable. In case he touched on something that he has not touched on drearily before, I will refer his remarks to the relevant Minister to see whether we can educate him a little better. Mr Carlton —It was a serious contribution and you ought to take it that way. Mr KERIN —If there was anything serious in it, that he was going over very familiar old ground. On the one hand, he was arguing that the Bureau of Statistics is out to get everyone, the next minute he was arguing that the statistics are not good enough because the Bureau does not have enough people. I could not quite follow his line of argument. The honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) and the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) made their usual excellent contributions. This is a very minor Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Kerin) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(7.26) —The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics labour force statistics for August 1985 show a slight rise in unemployment to 8.3 per cent of the work force. I would be relieved if I thought this reflected reality. The problem with national statistics is that they do not give a true picture of unemployment rates in some key areas of the economy. The policies of the Labor Government have shown a certain benevolence to the city based vote. Rural Australia has been disadvantaged, not only through a general shift in revenue-on one estimate about $648m has been re-allocated away from rural Australia since the Labor Government came to office-but mainly because of insensitive and non-consultative decision-making by the Government. The issue of employment is particularly serious in the two main regional centres in the electorate of Forrest-Albany and Bunbury. We can forget about the 8.3 per cent; it would be more like 18 per cent in Albany, according to the local Chamber of Commerce and others, and in Bunbury the unemployment rate is currently about 16 per cent. The residents of Albany wonder why the only endangered species that the Labor Government is not concerned about is the town's industries. Last year the Government introduced quotas to reduce Australia's tuna catch. The limits set made the fishing ventures unprofitable. This was a nail in the coffin for Albany's fishing fleet of 100 ships and a canning factory employing on a seasonal basis about 350 workers. The final nail was driven home this year when the Government introduced lower negotiable quotes, and most fishermen have been forced to sell. As a result, the fishing fleet from Albany has lost its viable infrastructure. Those few tuna fisherman still in the industry are paying $62 per tonne levy on their catch as a management fee to the Federal Government-and for what? Even if Hunts Foods Pty Ltd Canning Factory which, I might say, is now in receivership, continues to stay open, it will not be canning locally caught tuna. The tragedy is that the Government has given away a profitable industry to an export competitor. The closure of Borthwicks was another case. Here the Labor Government went to the extraordinary lengths of granting the unemployment benefit to striking workers. Without the financial pressure to return to work, and under the thoroughly mischievous leadership of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, the workers remained on strike long enough to ensure the closure of the meat works. From 350 to 400 people were once employed at Borthwicks-the biggest industry operations in Albany. The Government's stupidity has placed in chronic jeopardy three operations-a meatworks, a canning factory and a fishing fleet. Employment statistics will never record the number of people who leave town, or lose their second job, or do not register. The loss is noted by the retail sector, and a decline in living standards throughout the community. Bunbury is still reeling from the State Government giving the thumbs down to the Kemerton Smelter which was proposed in the region. The State Government had bought the land at a cost of $3m. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had promised the certainty of this development in the 1984 election campaign at Collie. In the last week of the election he visited the electorate of Forrest a number of times, which I might say was all fairly helpful, and assured the people of Forrest that the smelter would go ahead. With these sorts of definite assurances, business and local government were prepared to meet the new demand. The project did not go ahead, and this was another broken promise which has cost the community time and money. The small business sector in Bunbury is particularly efficient as a result of the city's relative proximity to Perth. It has to share the market forces. However, business in Bunbury has higher input costs in transport and material supply. Profit margins are slight and the small business sectors in Bunbury and Albany have been the first to feel the impact of the Labor Government's policies. For example, we have seen a downturn in farm income reflected in a reduced cash flow into the cities; the continued indexation of labour costs regardless of the specific circumstances; rises in fuel and transportation costs; the effect of the devaluation on the cost of imported goods; the highest real interest rates in 50 years; and continued increases in State government taxes and charges above the consumer price index. The Government has made it clear from the start that the future is in the manufacturing and service industries, ignoring the fact that agriculture and mining represented 75.2 per cent of our export earnings last year. In truth, the manufacturing and service industries will come of age when they are ready-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(7.32) —Honour- able members may be familiar with an article which appeared on page 13 of today's Australian Financial Review entitled `Bendigo: a vision that went terribly wrong'. In a very long article the author, Lim Say Boon, makes a number of points about Bendigo which I believe need to be addressed. Amongst others, he says that the main economic activity is manufacturing, that the official unemployment level is 10.3 per cent and rising and that estimated total unemployment, including hidden unemployment, is 15 per cent. The writer makes a number of scurrilous allegations concerning the level of unemployment and industrial development in Bendigo. I believe it is pertinent to put some facts before honourable members and that newspaper. In terms of the broadest measure of economic performance, we can look at the quarterly job vacancy figures which are released publicly by the Bendigo Commonwealth Employment Service office. Those figures show that the Bendigo office's notification level is higher than that of any other provincial centre in Australia and compares more than favourably with those of most metropolitan larger offices. For example, in the most recent quarter, June 1985, there were some 1,754 notified vacancies. I point out for the benefit of honourable members that that compares with the June quarter 1983 figure of 1,172. In other words, there has been an improvement in advertised job vacancies in Bendigo in the last two years of 49.6 per cent and there is, therefore, no doubt that those figures are impressive and show that Bendigo's economic performance is particularly reassuring and indicative of a strong growth trend. Another way in which we can look at Bendigo's economic performance is to compare its current level of unemployment with the level when this Government took office in March 1983. In March 1983 the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations calculated that the unemployment level in Bendigo was a massive 14.8 per cent. I am pleased to say that the most recent CES job figures for Bendigo show that the current unemployment level for June 1985 is 8.9 per cent. That means that there has been a massive reduction from 14.8 per cent to 8.9 per cent in the space of just two years. We can also look at the strong economic recovery in Bendigo as evidenced in the housing industry. The people of Bendigo are putting their confidence and their faith into new housing activity. The June quarter Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that 226 new homes were approved for construction in Bendigo at a total value of more than $10m. Again that compares with a figure two years ago, in March 1983, of $3.3m. In other words, there has been an increase in housing activity in the Bendigo economy of more than 300 per cent in just over two years. That is hardly evidence of an economy with a malaise. It is certainly evidence of an effective local member, a strong local economy and, of course, effective national economic policies. The final matter I wish to comment on is industrial development because, according to the Australian Financial Review journalist, Bendigo `finds itself in an industrial time warp lacking in adequate mechanisms to promote structural change'. The fact is that nothing could be further from the truth. New capital investment in the Bendigo region is running at record and unprecedented levels across the whole range of economic activity. Enterprises such as Elders-IXL, through Mayfair and Barastoc, Allied Mills Ltd and Stafford Ellinson, to name just a few well-known firms, would not invest in a area that they considered `trapped in an industrial time warp'. Local firms like Gillies Bros Pty Ltd would not successfully float stock issue on the Melbourne Stock Exchange unless they were confident of future profitability. Finally, in respect of industrial development, it should be said, that of the five firms mentioned in the scurrilous Australian Financial Review article, each is operating at higher production levels than two years ago and four have improved their employment levels over the last two years by 25 per cent. In summary, job vacancies in Bendigo are up by 49.6 per cent. The rate of unemployment is down from 14.8 per cent to 8.9 per cent. The number of unemployment beneficiaries is down by 19 per cent. The value of housing approval in Bendigo in the last two years is up by 300 per cent. Those figures are not made up. They are not evidence of a town suffering economic malaise. In fact, they are hardly typical of a city with a 15 per cent hidden unemployment rate. They are typical of a city with strong economic growth which will remain strong into the future. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(7.37) —I wish to address some comments tonight in connection with the sugar industry. I am pleased that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is at the table because I have always said that there has to be a bipartisan attitude to this situation. May I address myself to three questions. One is a matter of health raised by Senator Grimes in the Senate earlier this year in response to a question when he threw some doubt on the health and nutritional value of sugar as used in the Australian market. The first question I might address to the Minister in this regard is whether he associates himself with that statement. The problem is that many people, government departmental officers and others, are prepared to pander to the prejudices about sugar that exist in the Western world. Some of these attitudes are absolutely irresponsible, particularly when they come from the Federal Department of Health. It was encouraging to realise that earlier this week CSR Ltd, which operates as the major seller on the market for the Sugar Board, was in Canberra showing slides and videos in connection with an advertising campaign to counter the effects of these other representations. The next aspect concerns a question asked in the Senate on Friday by Senator Brownhill to which Senator Walsh replied. I want to make mention particularly of the fact that Senator Walsh in reply said: . . . the absence of a capital gains tax is a contributory factor to the insolvency not only of the cane growers but also of a number of other Australian primary producers. I believe that comment was made without any relevance to the question or the facts in hand. It was quite irrelevant because a capital gains tax on cane farms at the moment, the value of which is half what it was three years ago, would have no effect. Yet Senator Walsh was talking about the absence of a capital gains tax being a contributory factor to insolvency. I think that is absolutely irresponsible and comes from a senator whose knowledge of the sugar industry is very brief indeed. Mr Kerin —He would have a theory of that. Mr BRAITHWAITE —If he has a theory it was not in evidence in his answer to the question. If this is the attitude of the Labor Government towards the sugar industry, heaven help it at the moment and in the future. The other matter I want to address is the Savage Working Party into the Sugar Industry, otherwise known as the 100-day committee, which reported a few weeks ago. I understand that both the Federal Government and the State Government are looking for some direction from industry leaders before they make an approach. I can understand that this is the only way in which it can happen. The report of the 100-day committee, born out of a matter of urgency after about two years of industry floundering, has come up with certain suggestions and recommendations. I do not want to take part in the debate about the recommendations themselves except to say that the industry, suggests that the price support will not be sufficient to pull the industry out of the quagmire which it is in at the moment. I am not the one to say what that price support should be, but I think it has to be adequate in order to enable the industry to maintain its efficiency and viable farmers and those farmers who can be helped to continue production. All I say is that it is common knowledge within the industry, in both the producing section and the factory section, that the price is inadequate. But I am not here to suggest the correct price. Following on from that is the argument that will be pursued in connection with whose responsibility it is to provide price support. All I can say is that, traditionally, it has been the Federal Government. I go back to the precedents of 1966 and 1967 when the Federal Government, through a series of loans, provided price support. At the same time, the Queensland Government was able to assist the millers by giving them loan guarantees or, in some instances, loans which were repaid later. So there were loans on both sides which came back. I believe that is the attitude that has to be taken now. It is no good one side of government saying that it should be doing this or that; the industry is too vulnerable at the moment. It is in need of assistance right at this moment. I believe we should follow the precedents I have mentioned. We should also provide rural adjustment assistance which traditionally has been the responsibility of both levels of government. I put it to the Minister for Primary Industry, who is at the table, that we should look at the two elements of the package-firstly, short term assistance to maintain production and, secondly, deregulation. I would not like to think that short term benefits will again depend on the long term consider- ations. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(7.42) —Last Wednesday the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts entitled `Medical fraud and overservicing: Report on pathology' was tabled in this House. Since then most of the media comment has concentrated on the question: Who is Dr X? I do not at this stage wish to make any further comment on that issue. However, the report has stirred up a hornet's nest with revelations about suspected cases of fraud and overservicing and has highlighted many cases of unethical practices in the medical profession. One such case relates to a medical clinic in Melbourne. I have received copies of newsletters which are presumably sent regularly to patients and which demonstrate breaches of State and Federal law involving health screening and advertising. One such newsletter, the June newsletter, is headed `Detection of Colorectal Cancer-at no cost to you'. The newsletter states: This newsletter is part of our ongoing health maintenance programme which we are conducting for our patients. Our aim is to inform you about current developments in health care of which you may wish to avail yourself. Information is not the problem. The problem is that the newsletter outlines to people how, at no cost to them, they can go along and have a health screening test. The newsletter talks about bowel cancer and says: I am writing to you because, being at least 50 years of age, the risk of you developing this problem is much higher than in younger people. I have therefore decided to offer to examine stool specimens-at no cost to you-in order to try and detect this cancer before symptoms occur. The report continues: I would emphasize at this stage that a positive test does not mean that you definitely have cancer, nor does a negative test completely exclude the possibility. The newsletter then invites people nevertheless to go along and have a test. It concludes: Please bring your medicare card when collecting containers. Health screening; overservicing! The August newsletter states: Is your blood cholesterol elevated? Find out at no cost to you. It continues: As part of our health maintenance programme, I have decided to offer to test your blood cholesterol at no cost to you, provided you attend the clinic between 8.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m., week days. It concludes: Please bring your medicare card with you. These examples are blatant breaches of State and Federal laws and are an example of overservicing. Advertising in this form has been outlawed by Victorian State law and health screening such as these services advocated in the newsletters is clearly outlawed by Federal legislation. The newsletter is obviously misleading in its claims that these services are at no cost to the patient. They clearly do cost, but it is not the doctor or the patient who pays; it is the taxpayer of Australia. Mr Brumby —Who is the doctor? Where is he? Mrs KELLY —I have not named the doctor tonight because I think it is important that this case be fully investigated by the Health Insurance Commission. After these investigations are completed I will report in more detail to the House. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(7.46) —I wish to bring to the attention of the House an example in my electorate of the Government's overt and covert encouragement of union renegades. I am speaking of the Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd. dispute which has been running for over three months in Malvern, an inner Melbourne suburb. This Melbourne Mudginberri started with a bid by the Federated Confectioners Association of Australia for a 36-hour week in breach of the prices and incomes accord. The small confectioner, owned and run by the Stauder family for three generations, rightly refused to concede to the demand. To do so would have been to overturn a written commitment given by the union in September 1984 not to pursue a 36-hour week claim. Those employees who refused to work in accordance with the agreement were dismissed and replaced by new employees. Fifteen chose to leave and 12 stayed. In response to this action by management, the Federated Confectioners Association set up a picket line on 22 July. Then followed various acts of sabotage and terrorism. The locks were rendered inoperable by fast setting glue, Telecom and telex lines were severed and there was an arson attempt at the rear of the factory. Other acts of terrorism have resulted in an assault charge being laid against a union official. In addition, threats have been made against members of the Stauder family and their employees. Telecom Australia initially refused to cross the picket line to fix the lines. This led to impossible conditions for running the business; orders could not be placed, both for supplies and for goods. Trucks refused to deliver and pick up as this would have involved crossing the picket line. As a result, production dropped to 75 per cent of capacity. Financially the business has suffered in other ways. The insurance policy excess for the building has risen from an annual $250 to $20,000 because of the arson attempt. In addition, the business must also bear an extra weekly charge of $7,000 for security patrols. What has the Government done to intervene in this union thuggery? The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) each sent a telegram of support to Dollar Sweets at about the time of the Nunawading by-election. Now that is over, the small business has been dumped. There have been meaningless declarations of moral support by the Prime Minister and his Minister. Labor's Victorian Premier has given $37,000 of taxpayers' money to the union to help expand its staff. Today in the Victorian Parliament he refused to give the company the round the clock police protection that it needs. The Hawke socialist Government has covertly supported the union by refusing to involve itself or even to inform itself. The Government's reluctance to involve itself in the Dollar Sweets dispute is tantamount to tacit approval of the union's picket line and activities. How can business in Australia prosper when it is thwarted at every turn by manipulative and unreasonable unions? Small businesses are vulnerable to being picked off one at a time by the action of militant unions. Here is a case where small business needs the protection and the encouragement of government. If the Government is to have any credibility in the business sector, it must show a balanced and even-handed approach in the market-place. The Stauder family business needs a fair go. It needs help now. Apparently, a number of Federal Ministers met last week to discuss the dispute because they are concerned that the long running dispute has the potential to jeopardise the accord, but they have done nothing. The Hawke Government must use its so-called special relationship with the union movement and the Australian Council of Trade Unions to bring this recalcitrant union to heel. Those unions which openly violate and refuse to abide by the accord must be dealt with. The Government must act and give this small business help now. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(7.50) —As a member of the Hawke Government I believe that a society cannot be considered successful or effective unless it is a caring society. A nation is only as healthy as its least advantaged citizen. A handicapped person is handicapped only to the extent that the community in which he or she lives does not meet his or her needs. If ever there is a project on which it is valid to spend taxpayers' money, it must be one which enables a society to ensure that disadvantaged people can live out their lives to their fullest potential. Such a task can begin to succeed only when community and government join hands to build the administrative and caring network needed for such a task. Neither government nor the community can manage alone. Successive governments have made their contributions and non-government organisations have worked, often against great odds, to assist the disadvantaged. There is great heart in the Australian community. However, for a variety of reasons, the development of community services has been unco-ordinated and somewhat ad hoc. There was an urgent need for a review of existing programs and co-ordination of Commonwealth services with State and local governments and community groups to release the great potential in the community and to channel needed support to the right areas. I was therefore pleased to be part of this Government's initiatives aimed at encouraging a more caring society and supporting those who do care and who work to assist others. My electorate of Lilley contains a comprehensive network of organisations, from those providing home help and meals to pensioner clubs, service clubs, church groups and traditional caring societies which offer such support and for which I have great respect. I believe that in this respect they are typical of the wider Australian electorate. One of my Government's initiatives is the introduction of a new subsidy from November 1984 designed to encourage the provision of respite care beds in hostels to enable carers of sick or disabled people to take a break from their caring duties. Another way of showing support is by direct grant such as that of $1m promised to the Lutheran Church in my electorate for the provision of a hostel for the aged. A major initiative of the 1985-86 Budget is the allocation of funds to restructure disability services along the lines recommended by the handicapped programs review report entitled `New Directions'. The allocation of $5m for 1985-86 and $15m for 1986-87 will allow some innovative projects to focus on providing a range of alternative services for people with disabilities. A most important initiative of the Hawke Government was the introduction of the spouse carer's pension to enable a person caring full time for a severely disabled pensioner spouse to receive a full pension. I am pleased to say that this scheme will be expanded, as a new carer's pension will be introduced from November 1985 for people caring full time at home for a severely handicapped pensioner who is a near relative as well as for the spouse in that position. The pension will be paid of up to $81.65 a week for a married person and up to $97.90 for a single person. Special arrangements will also be made to continue payment of the handicapped child's allowance for children who, for a period of up to 28 days in any one year, temporarily leave home to receive respite care. The total additional allocation of funds for disability services in 1985-86 will be about $121m. This amount includes a forward commitment of $9m which will be available for new projects eligible for funding under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act. While maintaining its support for institutional care in nursing homes and hostels, the Government is concerned to provide a realistic level of support for those aged and disabled people who prefer to remain living in their own homes. The focal point of the package announced in the 1984-85 Budget is the proposed cost-shared home and community care or HACC program. This program will enable an expansion of home and community care services available under existing programs such as home help and home nursing, as well as the provision of a wide range of new services such as home-based personal care, community-based respite care and transport and laundry services. The introduction of the home and community care program has been held back in Queensland owing- Mr McGauran —Yes, for two years. Mrs DARLING —Not two years. It has been held back because the Queensland Government repeatedly failed to sign a contract between the Commonwealth and the State Government because of a number of perceived objections. However, I understand that the agreement has now been signed and that all of the States will go ahead. The Commonwealth contribution to the program consists of a very large amount- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(7.55) —I wish to speak to the Parliament this evening about an all too often forgotten, if not deliberately ignored, part of Victoria. I refer to the beautiful and productive East Gippsland area incorporating the shires of Omeo, Tambo and Orbost. This productive and vital area of Gippsland and Australia is having the life choked out of it by both State and Federal governments. Mr Kerin —Swifts Creek is superb. Mr McGAURAN —The Minister for Primary Industry interjects that Swifts Creek is part of that area. He has been to Swifts Creek and he knows that it is populated by strong, independent farmers and people involved in farming-related service industries. Though the Minister can proudly claim to have been to that picturesque and productive area, his Government has done little by way of freight, fuel or services to assist those people. The Minister knows that they pay the same taxes as everybody else. However, they receive but a fraction of the services provided by the Government. It is all very well to use East Gippsland for tourism-for its beaches, for the skiing at Mt Hotham, for fishing, boating and hiking-but the people of this area are deliberately discouraged when it comes to industry and commerce. The two mainstays of this area of Australia are timber and grazing. Sadly for both of these industries, the policies of successive governments have resulted in a lowering of productivity and the return on investment. New industries are not permitted to be taken up. I cite as an example a marble mine which is just fractionally inside a national park at Berambra. A number of reductions in services have affected grazing. The fuel reduction burning program has been restricted. Forests Commission offices have been downgraded and their numbers reduced. There is a shortage of lands inspectors. The level of road funding is hopelessly inadequate for the more remote areas. Transport services for the public are practically non-existent. In addition, unemployment services for the young unemployed as well as the adult unemployed remain at a minimal level. I cite as an example the proposal for community employment program funding by the Swifts Creek High School to set up a building program to establish a sports centre. The great advantage of this sports centre is that it will not be used just by the Swifts Creek High School, which the Minister for Primary Industry would have seen, but will also be of use to the community. This is an ideal opportunity for the Government to get behind a local community which will provide its own services with a minimal amount of government assistance. Yet it seems that the Government is less than enthusiastic about assisting the Swifts Creek High School to bring about this desperately needed community facility. The building project is of the order of a quarter of a million dollars, which is large by CEP standards. My argument is that in view of all the circumstances and taking into account the special need of this isolated area, the Government ought to be prepared to allow the initiative of the local residents to be rewarded. Surely all rules relating to CEP funding are flexible. Each application deserves to be looked at in its own right. For that reason I can see no earthly justification for depriving the Swifts Creek High School of this desperately needed facility. Radio and television reception continues to be a problem for all residents in the East Gippsland region. Despite a great many representations to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Perhaps the Aussat satellite will, to a large extent, allow the communications enjoyed by people in metropolitan Australia to be received by the residents of East Gippsland. However, such services will be provided at substantial cost to the residents themselves. Everybody who lives in relatively remote or isolated areas expects to carry extra burdens and make sacrifices. However, they should not have to make the kinds of sacrifices that the Government expects them to make. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Holding to present a Bill for an Act relating to the boundaries of the land held by the Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust established under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and for related purposes. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 18 September 1985: Protection of the Sea (Discharge of Oil from Ships) Act-Protection of the Sea (Discharge of Oil from Ships) Regulations-Order-1985-No. 2-Marine, Part 90.