Tuesday, 19 November 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr BLUNT —I ask the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism: In light of the expose of the activities of the Australian Institute of Sport in today's Daily Telegraph, does the Minister accept responsibility for the administration of the Institute? Mr JOHN BROWN —It is rather significant that after a long, long wait the ex-shadow Minister has at last approached the despatch box with a question. I thank him very much. I certainly accept responsibility for the administration of the Institute of Sport. I think it is worth making quite a few points about that article in the Daily Telegraph this morning. First of all, the charges, accusations or imputations that are made are fairly muted and in lots of ways very convoluted. Mr Blunt —Have you seen tomorrow's story? Mr JOHN BROWN —I will wait for tomorrow's story. No doubt the honourable member has his grubby little hands in that too. His contributions to this House have all been of a very negative and carping nature. Some charges that have been made in the Daily Telegraph this morning certainly will be investigated. Only yesterday I received a report from the Auditor-General telling me that his audit of the Institute's books has found everything to be absolutely in order. However, charges have been made and they will be answered. There will be no prevarication; no sweeping of anything under the carpet. I have been in touch this morning with the Chairman of the Board, Professor Bloomfield. Price Waterhouse, the internal auditors at the Institute of Sport, has been commissioned to investigate the charges made. Mr Sinclair —So you did it only this morning? Mr JOHN BROWN —Please don't you challenge my integrity. In relation to the charges or accusations that were made in this morning's Press, I have already instituted a special inquiry by the internal auditors. I can assure the Parliament that neither the Institute nor the Government has anything to fear. In fact, only last week Cabinet made the decision that the Institute of Sport will change from a company basis to that of a statutory authority. I do not imply any criticism of Mr Bob Ellicott when he set up the Institute of Sport. I know that he would like to have set it up on a statutory authority basis; it was set up with haste as a private company. On a statutory authority basis there is much better scrutiny by the Minister and much better accountability to the Parliament. Having said all of that-I do not in any way run away from whatever criticisms have been made; that obviously puts a smile on the face of the ex-shadow Minister because he would love to think that there was something nastier there, but I am sure there is not-I think something should be said about the Institute. I noticed this morning that expenses to Dr Cheffers of $48,000 for the year are quoted. I would like to think that all those expenses not only will be justified by an inquiry but also will be justified by the results. Dr Cheffers has undertaken the task of promoting the Institute all around Australia, to make it better known to the people who are paying for it, the taxpayers, and to make it better recognised as the centre of excellence it is-it is now recognised by the world as the best in the world-in order to attract people to accept scholarships. He has had outstanding success. I will quote a few figures that might indicate the success Dr Cheffers has had. In 1983-84, sponsorships in kind to the AIS were $52,368; in 1985-86 they amounted to $202,000 as a result of the excellent work Dr Cheffers has done in promoting the Institute. He set up two or three other things that are quite significant. Some members of this House might have noticed an advertisement on television recently with Kellogg (Australia) Pty Ltd. This sponsorship was set up by Dr Cheffers as a result of his promotional work. Kellogg estimates that the income from that advertisement this year will be in the order of $80,000, directly as a result of Dr Cheffers's work around Australia. He set up another system whereby corporations can sponsor rooms in the new accommodation block. So far 24 have been sold at a value of $10,000 each. He has also set up a sponsorship for chairs in the Institute. At this stage 70 have been sold at $150 each. I think the outstanding success Dr Cheffers has had in promoting this Institute is well justified by the expenditure of $48,000 over the year. I do not think anybody in Australian sport has anything but the highest admiration for Dr Cheffers and for what the Institute has done. As I said at the outset, nothing will be done in any way to hide away from whatever charges may or may not have been made. I assure the House that the Board, a group of very distinguished Australian business men and women and sports men and women, is as disturbed as I am that these charges have been made. I also assure the House that the truth will out; that there will be a full report to this Parliament on whatever charges are made. As far as I am concerned, the administration of the AIS has been of the highest order. I am sure that all those people, particularly the Board under the very distinguished Australian, Kevan Gosper, who has chaired this Board since its inception, and under Professor Bloomfield in the meantime, are just as anxious as I am to see that whatever charges have been levelled are put to rest. I assure this Parliament that I will be back with a report at the first available opportunity. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the upstairs gallery this afternoon a delegation from the European Parliament led by Mrs Bloch von Blottnitz. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to the delegation. Mr FITZGIBBON —Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of an industrial campaign for a 35-hour week in the building industry? Will he inform the House of the Government's attitude to this campaign? Mr WILLIS —I am aware of the Builders Labourers Federation conducting two campaigns at least at present and they are interlinked. One campaign is a retaliatory campaign against companies considered to be supportive of the deregistration proceedings. The second campaign, as the honourable member mentioned, is for a 35-hour week. That second campaign involved widespread stoppages yesterday. As honourable members would be aware, virtually the whole of the Victorian membership of the BLF stopped work for the day. We are told that that will be followed by claims on employers for payment for lost time; that is, for the day off. The Government deplores both of these campaigns. The first is a clear attempt to intimidate employers into not providing any support for the deregistration proceedings, including not assisting in the provision of evidence for the case against the BLF. The second, of course, is a total repudiation of the national wage guidelines, of the building industry agreement and of various other commitments that have been entered into by the BLF. The BLF has obviously been listening to the Opposition and has been attracted by its talk of opting out because, in effect, it has decided to take a leaf out of the Opposition's book by opting out of the conventional industrial relations system and seeking to do whatever deals it can with individual employers, regardless of the national wage principles or any other commitments it has entered into. That is the logic of the Opposition's position of open invitation for those with market strength to get out there, regardless of national wage considerations and conventional wage principles, and to do whatever they can to beef up their position at the expense of the rest of the community. I would be interested to hear whether the Opposition regards that action as being in accordance with opting out. Certainly part of the statement which the Prime Minister tabled recently showed that members of the Opposition's employment and industrial relations committee had great concern that opting out would lead to precisely this kind of action by organisations such as the BLF. It is absurd for the BLF to argue, as it has publicly, that its actions in pursuing this campaign are justified by employers' actions in supposedly breaching the building industry agreement. That is totally a reversal of the facts and an attempt by the BLF to rewrite history. The reality of the situation is that the BLF has repeatedly broken its obligations under the building industry agreement, which has led to employers supporting deregistration proceedings. I assure the House that the Government is committed to continuing the deregistration proceedings. The Government's case should be concluded by the end of this month and the case should be concluded early in the new year. In that context, I mention also that I deplore the BLF's invasion of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission yesterday, in which members of the BLF broke a door of the Commission, broke through police lines, jostled Commission staff and attempted to insult the Commission by having a person dressed as a gorilla sit in the courtroom. Also, we totally reject the utterly intemperate remarks and criticisms of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, who accused the Commission of being weak and cowardly in allowing itself to be intimidated. The reality is that the Commission was clearly determined not to allow the BLF to achieve its basic aim, which was to disrupt and to postpone the proceedings. Of course, the Commission had the option of simply not turning up for the day's hearing. The situation was that the BLF had broken through police lines and invaded the courtroom in a way which meant that the Commission had two alternatives. They were to get on with the proceedings, as long as those present were orderly and quiet, or alternatively to allow the BLF to achieve its objective of postponing the day's proceedings. The Commission, I believe, took the proper and sensible course in not allowing the BLF to achieve its objectives. It is all right for the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party to make his criticisms from within the safety of his office or some studio. He would not have the guts to get out there and face the BLF himself. The Government will oppose any flow-on of the 3.8 per cent national wage increase to the BLF. We ask employers not to pay that. Employers will certainly be pressured by the BLF to pay the 3.8 per cent in the field. Employers should not do that until the Commission decides to give that increase, if it so decides. We will be arguing strongly to the Commission that it should not do so. Mr CONNOLLY —Will the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism inform the House for how long he has been aware of the alleged financial irregularities at the Australian Institute of Sport? When did he inform the Prime Minister? Is the Minister aware of allegations of alterations of tender documents for the purchase of sports equipment? In view of these matters, what specific references has he made to both the Auditor-General and the internal auditor for investigation? Will he assure the House that he will conduct these matters more efficiently than the Prime Minister conducted the affairs of the Australian Bicentennial Authority? Finally, will the Minister tell the House whether Dr Cheffers's position is secure? Mr JOHN BROWN —I am not aware of any financial shortcomings at the Australian Institute of Sport. I have not been made aware of any in the past. The only accusations, imputations or rumours that I have detected at any stage are in that rather grubby little article in the Daily Telegraph this morning. I certainly have not informed the Prime Minister. I have certainly not made any references to the Auditor-General as to specific shortcomings. The honourable member's question rather implies a very serious criticism of the Auditor-General, who has just-in fact, yesterday-supplied me with a letter saying that he has completed his audit to his total satisfaction. I am sure that the affairs of the Institute of Sport, under my direction, under the direction of Dr Cheffers and particularly under the direction of a board of highly distinguished Australians, whom the honourable member has just impugned out of his own mouth, which is pretty usual for him and which has done him no credit, have always been handled well, as of course are the affairs of the Australian Bicentennial Authority handled by the Prime Minister. Mr SNOW —I ask the Minister for Health whether he is aware that the current restrictions both on the life of pharmaceutical prescriptions and on the number of repeats which a doctor is allowed to prescribe can cause hardship for chronically ill patients who need to make additional visits to doctors so that they can ensure an ongoing supply of necessary drugs. Can the Minister inform the House of any action which could be taken to alleviate this problem? Dr BLEWETT —The Government is aware that, particularly for chronically ill patients, there is a need to ensure an ongoing supply of drugs and that many of the current restrictions associated with the pharmaceutical benefits scheme unnecessarily increase the need for visits to doctors for medication. Therefore, in pursuit of the policies which we have followed since we came to office, from 1 December there will be significant changes to free up the availability of drugs supplied under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. First, the life of prescriptions, including repeat prescriptions, will be doubled from the present maximum of six months to 12 months. This will be much more convenient for patients who hold repeat prescriptions but who do not manage to fill them in a six-month period. In addition, 48 drugs which are used in the treatment of chronic conditions are to have the number of allowable repeats increased, mostly from two repeats to five. As a single prescription generally equates with one month's supply, it means that we will be doubling the permissible supply from three months to six months. There are also a number of on-authority-only drugs which cause considerable bureaucratic hassles and delays. As far as possible, a number of these restrictions are to be modified so that we can do away with the rather complex means of getting access to these drugs. These changes will benefit all groups concerned. They will benefit patients quite clearly. I believe that they will also benefit doctors and pharmacists. For the chronically ill and other patients, the changes will reduce the frequency of their need to visit doctors simply for continuous medication. For doctors, the freeing up will allow much more freedom to prescribe as they see fit and will impose a greater responsibility on them to review and monitor their use of drugs for patients. These decisions reflect the policies of the Government to carry through deregulation where it is appropriate. We believe that it is appropriate in this area. Mr HOWARD —I ask a question of the Prime Minister. I refer him to his statement on 12 November last when he informed the House that there would be no renegotiation of the prices and incomes accord. What circumstances have changed over the past week which have led to his statement at a Press conference yesterday that the Government would, if necessary, consider a renegotiation of the accord? Mr HAWKE —It is a great tragedy for this country that the Leader of the Opposition can neither get his own policies right nor clearly understand what the Government's position is. For the sake of trying to get into his mind once and for all what the position is, let me state quite clearly that nothing that was said by me at the Press conference yesterday changed the position of this Government. We have made the judgment that the negotiation undertaken by the Government with the Australian Council of Trade Unions for the renegotiation of the accord is appropriate to the circumstances with which this country is faced. Let me say-and I repeat it briefly so it may be well understood by all honourable members of this House and by the public-that we secured an agreement in regard to discounting which is regarded by the Government as appropriate to the circumstances with which this country is faced. I remind the House of the elements of that negotiation. First, there is an agreement for a 2 per cent discounting in the first national wage case in 1986; secondly, there is the postponement of the productivity case until July 1986, which will have the further impact of spreading out the impact on business of that case; and, thirdly, there is the undertaking of the ACTU and its affiliated unions to seek no further claims outside indexation. The clear judgment not only of the Government but also-importantly, I would suggest-of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is that the approach negotiated by the ACTU with the Government for that 2 per cent discount in the April case will in fact produce an outcome not materially different from the result if a similar order of discount were achieved in two steps; that is, in the September case this year and in the April case next year. That is the specific unqualified finding of the Commission. Indeed, it is significant that that is the view that has now basically come to be accepted by the Business Council of Australia. That agreement producing that outcome, regarded by the Commission as producing that desirable result, is one which also has the advantage of ensuring a further two years of wage restraint under the accord and all that that entails for Australia and its future competitiveness. What I have said at all times is that the accord is flexible. It is not by accident that the final paragraph in the accord provides that, should circumstances arise in which it is necessary for the Government to go to the trade union movement, it can do so. What I am making clear now, as I made clear yesterday in the Press conference, is that it is the clear judgment of the Government that that situation is not the one that operates at present. We see no need to go back to the ACTU, but sensibly the provision is there that, should those circumstances arise, that would happen. Let me say that the statistics released last week show-if any further demonstration is required-just what the accord has delivered to date in terms of wage restraint. It is very important that members of this House should understand-and particularly, if the Leader of the Opposition starts for once wanting to make a constructive contribution to the economic debate in this country, that he should understand-what the accord has delivered. Let me give the Leader of the Opposition the facts. The facts are that total average weekly earnings rose over the past year to the September quarter by 4.1 per cent. Excluding the 3.2 per cent to the June quarter, that is the lowest annual increase recorded since 1966. That is what happened as a result of the operation of the accord-the lowest rate of earnings growth for 20 years in this country. Let us compare that with the 17 per cent increase that occurred under the stewardship of the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Treasurer. That is what the accord has delivered, and that is what the renegotiated accord is calculated to deliver. As the Leader of the Opposition has now had the temerity to go into this question of wage policies and wage outcomes, let me remind honourable members for their enlightenment of the position of the Opposition in this regard. It was made quite clear and highlighted in yesterday's Press. Over the weekend we had the delightful spectacle, to which the very Special Minister of State referred yesterday, of the gatherings of the Liberal Party. This was reported in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald under the heading `Liberal leaders blame Fraser for their woes'. This is the bloke who gave the Liberals 7 1/2 years in government. Now that they cannot work out their own position and they are fighting one another, what do they do? They blame poor old Malcolm. There are a lot of things for which they should blame poor old Malcolm, but not the incompetence of the present Opposition. In my usual spirit of generosity, I would like to share one of the gems of the Liberal Party meeting with the House. Mr Greiner, when he appeared on the weekend Sunday program, said that one of the few good things about being in opposition in most parts of Australia had been that the Liberal Party had a sense of direction. The Liberal Party has not only one sense of direction; it has several senses of direction, not least, of course, on the question of wages. I conclude by reminding this House that on the issue of wages policy the Leader of the Opposition and his own employment and industrial relations committee are hopelessly divided. I ask the House to look at Hansard of last Friday. Honourable members will remember that I then produced a document covering the proceedings relevant to the Opposition's employment and industrial relations committee. Two things were said in this House about that document. Mr N. A. Brown —Not by me. Mr HAWKE —No, the two things were not said by the honourable member; one of them was said by him. I thank him for his assistance today. The one thing that was said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was that I was two years out of date. He said that the document had been around for two years. Does he remember that interjection? It is very interesting to compare the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's observation that the document had been around for two years with the statement of the chairman of the employment and industrial relations committee. While the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that the document had been around for two years, the chairman of the committee said that he could only assume it was some sort of fraud. More importantly, he said this: As far as I am concerned, that particular document has never been presented to the Opposition industrial relations committee. I remind the House of what he said then: I saw the document for the first time after it was tabled by the Prime Minister. Who is telling the truth? The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party says that it has been around for two years and the chairman of the Committee says that he has never seen it before. This Opposition is hopelessly divided on the issue of wages policy, with the Leader of the Opposition saying that it should have an opting-out policy and the committee saying: Opting-out therefore raises the prospect of a second stream of wage-fixation acting as a pace-setter for the tribunal, and therefore a worse wage outcome rather than a better one. Not only are members of the Opposition divided hopelessly and fundamentally on what their wages policy should be but also one of them-either the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the chairman of the committee-is misleading this House. Either the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is telling the truth in saying that the document has been around for two years or the chairman of the employment and industrial relations committee is telling the truth when he says that it has just been concocted. One of them is lying to this House. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —I ask the Minister for Housing and Construction: What effect would an opting out wages policy have on the housing and construction industry? Mr WEST —An opting out wages deal or policy, as advocated by the Opposition, would be a total disaster within the construction industry in this country. The simple fact is that it would encourage major companies and unions, such as the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation, to do deals outside the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the industry agreement. Furthermore, it would encourage unions and other forces inside the industry to press for a flow-on and thus imposes the original decision on others in the industry, including smaller companies, which the Opposition should be supporting, which will not be able to afford it. In other words, the deals which the Opposition is urging within the industry would be the trigger that will enact a flow-on throughout the whole construction industry. This is a particularly bad time for the Opposition to be encouraging its unworkable and undesirable wages and industrial relations policy in the construction industry, because it is a time when the industry is running at a particularly strong level. The level of activity in the industry for this financial year is now running at plus 15 per cent. The level of approvals for 1984-85 was running in excess of 50 per cent. The advocating of its policy comes at a time when this Government has already put a code of conduct before those construction companies in the industry which want to do business with this Government in future. We will not cop this sort of a policy and we will expose the Opposition whenever it tries to undo the policies which we are trying to put in place. Honourable members opposite may try to deny this, but let us see what the current Leader of the Opposition-we will see how long he stays in that position-had to say when he assumed his current job a few months ago. On wages policy, the Leader of the Opposition said: I've said all along we want to give people an option to choose to go outside the system . . . there's no way we have backed away from opting out. It's absolutely central to what we are on about. Let us see how the BLF has reacted to that sort of invitation. Yesterday on the radio program AM, at the outset of the 24-hour strike by the BLF, a Victorian organiser, Mr Cummings, said: Well I think it's going to be like chalk and cheese. you are going to see the shorter hours jobs, those jobs that have been made a commercial decision (sic)- I repeat the words `commercial decision'- to do the deal with the Federation and other building unions, you will see these jobs humming over like a busy bee and you will see all the other jobs becoming battle grounds for the payment of shorter hours. That will be the result of what the Opposition is advocating with its opt-out wages policy. It is a great policy for the mavericks in the construction industry, a great policy for the Grollo brothers of this world, a great policy for the builders labourers unions of this world; but it is very bad for industrial relations in Australia, very bad for the economy, and very bad for those companies and trade unions which are trying to do the right thing by this country. Mr HOWARD —I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I refer him to his statement yesterday, which he repeated a moment ago, in which he said that, if circumstances required, it might be necessary to renegotiate the accord. In view of the current value of the dollar, which is the lowest ever against the trade weighted index, and the record high interest rates, which are the highest since the years of the Great Depression, what additional unfavourable circumstances would be necessary to trigger a renegotiation of the accord? Mr Young —Another Liberal government. Mr HAWKE —The Special Minister of State, as is so often the case, took the words out of our mouths: `Another Liberal government'. As that is very unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future, that particular circumstance will not emerge. The Opposition's attitude over recent weeks has been a concentrated one of trying to do damage to the Australian economy by its irresponsible statements. This Government has a greater sense of responsibility to the welfare of this country than to accommodate the Leader of the Opposition by responding to the sort of nonsense he has put forward. Let me say this, and it is relevant to the situation with which we are confronted: This Government is firmly convinced, as the Treasurer and I have consistently put over recent times, that the fundamentals of economic policy in this country are right. Those fundamentals of policy are based on these propositions: They are based on a progressively less stimulatory fiscal policy; they are based on a far-sighted, export-oriented industry policy; they are based on a firm monetary policy; and, fourthly, they are based upon the accord. Obviously, policy is reviewed from time to time, but the essence of successful economic management is not to shift one's policy whimsically from time to time to match every change of a volatile economic series, and this Government will not do that. Rather, what we are doing is striking a balance between the needs of policy over the short term and the medium term. Our judgment remains that the present settings of policy are appropriate to securing a sustained economic growth, and that is growth without excessive inflation and growth without a sustainable balance of payments problem. I repeat: This Government, by this judicious conception and application of policy, has turned the economy round from the worst position it was in for 50 years to one with the highest rate of growth in the Western world and with the highest rate of employment growth in the history of this country, and in a situation of reduced inflation. Those are the runs upon the board, and those are the policies which are receiving the congratulations of informed commentators around the world. We appreciate that this dispirited, divided, inept Opposition finds it galling that the Government continues to have such outstanding economic success. We shall continue to do that. As Opposition members grovel around in their committees, knifing one another in the back, they may, in that process, attempt to derive some satisfaction from the fact that there is a volatility in the Australian exchange rate. What I suggest to them is that they concentrate upon trying to get their own act together, and then, if they do that, they may start to be believed as a credible opposition. At the moment, they are nothing but an irrelevant shambles. Mr BALDWIN —I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the report on last weekend's edition of the Sunday program on Channel 9 in Sydney depicting the large scale use of child slave labour in the Philippines' fishing industry? In light of the Government's well known commitment to human rights, will the Minister undertake to have this matter thoroughly investigated with a view to making urgent representations to the Philippines Government aimed at having the practice stopped? Mr HAYDEN —I am grateful to the honourable member for Sydney for-- Mr Howard —Have a look at his suit. Mr HAYDEN —There is nothing wrong with the Prime Minister's suit-it is perhaps a dull grey, but an honourable grey. For my part, I purchased this in the ABC shop-from among the cast off television transmission patterns. I understand that next week Richard Carleton will be on remainder sale. If I can get him at my valuation and sell him at his I will make a handsome profit which I will be obliged to share with the Treasurer. However, seriously, because this is a very serious matter, the honourable member for Sydney raised this issue with me last night. It was not a program which I had seen but, having heard an outline of it from him, I took the opportunity of viewing a videotape of it in the Parliamentary Library. I agree entirely with him that it is a deeply disturbing program which, if correct, reflects an extraordinary exploitation of child labour in most dangerous and unacceptable conditions. I am unaware of any circumstances about this matter outside those outlines in the program that has been mentioned. My Department has no information. We are making inquiries. Depending on the outcome of the inquiries, we will take whatever action is appropriate. Certainly, we would be sufficiently morally concerned to make a response to the Philippines Government if in fact the report is vouchsafed. There are a few things that I would like to say that are associated with this matter. I really think we have to ask ourselves questions about how these conditions arise where so often human worth is put into the most abject forms of bondage and human beings are exploited in the way which was depicted in this program. One hears quite unpleasant reports of, for instance, Australian paedophiles who have been going to the Philippines to exploit young boys, of adults going to brothels in the Philippines where females as young as nine, some of whom are suffering from herpes, are apparently incarcerated. One hears about similar sorts of situations in other countries in our immediate region. We are appalled by this exploitation of human beings and by the debasement of what should be basic human self-respect. On the other hand, the conditions are such in some of these countries that people find themselves forced into these conditions or forced to put their children into these conditions. This is something that is probably beyond the comprehension of Australians because of the better conditions we have. It seems to me that there are certain things which we must recognise. For instance, if we are persistently to cut back on aid or to put barriers in the way of trade, we deny opportunities for these countries to improve the economic and, therefore, the social conditions of their people. By that process we-`we' being the wealthy Western countries-almost inevitably are going to bring about conditions where these things of which I speak will continue to happen. On the other hand, the countries themselves can do much to right these sorts of circumstances. They can take firm and decisive action, according to what I think any culture would regard as a minimum sense of moral responsibility. They can root out corruption in their countries. They can end the politics of cronyism which results in monopolies being established and economic, social and political exploitation occurring. I think these are some of the things that have to be addressed; they are things which occur in some countries in our region and cause me grave concern. In summary, I am saying to the honourable member that I commend his passionate concern on this matter. I appreciate the fact that he drew my attention to the program which I had not seen. I can assure him that not only will we look at this matter and see what we can do but also, perhaps, we can bear in mind what can be done through multilateral agencies. The other matters which I have mentioned are also matters in my mind. I think collectively the House shares concerns about those matters and that, as Foreign Minister, I would be expected to raise the matters appropriately. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Before I call the honourable member for Corangamite, I draw the attention of the House to the presence in the Gallery, after a quite long absence, of a former Prime Minister, Sir John Gorton. I think we would all like to warmly welcome him. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr McARTHUR —Does the Treasurer endorse yesterday's promise by the Prime Minister that the current account deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product will fall to 3.5 per cent in the next financial year? Mr KEATING —The Opposition has a very poor understanding of the whole thread of economic policy at the moment. It seems to misunderstand that for nearly all of the 1970s, when this country was unable to beat the scourge of inflation, we became more and more uncompetitive, manufacturers were encouraged to import and to give up their manufacturing activities, markets were lost to us and the only things the world really wanted from us were the things we were selling which countries could not buy elsewhere, such as wool, iron ore and other things. We as a Government, by freeing up the exchange rate, making Australia competitive again and pulling down our inflation rate, have in fact restored our competitiveness to a level where it is possible for Australian manufacturers, Australian service industries, import competing industries generally and exporters to do well in the world again. Mr Tuckey —Well, why aren't they? Mr KEATING —If the dummies opposite will just shut up for a minute I will tell them. The problem is that when there is any depreciation of the exchange rate the import competing sector of the economy receives a benefit compared with other sectors of the economy. In other words, the traded goods sector gets a benefit-- Mr Howard —Go on! Do tell us. Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition should learn these things. From his public comments, he does not seem to understand. What happens is that there is a higher level of profitability and that finally draws investment. With the pattern of production in the economy and this very important transition from a time when Australians were not interested in exporting, in running manufacturing businesses or in the whole psychology of export development, they now realise that they are wildly competitive. Indeed, even before the current slide in the dollar, we were last this competitive in 1971 when the McMahon Government had the exchange rate dramatically undervalued under Country Party pressure. We were that competitive before the current movement in the exchange rate. What will happen with a lag is that the sentiment of Australian manufacturers will change. They will realise that there are opportunities. This week we have seen an improvement in the business statistics in respect of investment in manufacturing. There has been a dramatic improvement in those, which means that investment is moving back to that sector, as planned. Of course, that will happen with some lag. That lag is such that this year we predicted an improvement in the current account deficit-a modest improvement over last year but over the course of the year, a more substantial improvement to around 4 per cent of GDP. The Prime Minister was extrapolating that trend into the following year and saying that because of this change in the historic pattern of production the current account deficit would wind down further. Of course I endorse the remarks he made, which are, of course, based upon a sensible interpretation of the strategy. If some of the mugs on the other side just understood what the strategy was all about instead of trying to make cheap political points, maybe they would understand what the whole point of the current cast of economic policy is. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 17 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, I present the Australian Electoral Commission's interim report on the operation of the funding and disclosure provisions of the Electoral Act in relation to the December 1984 Federal elections. The Government will refer the report to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform for consideration in the context of its current inquiry into the operation of the new electoral legislation at the last Federal elections. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the interim report of the Australian Electoral Commission entitled Elections 1984 Election Funding and Financial Disclosure. Motion (by Mr West) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction) —Pursuant to section 36 of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970, I present the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation annual report for 1984-85. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —Pursuant to section 42 (d) of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, I present the annual return of persons granted Australian citizenship during 1983-84. I hope that the 1984-85 annual return will be presented more quickly. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission's report on grain harvesters and parts, bounty arrangements. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CHYNOWETH —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CHYNOWETH —An article in the 13 November edition of the Southern Peninsula Gazette, under the headline `Chynoweth denies prior knowledge', stated: The MHR for Flinders, Mr Peter Reith, has claimed Mr Chynoweth was directed to gauge community reaction to the proposal so any modifications could be made. This is in relation to the land at Point Nepean. The article continued: Mr Reith claimed Mr Chynoweth was asked eight weeks ago to advise Flinders Shire of the proposal. On no occasion was I asked to do any such thing. I had no prior knowledge of this happening. I knew that the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) was going there but I did not know that he would hand over the land to the State Government. The article further stated: Mr Chynoweth said the Chief Property Officer for the Federal Department of Local Government, Mr Lewis Milkovits, visited the shire. Mr Milkovits went and saw Chief Executive Larry Jones on Tuesday, October 29 . . . The article continued: Executive Assistant Steve Robin said the meeting between Mr Jones and Mr Milkovits was a `general discussion' on what might happen. This refers to the land at Point Nepean. Mr Robin was the Press Secretary for-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Dunkley seems to be getting a bit away from where he has been personally misrepresented. He has corrected one misrepresentation. It is a matter of misrepresentation, not a matter of debate. Mr CHYNOWETH —Mr Robin also misrepresented me in stating that I knew about this case. Mr SPEAKER —You should get directly to that point. Mr CHYNOWETH —It involves Mr Reith as well as Mr Robin. Mr SPEAKER —You have already stated that. Mr CHYNOWETH —Mr Robin said that I also knew about the matter. I did not know about it. I think he is using his position in the Shire of Flinders, as an ex-Liberal Party Minister's secretary, to abuse-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now straying to debate. He is allowed to correct where he has been misrepresented. Unless he has been further misrepresented, he should resume his seat. Mr CHYNOWETH —A further misrepresentation is the fact that a whole story has been around a denial which I gave. I claim that I was misrepresented and I take offence at this story. 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 assembled: The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that `States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women'. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26.1.85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operations of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Griffiths,Mr Halverson,Mr McArthur and Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Hawker,Mr McArthur and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises that rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray the no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that they are opposed to the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper for the reform of the Australian Tax System in so far as they relate to the imposition of further capital gains and wealth taxes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to reject any proposal to increase the burden of capital gains and wealth taxes on the Australian people. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale and 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 percent 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 and Mr Ruddock. 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 and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That we deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school and child care in the mini-budget as the proposal adversely affects young families; womens employment prospects and children's development in their most formative years. We urge you to reverse proposals for cuts in children's services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Blewett. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of me, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: `We urge you to reverse proposals for cuts in children's services.' Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House reverse proposals for cuts in childrens' services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Blewett. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petitions of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That we wish you to reverse the decision to cut funding to children's services. (a) Cuts to Fee Relief and services in the Child Care system are going to impose hardship on the middle and lower income earners and will effectively deny Child Care Services to many families in great need of them. (b) The provision of funds for Child care has been inadequate, thus it is completely inappropriate that the Child Care budget should be cut by one fifth. (c) Cuts in Pre-School Education funding at Commonwealth level will make it increasingly difficult for kindergartens to continue providing developmental education support to young children. Requiring the States to take over funding responsibility for pre-school education will almost inevitably lead to a reduction of service provision in an area affecting children. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Blewett. 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: The proposed service tax on all accommodation provided by hotels and the proposals to disallow legitimate entertainment expenses as a deduction for taxation purposes will lead to a dramatic fall-off in tourism, business travel and will have a deleterious effect on restaurant patronage. This will threaten present employment and extensively curtail job opportunities in the Industry. Measures as proposed will seriously jeopardise the livelihood of Australians engaged in the Accommodation and Hospitality Industry. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a service tax not be imposed on short-stay accommodation and that a deduction for tax purposes for legitimate entertainment expenses remain. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Blewett. 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 Dr Blewett. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the government reverse its decision to cut pre-school funding in the mini-budget. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Blewett. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The unrelenting ever expanding money extortion to which home purchasers are being subjected has exceeded the bounds of all logical reason. It is neither linear or progressive. It becomes transparently clear that the constant edging up of interest rates for investors by banks, lending institutions, and banking consortiums are collectively responsible for the monetary explosion, lack of employment and all that that entails and is causing grave social disruption to hundreds of thousands. Behind it all, the absence of control that is now politically essential in the interest of justice and fair distribution of burden. No government, recent or future should tolerate this cruel, vicious procedure that shatters the existence of family life, together with all the well known disastrous repercussions that follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your House urge all politicians to unite nationally to do all within their power to reduce interest rates across the board and that: This country needs a five year period to reduce this unwarranted absurdity by tackling it at it's source, as follows: firstly a 2 per cent annual interest reduction on home loans, until it is down to 6 per cent. This to come into force immediately subject to the urgent necessary legislation. This would, or should curtail union demands, and cause no hazard for investors, who could reinvest in Government projects, or other worthwhile ventures. It would also certainly ease the burden on social securities. Your petitions, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Blewett. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned call upon all Members to pay due respect to all returned service personnel. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that all changes to benefits for veterans', and conditions of service for military personnel, as announced in the May Economic Statement, be withdrawn as to allow sufficient time for sensible community debate before any veteran or service person can be unfairly disadvantaged. by Mr Blunt. 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 petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are greatly concerned at: (a) The ready availability of X-rated videos and other pornographic material; and (b) The increased tendency to highlight so many forms of sexual activity in the media without regard to the susceptibilities of the general public; and as a consequence, Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take action to 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications. 2. Require the censorship authority to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes in determining classification and suitability of films and videos to be shown to Australian audiences; and 3. Ensure greater propriety in television productions, local and overseas, telecast to Australian audiences. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Technical and Further Education Participation and Equity Programme established as the centre-piece for national youth policy, addresses the educational, social and employment needs of twenty-two thousand unemployed Australian youth. The intended 50 per cent funding cuts will directly affect at least ten thousand already disadvantaged young people, denying them access to further education and potential employment. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: (1) That the decision to cut the Participation and Equity Programme funding be reversed. (2) That the Participation and Equity Programme be guaranteed funding for 1987, and beyond. 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: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the frequent and substantial increase in the price of petrol and diesel fuel. 2. That we are aware that these price increases have an adverse affect on the living standards of the average Australian wage earner. 3. That increases in fuel prices adds to farm costs and further reduces the average income per farmer which has already fallen to one-third of national earnings. Your Petitioners therefore pray that the Government will immediately reduce the price of petrol by three (3) cents per litre in line with the commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign and take all possible action to prevent further increases occurring. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the pricing of petrol in this country; 2. That under a Labor Government petrol prices have continued to rise excessively, with recent Government decisions adding over 8c per litre to the price of petrol in some country areas; 3. The proposed consumption tax could lead to a further rise of 6c per litre; and 4. The high cost of petrol discriminates against country residents who rely on their cars for essential communication and transport. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government honour the commitment given by the Prime Minister during the 1983 election campaign to reduce petrol prices by 3c per litre. Further we strongly urge the Government to adopt a petrol pricing policy which does not cause unnecessary rises in the cost of petrol. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That pensions be adjusted fully to reflect the total increase in Consumer price Index (CPI); and That the ceiling for pensioners incomes be increased to provide for an adequate `living standard', before any consideration is given to the introduction of reduced pensions and the fall of benefits. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that action be taken by the Government to implement these proposals immediately and not November 1986. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Halverson. 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 we believe reference to God should be made in the Australian National Anthem as Australian life is based on faith in God and, therefore, we believe inclusion of His name is appropriate and desirable. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the last line of each verse of the Australian National Anthem be altered to read: In joyful strains then let us sing `God bless Australia Fair'. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitious and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. 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 Pre-schools and Day Care Services are a reversal of ALP 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 Hollis. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the May expenditure savings which introduced funding cuts to children's services will cause hardship to many low and middle income earners. Families relying on these vital services will suffer, as will workers within the industry. 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 Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We are concerned that the closure of the Enterprise Migrant Hostel will be detrimental to the long-term settlement prospects of migrants in Victoria as well as detrimental to Ethnic Communities who have settled in the Springvale area. In addition, the long-term development of commerce and industry in the area will be adversely affected. We urge the Government to reverse this decision. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the continuous disruptions to Australia's postal system are not acceptable, and are denying Australians of an essential service. 2. That mail sorters or postal workers be paid up to thirty-nine thousand dollars a year are not acceptable. 3. That postal workers refusing to obey a directive from their superiors is unacceptable. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Parliament assembled, and the Minister for Communications should dismiss mail sorters and postal workers who continuously disrupt Australia's mail system. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Macphee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: S.W.A.P.O. is recognised by the United Nations as the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. The situation in Namibia is of particular importance to Australians, given Australia's position as a member of the United Nations Council for Namibia-in effect a member of the UN, the government for Namibia in exile and therefore has a legal international entrusted responsibility to the people of Namibia, responsibilities which it must be prepared to take seriously in order to bring about social justice, freedom and independence for Namibia and genuine peace in that Region. Therefore this humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully requests the Government to urgently initiate the following steps: (1) To fund a S.W.A.P.O. Office in Australia, such funding to continue until a free Namibia is able to establish an Embassy in Canberra. (2) That all commercial, sporting and cultural ties with the Republic of South Africa be severed forthwith. (3) That all diplomatic ties with Pretoria be severed. (4) To give decent support to S.W.A.P.O. agriculture and educational programs. And your petitioners as duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government: 1. Unhold the principle that seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognize that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognize that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. 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 koala declared an endangered species and given the proper protection of the Commonwealth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House declare that the koala may not be exported from this country and that urgent re-vegetation of their habitats be carried out. Your petitioners also humbly pray that Commonwealth Government funds will be made available for research into the disease Chlamydia Psittaci which is killing the koala. And your petitioners, and in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peter Morris. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that- 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself a 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 in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That there is a great need for an access, in the form of a Ramp, to be provided for the elderly, disabled and parents with young children, at the Goulburn Post Office, Auburn Street, Goulburn. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will ensure access, in the form of a Ramp, is included in the restoration of the Goulburn Post Office. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia show that on the subject of the tropical rainforests of north east Queensland, that this wilderness is under threat. According to your own scientific report and consultants' opinions, this wilderness is one of the most significant regional ecosystems in the world, is of outstanding scientific importance and adequately fulfils all four of the criteria defined by the World Heritage Convention for inclusion in the World Heritage List. Your petitioners therefore ask that you reconsider your decision not to nominate the Queensland rainforest for World Heritage listing. We ask that you act according to your responsibilities, and nominate the area so that it can be protected for this generation and all to come, and your petitioners, in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of Australian residents shows that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any form of compulsory identity cards. We believe that the introduction of Identity cards will erode civil liberties; will create an increased risk of invasion of privacy; and will not result in any significant increase in Government revenue. We call on the Parliament to immediately reject any proposals for the introduction of compulsory Identity cards. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in `Funding Policies for Australian Schools' concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolements. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the 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 on 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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. Support the United Nations World Disarmament Campaign by allocating the equivalent of at least 10% of our military expenditure 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 domestic sewage-sludge and organic garbage with mineral-rich gravel dust, a by-product from rock quarries and mines, into hygienic humus, a natural fertiliser, for use in revitalising improverished 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 Staples. 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 environmentally sound use and reuse of water to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Gayler. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond Electorate respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the house of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its illconsidered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Sharp and Mr Slipper. 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 concern 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 Dr Blewett and Mr Porter. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned members of the Albury &District Aged and Invalid Pensioners Social Club, hereby request that you take urgent action to implement the recommendations of the ``Senate Select Committee inquiry into Private Nursing Homes in Australia'' where it concerns the Federal Government. We are deeply concerned about the poor treatment of frail aged in many private nursing homes and the apparent lack of concern by Federal and State governments to act to improve the quality of life of patients in nursing homes for the frail aged. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Blewett. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has announced its intention to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, currently the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 25 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government has no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in this manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but is handing over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Land Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (ie, set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to prevent this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared by the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Gayler. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: 1. Badgery's Creek and surrounding districts are unsuitable sites for any major airport due to environmental, conservation and weather factors. 2. Many hundreds of people will be dislocated and many thousands more will be disturbed by the siting of an airport at Badgery's Creek and surrounding districts. 3. N.S.W. taxpayers cannot afford the cost of a second airport when at a minimum of cost upgrading and expansion of Kingsford Smith will satisfy the needs of N.S.W. air travellers in the foreseeable future. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will not approve an airport at Badgery's Creek and surrounding districts. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Peter Morris. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Gilmore electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's total disallowance of tax deductability for entertainment and hospitality expenses will unfairly penalise Australian business and cost thousands of jobs for young and unskilled people. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Abandon its total ban on entertainment expenses and allow tax deductibility for legitimate and necessary expenses. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right of Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Assent reported. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The deteriorating economic outlook for agriculture and its effects on Australia's balance of trade. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(3.03) —The Opposition condemns this one-eyed Government for its anti-farmer, anti-country actions since it was elected to office in 1983. Not only has it selectively slashed primary industry Budget assistance and failed to negotiate satisfactory arrangements for the dairy and sugar industries, but also at the same time it has adopted fiscal, budgetary and monetary policies to satisfy its prices and incomes accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. All is not well down on the farm, but the extent of the deepening rural crisis seems to have escaped the Government. First, the devaluation has not resulted in generally improved farm prices. Secondly, farm costs have continued to spiral despite the ending of the drought. The devaluation has resulted in an average 25 per cent increase in the costs of imported farm chemicals, machinery and fuel. Thirdly, the combination of these pressures will mean that farmer incomes in 1985-86 will fall by a Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimate of 26 per cent, even more rapidly than the 19 per cent crash last year. Yet primary industry should be the key link in Australia's strategy to fight our accelerating economic slide. No longer can we afford an economic policy to satisfy the accord with the ACTU when external debt has exploded 100 per cent in two years; the dollar has collapsed; Budget deficits have set new records; some interest rates are at all time highs, far exceeding those of our major trading competitors; and the October balance of payments deficit has been the worst result on record. Yet day after day the Ministers opposite, in particular the Treasurer (Mr Keating), persist in heaping derision on anyone who dares question the wisdom of their economic strategy. The agricultural and mining industries earn about 80 per cent of our export income. These industries have the potential to help meet our balance of trade crisis, yet they are being discriminated against by this Government. Our latest balance of trade problems can no longer be ignored. The economic lunacy of bleeding the export industries will ultimately cost every Australian dearly, as in fact it has done in Argentina. The farm and small business sectors-those least able to pass on the costs of government policies to someone else-are in the firing line. Record farm debt, estimated at more than $6.5 billion, has been compounded by interest rates which have risen by up to 5 per cent in seven months. In many instances interest rates are 20 per cent plus. The Government's inflexible wage fixation policy and its deregulated exchange rate are resulting in a heavily devalued dollar, which is now being propped up in desperation by the highest real interest rates on record. How could any responsible government discriminate against rural Australians in its Budgets, when agricultural exports will be fundamental in repaying the mounting foreign debt, which, according to some economic experts, could reach $100 billion in the next 12 months? Yet the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said today that `the basic strands of this economy are right'. Tell that to the farmers, small business people and self-employed people right across Australia and see whether it is a convincing statement to them, because they know differently. A conservative analysis shows that the Hawke Budget decisions have slashed $648m from country Australians-$442m from the 170,000 farm businesses which constitute the backbone of Australian export trade. Not only that, but also the Government is now throwing up all sorts of excuses for failing to pay drought relief funds owed to farmers from as far back as 1983. In one case a farm owner had his interest rate subsidy delayed for more than two years. At one point he was told the delay was because `funds for that purpose have run out at present'. Central to the country's economic ills is the rigid wages fixation system. It was clear from day one that a deregulated financial system and exchange rate would make uncomfortable bedfellows with an indexed wages system. The export industries have not enjoyed the devaluation windfalls predicted just a few short months ago. Where is the export income boom in the farm sector? Where is it in the mining industry? October's balance of payments figures confirm that the Australian Labor Party's claims of a de- valuation windfall were falsely based. The farm slide has not been reversed. The Hawke socialist Government's only other responses to the farm crisis have left the farmers in despair and anger. Its laughable `rescue plan' in the August Budget-a couple of long overdue crumbs thrown to the farmers-was an attempt to cool the political temperature on the farms. Fuel prices on-farm were reduced by 2.4c per litre, while prices have leapt by 25 per cent this year and will rise further under the sneaky indexed fuel excise racket. Despite world oil surpluses and falling prices, our consumers, farmers and exporters are facing more expensive fuel. Labor's second response, we are told, is `getting the economy right'. That is a worthy objective. Mr Kerin —Hear, hear! Mr HUNT —The Minister says `hear, hear' and I agree with him. Recently he told a meeting at Braidwood that getting the economy right means, firstly, `reducing farm costs pressures through lower inflation'. Yet our inflation rate is twice the average of our competitors. He said, secondly, `increased demand for rural products'-a worthy goal, but one which is not being realised on depressed world markets. Thirdly, he said `enhanced international competitiveness for rural exports'-one of this Government's worst failures, due to increasing farm input costs, including interest rates and fuel. Fourthly, he said `improved job opportunities'-yet the accord is sending wages ever higher, when rural employers, on average, are earning one-third of the average weekly wage. The answer to the farm crisis lies in policies which will reduce domestic costs and improve our flagging competitiveness. These industries use relatively little overseas capital and are the most favoured sector to restore our current account to reasonable levels and to repay our record international debt. There are a number of actions the Government could take immediately to help restore the export potential of the farm industries if it was fair dinkum. Firstly, it could abolish the indexation of fuel excise, which is a sneaky tax creep. This action would help reduce our inflation rate, already outstripping those of our competitors. Secondly, to achieve substantial fuel price cuts there must be restoration of the fuel freight subsidy while every other sector enjoys more effective levels of assistance than agriculture; removal of all fuel excises for on-farm and fishery use; and recognition within fuel pricing mechanisms of the real trend in world oil prices. Thirdly, there is a strong case for the tariffs on all farm inputs, such as chemicals, machinery and machinery parts, to be urgently replaced by bounties. The cost of industry protection to farmers today exceeds the annual net farmer income. Indeed, the level of protection for secondary industry is almost three times higher than it is for rural industries. The fall of the effective level of assistance for agriculture in the last 12 years has been twice that of the fall for manufacturing industries. This ludicrous situation must not continue. Fourthly, the export inspection charges must be removed. Costs for some industries have risen by 200 per cent and for others by more than 1,000 per cent under Labor. Fifthly, at least some of the $442m farm Budget rip-offs should be urgently restored if we are to maintain the farm export performance. It is not good enough for our farm industries to suffer huge Budget cuts while other areas have enjoyed large increases. Sixthly, in view of the Government-made interest rates crisis, there should be an immediate investigation of the possibility of using the Primary Industry Bank of Australia to assist those potentially viable farmers who are heavily burdened with crippling interest repayments because of recent property and capital investments. While I do not like the idea of subsidising interest rates, some action may be necessary unless early budgetary, wage policy, and other initiatives are taken by this Government to reduce the record high real interest rates. In this regard the Government could provide a subsidy to PIBA, enabling it to subsidise specific types of loans made by potentially viable primary lenders, not those who are eligible for debt adjustment funds. Crucially, the farmers, small business and country communities cannot carry high interest rates and bear the prospective burden of the Government's crippling tax package. Already falls in rural land prices are accelerating because of declining farm terms of trade and the prospect of this tax package. The tax trilogy for farmers-quarantining of farm losses, the tax on fringe benefits and capital gains-strikes savagely at the prospect of capital gain compensation for low farm incomes. There is a wider community perception that, even if 40 per cent of farmers go to the wall, the farm properties will still be there if operated by corporations, large investors or overseas financiers. The land may be there, but would the land be used as effectively or efficiently to the overall benefit of all Australians? The average Australian family farm is a model of economic efficiency and productivity. What corporation has the flexibility to produce goods at low cost, which family farmers are producing at one-third the average weekly earnings? What other group of investors is prepared to invest for a return averaging less than 2 per cent to capital, now with the prospect of capital gains being taxed and losses quarantined? Australian agriculture is at the crossroads. Surely the tax package as it affects agriculture must be scrapped. Further, the falling balance of trade and record interest rates are grounds for review of the accord, and the Prime Minister must go further than his comments yesterday. The recent accumulated 6.5 per cent wage increase is another converging threat to the viability of the average family farmer and employment on the farms. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has also made a mess of his handling of the problems afflicting sugar and dairy producers. The dairy farmers have been forced to produce in uncertainty, during a time of depressed world markets and overproduction, despite their efforts to produce a nationally agreed dairy plan in line with the realities of world markets, local consumption levels, and price. Last year the Minister accepted that the entitlement approach was the right approach, but now he has changed his tune. Sugar producers have been ditched in what has become a political exercise aimed at bludgeoning the Queensland Government into sharing price support, which is not required from other States for the steel and motor industries. There must be a fundamental change in the direction of government policy. The farmers' terms of trade have fallen from a base of 100 in 1980-81 to an estimated 77 in this financial year. Instead of experiencing some post-drought recovery, the farmers have been singled out for savage treatment, with the Government transferring resources from the farm sector by surreptitious means. We are sick and tired of hearing promises of falling interest rates, windfall devaluation gains, and improved competitiveness. Yesterday the half-hearted response by the Prime Minister to calls for a review of the accord and its damaging impact on the economy was the latest in this Government's weekly, almost daily, doses of bad news for the farm sector. His comments suggest that, bad as the interest rates are, bad as the balance of payments deficit is, they are not bad enough to review the accord. Unless this Government acts to restore confidence in agriculture, the standard of living of all Australians will begin to slide and it will be very difficult indeed to arrest that decline. There is a range of measures the Government could take if it was fair dinkum, but it is not fair dinkum. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(3.08) —We have just heard the biannual matter of public importance of the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). Let me focus on the terms of the matter of public importance today, namely: The deteriorating economic outlook for agriculture and its effects on Australia's balance of trade. It is pretty obvious that, apart from the fact that that is an obvious statement-in other words, night follows day, to quote the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock)-the honourable member for Gwydir really has not said a great deal about what we do about it; nor has he really pointed out the difficulties he has in justifying his own Government's economic record or what his own so-called Opposition coalition would do about it, or how it reconciles the different strands of its policies and approaches. The honourable member says he wants to subsidise interest rates. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) says that he wants to deregulate the only remaining interest rate that is not deregulated, which is for housing. I suggest to the honourable gentleman that if he is looking at mechanisms to subsidise interest rates for farmers, it would probably be better to focus on the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia rather than on the Primary Industry Bank of Australia. The matter the honourable member has brought up today is very important. I would have thought that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), those people concerned mainly with economic management, had given more than adequate answers to the situation Australia is in today. The Opposition is trying to use this place simply to talk the economy down, to accentuate those elements that also concern this side of the House. It makes out that somehow it is all our fault, that we have not got policies in place to do something about it, or that we are ignoring it. Everyone knows that any government that comes into office inherits the legacies of the past and inherits the good things and the bad things and that in terms of actions taken by any government there are leads and there are lags. The fundamentals of this economy are basically right. We are heading in the right direction. Those people who want to denigrate our successes cannot face the fact that they had such an obvious lack of success when they were in government. What they did to the rural sector was run an over-valued exchange rate. They used a monetary policy to push down on growth. Every time there was an upturn there was a wages explosion, followed by high inflation, which choked off growth. We are not going back to the policies of the 1970s and 1980s. What we are stressing is about the only way to go for Australia; that is, to head for non-inflationary growth, to try to contain costs within the economy-we are doing that with the accord, and I will get on to that in a moment-and to try to increase our exporting competitiveness, which we have done and are doing with our exchange rate. One of the divisions between the Country Party and the Liberal Party in this place is still the fundamental question with respect to the exchange rate. The Country Party does not know whether it wants a lower exchange rate or not. Eventually I think it has worked out that it does want one because that will help competitiveness but then, of course, the Liberal Party wants a higher exchange rate, because it criticises us every time the exchange rate drops. They really have to work out what they want. They really have to work out what sort of economy they want. They really have to work out what sort of consistent policies they are going to put in place to deal with the problems that we are all only too well aware of. We are getting economic growth going in this country. When we came to office in 1982-83 the gross domestic product fell by some 0.6 per cent. Under us, it increased by 4.9 per cent in 1983-84 and 4.6 per cent in 1984-85, and we project growth of something like 4 1/2 per cent this year. Despite the usual doubts, despite all the pooh-poohing and despite all the gloom and doom merchants, we will achieve this growth this year. There is growing evidence for that. In fact, some people are now arguing that the economy is growing too fast. That is what the Liberal Party says when it wants us to bung on all these measures that it used to use, the measures it still loves and dearly holds on to, to slow down any growth, to bring back stagnation in the economy and to give us an expanded Budget deficit to pay for all the people unemployed. Opposition members are experts at unemployment because they added a quarter of a million in their last year in office. Economic growth averaged only 2.1 per cent under the previous Government. It is close to 5 per cent under this Government. Retail sales are rising. The labour market is picking up. We now have an under 8 per cent unemployment rate. We are getting the runs on the board in the economic area. Real unit labour costs under the accord have fallen sharply. They are now at their lowest since the late 1960s. In terms of an increase in earnings, we just had a figure of 4.1 per cent and the figure was actually lower for the previous quarter. I would just like to point out that in the last year of office of the people opposite, in March 1982, the figure they had was 17 per cent. We are comparing 17 per cent under them with 4.1 per cent under us, and they say here that they know the way to run an economy. Inflation under them was around 12 per cent when we came to office and was reduced to 5 per cent last year. Although it is now higher, due essentially to the devaluation of the dollar, it is expected to fall to around 6 or 7 per cent next financial year. As I said, real unit labour costs have fallen by over 7 per cent since their 1982 peak. The relative returns to capital and labour have been restored to more appropriate levels. The profit share has returned to the level of the the late 1960s. The Government is not satisfied with the progress and we are not saying that important things do not remain to be done. We are not saying there are not some pros and cons, some tensions, in terms of economic management. Of course, interest rates and the balance of trade are major matters of concern. What I am saying is that, through its approach, the Government has in a relatively short time established what we believe is a more solid basis for producing viable and sustained economic growth, not this stop-start nonsense and not this great brawl with the National Party and the Liberal Party in coalition every time they want a devaluation. The realisation of the goals set by the Government is entirely dependent on striking an appropriate balance between the various policy instruments at our disposal. At present there is significant concern about the level of interest rates, and I will get on to that in a moment. What we want to see is a way of achieving non-inflationary growth with monetary conditions remaining firm, but without such horrendous measures put in place that we choke off all growth in this economy. Let us just look at the accord. When we came to office we accepted the realities and decided to work with them. Under the Prime Minister's stewardship we have now in place an accord which is giving us wage rates which mean a diminution of farm costs, once the leads and the lags are through, to the farm sector. It is only through the agreements reached through the accord that the Government could have stabilised the rate of growth in wages and secured discounting of future wage increases to prevent increases in prices, resulting from devaluation of the dollar, from fuelling inflation. As I have already said, average weekly earnings rose by only 4.1 per cent. Award wages are expected to increase by about 6 per cent in 1985-86. Again, I go back to the last year of the previous Government when it was 12 1/2 per cent. Such relatively low rates of growth, given the dramatic devaluation of the dollar, are hardly consistent with claims that growth in wages is excessive. I will just look at the first part of the terms of this matter of public importance. The latest Bureau of Agricultural Economics forecasts for the farm sector in 1985-86, issued earlier this month, forecast a 26 per cent decline in the real net value of rural production. I made the point when opening the last National Agricultural Outlook Conference that the interaction between quite small changes in the level of production, costs and revenue, produces an enormous effect on the calculations of the real net value of rural production. This is because, quite frankly, the margins are very thin. What we have here is on the basis of 72c in the dollar. If it were at 68c in the dollar, the sensitivity of those figures would have produced a drop of 18 per cent, not the 26 per cent, and that shows how sensitive they are to changes in the value of the dollar. What the 26 per cent figure was based on was a 2 per cent fall in productivity and a 5 per cent fall in the farmers' terms of trade. The productivity fall arises from a 4 per cent fall in the volume of output being only partly offset by a 2 per cent fall in the volume of inputs. The terms of trade fall arose from a 7 per cent increase in the index of farm costs exceeding a 2 per cent increase in prices received. The major single commodity change is the forecast reduction of 2.2 million tonnes in wheat production, which alone accounts for some 37 per cent of the forecast change in real net value of production. Thirty-seven per cent of the drop in total is due to a drop in the amount of wheat being produced. Another 29 per cent arises form the reduction in the real price of wheat. All the reduction virtually is accounted for by crops. Livestock producers do not face the same bleak outlook. Although these great average figures are trotted out and the gloom and doom merchants opposite like to put terror into the community about the figures, they really do need to analyse and have a look at the figures, commodity by commodity, and the structure of agricultural production. Even the level of farm indebtedness cannot be simply equated, necessarily, with the level of rural hardship. Mr Hawker —It is a good indicator. Mr KERIN —No, it is not necessarily a good indicator at all. In terms of my discussions with the banks, a lot of the increased indebtedness is associated with the livestock industries where it is investment in rural production itself, particularly in wool and beef. It is not the only measure, and it is not necessarily the best measure at all of rural hardship. When I had a farm and I was in debt, I was expanding. Mr Hunt —Interest rates were not 20 per cent then. Mr KERIN —I am just trying to make the point that it is not necessary to be equated. If we look at the structure of farm indebtedness, figures from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics for farm indebtedness overall across the sector show that there is still a substantial level of liquid assets, that there are a significant number of farmers without any debts, that the average debt-capital ratio is between 8 and 9 per cent and that there is likely to be an increase in the real terms of rural indebtedness between 30 June 1984 and 30 June 1985 of between 3.8 and 4.8 per cent. That increase is not particularly large. Discussions I have had with the major trading banks and pastoral houses indicate that, as I have already said, the increases are due in part to the economic situation in the sheep and beef industries rather than to rural hardship. The most recent figures I have available to me indicate that 42.8 per cent of all sheep-only farmers, 56.7 per cent of beef-only farmers and 32.9 per cent of sheep and beef farmers have less than $10,000 debt. Even 27 per cent of wheat farmers have hardly any debt. About 38 per cent of dairy farmers have less than $10,000 debt and for the horticultural industry the figure is something like 43 per cent. The figures indicate that 41.7 per cent of beef-only farmers have zero debt. Mr Hawker —That is selective quoting. Mr KERIN —It is not selective quoting. I am quoting from right across the Australian grazing industry survey figures produced by the BAE. It does the farm sector no good to use the averages I have cited without analysing just what the exact situation is. The second part of the matter of public importance proposed by the Deputy Leader of the National Party relates to the balance of trade and the balance of payments data released on 12 November. One thing that needs to be said about that data, apart from the obvious, is that the trade deficit increase of $357m-there was an increase in that period of 8 per cent in rural exports-was more than offset by a 9 per cent decrease in non-rural exports. Imports rose by 9 per cent. The value of net invisibles rose by $218m. We ought to examine those figures reasonably carefully. Much of the increase in the current account deficit in October was due to seasonal factors. In seasonally adjusted terms, the trade deficit rose by only $40m. Seasonally adjusted exports fell by 12 per cent, while seasonally adjusted imports fell by 10 per cent. The rise in the net invisible deficit was due primarily to large interest payments made on government overseas borrowings, reflecting the high proportion of loans with October payment dates- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(3.33) —The crisis facing the trading sector-in fact, the crisis facing the whole of our economy-should be sufficient to shock every Australian out of complacency, a complacency born of the belief that Australia is a lucky country. The Hawke Labor Government, in its commitment to the Australian Council of Trade Unions, turns a blind eye to this crisis. Last Friday, during Question Time, Ministers avoided answering the Opposition's criticism of the economy and trade. Today the Opposition intends to force the issue. The headlines in the Australian of only yesterday should be sufficient to alert the Government to the problems that are facing Australia. They read `Business queries dollar fall benefit', and `Australia told to . . . free the economy', `Industry fund for hours fight' and `Union super campaign ``a bid for more power'' '. These headlines are all taken from one paper and all show the crisis Australia faces at the moment. The Hawke Labor Government has proven itself to be a bigger economic vandal than the previous record holder, the Whitlam Labor Government of 1972 to 1975. Mr Hunt —It is worse. Mr BRAITHWAITE —It is. Australia's current account deficit of $1.641 billion for October, rising interest rates, a national wage increase of 3.8 per cent, reductions in export market development grants and an inflation rate expected to rise from 8 per cent to 10 per cent are the results of this Government's blind determination to let its masters, Mr Crean and Mr Kelty of the ACTU, dominate its every action and write its economy policy. All are signs of that economic vandalism. The ACTU is not elected by the Australian people. There is no one vote, one value election by any of us here to allow the ACTU power to determine Australia's economic, industrial, trading or foreign policies. But clearly it has that power and influence and has blatantly used it. Through this matter of public importance the Opposition wants to bring a sense of realism and urgency to the crisis in agriculture and trade and, of course, to all the industries on which Australia relies to get it out of its current economic difficulties. We are told that there is economic growth, that the economy is on target. All I can say to that is that if growth is measured by the bankruptcy now facing the sugar industry, the distress of dairy producers, the shedding of labour by businesses right around Australia, exporters who have given up the fight to earn an honest dollar overseas and a record national debt and interest bill, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) are on target. We have had admissions that the J-curve will grow a longer stem. In this House last night a Labor Minister admitted that manufacturing in Australia is in a fragile situation, a state of pitiful weakness. The Prime Minister now admits that he may have to review his accord with the ACTU. Labor's answer to these problems has been for the Primary Industry Minister to say that he was rolled in Cabinet; for the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) to cut export grants; for the Treasurer to remove all incentives by further taxing primary, secondary and manufacturing industries, such as through the neutralisation of income equalisation deposits, the taxing of farm fringe benefits and the removal of investment allowances; and for the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) to rearrange the seating in the Australian Trade Commissioner Service. Labor is now reaping theharvest from the seeds it spread by making profit a dirty word, by discouraging incentives and by taxing capital formation. The Liberal and National parties firmly believe that the standard of living of every Australian depends on how effectively and efficiently we produce and how effectively we trade. Every Australian's security, and that of our children, depends on these factors. Yet we are allowing that future to be mortgaged and put in jeopardy by the current Government's policies. Let us measure this Government's economic and trading performance, which is reflected on our trade deficit, after nearly three years in office. Labor took us from the worst drought of the century to good seasons. This circumstance alone should have given Australian trade and agriculture a significant boost. Labor took us from a wage pause to indexation. Australia is, I understand, the only country in the world that follows such a policy. The Treasurer took the value of our Australian dollar from 90c against the United States dollar to a low of 63c earlier this year. Labor has taken our inflation rate to twice that of the average of member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Labor, in freeing the exchange rate, has not allowed the dollar to float. It has propped it up through increased interest rates. Consequently, over the three years of Labor government, prime interest rates have increased from 13 per cent in early 1984 to 19 per cent today. Under Labor, three record Budget deficits have been recorded: In 1983-84, $7.9 billion; in 1984-85, $6.7 billion; and in 1985-86, if on target, $4.9 billion. Australia's balance of trade and current account deficit in 1982-83 was $6,389m; in 1983-84, $7,348m; and in 1984-85, $10,347m-all record levels. In the four months to October 1985, there was a deficit of $5,057m-well on target to exceed the 1984-85 record. Labor has allowed Australia's national debt to more than double in those three years. Interest on the national debt went from $3,378m in 1982-83 to $6,724m estimated for 1985-86, or nearly 10 per cent of all outlays and the third highest expenditure after social security and payments to the States. It took more than the combined value of agricultural exports in 1984-85-wheat, $2,785m; wool, $1,946m; and sugar, $574m-to pay the national interest of $5,656m that year. This year it will take the addition of our meat exports to meet the interest commitment. These are the comparisons that count. They tell the sad story of economic management and Government performance. However, the Treasurer prefers to make selective comparisons with other countries. As an accountant, I know that one can make a shabby set of figures look good by comparing them with figures for other countries, particularly if one compares them with those for Argentina. But the best and only accurate examination has to be of a nation's own performance within its own environment. It is the political environment of the Hawke Labor Government that makes Australia's balance sheet of performance pathetic and embarrassing. These performances and policies affect each of our primary producers. Interest rates are so high now that, over four years, without redemption, a farm loan will double and the security of the farm will be debased. Fuel costs rise as the dollar drops. The effects of tariffs protecting inefficient manufacturers, as acknowledged by the Minister last night, have to be borne by the farmers. High-cost imports are reflected in higher input costs to farmers and to traders on the export market. There can be no doubt that exporters have to be efficient in terms of overseas competition, and competing manufacturers do not have access to any subsidy or tariffs, but those exporting industries have to absorb the price of that protection within their own cost structure. These protectionist policies are estimated to have caused a 16 per cent loss of earnings to agriculture, and in many cases this is the difference between a profit and a loss. I wish to compare Australia's performance against that of our overseas trading competitors to highlight the massive disadvantage that we suffer as a result of this economic management. I refer to currency valuation and interest rates comparisons. The figures for the currency valuation come from the Australian of 5 November. They show that between 31 December 1984 and now our dollar has devalued against the United States dollar by 19 per cent, against the Japanese yen by 32.8 per cent, against sterling by 34.6 per cent, against the German mark by 33.1 per cent, against the French franc by 33.4 per cent, against the Italian lire by 26.5 per cent, against the Canadian dollar by 16 per cent, against the Singaporean dollar by 21.5 per cent, and it has even devalued against the New Zealand dollar by 32.9 per cent. I refer now to figures for prime interest rates and inflation rates. The figures are: Canada, 10.25 per cent interest and 4 per cent inflation; France, 10.85 per cent and 4.5 per cent; West Germany, 9.14 per cent and 2.3 per cent; United States of America, 9.5 per cent and 3.5 per cent; Japan, 7 per cent and 2 per cent; and Australia 18.5 per cent interest and 8 per cent inflation-twice the rate of inflation being experienced in any of the other nations. As at 30 June 1984 our farm debt was estimated to be $6,000m. Interest is 5 per centage points higher than it should be, which has added $300m extra interest per year in costs to agriculture. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) has indicated the Government's agricultural policies and their effect on Australian trade. I emphasise the situation involving the sugar industry. The Commonwealth was not prepared to assist this single State industry whereas it has assisted the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd to the tune of $350m without the New South Wales Government putting in a cent. It insists on deregulation but at the same time refuses to deregulate its own wage system. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(3.43) —The matter of public importance proposed is really a conglomeration of misinformation and certainly selective amnesia on the part of the Opposition about its performance in government. It is really another attempt at cheap political point scoring. This debate deserves to be treated in such a way as to convey the correct picture of agriculture and agricultural trade. We must remind the Australian people of the Opposition's dismal record in government. It was interesting to hear the comments on protectionism made by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), particularly, and the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). A few years ago, when the Whitlam Government introduced a 25 per cent cut in tariffs, I remember the then Leader of the Country Party-now the National Party-suggesting that that action was a cowardly attempt at coming to grips with the question of tariff protection. Yet in June 1968 the late Sir John McEwen, then Leader of the Country Party, in his address to the annual conference of the New South Wales branch of the Country Party talked about the problems of trade in the context of what he saw as the great milestone reached when Britain joined the European Economic Community. He went on to warn of some of the problems that were going to face a country such as Australia. Sir John McEwen said: A new and pernicious concept has been introduced into world agricultural trade-the variable levy. In the EEC, levies-which are the same as fluctuating import tariffs-are about $56 per ton for wheat, $400 per ton for beef, plus a 20% tariff, and up to $1,500 per ton for butter. He went on to talk about all the problems relating to tariff protection, and then made the comment: And it is said to me that Australia's tariffs are high! This afternoon the honourable member for Gwydir, the Deputy Leader of the National Party, was telling us that tariffs are high and causing problems; yet the National Party does not recognise what was said by its own leaders just a few years ago. When a government seeks to do something about tariffs and protectionism generally, it is treated by the National Party with scorn and derision. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who put forward a very laudable defence in his contribution to this matter of public importance debate this afternoon, drew the attention of the House to some of the background reasons for Australia's position at present, particularly the economic performance of this Government and its effects on Australia's balance of trade. The important point that should be remembered is that the bleak outlook for many commodities is first and foremost the result of the weakness of world markets. Despite all the bleating that we hear from members of the National Party from time to time, they somehow seem to forget that. What has been the Government's response to this? It has sought changes to some of the subsidy arrangements and policies of our major competitors, which are certainly a cause of our rather weak international marketing position. There are certainly big battles ahead of us with that task. There will be no bigger battle, I suggest, than the battle with the European Economic Community-a battle that has probably been going on, as far as Australia and many other countries are concerned, for the last 15 or 20 years. The Government is also working through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to try to create more favourable trading conditions. But these things just do not happen overnight. The National Party, particularly, seems to forget that we are living in a very competitive world. It seems to suggest that, despite the fact that this Government has been in power for just under three years, suddenly everything that goes wrong with agricultural trade is a result of this Government's actions. I certainly reject that. One of the interesting points in recent information put out by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics is that the major single change forecast for commodities is a reduction of 2.2 million tonnes of wheat. This crop accounts for some 37 per cent of the forecast change in the real net value of production which, coupled with a further 29 per cent reduction in the real price of wheat, means that something like 66 per cent of the decline in the value of trade has been as a result of the changes concerning a single commodity-wheat. We have seen the reasons why this has been happening in world trade. The Minister also mentioned that while the situation for wheat and other course grains is not the best, livestock producers certainly are not facing the same bleak outlook for international trade. It amuses me when National Party members in this House talk about increased costs under this Government that they seem to have a very short memory indeed. No one-certainly not the Minister for Primary Industry, or anyone on this side of the House-is denying the fact that farm costs have risen. In fact, the rate of increase of farm input costs over the last 12 months has been about 7 per cent. But honourable members opposite forget to mention the other significant figure and that is that while they were in power the average rate of increase of farm inputs was in the order of 11 or 12 per cent, or almost twice the rate of farm input cost increases that has occurred under this Government. This difference between 7 per cent and about 11 per cent represents something like half a billion dollars in the pockets of Australian farmers. This coming to grips with farm costs has largely been due to the success of this Government's economic policies, particularly the accord. I will come back to that shortly. However, if the Government had decided not to float the dollar the net value of rural production in 1985-86 could have been nearly $2,000m lower in 1985-86 or something like 60 per cent lower than is currently forecast by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. In other words, the decision to float the Australian dollar in December 1983 has been one of the most significant moves by this Government to do something about increasing the real value of rural production in Australia and putting money in farmers' pockets. Unfortunately, the previous Government, the Fraser Government-the Nationals made up a significant part of that Cabinet-persisted for years with an overvalued exchange rate and a total reliance on monetary policy. Again, the Minister for Primary Industry reminded the Opposition of those policies during his remarks here this afternoon but, unfortunately, the selective amnesia that tends to grip members of the National and Liberal parties from time to time meant that they glossed over that point. Honourable members opposite forgot to mention some of the other initiatives of this Government that have done something about improving Australia's farming competitiveness and controlling farm costs; or, if they did acknowledge them, they certainly did so in a rather grudging fashion. For example, honourable members would be aware that in the recent Budget the Government decided to rebate fully the cost of diesel fuel excise. We have improved the marketing arrangements of the statutory marketing authorities to provide them with a greater degree of commercial flexibility and expertise-something that has been very welcome throughout the industry. There have also been the initiatives in soil conservation and rural research generally. Where was the mention of those this afternoon? All we get is the tired old words about the sugar industry. The honourable member for Gwydir and the honourable member for Dawson fail to acknowledge the fact that the Commonwealth is trying to do something about industries that have been in rather difficult circumstances. Yet we have the intransigence of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and his National cohorts in Queensland, who will not come to grips with the problems in the sugar industry and are using this for cheap political point scoring against the Commonwealth which, I believe, has put up a very constructive plan to do something to solve the problems of the industry, which we could all acknowledge is in a crisis position. The efforts put into the Kerin dairy plan to do something about the dairy industry-the efforts of the Government and the Minister for Primary Industry-were again frustrated, particularly by the National Party and some of its supporters, when it came to a vote in the Senate. I remind honourable members that there have been positive achievements by this Government. Inflation, which was around 10 1/2 to 12 per cent under the Fraser Government, has been more than halved by this Government. Unemployment is now below 8 per cent for the first time in a number of years compared with the double digit unemployment combined with double digit inflation that was a characteristic of the Fraser years. Real unit labour costs have fallen below 7 per cent since their 1982 peak and the devaluation, in time, will considerably improve Australia's trading position as our exports become more competitive. Unfortunately, this point is not acknowledged. The National Party, particularly, is always for the quick fix. Its members are looking for quick solutions because this is the way they have historically sought to achieve their objectives. This Government is not about quick fixes; it is about long term action to restructure the Australian economy and improve the performance of Australia's farmers. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Consideration resumed from 9 October. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(3.53) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill seeks to amend the Student Assistance Act 1973, which provides the legislative basis for the tertiary education assistance scheme-TEAS-and for the postgraduate awards scheme. The Bill does not raise any major policy matters and is confined essentially to questions of an administrative nature. The Bill proposes to restructure the student assistance review tribunals or SARTs, which at present consist of a number of tribunals each with a chairperson-formerly chairman-and two other members. It is proposed to have a single Student Assistance Review Tribunal, comprising a panel of convenors and a panel of other members, with the SART at any particular hearing being constituted by a convenor and two members. This is similar to the structure of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and will streamline administrative arrangements, such as those involved in the appointment of SART members. It is intended to re-appoint all present chairpersons and members of existing SARTs as convenors and members of the new Tribunal. Other amendments concerning the SART will enable the appointment of acting convenors, will allow the SART to remit matters to the Department for reconsideration in accordance with the SART's directions or recommendations, and will provide for a more flexible procedure in cases where it is not possible to give a student the necessary notice of the SART hearing. An amendment is also proposed in relation to the protection of Australian Taxation Office and other confidential documents made available to the SART. The amendment will insert a new provision, proposed section 29B, which will substantially repeat the existing provisions at present contained in section 25 (2), with the following modifications: It will be clarified that documents are to be protected during a SART hearing as well as at the pre-hearing stage; oral disclosure of a document's contents will be prohibited where disclosure of the document itself is prohibited; the restriction on the disclosure of a document dealing with a person's affairs will not generally apply if the person agrees to the disclosure. I should perhaps add that the Government appreciates it is necessary to balance privacy considerations with open access to documents, and that it is recognised the proposed section 29B may need to be re-examined in the context of future reviews of non-disclosure provisions in Commonwealth legislation or of the confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The amendments also include a provision, proposed section 34A, to enable the delegation of some ministerial powers. A delegation may be made in relation to arrangements concerning the assessment of applications for student assistance, the method of paying benefits, the giving of public notice of ministerial decisions, and any powers conferred by the student assistance regulations. Delegations will be restricted to the Secretary to the Department, to Senior Executive Service officers of the Department, or to an Acting Secretary or Acting Senior Executive Service officer. As the Student Assistance Act at present makes no provision for a time limit for prosecuting offences, section 21 (1) (c) of the Crimes Act operates to require that prosecutions under the student assistance regulations must be commenced within one year of the offence being committed. It has proved very difficult to complete the necessary procedures of identification and investigation within this period and the Bill therefore includes an amendment, proposed section 35A, to enable prosecutions to be brought within two years of the offence being committed. This provision will not apply to offences committed before the amendment comes into force. The intention is to facilitate the prosecution of serious abuses only and the proposed amendment will not lead to a major increase in the overall prosecution activity under the student assistance regulations. The Bill has no significant financial implications. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 9 October. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(3.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Repeal Bill 1985 is to repeal the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Act 1982. The Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Act 1982 provides for the giving of guarantees and subsidies by the Commonwealth in respect of certain loans made to eligible students. However, since the Act was assented to on 31 December 1982, no loans have been made and no guarantees or subsidies given in pursuance of the Act. Furthermore, the Government has made a commitment not to proceed with the student loans scheme proposed by the Fraser Government. The present Bill fulfils that commitment. The Bill has no expenditure implications. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.59) —I move: That, in accordance with sub-section 8A (7) of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970, the House approves the giving of a guarantee to the Australian Industry Development Corporation in the terms set out in the Deed of Guarantee to be presented to the House on 19 November 1985. I table a copy of the deed of guarantee. I get a good deal of satisfaction out of moving this historic motion. The purpose of this motion is to approve the granting of a guarantee to the Australian Industry Development Corporation that borrowings undertaken by the AIDC, in order to assist a joint venture researching a malaria vaccine, will be recouped. On 14 June it was announced that the Government had decided to use the national interest provisions of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act to provide additional assistance to a local project which aims to develop and market a malaria vaccine. It will be well known to honourable members that, while there have been a number of means for treating the symptoms of malaria, there have been no vaccines to produce anti-bodies, although Atabrin and other chemicals build up some resistance. Under the terms of this decision the AIDC will provide funds to the project on the basis of the AIDC being indemnified by the Government and being reimbursed the interest forgone and management costs. In order to satisfy the requirements of the AIDC Act, approval is sought in order that the guarantee may be given. Provision has already been made in the Budget for reimbursing interest forgone and management costs. This is the first occasion on which the Parliament has been asked to approve the giving of a guarantee under the national interest provisions of the AIDC Act. Indeed, it is the first occasion the national interest provisions of the AIDC Act have been invoked. This is an example of how the commercial skills and experience of AIDC's staff, developed over the last 15 years and tested in the commercial market-place, can be harnessed in support of government policy to the benefit of the wide community. The project is being undertaken by a joint venture which comprises the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research; the Queensland Institute of Medical Research; the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission, and Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd. The joint venture approached the Government seeking additional funds, over and above an award made under the national biotechnology program research grants scheme, in order to accelerate its research effort and maintain its world lead. After careful consideration of the request, the Government decided that the most appropriate mechanism for supporting the project would be through the national interest provisions of the AIDC Act and, accordingly, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, directed the AIDC to furnish him with a report in relation to the project. That report has formed the basis for the Government's action. While hopes were held for the eradication of malaria in the post-World War II period, its incidence has dramatically increased in recent years. This is due to the parasite developing resistance to drugs and the transmission vector, the Anopheles mosquito, developing resistance to DDT and, lately, other insecticides. It is estimated that nearly 2,000 million people are exposed to the risk of malaria while over 200 million people are chronically affected or suffer from acute malaria. It is one of the most devastating of human diseases, both in terms of the pain and suffering it causes to individuals and the intolerable economic burden it imposes on countries in malaria endemic regions of the world. The Australian researchers aim at developing a vaccine to combat the blood cell, merozoite, stage of the infection. The major objective of the first stage of the program is to produce and identify those antigens which are most likely to stimulate the body's defence mechanisms and so constitute an effective vaccine. A second, parallel, stage is to develop methods of application of the vaccine. Research is also being carried out around the world into other stages of the malaria infection and it is recognised that a final vaccine may be a multivalent product which would combine an attack on the different stages and thus confer a greater degree of immunity to the disease. The AIDC concluded that while Australia was world leader in anti-malaria research and the program was well founded scientifically, the lead could be lost. The development of a vaccine capability is an example of the type of high technology industry the Government wishes to promote. The program is bringing together leading academic researchers and industry in a way which augurs well for future co-operation which can only benefit all Australians. Because of the combined expertise of the joint venturers, Australia is in a favourable position to continue its world lead in developing a vaccine. Success would have major international health and foreign relations benefits as well as significant commercial opportunities. It could act as a catalyst for the domestic biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries as well as having significant strategic benefits. Furthermore, the World Health Organisation has shown special interest in the venture and it is likely that it will participate in the financing and marketing of any vaccine in Third World countries. However, there are also risks involved. There is no guarantee that the research will produce an effective vaccine while the trialling costs of any vaccine will be substantial. Should the research be successful, commercial success is not assured. It needs to be pointed out that many of the nations that are afflicted by malaria have people who are desperately poor and are not able to pay a market return. As I have noted, other groups world-wide are researching the problem which could impede the marketing of a wholly Australian vaccine. The AIDC considered that the risks and funding involved were greater than it could absorb in the normal course of business and it suggested the current mechanism for providing assistance. Over a three-year period the AIDC would provide the joint venture a maximum of $9.2m, on the basis that I mentioned before. In return, the joint venture would match the AIDC's contribution and offer a significant stake in the intellectual property developed. The Government has decided to provide funding along the lines of the mechanism suggested by the AIDC. In reaching this decision it recognises the risks but believes that the benefits to the development of industry in Australia and the much broader and less quantifiable humanitarian benefits are of far greater potential value. I commend the motion to the House. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(4.07) —The proposition put forward by the Government on this occasion is a milestone in terms of the use of the Australian Industry Development Corporation. I commend the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) for his enthusiasm in this area. I know of his very genuine interest. However, there are a couple of aspects to which I will address my comments. There is no doubt that there is a need, in the world sense, for a malaria vaccine. There is no doubt that an enormous amount of work has been put into the production of a vaccine both in Australia and overseas. Indeed, the United States of America produced a vaccine of this type two years ago. The vaccine was used in parts of Africa but there was one basic problem; no one could pay for it. As a consequence, the use of the vaccine very largely wound down. The work which is going on by this venture in Australia is by no means unique; there are other ventures even in Australia. It is not improbable that despite the support that is being given to this consortium, in terms of a judgment made about it, in the end two or three similar consortiums, or research centres, may well cross the line in very close sequence. There could be international associations in terms of this project. Although the Government's proposal is a milestone, it is by no means a forgone conclusion that this consortium is the winner. As we have said before, there are some difficulties in going into entrepreneurial activities which endeavour to pick winners because, with the best of intent-I speak from my own experience-some very probable enterprises miss the bus for all sorts of reasons. An enormous amount of background work has gone into the production of this serum. It is a difficult procedure to undertake. Probably 2,000 or 3,000 sequences are involved in producing the vaccine. Because of that it is a long term development. It is not something that can be produced overnight. It requires expertise which I am sure those associated with it would have. The names mentioned by the Minister are well known and well respected names in Australian medical research. The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research is well known to us all. The Queensland Institute of Medical Research has a close connection with the Walter and Eliza Hall. Professor Sir Gustav Nossal is a director of both; indeed, as a director of CRA, he is also therefore connected with Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd. So it is only the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories which is not connected through joint directorships but itself is the processing or producing arm in Australia for serums. Therefore, the combination in itself is logical, and no doubt some credit goes to Gus Nossal for the work done in putting that together. Mr Barry Jones —And Dr Chev Kidson from Brisbane. Mr MOORE —I was not aware of that. In terms of the commitments given here, I draw the attention of the House to the role of the Australian Industry Development Corporation. I am not in a position to make a judgment on the work or whether the vaccine proposed by the consortium is the best in the world; I do not think anybody here would be. Obviously, the AIDC having been approached to fund this operation, I presume that the report called for by the Minister highlighted the financial risks involved. It is regrettable that that report is not here, because the Minister is asking the House to approve an underwriting-a unique underwriting-and he is not putting to the House the report of the financial people on which he bases the judgment. He is asking us to underwrite blind $9.2m for the AIDC. The question before the House now is that we give approval to this motion which, in effect, is to underwrite a loan of $9.2m to the AIDC. That is based on a report which was called for by the Minister and, no doubt, taken to the Cabinet, and they went down this track. In the commercial world, if one is asked to underwrite anything, one would ask the financial consultants, which in this case was the AIDC, and one would ask the lending authority, which in this case was also the AIDC, for their financial judgment. That has not been presented here. It is not made available to us to make a judgment on it, yet we are asked to go ahead and underwrite $9.2m. I say that particularly because it is common practice in the financial world, and I say it more particularly because there is, very largely, a question mark on the repayability of this money. Look at the product itself. It may not cross the line first, as I said before; and as the Minister has said, the most likely end product will be some sort of a bit of this and a bit of that which will sell throughout the world. If it does not, the market for malaria vaccine will then be in countries which cannot pay. So we have the problem: Who pays? The countries cannot pay. We have a government guarantee for $9.2m which must be retrieved from the profits of this project, and it has been acknowledged that it cannot be met. Quite clearly, we then have to question why the AIDC has been brought into the matter. To reinforce the AIDC's position, one finds when one reads the deed that has been given here that it has very clearly tied itself. It is not going to miss because in its deed of understanding, right down to the last phone call, it has asked the Government to pick up the tab; so it has very clearly carried itself there. Because of this, the Opposition would like to see a more realistic approach to this matter. It might well be that the development of this vaccine should be seen in the national interests of foreign affairs, or national security, or those areas. Because there is but one wholly owned Federal Government organisation in this, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, that seems to me to be the focal point of government interest. For that reason it would be more appropriate if the funding were done directly on a Government-to-Commonwealth Serum Laboratories basis, or that some grant be made in that area. The road the Minister is proposing is a commercial road whose viability is extraordinarily marginal. If it is to be dealt with on the basis of a humanitarian grant, it should be done through those auspices. If it is to be dealt with in terms of giving it to the countries affected by malaria, such as those around the borders of Australia, in the New Guinea region, in Africa or other parts of the world so affected, quite probably that would be a grant under the Foreign Affairs portfolio. I do not see in this a strongly viable commercial proposition. As for the spin-off into other areas, certainly the one company connected with this project, the two institutes and the one government instrumentality all have a successful record. I am informed that the CRA subsidiary is a very well structured and well managed group of scientists who have the first product of their research coming on to the market in the very near future; but, despite that, it is a relatively small group, and I do not think it is prepared to put much more money into this project because it must answer to the shareholders and the shareholders want to know where the profit is. The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, one of the leading institutes in Australia in a national sense, also has a record, but it is not based on a profitable structure. To back up my comments, I look to page 29 of the annual report of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission for 1983-84, which illustrates quite an outlay in relation to this project. The report stresses the funding position and gives a very open invitation to the Government to fund it directly or to go through it. I got that idea from that report. We in the Opposition are very heartened by the fact that this research is taking place in Australia. It is a very commendable breakthrough using the resources, the people and the science and technology that we have. What we are questioning is the appropriateness of the AIDC and the appropriateness of this Parliament voting a loan to an organisation which has a very doubtful potential to repay it. This raises with the Minister concerned the alternatives as to whether it should be funded more appropriately through the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories or whether it should be funded through recognition of what it really is-a grant for foreign aid, a grant for health, or a grant to the research organisations themselves. Mr PORTER(Barker)(4.18) —I want to comment briefly on the motion in support of the comments of my colleague the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). Like him, I have some fairly grave reservations about this proposal-not about the research which has contributed to the project, and not about the project itself. I reiterate and confirm my colleague's comments that we are well aware of the great work that is being done by the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, by Queensland University, and by others who have contributed to research in this area. Like the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), we commend them for that work and encourage them. Our reservations about the approach the Government has adopted relate to the guarantee under the national interest provisions to the Australian Industry Development Corporation. I should like the Government to explain why it considers this to be the appropriate way to find the finance to assist in the development of this project. Unfortunately, notice of this motion was given only last night and it has been brought on today. We were given an hour or so's notice of the Minister's statement. In that time we have not had the opportunity to research it fully, nor have we been provided with the sort of detail we would like to have in order to make an informed judgment on the Government's decision. I accept the Minister's comment that this was a Cabinet decision. However, I think if we are to be a good Opposition we ought to be given access to full information so that we can make an independent judgment. We have not had that. The Government has adopted a very strict control on the pricing of drugs under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and that has led to a rundown in the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in this country and also the research undertaken by the pharmaceutical manufacturers. As a result of that rundown in the commercial pharmaceutical manufacturing industry I have no doubt that the opportunities that the Government has of finding commercial joint venturers who would be prepared to join in this project and provide funds will be further limited. I would like to know whether in fact the pharmaceutical manufacturers which are left have been approached. Although I have not had much opportunity to ring around, one Australian manufacturer to whom I spoke said that he had not been approached. If the Government has not approached commercial manufacturers, why are we being asked to support the Government in providing taxpayers' funds if all the commercial avenues for funds to support this project have not been explored? For example, has consideration been given to the funding of this proposal by floating a new company which perhaps could be listed on the second board of the stock exchange? Any observer of the stock exchange would know that in recent times, especially in the area of biotechnology, the companies which have been floated have been remarkably successful. In other words, investors have seen a lot of blue sky in the biotechnology area. If this proposal is as good as the Minister suggests, perhaps that would have been an option. Did the Government consider that option and has advice been sought from those in the stock market to see whether the option would have been viable? Could not in fact the taxpayer have been saved the impending liability of having to provide the $9.2m by obtaining the funds through normal commercial channels, either through existing pharmaceutical manufacturers or through a new float on the stock exchange? I also express my support for the comments of my colleague the honourable member for Ryan in relation to the role played by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in the development of this project. It was only in the last sitting of this Parliament before the last break that we passed legislation to broaden the power of CSL to enter into commercial ventures such as the one we are now considering. That was the specific purpose of that legislation. Having given CSL that power the Government is now not allowing it to use that power to raise money itself. Rather, the Government has opted for the route through the AIDC. Why cannot CSL, with its new powers, raise the money for this project? In conclusion, I point out that my colleagues and I are concerned, firstly, at the lack of information and, secondly, at the fact that there are other avenues available, which we are not convinced have been properly explored by the Government, to provide commercial funding for this project. My comments are in no way meant to denigrate the project itself. I reiterate the comments that I made at the beginning of my speech. We commend those who have undertaken the development of this research work. As I understand it, this is world class research. In fact, we are leading the world in research to combat malaria, which is a very serious problem in Third World countries. However,the Opposition is very concerned about the lack of detail on this measure from the Government. In what the Government has provided there is a lack of evidence that ordinary commercial channels have been fully explored as a means of providing funds to enable this research work to be carried out on a commercial basis. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(4.25) —in reply-I thank the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) and the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) for their contributions. I will reply briefly. This is the first time that provisions in the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act for giving guarantees under the national interest provisions have been used. Curiously, although this legislation was introduced by a Liberal government, the occasion never arose under that government when it was deemed appropriate to use the powers. I do not understand exactly why it was that the Liberal government put the legislation in the form that it did and never saw an opportunity to make use of it. Yet, it seems, as I will explain in a moment, an appropriate use and debut. Secondly, I apologise for the fact that the Opposition has had comparatively short notice of the motion. I regret that we did not bring on this motion earlier, because we announced on 14 June of this year that the Government would be using the national interest provisions of the AIDC Act. To the best of my recollection there has been no adverse public comment. When the matter came before Cabinet it was recognised that this area did not fit neatly into any of the normal categories. It was not, as the honourable member for Barker thinks perhaps it might be, a normal commercial transaction, or even potentially a normal commercial transaction, for which investment would come flooding in. The view was that a good deal of capital would be needed to begin with and that the returns, if and when they came, would be a long time down the track. I know that people are investing in second board floats, but the returns for this project were perceived as being humanitarian as much as fiscal. The project falls into a grey area somewhere between the Department of Science, the Department of Health, the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and the Department of Foreign Affairs. If one were to draw a long bow, one could say that it even falls within the Department of Defence as well. The project was recognised as of very great national significance. It was not seen only as leading to industrial and technological development, nor was it seen in isolation as esoteric research work in health. Looking at other areas of prospective funding, one might have contemplated the National Health and Medical Research Council. However, the amount required and the developmental significance of this project was not quite right for the NHMRC. As could have been inferred from my speech, the funding from the national biotechnology program would not cover what was needed. The amount required over the next two years would, I think, have equalled the total funding available in the program. It was thought to be too big under section 39 grants under the legislation for the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board. Cabinet concluded that the best way to handle this novel situation was to refer the matter to the AIDC for advice. Because the AIDC recognised the humanitarian significance and importance to the world of that project-it also recognised the high degree of risk; I have made no attempt to conceal that from the House-it thought that the best way to deal with this matter was for it to disburse funds and exercise the normal supervision of its expenditure while the Government acted as the banker of last resort, as it were. That is a reasonable and practical way to handle the matter. If alternative methods had been seriously suggested, they would have been examined. In the judgment of the Cabinet this was a reasonable way to do it. We decided to accept the advice of the AIDC. In the circumstances, it was probably the best way out of the situation. I note the support for the project per se on behalf of the Opposition. I am sure that that is a view that would be expressed by all in this crowded House! I hope that in a couple of years time the Opposition will be able to say that whatever minimal reservations it might have had and expressed today have been cast aside by the success of the project. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 9 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.31) —The burden of outmoded, unwarranted and excessive regulation is one of the major obstacles to growth of Australian industry and business and a better deal for the Australian consumer. The dead hand of regulation entrenches internal rigidities in our economy, stifles incentive, slows growth, perpetuates irrelevant institutions and outmoded practices and blunts our competitive edge internally and internationally. The extent of the burden may be crudely gauged by the work this Parliament got through in the 1960s and the 1970s when we passed almost 17,000 Acts of parliament. More than 32,000 statutory rules were put into effect. This is not an achievement: It is a condemnation of the way in which parliament has operated. The costs to business of excessive and unnecessary regulation are not sufficiently understood. There is the cost of legal and other professional advice, the cost of devising and policing systems to meet regulatory rules, the cost of keeping informed on new regulations, and the cost of compliance with orders and directions made by the regulations. Of course, the smaller the business the greater the burden. The Trade Practices Amendment Bill is a text-book example of a Bill which is deeply anti-business and which makes a clear contrast between the Government's specious pro-business and anti-regulation rhetoric and the realities of this Government, whose good parts do not justify the bad, the ambiguous, the technically defective and the unnecessary. The Bill should never have been proposed and should not be enacted in its present form. It should be thrown out. Lifting the burden of regulation, demanding that the regulators justify themselves and what they propose and cleaning the statute books of the old, the outmoded, the unnecessary, the inconvenient and the useless is a major challenge to Australian industry to which the Government has paid lip-service and which we, in government, will undertake and finish. I am not talking about obviously justifiable regulation-for example, pollution control, safe work practices or regulation of the speeds at which we can drive on highways. But even in these areas there is a need for balance or we will end up having a situation like that which occurred with the first motor car. It was such a novel invention to people that, had the rules stood still, we would still see motor cars going down the street with a person with a red flag walking in front of them to warn others that they were about to arrive-and we would be doing that in a bankrupt country. I should like to examine the Government's rhetoric, action and credentials in the area of deregulation, in the lifting of the burden of unnecessary and excessive regulation from business. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been eloquent on the subject of business deregulation. In the Australian Labor Party policy speech in November 1984, under the heading `business deregulation', this appears: The reconstruction of Australia needs the systematic removal of unnecessary institutional and legal impediments to apply our national resources to their most productive uses. In consultation with the Business Council of Australia, the Confederation of Industry, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the National Farmers Federation and the Australian Chamber of Commerce, we have begun to review the great volume of laws and regulations affecting businesses which have accumulated over the past 84 years of the Australian Federation. They fall with particular impact on small businesses . . . How thoughtful and perceptive! The Prime Minister went on: . . . over the next term of Parliament we will remove- I emphasise the word `remove'- legislation and regulation which is damaging to business and employment expansion, and which is not justified as an efficient means of promoting economic and social objectives. Nothing could be more explicit. The Prime Minister was not talking about the future; he was talking about the past and the future. This Government was going to remove unnecessary regulation and make sure that future regulation had to justify itself before it was imposed on Australian businesses. He was wearing before the election, Australia's respectable business clothes. In mid-1985 the Government, in pursuit of its rhetoric, established the Business Regulation Review Unit, whose objectives are to scrutinise new regulations prior to approval, on a cost-benefit basis and to review existing regulations to eliminate those things that can no longer be justified. Who could argue with those objectives? Are those objectives not in keeping with the jargon of this Government? Have they been met? They have been met in no way. In the Unit's guidelines, as set out in a statement in July 1985, it said all the right words. An excerpt from those guidelines states: there has to be an acceptable case that voluntary self-regulation is not practicable. In this Bill we see not voluntary self-regulation but mandatory recall systems imposed. The Unit's guidelines said that regard should be had to `simplicity' and `cost-efficiency'. They went on to state: regard should be had to simplifying paper processes. That really gets down to the nub of things, does it not? We have to try to stop businesses from drowning under a sea of paper. Under the heading `legislative consideration' the question was asked: to what extent is it proposed that any decision to be made under the legislation should be subject to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? Later the guidelines state: consideration should be given to . . . providing for an adequate review appeal process. That was said under the heading of `flexibility', and we know how flexible this Government was when it came to keeping its election promises. It has certainly been flexible when it comes to meeting the kinds of commitments made by this Unit on behalf of the Government. From listening to what the Unit was saying one could only say: `How fair, how protective, how sensible and how balanced'. What absolute nonsense that is when one considers the legislation this Government is introducing-not just this Bill but another Bill to be debated later today which will again burden the Australian business community. To put beyond doubt that the Unit had in mind such things as trade practices, one only has to go to the draft listing that it issued. It covered almost every conceivable area of business and industry and, in particular, product recall provisions. So we see on the face of it, on the words, a government committed to deregulation. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) added to this hypocritical charade in his second reading speech on this Bill, a speech which was rich in unconscious irony because the Bill denies his words. He stated: In its approach to business regulation the government is committed to ensuring that unnecessary existing regulation is wound back, and adequate justification is put forward for new regulation. He also stated: . . . the Act does not seek to regulate the way in which firms carry on their businesses. That passage is directly denied by a provision in this Bill, a provision which did not previously exist. Added to these fabricated criteria designed to placate and lull the business community into a sense of ease is consultation. This Government will consult the business community into a strait-jacket if the business community does not start to realise-very clearly it has started to realise-what this Government is really about. In short, what we have before us from the Prime Minister, through the Unit which will be established and will deregulate, through to the second reading speech of the Attorney-General, is the full hand of the confidence trick this Government has dealt a too gullible and too receptive business community. I now turn to the Bill, which is a major legislative package. It has 76 clauses. At 10 minutes past four this afternoon some amendments were circulated. I am glad that the Government understands so clearly what it is doing-on the very day that the Bill will be passed by the House! There is no doubt that the Bill will be passed by the House because the Government has the numbers, as the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) is fond of reminding us from time to time. At 10 minutes past four on the day when such an important measure, which has been subject to a deal of public scrutiny, will be passed by this House, we find further amendments circulated! This exemplifies how well organised the Government is. A new division on product safety and product information appears in this Bill. Some of the provisions were enacted in previous legislation but not the new provisions relating to product recall. That provision, which runs to some 15 sections, is the litmus test of the Government's pro-business and anti-deregulation rhetoric. By any judgment, the Government has decisively and unarguably failed. We see a capitulation to Labor's anti-business instincts. Let me turn to the question of consultation about product safety and product information provisions and, in particular, the product recall provisions. A discussion paper was put out on 21 June 1985. In an unctuous and misleading foreword on behalf of the Government we see, on the very front of the paper, the following: As part of the process which has been in effect since 1980 the Commonwealth Government will continue to encourage the development of effective voluntary recall procedures but in cases where voluntary action has proved inadequate it is proposed that the reserve mandatory power of product recall be instituted by amendments to the Trade Practices Act. It was, the foreword said, a complex issue. Submissions from business and industry had to be in by the end of August 1985. What would industry expect? Industry would expect that there would be a fair and detailed examination of submissions about the recall provisions. What did it get? It got a Bill five weeks later; it was introduced into the House on 9 October. Who believes that the submissions sought from business and industry were really considered by the Department and the Attorney-General? Who believes that this was anything but an outrageous waste of the time and money of business and industry? Clearly the Law Council of Australia does not because it wrote to the Attorney-General on 19 November-today-and with its letter it sent a detailed critique of the proposals now before the House, including a detailed critique of the product recall provisions. It stated: . . . the Committee- that is, the Committee of the Law Council- is unanimously of the view that insufficient time has been allowed for public comment on the product recall provision. The draft legislation has only recently been released and in view of the fact that it is not intended to come into operation until July 1986, division 1A should not be enacted by the Parliament until further time has been allowed for comment. Would one not think that that was a perfectly reasonable request? Is it not perfectly scandalous that so little time has been given for `consideration' of submissions from business and industry? The Law Council's views were clearly shared by others. The Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia has stated: Industry has only been given a few weeks to assess the actual legislation. The Confederation of Australian Industry stated: . . . having regard that the Trade Practices Bill was introduced into Parliament some 5 weeks later- that is, five weeks after the closing date for submissions- it is doubtful whether any notice was taken of the contents of the submissions received. So we have consultation in word but not in fact. Nor has the Attorney-General in his second reading speech sought to make out any case for mandatory recall. There has been no examination of the history of the voluntary recall systems which industry applies, no examination of the reasons for recall, no examination of the kinds of problems that have emerged or may have emerged in the past, and there has been no attempt whatsoever to put an argument to this House or to the Australian people. There may be a good case for some reserve powers in certain specified situations but the Attorney-General has certainly not sought to make out such a case. What did the Metal Trades Industry Association say to the Attorney-General on this subject? On 30 October, in stating its opposition to the introduction of a mandatory recall system, it stated: . . . systems currently established by industry are satisfactory with respect to both product recall and liability imposed on suppliers of defective goods. Where is the reasoned answer? Where is the detail put before this House? Where is the refutation of the case for voluntary recall provisions? Remember what was said in the foreword; I repeat: . . . the Commonwealth Government will continue to encourage the development of effective voluntary recall procedures . . . So much for that piece of specious hypocrisy doled out to the industry! Let me turn to some of the specific defects in the product recall legislation which is before the House. Firstly, a supplier must notify the Minister of a product recall made by him whether or not a health or safety defect exists. Why? What is the reason for that? If a product is recalled for reasons that have nothing to do with health or safety why should there be a burden on the supplier of going through the business of notifying the Government? Let me quote from the Law Council of Australia: . . . notwithstanding the drastic effects on a corporation the subject of a notice issued under this new division- that is, a mandatory recall or banning notice issued under this new division- with one exception there is only a requirement that the Minister publish the notice in the Gazette. There is no requirement that the Minister directly notify the corporation involved. The legislation should require notice to be given to all relevant parties where their identities and addresses are known. Only government officials could believe that the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette was daily reading for members of the business community. What are they meant to do-pick it up every morning and go through that dreary, convoluted magazine to see whether there is anything which affects their situation? If this Government had any understanding of the realities of the business world why could it not simply adopt the recommendation of the Law Council or, if it is going to notify by advertisement, do so by some other means? But we have the absurdity of using the Government Gazette. But it is orderly; it fits in with departmental views and it is the sort of thing that one would expect. Mrs Darling —Jealous? Mr SPENDER —The honourable member who interjected said that I am jealous of the Government Gazette. Gracious me! That certainly illustrates the mind of the honourable member for Lilley and we have seen many such illustrations in this House. Let me go on. The power to recall or to ban the sale of goods may be exercised without any court order being obtained by the Minister. There is no appeal from a ministerial decision to declare goods unsafe or to place a permanent ban on goods-while such a decision is in force businesses are prohibited from supplying those goods-nor is there an appeal from a ministerial decision for compulsory recall of goods. Let me remind honourable members once again what was said by the Unit that has been established by this Government-the Unit that was going to lighten the burden of legislation on business and industry. It said: to what extent is it proposed that any decision to be made under the legislation should be subject to the Administative Appeals Tribunal? The answer is zero. It also said this: consideration should be given to . . . providing for an adequate review-appeal process. There is no appeal process here. There is no appeal available to the courts unless the legal advisers of those who may be affected in specific situations can devise one. Let me tell honourable members, as the drafters of the legislation would know, that that would be astonishingly difficult except in the most unusual of instances. To return to the defects of these product recall provisions, there is no provision for compensation for businessmen, suppliers and people in the market-place who are forced to recall goods on grounds which prove to be unsubstantiated. The costs may be enormous, yet the injured business is left without compensation. Nor is there requirement that a banning order on safety or health grounds be made before a mandatory recall issues. These are bad enough but let us add these further considerations: Although this Bill is in many ways badly expressed it appears clearly enough that power is to be vested in the Minister to force a supplier to repair goods, to replace goods or to refund the price of goods, effectively taking over the role of the courts. What is more, when more than 12 months have elapsed since the supply of goods-that is, when the person who purchased the goods has had them for more than 12 months-the Minister may determine what reduction should be allowed in the payment to be made by the unfortunate supplier, left without recourse to the courts, to those who purchased the goods. This is another form of palm tree justice under the Hawke Government. This legislation breaks all the rules set down by this Government, by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), by the Unit that has been established under this Government and by this Minister. Consultation with those who are to be affected by it has been derisory. The rules are neither simple nor cost-effective. There is no acceptable case that voluntary self-regulation is not practicable. No attempt has been made to make out such a case. There is no appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, or to any other court, against the Minister's decision. There is no appeal process whatsoever. There is no compensation for error on the part of the Minister no matter how gross the error and how costly and damaging the error is to the business concerned. The legislation is shoddy, ill-considered, anti-business and bound to add greatly to the costs and difficulties of carrying on business. Mrs Darling —Pro-consumer. Mr SPENDER —The honourable member said that it is pro-consumer. If she wants, she can go pro-consumer to the extent that no consumable goods will be manufactured in this country because the burden on businesses will be so great that they will all have gone off-shore. If that is the route that the honourable member wants to travel she should go down that route. By saying that she exemplifies the good old views of the Australian Labor Party which are anti-business and pro-regulation. Let me come back to some of the other deficiencies in the legislation. Remember what the Attorney-General said in his second reading speech: . . . the Act does not seek to regulate the way in which firms carry on their businesses. At their heart of our business activities are the manufacture and processing of goods. Let me read some provisions which have been introduced in proposed new section 65C of the Act: The regulations may . . . prescribe . . . requirements as to- these have been added- . . . methods of manufacture or processing . . . testing of the goods during, or after the completion of, manufacture or processing . . . as are reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce risk of injury . . . That means that it is up to the Minister and the Government to determine. There is no way in which that discretion can be controlled. So much for the Minister's statement that `the Act does not seek to regulate the way in which firms carry on their businesses' when in the legislation power is directly given to do just that and to do it in a most essential way. What could be more intrusive, what could be more unwarranted, what could be more of a burden and what could be more anti-business? Many other provisions in this legislation deserve censure. Overall, it is anti-business and inept. For example, it extends the exclusionary provisions-that is, prohibited arrangements- to cover classes of persons. As the Law Council has pointed out, this was never intended to be part of the Trade Practices Act and it has some ludicrous and unintended consequences. For example-as the Law Council has pointed out-as a consequence, agreements which could be caught include an agreement by members of a trade association not to purchase goods from a Taiwanese copyright infringer or an agreement between members of a credit bureau not to deal with people who fail to pay outstanding debts within 90 days. There is a definition of `market' for the purposes of the merger provisions which is beyond all commercial reality. The Australian Capital Territory will be a market for the purposes of the merger provisions. That is as sensible as making the northern suburbs of Sydney and Wollongong or the area of Newcastle a market for those purposes. Very much more could be said on this Bill, but time, I regret to say, does not permit. There are provisions, other than those I have mentioned, which operate most unfairly. There is one in particular. The amendment to section 51A would place a criminal onus on a corporation which made a reckless statement. It would reverse the onus of establishing that a corporation had made a representation that was reckless. The provision is so badly drafted that if the statement were correct, it might still attract civil and criminal sanctions. What will it do? It will facilitate groundless civil proceedings and it may expose people to criminal proceedings to which they should never be exposed. The Bill gives the lie to the Government's deregulation rhetoric; to its expressed concern to consult with business and to lift the burden of unnecessary regulation and, by doing so, help Australian business to regain its competitive edge. The Bill portrays an astounding indifference to how business operates. It is quintessentially Labor, as exemplified by the interjections of the honourable member for Lilley. It is doctrinaire, regulatory and profoundly anti-business. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(5.02) —I wish to follow up the last comment of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). I am quite clearly pro-consumer. This legislation is absolutely pro-consumer. It is a shock for me to come to this place and find people such as the honourable member for North Sydney making the sort of speech that was just made, because in South Australia, at least in recent years, the Liberal Party Opposition has quite clearly reached the position where it accepts the fact that consumers have rights and needs and need to have those rights and needs properly protected by effective legislation. What we heard this afternoon from the honourable member for North Sydney was a wholesale attack on every consumer in this nation. I think it is a disgrace to hear that sort of thing in this Parliament. I do not believe that in this day and age the old adage `let the buyer beware' is sufficient protection for consumers in this nation and I do not think that most other people believe that either. It is only the sorts of people who hang around in clubs such as the Melbourne Club or the Athenaeum Club in Sydney who believe that the old adage `let the buyer beware' is sufficient. I have only a limited time this afternoon to deal with this quite complex Bill, the Trade Practices Amendment Bill. Because of the time constraints I will deal with only one or two elements of the legislation which I think are important. This Bill is, in my view, a welcome extension of the principles of consumer protection because it offers mirror legislation which, if adopted by the States, will provide uniform protection for consumers throughout the nation. As we all know, it is unlikely that we will get this in every State, given the unsatisfactory nature of legislation for consumer protection in States such as Queensland and Tasmania. The Bjelke-Petersen Government and the Gray Government have continually resisted adequate consumer protection and it appears unlikely that they will change their stance now that this legislation is going through this Parliament. I know that my colleague the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) will be able to inform the House far more knowledgeably than I can as to the situation in Queensland, given his personal interest and activity in the consumer movement in that State. It is with some regret that I speak in this debate. I regret that it is necessary that the broad issues of consumer protection are still being addressed in the mid-1980s, in an attempt to give protection to all consumers. I very much regret that only some States have indicated their willingness to enact mirror legislation to that now being passed by this Parliament. As Attorney-General and Minister for Consumer Affairs in the Dunstan Labor Government I was successful in putting in place extensive consumer protection laws in that State. South Australia's record on consumer protection is second to none in this country; a fact reflected not only in the progressive nature of is legislation but also by the number of prosecutions that have taken place under the legislation in that State. South Australia has the only jurisdiction, either State or Commonwealth, with a substantial record of protecting consumers from offenders. In most other States prosecutions are rare and the penalties are ridiculously low. In Queensland and Tasmania, for example, prosecutions for substantive consumer affairs offences are virtually unknown. Of the pathetic total of 145 convictions in Queensland over the last decade, 136 convictions were for failure to provide information, not for substantive breaches of the law. Similarly in Tasmania, 163 out of 170 convictions were for failure to provide information. On the other hand, South Australian authorities have consistently shown that they are prepared to pursue vigorously the full machinery of the law across the full spectrum of consumer complaints. This disparity is highlighted when staffing levels in consumer agencies are compared. Queensland, which has a population of 2 1/2 million, has 62 officers in the consumer affairs branch; whereas South Australia, which has a population of only 1.3 million, has 115 officers. South Australia has almost four times as many officers as Queensland when the per head of population ratio is taken into account. Not only do Queensland and Tasmania have the lowest prosecution rate and the lowest level of enforcement officers per capita, but also they have the least amount of protective legislation. Tasmania has virtually no effective legislation. Unlike South Australia, Queensland has no legislation to regulate the use of trading stamps or the contents of gifts and prizes used to generate business and no legislation to prohibit bait advertising. It does not outlaw referral selling, which is the basis of pyramid selling abuse, and it does not protect consumers from any door-to-door sales abuses. Queensland's residential tenancies protection revolves around private solicitors and the Supreme Court. It is abysmal, to say the least, when compared with that of South Australia which offers substantial protection of tenants and landlords from unscrupulous landlords and tenants. Of course, the legislative staffing and judicial disparities between Queensland and South Australia are reflected in the attitudes of the State governments. Apart from the period of the Tonkin Liberal Government, South Australia has had an effective and energetic policy of naming and embarassing those sharks and charlatans who have continually engaged in sharp commercial and business practices. In contrast, the Queensland Government has responded to the fact that that State is the base for most of these rip-off merchants with resounding silence, if not protection. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) pointed out the importance of mirror legislation to give Australia consumers equal and adequate protection. Uniform legislation is also necessary from a government and business point of view. The confusion and a cost of compliance with various directives can and should be reduced. It is unfortunate that the Tasmanian Government refuses to adopt mirror legislation and insists as its Minister for Consumer Affairs did recently on the Investigators television program, that there are no consumer problems in Tasmania. Although one might predict this attitude, it is unfortunate that the Queensland Government refuses to make its position known in relation to mirror legislation. We can only hope that the pressures which are being exerted by consumer organisations in Queensland and Tasmania will force a change in attitude by those reactionary State governments. I turn to some of the details of this legislation. Clause 55 provides that section 87 of the Trade Practices Act will be amended to enable the Trade Practices Commission to take action on behalf of groups of particularly named persons. This action, which will be representative, will enable consumers, who have agreed in writing to the Commission acting on their behalf, collectively to take action to sue businesses. It is not a class action, however, as was suggested by the honourable member for North Sydney. I believe that it is a step in the right direction. I believe that there is a strong case for the introduction of class actions into the Australian legal system. It is a concept which has been debated and investigated at both State and national levels by law reform commissions for many years. Class actions, which are widespread in the United States, need little further debate. In Australia the consumer affairs area perhaps best illustrates this need. The need in this legislation to allow the Commission to take action on behalf of particular consumers should answer some of the more intemperate and hysterical criticisms of class actions. There is, of course, one important reform of the Trade Practices Act which has been omitted from the legislation. In my view sections 45D and 45E should be repealed. It is no credit to the Australian Democrats in the Senate that previous attempts by the Government to repeal these sections have been blocked by the Democrats' refusal to vote with the Government. If I were a member of the environmental movement, the consumer movement, community organisations or for that matter the Democrats, I would be pressuring Democrat senators to support the Government's attempts to repeal sections 45D and 45E. If these sections had been in force in the early 1970s the green bans which were so successful in stopping socially disruptive development would never have succeeded. These sections not only prevent the trade union movement from supporting other unions, but also prevent it from supporting other community movements. There can be no direct trade union action in support of the Daintree campaign, there can be no direct trade union action in support of consumer protection, there can be no trade union action in support of moves against anti-social developments while sections 45D and 45E remain in force. The lack of support of the Democrats has meant that the Government cannot act in this area at the moment. It also illustrates the overriding anti-union biases of the Democrats, which are obviously much stronger than their vaunted championing of environmental, consumer and community movements. As I said earlier, I regret that I have had to speak in this debate today. I know that those opposite have regretted that I have had to point out the deficiencies in the attitudes of their colleagues in Queensland and Tasmania. As a former Minister for Consumer Affairs, I well know the problems that the lack of action or will of conservatives has meant for ordinary Australian consumers. I regret that in 1985 we still have State governments which refuse to adopt mirror legislation, that the Tasmanian Minister is so short-sighted he cannot see the sharks and charlatans, that he cannot see the ruin and the heartache of wronged consumers, that he cannot see the costs to reputable businesses of being undercut by the fly-by-nighters. This legislation will go some way to achieving protection for Australian consumers. Its effects would have been better if mirror legislation were to be adopted by all State governments. Nevertheless, for those Australians in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, its protection will be of great benefit. I urge the House to strongly support its passage. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(5.13) —We are discussing in the House today amendments to the Trade Practices Act. I believe that the object of trade practices legislation should be to create a free and fair market-place in which businesses can compete freely and fairly. Trade practices legislation curbs potential abuse of market power by corporations, which is what the restrictive Trade Practices Act does, subject to sections 45D and 45E, which go to union behaviour. There is often a fine line between legislation to free up and provide a fair market place and overregulation and placing cumbersome burdens upon those who operate in the market place. This legislation goes over that line, is clearly anti-business, and places greater burdens on the business community. At one end of the market place there is the potential abuse of market power and use of monopoly power by the business sector. At the other end of the market place, however, there is the potential, and indeed the reality, of abuse of the market-place and abuse of monopoly power by trade unions. I was devastated to hear the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan) say that sections 45D and 45E ought to be taken out of the Trade Practices Act. That is Government policy. They are the two anti-union provisions that go to abusive trade practice behaviour by unions, protect the consumer and protect the public interest in the case of secondary boycotts. They are the only provisions in the Trade Practices Act that go to union behaviour and protect the consumer. The honourable member for Makin says that the Opposition is not interested in consumers. Of course we are interested in consumers. Our record speaks for itself. In 1977 we introduced substantial amendments to the Trade Practices Act. So the honourable member's comments were rubbish. If the honourable member is so interested in consumers, why does he want sections 45D and 45E removed from the Trade Practices Act? Those sections protect consumers and small businesses in the case of secondary boycotts. What about the daily attacks on consumers by the trade union movement? This Government gives preference to the trade union movement. We know that. We know about the accord, the high point of union power-a written agreement between the industrial and political wings of the Labor movement. This legislation is more pro-union legislation by the Government. There is a complete failure by the Government to recognise the abuse of power by the union movement and there is no attempt in it to curb any abuse of union power. The unions are the robber barons of the 1980s. They continue to have their cake and eat it too. There is no attempt to curb or control the restrictive trade practices of the trade union movement. Indeed, the Government, like the honourable member for Makin, wants to delete the few provisions that apply to unions. This legislation provides for more regulation on business and none on unions. In trade practices and consumer protection legislation, we say: `Let it have balance. Let it have fairness'. We support consumer legislation, and our record is good, because we want balance and fairness, but we say that the trade union movement ought to be brought to account for its restrictive trade practices and for its abuse of monopoly power in the market-place. The union movement is daily holding the community to ransom by restrictive trade practices and the Government is doing nothing about it. Time is limited in this debate. This legislation is being rushed through the Parliament like the Bill of Rights legislation before it. There has not been adequate time for consultation with the community, with interested parties, with consumer and business groups and with industry organisations. It is badly drafted and it is complex. I believe that the process we are participating in in this Parliament is an abuse of the Parliament and the parliamentary process. At 4.10 p.m. today further amendments were introduced into the Parliament. That is indicative of the state of affairs of a government rushing towards the end of a session, rushing pro-union, pro-intellectual socialist Left legislation through the Parliament. We have a problem because we have an increased parliament, with 25 more members, and more and more want to speak. In fact, I am, subject to an agreement with my whip that I will speak for only 10 minutes and I have about 30 seconds to go. Members on both sides of the House are subjected to that restriction. We come into the House and we can make speeches for only 10 minutes in this case. We cannot get into the complicated details of the legislation. I suspect that we will not have the opportunity in the Committee stage to have a detailed examination of the complex provisions and clauses of the legislation. We really do have a problem in the Parliament because more and more the Executive, with an increased Parliament, is running over the rights of the Government back benchers on the one side and the Opposition on the other to contribute to sensible legislation-legislation that is in the public interest. There has not been time to comment on this legislation. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) adequately covered that matter and I identify with the remarks he made. I cannot address it because of lack of time. The one aspect of detail that I want to raise in the remaining time available to me is clause 38, which provides for warranties in relation to the supply of services-the section 74 amendment. The Law Council of Australia brought to my attention a very interesting point concerning small businesses which are professionals. It states: From the point of view of a professional providing services through a corporation or within a Territory, (engineers, accountants, architects, doctors . . . and also dentists- the proposed amendment imposes a statutory warranty that the professiional's services are fit for any purpose specified by a client and will achieve that result . . . This would substantially alter the relationship between the professional and his client and significantly increase the liability of the person engaged in the profession. For example, is a doctor to be liable to a patient he treats if the operation is not a success? This is a very far reaching amendment affecting individuals who are operating in the private sector in small businesses and in services. It changes the duty of care. It changes the nature of their activities in a most far reaching manner. It seems to change the common law, which I understood to be to use due care and skill. There is no reason for the change given by the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). Indeed, there is no philosophical reason for this legislation. There are no economic reasons or commercial reasons given for it or for the proposed amendments, which just highlight the total position. There is no legal reason for the legislation. There has been no explanation. There have been no policy or legal reasons for it. In fact, there is no reason for it at all. We are rushing it through the Parliament in the closing weeks of the year without adequate time for examination. As I said, there is a need for parliamentary reform. Clauses such as the one that I have just referred to-in relation to which I have just read out the objections of the Law Council of Australia-that are contained in complicated legislation like this ought to lie before the Parliament so that there is adequate time for comment by the community. Indeed, in certain cases, all-party committees of this House ought to be formed so that evidence can be given to them and they can come back and report to the Parliament as a whole on what they find. I think that would be much better and in the interests of the consumer, which members on the other side claim to be so interested in, and the business sector-small business, medium business and, indeed, large business. Mr McGauran —Primary producers as well. Mr SHIPTON —As the honourable member for Gippsland so rightly reminds me, so many businesses, particularly small businesses, are the important rural businesses, the farmers, the fishermen-people in the country and regional centres as well as people in the cities of Australia. This legislation does nothing for them. I conclude, as I started, by saying that this legislation places an added burden on the business community, especially the small businesses of Australia. It is anti-business legislation and it reveals the Government's real attitude, to favour the unions and to hit business hard. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(5.23) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am fascinated-in fact I am amazed-at the mental processes of members of the Opposition as revealed in this debate. The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) actually sees the prices and incomes accord-an agreement between government, business and unions under which workers are asked to tighten their belts-as anti-business. By some devious and convoluted process of reasoning, he came to the conclusion that this positive consumer protection legislation which is before us is also anti-business. The Trade Practices Amendment Bill is not anti-business. It is pro-consumer, but the intention behind the amendments is not to impose onerous restrictions on business. This has never been the policy of this Government. The Trade Practices Act does not seek to regulate the way in which firms carry out their business. The purpose of the Act and the amending legislation before the House today is to allow the competition that has characterised our free market economy to be effective in a manner which protects the relationship between consumers and the vast majority of firms which conduct their business fairly. In fact, I was extremely surprised to hear the negative comments of the lead speaker for the Opposition, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). It does appear as if the Opposition may be a little green eyed that it is the Hawke Government and not the Fraser Government which is extending these much needed protective measures to Australian consumers. The Trade Practices Amendment Bill represents one aspect of a wider commitment by the Federal Labor Government to the development of uniform consumer protection legislation throughout Australia. The need for uniform legislation among the States and the Commonwealth is seen as an important feature of a property managed expanding economy. It is just a crying shame that some States, notably Queensland and Tasmania, have not introduced mirror legislation. Differences and conflicts in the consumer legislation of the various States present serious difficulties for business and cause uncertainty among consumers. By advancing uniform consumer protection legislation throughout the various jurisdictions of the Commonwealth, the cost of regulation to the community at large and to the economy will eventually be lessened. The Federal Government, therefore, will be encouraging State governments to enact legislation compatible with the amendment proposals of this Bill. Some States have already indicated their support for such proposals. The Bill represents a serious and much needed commitment to protect the rights of consumers and each of its numerous sections will successfully address the deficiencies of the existing legislation. Of particular note in this regard is the protection offered to consumers in the proposed amendments to sections 62 and 63 of the Act relating to the recall of unsafe products-most necessary amendments. The provisions for mandatory recall contained in this Bill will provide reserve powers which can be used when the safety of the public is threatened and when the situation cannot be adequately dealt with by voluntary recall schemes. This will ensure that there are no gaps in our laws to hinder the recall of unsafe products sold to vulnerable consumers in the market place and then discovered to be unsafe. For instance, in recent years processed food products-salami, sausage, salmon and pre-packed Chinese meals-supplied to consumers have subsequently been found to pose a severe health hazard. In some instances the lack of a well-designed product recall procedure has caused serious difficulties in tracing and identifying the hazardous product. For example, poor delivery records have not identified retailers quickly or the lack of adequate product batch identification has prevented isolation from look-alike wholesome products. The most urgent need in relation to unsafe products is to prevent continuing supply and to warn relevant consumers of hazards which may exist in using the products they have purchased. Further, banning the product first is unnecessarily cumbersome in some cases where some specific batches of an otherwise safe product require recall action or where the product is no longer being supplied. For instance, skimmer boxes in pools and spas have been banned in some States, but there are still problems regarding the use of these boxes. The danger surrounding the use of these boxes has received wide publicity in the past. I remind the House that some designs of swimming pools and spas have skimmer boxes of open construction without a fixed lid, whereby it is possible for children to sit in the skimmer box when the filter pump is operating, which can result in disembowelment and death. While bans on the supply of skimmer boxes which pose this hazard have been introduced in some States, the problem was addressed largely through negotiation with pool suppliers. However, the industry is fragmented and tracing all relevant installations in Australia has been difficult. In this case the bans did not help because the boxes had already been installed in pools and suppliers were reluctant to take remedial action concerning those installed. Another example of where the reserve power of recall proposed in this Bill could be used to benefit consumers is in the recall of motor vehicles with safety-related defects. This has posed significant problems in recent years because in some instances manufacturers are reluctant to take action. Such decisions usually relate to assessing cost against the perceived or assessed degree of the actual or potential safety hazard. Under a completely voluntary system, such decisions remain with the manufacturer and may be governed, to some extent, by the number of failures reported, consumer knowledge of the defect and consumer reaction. In fact, one motor cycle manufacturer replaced the faulty front wheels of a motor cycle only after charging consumers $150. One does not have to look far to see why the Hawke Government feels that it is necessary to extend the powers of the Trade Practices Commission in this way. I particularly refer to the Queensland experience in the electrical industry. This provision dealing with the mandatory recall of unsafe goods will be particularly welcomed in such areas as the electricity industry in Queensland. In fact, the Queensland Electricity Commission, to which I was speaking today, welcomes this amendment. I am told that there is definite support at officer level for the option of voluntary recall, backed up by the mandatory recall, as introduced by the Hawke Government. However, I must point out that the matter has not yet been considered by the Queensland Minister. One trusts that he will listen to his officers in this instance. The Queensland Electricity Act does not have recall provisions for electrical goods as does legislation in other States. This poses problems because of the shipping of goods between States. Power of recall in Victoria does not help when goods are sold in other States. This hinders officers who now look to the Trade Practices Commission as a means of giving their legislation teeth. It is, therefore, obvious that the extension of the powers of the Trade Practices Commission will provide much needed protection across Australia in all States, including Tasmania and Queensland. The experience within the Queensland electricity industry regarding voluntary recall is top notch, with the majority of reputable dealers in Queensland co-operating with the Commission and taking a responsible attitude regarding voluntary recall-an excellent record. It is some small dealers and the fly-by-nighters who are the problem. This measure will be useful and will offer consumer protection in these instances. Another of the many positive proposals put forward in this legislation is that regarding misleading or false statements made in employment advertisements. This is particularly important, given the vulnerable situation of the unemployed in our society, whose financial situation and emotional condition may be, and often are, exploited for financial gain. Proposed new section 53B relates to misleading conduct in relation to employment. This proposed new section will ensure that advertisers cannot, with immunity, put forward misleading advertisements which prey on unemployed people, often unemployed young people, offering them benefits which do not, in fact, eventuate when they apply for the job. For instance, administrators of the Sandgate community youth support scheme have told me of their concern regarding advertisements in the sales area. Young people reading these advertisements can get caught up in a sales pitch once they go to the person who is looking for the employee. They find out that they are to get only commission-- Mr McGauran —What clause is this? Mrs DARLING —I am speaking of proposed new section 53B, which relates to misleading conduct regarding employment. In another instance a young girl answered an advertisement offering work as a masseuse-a legitimate area of employment. The advertisement offered on the job training. She found that the advertisement was really after call girls. It was extremely misleading and put young people into an unenviable situation. This Government cares about consumers and unemployed people put in such situations. I am particularly pleased to be able to support this measure, which will offer some protection in these areas. There are so many different areas, but I am afraid that I do not have time to follow them all through. However, I must say that this Government seeks an economic strategy which will create growth and fairness. This legislation will strengthen the powers available to ensure that single interest market dominance does not erode the rights of small business and consumers. Similarly, the question of mergers between large business interests has been considered in the Bill. The Government has realistically recognised that some mergers are not the product of a desire for market dominance but are a natural result of industry restructuring. Applications for mergers before the Trade Practices Commission will, therefore, take this into account and the Government will find no fault with restructuring proposals that reflect the public interest. Once again, it must be stressed that the Government's purpose is not covert regulation of the freedom of industry. The prime objective of these measures is to allow a free market to provide the widest possible choice and the highest quality of goods and services for consumers. The threshold at which competition reaches economic efficiency and consumer freedom is in a constant state of fluctuation. The Trade Practices Amendment Bill reflects the need to update legislation to restore the balance between these factors. It is this Government, far more than our Opposition opponents, which recognises the importance of deregulation in the economy. But where there are possible breaches of the rights of consumers or threats to the operation of a fair market system, it behoves this Government, a government of conscience, to exert its appropriate powers to protect the rights of individuals and to maintain effective economic growth. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(5.35) —I do not know how relaxed members of the business community can be following the contribution by the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), who told us that the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1985 does not seek to regulate business, when every clause of the legislation is an article of regulation. Clause after clause, this legislation imposes duties and obligations on the business community. So for the honourable member to tell us that the legislation does not seek to regulate business is an exercise in the absurd. I believe that this legislation has as many serious implications for the working of this Parliament as it has for the consumer and business respectively. To use a colloquialism, the legislation is a snow job; there is no question about it. I have sat in the chamber for the whole of the debate and seen the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) become more and more annoyed as the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) have made that allegation. I say to the Attorney-General that there is no running away from it. This legislation has not been properly circulated amongst those it will affect most obviously, nor has it been given proper consideration in this Parliament. It is complex, difficult legislation, yet so many members of the Parliament will be voting on it in sheer and utter ignorance, which is becoming more and more the trend under this Government. Up to 30 or 40 Bills a week, many of them complex and of a technical nature, such as this Bill, are introduced into the Parliament. It is the same with tax legislation and it will be the same with the very difficult and extensive companies legislation to be discussed later this evening. The Opposition does not have the resources of government. The Attorney-General, with the whole weight of his Department behind him, is able to introduce this legislation at a late stage without giving the Opposition and all those affected by the legislation the opportunity to canvass the issues properly, let alone make a contribution to the drafting of the legislation. After all, the business community was given but five weeks to consider the draft legislation. The legislation was then introduced into the Parliament on 9 October. Interestingly, the paper entitled `Recall of Unsafe Products', the subject to which section 35 of this legislation refers, was circulated in the business community in the early part of June. Submissions and responses to the paper were required by 31 August. The legislation was then introduced on 9 October. It is not just the Attorney-General who is at fault; it is a whole range of Ministers who at the last moment, without giving the Opposition in the first instance-let alone the broad electorate-the opportunity to consider the legislation, have brought the legislation into the Parliament. Moreover, to a large extent debate has been stifled, admittedly by agreement, in that each honourable member, Opposition and Government, can speak for only 10 minutes. The honourable member for North Sydney made the point-indeed, Government members have made the point-that we could speak at great length about the detailed provisions of this legislation. I would like to canvass its history and the direction in which the measures before us point the Trade Practices Act. I, together with my colleagues, am prevented from doing so. Quite frankly, the Australian public is aware of that. It is sick and tired of half-baked, half-constructed legislation not being properly scrutinised by its elected representatives. It is of tremendous concern to me because what is happening-to a very large extent this legislation bears it out-is that the sophisticated strident minority groups are able to lobby government, in a very sophisticated way, and get their point of view stamped on legislation. This is reflected in a whole range of social legislation which has come before this Parliament recently. The Sex Discrimination Act, the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and the Government's affirmative action program all bear the stamp of intensive and sophisticated lobbying by unrepresentative groups in the broader Australian community; yet they take advantage of the welter of legislation under which all representatives in this place must try to survive. If we are to have an open, fair and constructive debate whereby we can put up amendments to the Attorney-General which he can address, we need more time than we have in this case when amendments to amendments to the principal Act have been introduced late in the afternoon. It is for that reason that I believe this legislation has tremendous implications for the legislative process, not to mention those directly affected by it in an adverse way. So far as we are able to ascertain this legislation is anti-business. The legislation must be seen in a whole line of Government decisions which, principally through the drafting of the tax regime, hits at private enterprise, the entrepreneur, the small businessman and the primary producer. Even if the Attorney-General seeks to reassure this House at the conclusion of the debate that there are no specific anti-business sector provisions within the legislation-I do not agree with that proposition-he must answer why it is that the Government's so-called reformist legislative program is centred around those who would seek to take advantage of business. When will we get legislation which seeks to assist business and the primary producer? The Government is killing private enterprise by neglect. I do not accept the Government's argument that there is nothing specifically anti-business in the legislation; it is killing business by neglect. The constituents in business are worthy of legislation in the same way that consumers or the trade union movement are entitled to legislation. Government members interjecting- Mr Lionel Bowen —He has only 10 minutes. Mr McGAURAN —The Attorney-General has extended my time to 10 minutes. I appreciate that. I turn to clause 35, which will introduce into the Trade Practices Act a new Division 1A to deal with product safety, recall and information. It is to come into effect on 1 July 1986. The first major feature of that new division is that the Minister will be empowered to publish a notice stating that certain goods are under investigation. We must bear in mind that this division deals with the recall of defective products. Secondly, the Minister will also be empowered to publish a notice declaring goods that will or may cause injury. The third step in this process is the compulsory recall of products such as motor vehicles or pharmaceutical goods. After 1 July 1986 any corporation that supplies goods which the Minister is satisfied may cause injury or breach safety standards, if that supplier has not taken satisfactory action to prevent injury to a consumer, may be required by the Minister-it is the Minister's decision alone-to recall those goods. What is wrong with that? There is no appeal against the ministerial declaration. When the Minister makes up his mind to declare some goods or products unsafe or to place a permanent ban on goods there is no way that corporations can appeal against that decision. Nor is there any provision for compensation to a supplier where the recall order was made in error and is later rescinded by the Attorney-General. I believe that the power vested in the Minister allows him to force a supplier to repair goods, to replace goods or to refund the price of goods, and that, as the honourable member for North Sydney suggested earlier, is effectively taking over the role of the courts. Part of the poor drafting referred to earlier centres around this particular part of the legislation. The words are somewhat ambiguous, but that seems to be the commonly accepted reading of it. When more than 12 months has elapsed since the supply of goods the Minister may determine what reduction should be allowed against moneys to be refunded by the supplier. Again there is no appeal by a supplier to a court against the Minister's decision. I oppose the general thrust of this legislation. Moreover, I regard the manner in which it has been brought to this place as an abuse of the parliamentary process. It is symptomatic of this Government's attitude to the Parliament, which it seeks to by-pass time and again with summits and ministerial and prime ministerial statements and decisions made outside this place so that they are not open to the scrutiny of the elected representatives of all Australians. The Attorney-General must realise that in this chamber are representatives from all parts of Australia. He must make known to this chamber first legislation affecting all parts of Australia and allow proper opportunity for constructive debate and for constructive amendments to be put up by the Opposition. Sadly, in the case of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill, that has not been the case and the Government stands condemned as a result. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(5.47) —The Trade Practices Act 1974 was truly one of the great initiatives of the Whitlam Labor Government. I admit from the outset that no one expected it to be the panacea for all the problems in the market-place or to be the complete weapon against business malpractice, but despite its shortcomings-and there have been many-the Trade Practices Act has pioneered a radical legislative attitude in the fields of consumerism and general business practice, an attitude that over the last decade has been mirrored in most of the State and territorial legislatures across this nation. Despite the unfounded claims and comments of the Liberal member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and later the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), the Trade Practices Amendment Bill is the result of a most comprehensive review of the existing Trade Practices Commission. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) deserves the commendation of this House for the forthright manner in which he has been willing to address the problems that have arisen since 1974. So too do the officers of the Trade Practices Commission and the Office of Consumer Affairs for the way they have handled those problems. It needs to be reiterated that the Bill now under discussion is the result of hundreds of hours of deliberations between business, industry, consumer groups, trade unions, individuals, academics and special interest groups. Mr McGauran —Oh! Get them on the phone and see what they say. Mr WRIGHT —Let me tell the honourable member, because he made comments about unsafe products, that some 40 submissions on the Government's White Paper on the recall of unsafe products were received from retailers, industry, consumer groups, manufacturers and State governments, and approximately 60 per cent favoured the Government's proposal for a voluntary recall system with reserve mandatory powers. So he ought to talk to the people he is supposed to represent. While there will always be room for further modification and improvement, this Bill, like its Whitlam Government counterpart, will be remembered as a significant initiative of the Hawke Labor Government. Honourable members will recall that earlier this year I canvassed in my maiden speech as a member of the House of Representatives the enormity of the problem of unsafe goods being sold in Australia, goods able to be banned but because of the absence of legislative powers not able to be recalled. At that time the Attorney-General gave me an undertaking that he would move to redress that situation and he promised to take the issue to the national meeting of Ministers for Consumer Affairs. He also said that he would move swiftly to bring to finality the discussions that had been going on between industry-I stress industry-and consumer organisations as to the most appropriate method of implementing a product recall system. The Attorney-General has again demonstrated that he is a man of his word, and Australians will now have a new Division 1A in Part V of the Trade Practices Act specifically dealing with product safety and product information. Through the Federal Government, consumers throughout this country will now be able to require manufacturers, importers and retailers to recall goods believed to be unsafe if they do not withdraw such products voluntarily. Moreover, so that records can be kept of unsafe goods that are recalled, industry will be required to notify the Attorney-General of such voluntary actions. In line with this Government's desire to co-operate with business-again, I stress that co-operation-it should be noted that the recall provisions initially give the business entrepeneur the opportunity to act on his or her own initiative in recalling an unsafe product. Only when business fails to act will it be necessary for the Government to apply its mandatory recall provisions. Some weeks ago I raised in this place the collapse of the aerobic and health fitness industry which occurred in 1984. During my contribution, despite the many attempts of Liberal members to prevent me from speaking, I exposed the role played by the ANZ Bank in financing the operations of the Vigor centres through their Bankcard arrangements. Regardless of previous claims of total innocence by the ANZ of allegations that it was linked to the Vigor operation and had negotiated an exclusive deal to supply credit to would-be Vigor members, it is now a matter of history that the ANZ has waived all existing Vigor membership Bankcard debts and is arranging to refund moneys paid previously on a pro rata services received basis. I welcome the capitulation by the ANZ on this issue, which no doubt came about not because of a sense of loyalty to its customers but because it was not prepared to face a joint party select committee of inquiry, which I proposed to the Government, and because it faced months and months of adverse publicity in Queensland as it defended almost 1,000 small claims cases against it and a Supreme Court test case in New South Wales. I think the $5m lost by the ANZ is money well spent but, more importantly, it will be a costly warning to other linked credit providers to take greater care when entering into credit arrangements with some of the shonky firms which plague consumers throughout this nation. Fortunately, thanks to the Hawke Labor Government and the Attorney-General, consumers will no longer have to rely on public exposure and embarrassment as a weapon. Section 73 of the Trade Practices Act now makes the linked credit provider-that is, the bank, the credit union, the finance company or the lending institution-jointly and severally liable to the consumer if that consumer suffers loss or damage as a result of misrepresentations, breach of contract or failure of consideration in relation to a contract. There will now be a requirement for the linked credit provider to be satisfied, by due inquiry, that the supplier of the product to be sold or of the service to be rendered has a good financial standing and a good business reputation. While I do not normally support the idea of back-dating legislation in the consumer area, one could argue very strongly for these provisions to be made retrospective in order to protect the thousands of Australian consumers who over past years have been ripped off in the aerobic and fitness industry, video deals, home improvement plans, swimming pool contracts, forward purchase food plans, self-motivation schemes and holiday share schemes. The clear fact is that most of the crooked schemes that have been launched in this country would not have got off the ground had it not been for the easily available credit from certain banks, finance companies and credit unions. In Queensland at this moment, large numbers of people have been the unsuspecting victims of rip-off package deals put together by the now collapsed and liquidated video sales companies, companies backed by Custom Credit Corporation Ltd. These consumers signed contracts without any awareness of the involvement of Custom Credit, which purchased the promissory notes from the video firms, and in some cases unknowingly signed such promissory notes. The interest rate being charged is 31.72 per cent and rebates of interest on early payouts have been refused by Custom Credit when consumers have sought to pay out their promissory notes. A typical example is a deal where a consumer contracted to purchase a video cassette recorder, two movies, three blank tapes, 300 movie exchanges, unlimited library membership and a 75 per cent discount on future exchanges for $1,981. But the promissory note was eventually made for 48 monthly payments of $68-a total of $3,264. The fact that the promissory notes were to be sold to Custom Credit was never explained to the consumer. The interest rate was never divulged. The consumer was never told that early payouts would not be allowed. In fact, nothing was known about the Custom Credit link until consumers received a payment book in the mail a few weeks later. The situation now is that the video sales companies have gone out of business. The free movie swaps have not been honoured and the quality of the swaps which now have to be paid for is very low. The consumers are left with video machines with warranties that cannot be honoured, but they are locked into paying at least $3,264, in some cases more, to Custom Credit. Clearly, Custom Credit did not check out the business reputation or trading practices of these video sales firms, such as Video Vision. The same problems arose previously in Victoria and Western Australia, which makes Custom Credit's involvement in Queensland highly suspect and open to criticism. I suggest that it get rid of its motto: `Good sports with money'. In view of these problems, I welcome the personal undertaking given by the Attorney-General to consider these matters further as they relate to the prepayment schemes and the use of promisory notes. There ought to be time limits on pre-payment schemes and there ought to be prescribed goods and services. This Bill is typical of this Government's commitment to consumers. It involves tougher penalties to counter commercial malpractice; new protections for farmers and consumers against false representations involving spare parts and repair facilities; tougher requirements on promoters who make promises and predictions as to the future performance or profitability of some business venture; stronger protection for consumers against unconscionable contracts and conduct; tighter controls over false and misleading representations concerning the place of origin of products; and stronger controls over misleading statements or false representations in relation to land. It contains new provisions relating to misleading advertising concerning employment opportunities and broader provisions to catch up the new pyramid selling type schemes which previously evaded the net. There is a new deal for small business constantly faced with fraudulent claims for payment for unsolicited advertising in directories and trade journals and a widening of the role that can be played by the Trade Practices Commission in being able to embark on legal action on behalf of a consumer. The Hawke Labor Government is quickly developing a commendable reputation in the area of consumerism, and I am confident that, given the personal commitment of the Attorney-General and the effectiveness of the Government's new Caucus consumer affairs committee, Australian consumers can expect continued positive changes in the market place. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(5.57) —The words we have just heard from the previous speaker, the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), sum up the attitude of the Australian Labor Party to the whole issue of wealth creation in the business community and the total disregard of that Party for the capacity of business to produce the wealth which makes our society exist and enables us in the longer term to provide the benefits which people, particularly those who are disadvantaged, genuinely need. The Trade Practices Amendment Bill is just another example of the breakdown in the great consensus about which the Government spoke with such enthusiasm a couple of years ago and the imposition of legislation and measures which are very typical of Labor regimes not just in Australia but all around the world. These measures are anti-business, regulatory and impose very considerable costs on the community. Labor's attempt to ignore those issues is borne out by the fact that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech did not even mention the costs imposed on the business community by this legislation. These costs come on top of the tax package which is directed specifically again at the wealth creating people in our community-small business, big business and primary producers. It comes on top of the highest interest rates we have ever had-I see that they have gone up again today-and on top of a massive wages burden borne by the business community through the process of full wage indexation and the prices and incomes accord. In other words, we have here another example of a party which is unconcerned about competitiveness and more concerned about pleasing its own pressure group constituencies, so many of which are represented in this Parliament. The rhetoric of the Labor Party and the Government is completely different, as the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) pointed out earlier. During the 1984 election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) committed his party to deregulation. On 29 October a great speech was made by the Prime Minister to the Business Council of Australia telling us that the great era of Labor deregulation-I do not mean the labour market of course; I mean the Labor Party-had finally arrived. I will just quote one part of that speech, in which the Prime Minister said: Wherever controls do not serve legitimate ends or involve excessive costs, our intention is that they should be relaxed or abolished as soon as possible. Yet this legislation imposes additional costs, additional restrictions and additional regulation on the wealth creating people of our community. The Confederation of Australian Industry pointed out two years ago that regulation was costing business $1 billion a year. What the Government has now done has added to that regulation. A large number of honourable members who have spoken in this debate have referred to the provisions of the Bill relating to product safety. As the honourable member for North Sydney pointed out eloquently, as he always does, there are 11 1/2 pages of provisions on product safety, all of which need to be adhered to by the business community and all of which will lead, in the fullness of time, to litigation. Adhering to those regulations will involve enormous costs. Many speakers on this side of the House have pointed to the lack of consultation with the business community and indeed the community as a whole in the drawing up of those regulations. The two points I want to cover in this debate in the six or seven minutes left to me tonight relate to proposed new sections 46 and 52A of the Trade Practices Act as amended by this Bill. Section 46 was originally known as the monopolisation provision but under this amendment Bill it will be called the `misuse of market power' provision. What this piece of legislation does is lower the threshold for the definition, if you like, of abuse of market power from a corporation which is `in a position substantially to control a market' to one which `has a substantial degree of market power'. The effect of that amendment to the original Act is that it will draw in a large number of additional companies to the operation of the legislation. In other words, it will impose much greater restrictions and costs on a larger number of companies than was the case under the original Trade Practices Act. Those companies will now be involved in a great expenditure of money in order to try, as best they can, to adhere to the new section 46. Yet absolutely no evidence has been presented in the original Green Paper, the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) or anywhere else from the other side of the House for the need to change section 46. There is no evidence that section 46 has failed, except for one contention that apparently there have been no prosecutions under section 46. I am not sure whether that is correct, but on one occasion I did read that contention. I would not have thought that just because there have been no prosecutions that was an argument necessarily for changing the section. So we have no explanation as to why the section should be changed. We have no evidence that until now the section has failed. The other point I make about proposed new section 46-this point has been made by the business community, although its representations have been unheard and unread-is that, as it will now stand under the amended Act, it is an extremely vague section. Obviously, it will provide a great deal of uncertainty for the larger corporations in Australia which will be affected by it and will inhibit their economic activity in the market-place. These companies will have a great deal of difficulty in trying to interpret what the Government or the legislation intends by unacceptable conduct. They will not know what it is because it is not spelt out in the legislation. In every single market activity in which they indulge they will always be acting under the threat of some kind of legal challenge from the Trade Practices Commission or other companies-perhaps more typically from other companies with which they compete. I urge the Government to re-define, and to define specifically, section 46 so that at least the business community can have a clearer idea of what the Government intends by `acceptable conduct' and can orient its affairs towards a greater degree of efficiency and certainty without the uncertainty of litigation, indeed vexatious litigation, hanging over its head as it continues to operate in the market-place in the years ahead. I should add that the philosophy of this amendment to section 46 is also wrong because, by bringing down the threshold, as I have pointed out, the Act will embrace a larger number of companies-a larger proportion, if you like, of the market place. Apparently, the argument for doing that is that in some way or other this will help small businesses. I do not think that this is a way to help small businesses. There are a large number of other policies relating to wages, interest rates, taxation and deregulation, which will be a lot more relevant to the survival of the small business community in this country than this amended section 46. What the Government is doing to the bigger companies through this amendment is restricting the capacity of those companies to achieve the economies of scale that they need in order to compete not only in the Australian market-place and with Australian companies but also internationally. In Question Time today the Prime Minister told us that apparently the Labor Party's policy was to encourage Australian industry to become more export-oriented. I often applaud the sorts of statements that he makes, but it is the policies that are pursued following up those statements which are at variance with the statements. This is another example. It is at variance with the Prime Minister's statement to introduce a measure which restricts the capacity of companies to grow and achieve economies of scale and which, in turn, will restrict their capacity to compete in export markets and with those international companies importing into Australia. In the last couple of minutes which are available to me I turn my attention briefly to the proposed new section 52A. This proposed new section prohibits something which is described as `unconscionable conduct' in relation to the supply of goods and services. I understand that this section comes from the 1976 Swanson Trade Practices Act Review Committee report, but I point out that it goes considerably further than the Swanson Committee recommended. Under proposed new section 52A, the Trade Practices Commission can move for an injunction against unconscionable contracts or what are apparently unconscionable contracts. The first thing I say about that is this: Where is the evidence? Where does the Government produce the evidence of the large number of unsatisfactory commercial standards which apparently this piece of legislation is supposed to address? The Government does not bring forward examples of that. It does not bring forward examples of the sorts of contracts and the sort of conduct about which it is concerned. It raises a very real and important question for businesses in the future, and this is a very serious point, that in terms of making contracts, businesses are uncertain as to what the true meaning of those contracts will be. Under proposed section 52A they can suddenly wake up one morning and find that the contract they signed in good faith has become unconscionable and, therefore, is no longer applicable. That makes it very difficult for businesses operating in a competitive market-place. Obviously, they have to try to get the best deal they can or the market system just will not work. Obviously, they have to try to get the best contracts they possibly can, but if they are always concerned, in the back of their minds, that those contracts will suddenly be deemed unconscionable they really do not know what the meaning of the contracts is. Indeed, I challenge the Government to explain what the meaning of commercial contracts will be under this amended legislation. My time has almost run out, but let me say in conclusion that I believe the legislation is important. It is important because it will impose damage on the business community and because it signifies yet again that this Government has abandoned the politics of consensus, has abandoned working with the business community and has, instead, put the special interest groups, which the Labor Party so loves, ahead of the interests of the broader community. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(6.09) —Before I commence the substance of my remarks I cannot help but reflect on the comments made by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). The special interest groups that this legislation is designed to protect are, in fact, all Australians. All Australians will benefit from the passage of this legislation, as I shall explain to the House. The Trade Practices Amendment Bill amends the Trade Practices Act in important respects relating to restrictive trade practices and the consumer protection provisions of the Act which have been referred to at great length by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). It is in that area that I shall concentrate my remarks. It is to the Government's credit that prior to initiating the legislation, extensive consultations took place with a range of groups in the community, including the business community and consumer organisations. As a result of that process, the proposed legislation has been accordingly amended. In my view, the most important amendment to the consumer protection provisions of the Act is to insert a new Division, Division 1A in Part V of the Act, which incorporates, with some amendments, the existing sections of the Act dealing with product safety and product information standards. Of vital importance are the new provisions dealing with mandatory recall of unsafe goods supplied after 1 July 1986. Once again, in government it is the Australian Labor Party which is initiating important reforms to protect the well-being of consumers and, thus, all Australians. As has so often occurred in this Parliament, whenever significant reforms are proposed by the ALP they are consistently and trenchantly opposed by the conservative parties, and we have seen it all again today. People forget that when the Trade Practices Act passed through this Parliament in 1974 the conservative parties opposed the consumer protection provisions of that Act. The conservative parties said that they were matters for State legislation, that this Parliament had no role to play in consumer protection. They said that it was a States matter. Examining the record of a number of the States on consumer protection, we find that after all those years it is still very seriously lacking. The hopelessness of the conservatives' line of reasoning can be seen by looking at the transcript of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation television program The Investigators broadcast on 4 September 1985. On that program there was considerable criticism by independent commentators of the appalling nature of the Tasmanian consumer affairs legislation, some of which dates back to the very early part of this century. It was described by the commentators as being quite inadequate. What they did then was to interview the Tasmanian Minister for Consumer Affairs, Mr Lyons. They asked him specifically how the Tasmanian consumer affairs legislation compared with legislation in the mainland States. Mr Lyons, a Tasmanian Minister of the Crown, someone who is charged with the responsibility of the administration of consumer affairs in that State, in one sentence of his reply struck a devastating blow to the phoney States rights arguments used by the conservatives, and one which also leaves this Parliament and must leave our Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in great doubt as to whether that State will ever have effective consumer protection legislation. Mr Lyons said: Look, I'm sorry, I'm really not familiar with what it's like on the mainland. Tasmanians deserve a better deal, and they will get one from this Government. Their position will be markedly improved by the passage of this legislation today. Prior to coming into the chamber this afternoon to debate this Bill, I had thought to myself that one of the hidden agenda items for this debate would be the question of deregulation. I thought: Surely it will not be an open matter for debate; surely the conservative parties realise that in consumer protection law we are dealing with people's well-being and personal safety, and, indeed, in relation to a number of dangerous products, with people's very lives. I am deeply disappointed that my expectations were not met. What we have seen today is a full frontal attack by the honourable member for North Sydney on consumer protection law passed by this Parliament. It is not good enough that the conservatives did not support the legislation back in 1974; right to this day they continue to use the deregulation argument in an attempt to strike down the Federal Labor Government's consumer protection legislation. Historically, by a minority in the conservative parties-until now-consumer protection legislation has been criticised as being something that was offensive to business. Most Liberals in the old days, when there was a real Liberal Party, did not support that line. That is not the view, of course, being put today by the honourable member for North Sydney as the Liberal spokesman on this issue. I reject that extremist approach. I am appalled that there are minority sections of the business community who are prepared to give credence to the Liberal Party view supporting deregulation of consumer protection laws because that is what they are doing. I also think that the Confederation of Australian Industry, in opposing the mandatory product recall provisions, was doing a disservice to its members and to its constituency. I have great pleasure in applauding the view expressed by the Australian Retailers Association in its submission to the Government. It has endorsed the Federal Government's view and it has supported the view that there is a need for some government regulation in the area of product recall. It also said that a voluntary recall system backed by reserve mandatory powers would be preferable to a mandatory system. In other words, its submission does not support the Liberal Party, it supports the Government's approach. I commend the Retailers Association. It is about time that business ethics were put back on to the agenda for debate in this country. It is not good enough for business to comply with the minimum standards laid down by government. There are higher ideals to which it ought to aspire. I commend the Retailers Association for its submission. A range of products could be brought before this Parliament to demonstrate how desperately needed these mandatory product recall provisions are. The honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) raised the horrendous ramifications brought about by the swimming pool filters that had led to the deaths of a number of young children. There have been examples of crockery being sold in Queensland with high lead and cadmium content. There have been examples of novelty oil lamps the instructions for which contained a mistake in translation and people were told to fill the oil lamps with petrol. What people got, of course, was not a lamp but a Molotov cocktail. There are examples in Victoria of imported tractors being serious fire hazards. That matter was raised by a State Government Minister. In another example, 147,000 Dalkon shield contraceptive devices were used by Australian women even though the manufacturer, A. H. Robbins Ltd, had known of the device's defect and that it constituted a health risk to all consumers. Regrettably, some of the most tragic deaths and serious injuries have occurred to children. I am appalled that the honourable member for North Sydney, in his extremist view promoting deregulation at all costs, in the entire course of his speech did not make any substantial reference to the deaths and injuries of Australian consumers caused by inadequate consumer protection legislation. Heaven help this country if the honourable member for North Sydney is allowed to get his legislative hands on the Labor Government's consumer protection laws. Heaven help Australian consumers. Under existing law it is possible to ban the sale of dangerous goods, but it has been a major deficiency of the law that there has not been a power of compulsory recall. I commend those in the business community who, when the occasion has arisen, have done the right thing and issued notices and done their best to recall dangerous products. But a number of business groups have not played the game. The Mitsubishi company is involved currently in a controversy with the Government relating to Valiants in the VJ series, models produced from 1974 to 1978. To the best of my knowledge, despite the pressure by the Government and by the Australian Automobile Association, it still has not done the right thing by consumers. My time is drawing to a close. I should like to meet the argument raised by the honourable member for North Sydney that the provisions in the legislation do not give rights to manufacturers and others who are promoting products. Clearly, they do give rights. There is provision for a pre-decision conference with the Trade Practices Commission, and of course the Minister's decision is subject to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Perhaps the shadow Attorney-General should read the legislation before he comments. I conclude by saying that I believe there is another important provision in the legislation of which this Parliament-certainly the Government side of the House-ought to be very proud. It relates to the fact that we in Australia are part of the global community. We are not just one country; we are part of a global market place. A number of provisions in the legislation are specifically directed towards the question of ensuring that if shoddy products are banned in Australia, there will be constraints which, I hope, will prohibit the export of those products to Third World and other countries. The power of transnational corporations to dump their products in vulnerable markets is one that we, as a developed Western country, ought to realise and intervene to remove. Eleven years ago members of the Liberal and National parties stood in this Parliament and opposed the Federal Government having a role in consumer protection. Eleven years later they have learnt nothing. They are not prepared to vote to give the Australian Parliament the power to protect Australian consumers and they stand condemned for it. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(6.20) —I enter this debate with relish. The platform of the Australian Labor Party, under the heading `Basic Principles' sets out the following: The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange . . . If ever there was a classic example of vicious socialist legislation it is the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1985-a Bill which not only is classic doctrinaire socialist legislation but also, I am advised, when it becomes law, will cost the Australian business community at least $50m a year-- Mr McGauran —Fifty? Mr HODGMAN —At least $50m a year. I would like to refer to what was said by the last speaker, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner). Shame on him for suggesting that any member of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition would stand in this place and support those who produce products which are of poor quality or even dangerous. He made a most disgraceful attack on the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). The plain fact is that there is State legislation in relation to the sale of dangeous goods and one can turn to the criminal courts in the case of very bad abuses. So do not let it be said that people who stand in this Parliament and criticise this vicious socialist legislation are supporting those who produce shonky and dangerous products and inflict them upon an unsuspecting community. I must say that this Bill is anti-business. It is unfair, it is unjust and it is thoroughly discriminatory. I am advised by those in industry, including those with legal qualifications, that the legislation will impose an additional cost of at least $50m per annum on Australian manufacturers and retailers. It will certainly increase the cost of commodities to consumers-- Mr Gear —No. Mr HODGMAN —It will fuel inflation-- Mr Gear —No. Mr HODGMAN —And it will endanger jobs. Mr Gear —No. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member who is going to follow me in this debate is muttering away over there in Moscow corner. I simply say that, whether he likes it or not, this draconian legislation presumes guilt. It provides no right of appeal to the courts; it reverses the onus of proof; and its 76 clauses and 14 additional amendments which have been tabled in the Parliament today create, in my humble opinion, a legal jungle and a businessman's nightmare. Bluntly put, this Bill is a monumental disaster. It is doctrinaire socialism at its worst and legislation of the worst possible kind. I say that because this legislation has come about in a manner which is totally inappropriate. There has been no proper consultation. There is no proper understanding by this socialist Government of the working of private enterprise. This is a classic example of legislating on the run, if not at the gallop. It is no wonder that the Law Council of Australia has condemned the legislation. In a letter of today's date to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) the Council said: . . . the Committee is unanimously of the view that insufficient time has been allowed for public comment on the product recall provision. The draft legislation has only recently been released and in view of the fact that it is not intended to come into operation until July 1986, division 1A should not be enacted by the Parliament until further time has been allowed for comment. The Metal Trades Association was damning in its comments: Industry has only been given a few weeks to assess the actual legislation. We have had only a few weeks in this Parliament to do that. The Confederation of Australian Industry said: . . . having regard that the Trade Practices Amendment Bill was introduced into Parliament some 5 weeks later (ie after closing date for comment on the discussion paper) it is doubtful whether any notice was taken of the contents of the submission received. Today in this Parliament 14 additional amendments comprising some five pages of printing, which have never been shown to industry and which have never been shown to the legal profession, have been introduced. Those amendments are certainly not easy to read and are certainly not easy to understand. This is a classic example of the Hawke socialist Government legislating at the gallop. There has been no proper consultation. We have a situation where the Hawke socialist Government, whipped on by the mad Left, which clearly is now digging in the spurs, has even got the meek and mild mannered Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Lionel Bowen) arguing in this chamber for legislation which he knows is confusing, is uncertain, is costly and is going to defeat the very purpose for which it is intended. A law which is an unjust law, a law which is ill prepared and ill considered, a law which is badly drafted, reeks of injustice and that creates a reaction. Instead of co-operation we have a situation where the community says: `This is outrageous'. Let me give two classic examples from the Bill. Proposed new section 51A (1) states: For the purposes of this Division, where a corporation makes a representation with respect to any future matter (including the doing of, or the refusing to do, any act) and the corporation does not have reasonable grounds for making the representation, the representation shall be taken to be misleading. The point I want to make is this: What happens if the representation turns out to be true? What happens if a corporation made that representation without having proper grounds but fortuitously it turned out to be the truth? We have the law of the land saying that it was a misleading representation. We should then have a look at sub-section (2) of the proposed new section, which states: The onus of establishing that a corporation had reasonable grounds for making a representation referred to in sub-section (1) is on the corporation. So we have a reversal of the burden of proof. This is something that I suggest this Parliament should very carefully scrutinise. We have a lunatic provision which says: `Even if the representation turns out to be true, we say as a matter of law that it is misleading'. I ask people to contemplate that. It then says: `Furthermore, we put the onus on you to prove that it was not'. Madam Deputy Speaker, I note your shocked reaction to those comments. However, I ask you to have a look at proposed new section 52A (1), which states: A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply- listen to those words `or possible supply'- of goods or services to a person, engage in conduct that is, in all the circumstances, unconscionable. It says `unconscionable'. We find that everything else in this proposed new section is defined except the word `unconscionable'. When one goes to the explanatory memorandum to find out what that word means one is confronted with a magnificent piece of bureaucratese which I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister did not write. The memorandum states: The terms used, except for `unconscionable', appear throughout Division 1 and their meanings are well established by judicial interpretation. Unconscionable to one judge is not unconscionable to another; unconscionable to one commission is not unconscionable to another. We have a situation of a legal gold mine. Lawyers will gorge themselves on this stupidly prepared legislation. That is no reflection on anybody except the Hawke socialist Government, whipped on by the mad Left, determined to get this neon sign legislation up. It is just like the human rights legislation-flashing neon sign legislation. But what does the Bill achieve in reality? I conclude my remarks at this point because time runs against me. I adopt and endorse the remarks of all my colleagues who are members of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. Let no socialist republican on the other side sneer at that, because we are Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. We have pointed out that the legislation has been conceived in haste. There has been no proper consultation. The legislation which is badly drafted is going to defeat the very purpose for which it is established. It is going to put $50m on to the cost of Australian manufacturing and retailing. It is a sham, it is a shambles and it is a shame. We will oppose the Bill. We hope that the Government will have the sense not to proceed further with legislation which is so bad, so deceptive and so thoroughly misleading. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8.00 p.m. Mr GEAR(Canning)(8.00) —The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech said that the purpose of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill was in part to protect `the interests of the consuming public and reputable businesses'. He went on: The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that the Act is effectively and appropriately achieving its dual aims of promoting efficiency through competition, thereby ensuring goods are provided to the consumer at the cheapest price . . . We have heard from speakers on this side of the House examples of some of the practices that have been going on in Australia under the consumer affairs legislation. Sadly, once again we hear doom and gloom from the other side of the House, from the ex-captains of industry. But I am concerned that new technology in the form of scanners is being introduced in supermarkets to boost the profits of those supermarkets at the expense of low income earners, pensioners and supermarket workers. I will detail my background which allows me to speak on this subject. In my electorate I run the Canning Prices Action Group, which is the largest supermarket monitoring group in Australia. We currently monitor 45 supermarkets. We have been running that organisation for 2 1/2 years. We have been successful in lowering food prices by advertising monthly the variation in supermarket prices throughout the electorate. We do so through these community newspapers: The Canning Melville Times, the Comment News, the Midland Kalamunda Reporter and the Southern Gazette. The reason for establishing this consumer watchdog was that I had a belief that the main benefits would go to pensioners and people on low incomes because they spend a very much higher percentage of their income on supermarket goods than do people like me. I would like to look at the impact of this technology on consumers, workers and management. With regard to the effect on consumers, the first thing that was noticed when scanners were introduced was that the lowest priced stock, which used to be item priced, disappeared. That affected pensioners and people on low incomes because they used to go through that stock and pick the lowest priced items. In that way they did the stores a service because they got rid of the old stock. That does not happen under the new technology, of course, because there are no item prices and therefore one does not know how old the stock is. Scanners have reduced price awareness. Our studies have shown that in the last financial year scanner supermarkets increased their prices by as much as twice those of conventional stores. That gives the lie to the claim made by operators of scanner supermarkets that the introduction of scanners at supermarkets would reduce prices. That just has not happened. All of our surveys have shown that conventional supermarkets offer the lowest priced goods. Also, the operator at scanner supermarkets has less time to talk to shoppers. I will elaborate on that point a little later when I discuss the effects of this technology on the workers. People, such as pensioners, with poor eyesight find it hard to read the shelf price. A common complaint I receive in my office is that people cannot read the shelf price, sometimes because the price is shown on a shelf which is too low, and many times because it is just not decipherable. I have also found discrepancies between the shelf price and the price charged at the checkout counter. In fact, I am told by my research assistant that on average there are 10 calls a week to my office from people who find discrepancies between the advertised price and the price that they are actually charged at the checkout counter. I have spoken previously in debates in this House on a similar matter. One gentleman informed me that of 13 items that he bought nine were incorrectly priced. One honourable member opposite asked about the docket. One benefit that I will concede is that the itemised docket that is a feature of these stores is a significant advantage to consumers. But it is of no real use because no item price appears on the goods. When a shopper takes the goods home, he would know what price he was charged for the goods, but he would not know what price appeared on the shelf, unless he had written it down. I refer to the effect of this technology on checkout operators. During a recent visit to the United States of America I was fortunate enough to go to a consumer affairs conference in Chicago. I was told there that the use of scanner technology in supermarkets has led to repetitive strain injury among the operators. It is a significant problem. Anybody who has shopped in supermarkets would understand why this has occurred. Repeating the same motion of passing an item over a scanner head leads to repetitive strain injury. I venture to say that before too long supermarkets in Australia that operate this technology will be faced with the same problem. Another impact of this technology on the workers is the harassment and stress caused by using scanners because they have the capacity to count the number of items an operator checks through the checkout each minute. While the checkout operator is talking to or assisting a shopper, the timer keeps going. I have had a complaint from one of my constituents who said that because 22 items were not put through the checkout in a minute she was had up before the management. It is just like having Big Brother watching over one's shoulder, keeping one on the treadmill with the threat of intervention. That is one aspect of this technology that is long overdue for deletion. Another effect that this technology will have on checkout operators is that there will be less employment over time. One of the benefits of the scanners to the supermarkets is that they do away with the need to itemise prices. There are also other aspects that have an impact on employment. I shall detail the benefits of this technology to supermarkets. First of all, supermarkets do not have to item price. Secondly, as I have pointed out, fewer staff are required. Thirdly, operators can be monitored. Big Brother will be with them every minute of the day and the number of items they put through the checkout counter can be monitored. Fourthly, there are stock count and control benefits because they computer actually remembers what has gone through on any day and it can do automatic reordering. That is a significant advantage for a supermarket and it is one of the benefits of that technology with which I would not argue. Another benefit is automatic price changing. If a supermarket wants to put up the price of any goods, people do not have to go around sticking another item price on the articles. I refer again to the conference that I went to in Chicago. I picked up a publication called the New Jersey Consumer Update. Some of the findings it contained relating to this technology were as follows: Supermarket items placed on shelves have to be placed there by hand, and pricing-that is, putting prices on items-takes less than one minute per carton. Se we can see that it is not actually a great cost to the supermarket to have people put prices on goods. I maintain that prices should be placed on goods. Secondly, pricing is done by the lowest paid worker, usually a part time worker. That adds to what I have said; it does not cost the supermarket a lot of money actually to item price every article. Thirdly, a survey conducted in New Jersey indicated that 95 per cent of shoppers using scanner supermarkets wanted the item price on each article. I am also told that there are nine States in the United States which make it mandatory to price each item individually, and this movement is growing throughout America, because Americans have felt the effect of this technology for a lot longer than we have. As a member of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations the Canning Prices Action Group will be moving at the annual conference of that organisation that item pricing be adopted as policy. Scanners are an example of technology benefiting the owners at the expense of consumers and workers. I believe that because of the impact of this technology the parliaments of Australia have a duty to frame legislation that protects the interests of the consumers and workers. Mr TUCKEY(O`Connor)(8.05) —Amendments to the Trade Practices Act such as those before the House today are supposed to protect small business, which is my special interest in this place, from the predatory practices of large concerns, including incorporated labour. I think that we would all support legislation that achieves that end; however, we also have to be concerned as to whether or not there is too much regulation within Australia. I have read articles which claim that in the last 20 years the parliaments of Australia have produced something like 50,000 pieces of legislation and regulation. That is getting to be a very large amount. What happens in other countries when deregulation occurs? I have a view that in the end the big beneficiaries of regulation are always the very large business organisations and the small are often the losers. It is notable that in America between 1980 and 1982 when the trucking industry was deregulated there was a decline of 12,644 businesses of a large nature-those employing more than 20 people. Yet, at the same time, 19,323 small firms took their place. I introduce those figures just to indicate to people that there is good reason why deregulation will help the small business. This legislation of course is not for little people. We have had people speak today of how individual consumers will be assisted by this legislation. This is a very complex piece of legislation. The entire Trade Practices Amendment Bill is a lawyer's delight. There is absolutely no room for little people to get into it. In most cases they will find that it will be their job to take legal action themselves under the provisions of this legislation. I know there are some provisions which say that they can get some money. Most of them would not know how to do that either. We have recently seen all the publicity as to the costs that occurred in the Mudginberri dispute. How many small consumers could handle that cost? In fact, how could the proprietor of that Mudginberri abattoir have handled the costs if he had not had the assistance of the National Farmers Federation and others? So do not let us kid ourselves that this legislation will help little people. There may be some State legislation that is a bit more active in that area. This legislation is for big people and they are the only ones who can afford to litigate under these arrangements. Because of the time limitations tonight, I want to talk about just Part II, clause 5, which amends section 4B of the principal Act. Clause 5 states: by adding at the end of sub-paragraph (1) (a) (ii) `or the goods consisted of a commercial road vehicle'; The reality of all that is that section 4B of the original Act, sub-section (1) (a) (ii), states: where that price exceeded the prescribed amount-the goods were of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption . . . In other words, the section is being amended to include suddenly one item of commercial business-namely, a truck. Many farmers around would probably say: Why not a header and everything else if that is going to be the case? We know why this is being done. We have just had an inquiry into the trucking industry. Quite rightly, it identified that truck owners had considerable problems with maintenance of various types. They were getting shoddy repairs. They were buying secondhand trucks that had purely had just a yellow paint overhaul; in other words, that was the only thing that was done to them-a coat of paint was applied. Of course, in some cases people found themselves in difficulty with new truck warranties when the large companies denied that they had a responsibility. By some means this move is being presented to them as doing some good for them. Unfortunately, this provision is lifting the amount claimable from the original $15,000 to $40,000. We find the Association of Consulting Engineers saying: Because the potential liability of a consulting engineer is related to the cost of the structure or equipment which he designs, a fee of $40,000, which is the proposed new limit in defining a consumer, could give rise to a liability of up to $2 million. That is the sort of job for which a consulting engineer would probably get a fee of $40,000. Will he be dragged in under the provisions of this section because the Government wants to give a handout to truckies? In truth, the solution is tokenism. Small truckers cannot affort to prosecute, as I have already pointed out. I have a letter from the Chairman of the Trade Practices Commission to tell me that. The Chairman confines his actions to substantial anti-competitive activities. I refer the Parliament to an extract from his report of 1976-77 when he was talking about sections 45D and 45E. His letter states: The TPC has never seen section 45D of the Trade Practices Act as calling for the same response from it as the provisions of the Act directed against price collusion between competitors and against resale price maintenance by suppliers. He sees that as his job and not any of the other functions. The fact is that, if the truckies believe that this is the be all and end all of the solution to their very real problem, they are wrong. When talking with some industry representatives in recent times I have drawn to their attention the fact that the solution resides with self-regulation. I have to admit that the truck dealers and truck repairers of Australia have never thought of that themselves, but they are now thinking about looking into cases at an industry level. Many truckers have had the opportunity of using the present day courts. They have had the opportunity of litigation but they could not afford it; they could not afford the time. They want a peer tribunal that will look at the matter. It is interesting to note that the tractor industry already provides such a tribunal. I hope tht the trucking industry, irrespective of this tokenism legislation, will go ahead and create such a tribunal whereby a truck owner, who feels he has a grievance against a repairer or a provider of a truck, can go before a group of peers who will look carefully at the matter and, I hope-I will use the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-will act for the truck owner and err on the side of generosity because that is what should happen. Let us look at a couple of things which the truckies do not want and which are relevant to this legislation. Firstly, they need most of all the right to get work wherever it is legitimately available. They should be able to get work without having to produce, before they load their truck, a Transport Workers Union of Australia ticket. Private businessmen and owner-drivers should not have to produce a union ticket. It is illegal that they be obliged to have one. They should not have to produce a superannuation ticket or an okay card. That is what this legislation provides for. Truck drivers need the right to enter the lucrative fuel carting industry in metropolitan areas which is controlled by a sweetheart deal between the oil refiners and the TWU. It is to their mutual benefit and that of no one else and it is to the detriment of independent fuel retailers. It is interesting that the Australian Automobile Chamber of Commerce telexed me stating: It is imperative that the same protection be given to traders, a glaring example being the behaviour of oil companies towards petrol retailers. We know what happens in the metropolitan areas. There are laws which state that retailers can get the fuel supplies that they demand, that they can buy on the best market, but there is a cosy deal between the TWU and the refineries. One could ask for a load of fuel but one would not get one's truck loaded. A secondary boycott would be imposed. The storemen and packers would say: `You don't get loaded, mate. All the metropolitan deliveries are done by members of the TWU and as a pay-off to the refineries they won't deliver Ampol to a Mobil station'. As much as those blokes are desperate to buy and compete on the best market-they have put this to me directly-they cannot do it because that collusion exists. The Trade Practices Act is all about competition. The Automobile Chamber of Commerce sent a telex to me which said exactly that. The telex further stated: AACC would greatly appreciate your support for having section 52A amended by deleting the words `person' and `consumer' wherever they appear in the section and replacing those words with the word `purchaser'. If people want to get into the commercial area the Chamber says that they should, but let the purchaser be a consumer too because he is being taken to the cleaners under other sections of the Act. All of these rights are already guaranteed by sections 45D and 45E of the Act. The previous Commissioner, Mr Bannerman, was at pains to report to the Parliament that he had no intention of using his powers to prosecute in this area. I have just referred to extracts from the 1976-77 report, items 159, 160, 161 and 162, about section 45D on secondary boycotts. The Commissioner has told me personally that this is why people do not get these sorts of things. He ignored a string of prima facie cases that I brought to his attention, including black bans imposed by employees at Australia Post against the personal and business mail of democratically elected Perth city councillors. We have a commissioner who will chase after business. We have seen plenty of examples of that. Yet when they were brought to his attention they were regarded as an attack on the democratic fabric of Australia and nothing was done. I trust-and I believe-that the new Commissioner, Mr McComas, will view this Act in its entirety. The owner-driver industry will also find itself subject to the regulatory aspects of this legislation as it feels the powers of, for example, the Interstate Road Transport Act. All the talk we have heard today about consumers has to be taken in context. I have already said that I do not think the legislation will protect them. There is a better way to protect consumers. It is about time that we saw that our education system gave young people some entrepreneurial education and taught them not to squeal to government every time they lost sixpence. They should be assisted to understand that not every deal that is offered to them in the world will be a good one and that they should protect themselves. I know that they will not all be able to protect themselves, but if help were given at that stage it would be a lot better than this constant imposition of consumer legislation. Government members talked about Tasmania and Queensland. I have been to both States and, to tell the truth, I did not meet many downtrodden citizens. They all seemed to me to be managing pretty well. Every time the Government offers us an olive branch it turns into some form of prickly vine. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(8.22) —As the initiator and convenor of a prices action group in my electorate I have great pleasure in speaking to the Trade Practices Amendment Bill, the purpose of which is to strengthen and improve the Trade Practices Act 1974. I was interested in the last comment by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) about education in schools on consumer action because I have undertaken to do that in my electorate and I have been to the Girrawheen High School to talk to the students about consumer action and consumer education. The Cowan Price Watch group commenced price comparisons in local stores in August this year. There has been tremendous interest in the activities of the group in the community and also in the results of its shopper surveys, which are made available to the media. Shoppers range from retired couples to parents of young families. They are bound by a common interest in and concern for consumer protection and price monitoring. At this point I would like to pay tribute to my colleague the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear), who spoke previously in this debate, for his continuing energy and interest in consumer action. The group I convene has modelled itself to a large degree on the Canning Prices Action Group of which he spoke and we are hopeful that price comparisons between the two groups will shortly be possible. Like the honourable member for Canning, I am also concerned that the new electronic scanners do not serve to disadvantage shoppers further by reducing their awareness of actual shelf prices for goods and the individual cost of items purchased, not to mention the industrial relations problems they may cause in the longer term. Few families in my electorate, and in many others, I suspect, can afford to pay more than is absolutely necessary for essential items such as food and clothing. The activities of consumer groups through consumer education on comparative prices and marketing practices can heighten consumer awareness and increase competition between retail outlets selling commonly purchased goods. However, they cannot do what this legislation does, in conjunction with the Trade Practices Act 1974, in terms of consumer protection and the requirement for fair dealing. As I mentioned earlier, this Bill is designed to strengthen and improve the working of the Trade Practices Act. It provides for the amendment of key provisions directed at restrictive trade practices in order to increase their effectiveness. It also extends the protection afforded to consumers by the Act and promotes uniform consumer legislation throughout the Commonwealth. The Trade Practices Act regulates a number of business practices in Australia, and it is important to emphasise that the activities of reputable businesses are protected in this Bill by reducing the prospect of unfair competition. It is patently not an anti-business Bill. Business people are consumers too. As the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and my colleague the honourable member for Canning have already stated, the Government wants to ensure that the Act is effectively and appropriately achieving its dual aims of promoting efficiency through competition, thus ensuring that goods are provided to the consumer at the cheapest price while providing consumers and business people with appropriate measures of protection against unscrupulous traders. The Bill recognises the undesirability of monopolies or oligopolies in the competitive economy which prevails in Australia and the detrimental effects of the existence of these and other market controllers on both smaller competitors and consumers. Accordingly, the Bill contains amendments to section 46 of the parent Act which will make that section more effective. To this end, the test for the application of section 46 is to be changed from that of a corporation `being in a position substantially to control the market' to a test of whether `a corporation has a substantial degree of market power'. We are assured by the Attorney-General that the amendment to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act is not directed at the size or competitive behaviour of strong businesses as such, but rather at the misuse by a business of its market power. He indicated that examples of such misuse may include predatory pricing or refusal to supply in certain circumstances. Contrary to the comments and claims of members opposite, the aim of the Trade Practices Act and the amendments contained in this Bill is not to seek to regulate the way in which firms pursue their business activity; rather, it is to enable businesses to make their decisions in a free but fair market. In improving the effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act the Government will ensure that anti-competitive private regulation of business is kept to a minimum. This undertaking is made in recognition of the fact that anti-competitive private regulation of business can be as restrictive as government regulation and more narrow in its effect and application. The need for and desirability of State sister legislation has also been recognised and accommodated. Several State governments have indicated to the Attorney-General their preparedness to enact legislation which reflects much of the content of Division 1 of Part V and related provisions in Part VI of the Trade Practices Act as proposed to be amended. A uniform approach is the only effective way of dealing with such protective provisions. The Bill also redefines the word `consumer' for the purposes of this legislation by raising the monetary qualification contained in the Act from $15,000 to $40,000, to restore the protection provided to consumers and small business purchasers. Proposed new section 65F is a substantial section dealing with compulsory product recall. The provision for the Minister to order a mandatory product recall is proposed for use when the voluntary recall measures do not exist or have not been complied with satisfactorily by the suppliers. Sub-section (1) provides that where a corporation provides consumable goods that do not comply with a prescribed product safety standard, are declared unsafe or permanently banned, or are considered capable of causing injury to a person, the Minister may require the supplier to take action to recall the goods or disclose to the public the nature of the defect and procedures for disposing of the goods. Responsible businesses need not fear this type of backup legislation. Consumers all over Australia will welcome it. It is long overdue and very necessary, given the unsatisfactory nature of State legislation in this area. I remind the House of the danger of unsafe toys to small children and the impotence of previous governments to recall products which were the cause of serious accident or injury. Indeed, we have had the alarming situation in this country where a product that was acknowledged as unsafe in one State would still be readily available for purchase in all the other States. Such an area cannot be left unregulated. Governments that do so are derelict in their duty to the people they represent. How many manufacturers forewarned customers that night- wear for children was a potential fire hazard before it became mandatory to do so? Unfortunately, the laws of business and competition do not encourage total honesty with prospective buyers. Voluntary codes of conduct in the area of product safety in particular cannot stand alone. Without government regulation as an alternative the voluntary code cannot and will not work, except to disadvantage the honest and alert manufacturer or supplier in competitive terms. Government regulation in this area is sensible and necessary and I applaud its introduction. As the Attorney-General pointed out in his second reading speech, both the Government and the Australian Labor Party are committed to the development of uniform consumer protection legislation throughout Australia. This Bill certainly will further that worthy ambition. On behalf of the consumers in my electorate of Cowan, I thank the Attorney-General for his endeavours in that regard. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(8.30) —in reply-I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this debate. I do not agree with a number of contributions made by members of the Opposition. I am very appreciative of the remarks made by the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen), who succinctly mentioned that the Trade Practices Act is designed to strengthen and improve trade practices. I am very mindful of the fact that officers of my Department spend a lot of time and effort not just in looking at the words of an Act, but in meeting the consumers, the leaders of industry and all the people who had advocates here this evening-whether they be from the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia or the Law Council of Australia. They have been discussing matters such as this for a number of years. I am very indebted to them for their patience and expertise. A Green Paper was circulated some time last year and there have been a number of submissions. This is no legislation by surprise. Mr McComas, the new Chairman of the Trade Practices Commission, is doing a splendid job and is very aware of the concern of all of us to guarantee that business is able to pursue its legitimate trade and commerce without any undue inhibitions or restrictions; nevertheless, in any well ordered society it is important that we try to get some order and understanding as to where the rights and responsibilities are. On that note, I think it is a bit unfair to suggest that the Trade Practices Amendment Bill will be overregulatory when in fact we are of the view that it is doing the contrary-it is reducing excessive legislation. That ought to be readily understood. Let me deal in sequence with those honour- able members who made a contribution to this debate. I appreciate the remarks of the spokesman for the Opposition, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). He emphasised that, in his view, there was excessive regulation. He did not limit it to this area; he mentioned every area. For example, he referred to some 17,000 Acts. I can understand that. The Government itself is committed to trying to reduce unnecessary restrictive legislation, but this Bill is not anti-business. Let me remind the honourable member for North Sydney that the trade practices legislation was first introduced in 1965. We are mindful of the fact that it was substantially improved in 1974. Madam Deputy Speaker, you can see that the reason for that was that there had been a change of government in the interim. Nevertheless, the concept of having to have a Trade Practices Act was well established as far back as that. The honourable gentleman put an enormous amount of effort into dealing with what he regarded as the problems of the mandatory recall provisions. He virtually said that they were unnecessary. He also said that basically they were going to be left to the Minister, that they would seriously affect business and that there was no right of appeal. He asked why we were doing it anyway, because business really understood what it was about. I think we have to look at the consumer movement. It just happens to be a movement of people who are obliged to pay for goods. Therefore, when they purchase goods they have a right to expect that they are safe and will not cause any harm. What is the history of this situation? In one case there was a defective life-jacket. A widow whose husband died because of that was awarded substantial damages. In other case food products, which can be dangerous to life itself, posed severe health hazards. There needs to be some ability to recall those products from the market. Nobody in his right mind would seriously suggest that we allow products hazardous to health to remain on the market. Some swimming pool equipment, as we have heard here, is dangerous for children and could really disembowel a child. Honourable members are not going to seriously suggest that we would not have to recall those products. This has not come just from my Department. Let me remind honourable gentlemen opposite that there are meetings of State Ministers on consumer affairs. They are very concerned about these matters. Every State government has ministerial responsibility in the field of consumer protection. How ridiculous it would be if one State banned a product and another State did not. The States have been anxious to get some uniformity of control in this area. Consumer protection also extends to dietary tablets, motor vehicle safety, and so on. Name it, the consumer has it. If it is a good product and a worthwhile product, the consumer recognises that and the business that produces that product does very well. If it is a dangerous product or a product that is imported, why should we not have a look at it to protect the people? That is all this legislation is about. It is below logic to suggest that we should not worry about these things. The honourable gentleman opposite was anxious to suggest that there were no other opportunities for people who had the product, whether they imported it or whether they made it, to do something about it. There is provision for a conference with the Commission. I am sure that he would agree that the Commission is going to be pretty impartial when it examines such matters. The provisions for this are in proposed section 65P. The explanatory memorandum says in relation to a recommendation of the Commission: . . . the Minister shall have regard to that recommendation. It is not as though action will be taken unilaterally without any further review of the situation. The honourable gentleman was wrong when he suggested that there was no opportunity for review. Let me make the point also that any decision made is subject to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act- Mr Spender —How do you get that out? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That will apply on the basis of recall. Why would one not get it on the basis of recall? That is the issue. It is a question of whether the recall is made on a basis that fits the criteria here. Again also, within the same Act, there is a provision for compensation if the recall notice is issued in error or is not bona fide. We have the normal remedies there to allay the fears of the honourable gentleman. I think that ought to be put on record. A number of other submissions were made by a wide-ranging group of honourable members. I am very appreciative of the remarks made by honourable members on my side who were very mindful of the need always to be alert to the benefits of legislation which can help not only the consumer but also particularly the industry concerned. The honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) was very anxious that I take notice of the present problems that he mentioned relating to promissory notes being obtained for what he called up-front purchasing, those notes being endorsed over to a finance company, there being a defect in the product, and whether there is a remedy to that. I do not know at this stage whether there is any defect in the Act to prevent the remedy. If there is, I give him an undertaking that we will do something about it. The honourable gentleman has been very active in talking about having alterations made to this Act to cover cases in which finance is supplied. That is worth while. This relates to the Vigor health club problem. People were likely to be obliged to pay for services that were not going to be delivered. There had been a financial arrangement. Their liability was to the financier even though there had been a breach of the obligation by the supplier. This legislation corrects that situation. There is a continuing monitoring of the needs of the community and that is what this legislation is all about. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) wanted to know why we defined consumers in the way in which we did and how it was related. He said the definition of consumers involved a limit of $40,000. He is right in that regard. He raised the question of the trucking industry; why we were identifying the trucking industry per se and nothing else. The reason is that there was a National Road Freight Industry Inquiry report which suggested that something be done about protecting truck operators who bought vehicles that might be defective. Comments were made by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran)-rather unusually!-asking what this legislation was doing for primary producers. I remind him that the primary producer did not want to get involved in this legislation. The National Farmers Federation said: Do not make any protection at all for the person with the header or the cane cutter. We do not want that. I do know what he would want to say to his own consumers- Mr McGauran —It wasn't me; it was the honourable member for Higgins. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member for Gippsland asked what this legislation does for the man on the land. He asked: `Why don't you bring in some legislation for that?'. I could not understand the logic of it because the honourable member was objecting to too much regulation and was then demanding that I bring in something, but I did not know what he wanted and he does not know what he wants either at this stage. We are not affecting the header or the cane cutter because the National Farmers Federation does not want them to be involved in the legislation. I do not know how many people are listening to this debate, but for all those listening who are on the land, let me make it very clear that the National Farmers Federation said that it did not want any protective provisions under this Act. That is its problem. One of the most effective contributions to the debate was made on the basis of what we are about in terms of preventing monopolies, oligopolies and all the other names that mean that the small business might be in difficulty. That is the real problem. Small business can be put right out of business by big business. The honourable member for O'Connor mentioned oil companies and firms of that nature. The issue here is just that. The interesting section of the Act is section 46, which we are endeavouring to strengthen-not overdo-just a little. Why should not section 46 be strengthened if it has remained in the Act for some time on the basis that the Act itself is worth while and will be able to make a contribution? Section 46, against which is the side note `Monopolization', states: A corporation that is in a position substantially- we are going to remove the word `substantially'- to control a market . . . shall not take advantage of the power- On what basis should it not take advantage of that power? It should not do so to eliminate or substantially to damage a competitor. Who would object to that? It should not take advantage of that power: to prevent the entry of a person into that market or into another market; or to deter or prevent a person from engaging in competitive behaviour . . . That is the very problem small business people have had with section 46-how to remain in the market or, if one is not in the market, how to get into the market. I refer to a couple of comments made by Dr Neville Norman in a speech delivered to the Trade Practices Seminar on 29 March 1984. In relation to section 46 he said: . . . the development of limit pricing makes a powerful economic case consistent with competition for there being a section 46, not the present one we've got but one that naturally works! Therefore the amendment to make the threshold lower has strong economic rationale. There is a strong case for making a workable section 46. There are further comments on section 46 in the report of the Trade Practices Consultative Committee. The members on that Committee include Mr Blunt, a solicitor, Sir John Wilson, the former Managing Director of Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd, Sir Samuel Burston, the prominent grazier, and Dr Neville Norman, the economist. They had this to say: . . . the primary thrust of the competition provisions of the Act should be towards efficiency. However there should be protection of small firms from the predatory conduct of other firms with any substantial degree of market power to support such conduct, irrespective of their size. Without some protection firms possessing substantial market power may well be able to insulate themselves from competition from smaller firms by driving them- that is, the smaller firms- from markets or by preventing them from entering markets. That is a rational, clear and concise understanding of the problem which everybody realises is fair and reasonable. I am at a loss to understand why there has been so much criticism of the proposed changes to section 46 by honourable gentlemen opposite. The Law Council of Australia says that the issue was not adequately broached. Let me make the point that although the Bill was introduced only five weeks ago it has been available for discussion for some time. Mr Spender —Not in its final form. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Not in its final form, but there has been consultation on it, I am reminded, from February 1984 when the Green Paper was first brought out. There were 120 submissions. There have been subsequent consultations with many interested parties and there have been a number of modifications. There have been continuous consultations with the Law Council from that period until now. The Opposition ought to realise that. Apparently, the Council was a little concerned as to one of the clauses which it feels might affect its liability in regard to professional advice and matters of that nature. However, I am advised-I think the advice would be accurate-that the Bill gives pretty reasonable protection from what we might call a liability. The Law Council is talking about warranties in respect of services. In regard to warranties in relation to the supply of services section 74 of the Act states that those services will be: reasonably fit for that purpose or are of such a nature and quality that they might reasonably be expected to achieve that result, except where the circumstances show that the consumer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the corporation's skill or judgment. I do not think that that will be in any way detrimental to the concerns of the Law Council. The Metal Trades Industry Association made some comments particularly on unsafe products. In a letter sent to my Departament on 29 August, the Association, whilst objecting to some matters, said in relation to option 3 in the paper, a voluntary system backed up by reserve mandatory powers, that it totally opposed the requirement for policing of members by industry associations in relation to their voluntary recall procedures. So different bodies have expressed their views and we have here a balanced situation which will lead to a reasonable result bearing in mind the protection of industry. We are not overregulating it; in fact from the point of view of mergers and other aspects we are making it much more efficient, much more effective. There has to be some control at times, some monitoring, of what might be happening in the market-place because we can get monopolisation and big market movers taking control of a market. Everybody would then ask: `Where is the competition?' That is the issue. The Government is all for free and effective competition; it is against monopolisation, exploitation, predatory conduct and conduct that is unconscionable. It is not hard to define those sorts of conduct. For example, a company might be dealing with a purchaser who has some difficulty even in reading or writing. One can understand that a court might take such circumstances into consideration. Cases have been laid on such a basis. It is not as though there will be a plethora of litigation; far from it. The legislation will be applied on the basis that if a business is worth while, has integrity and is able to conduct itself in the market-place without indulging in exploitation and without trying to cheat or deceive anybody it will have nothing to fear. Under the present law businesses will always face litigation following a breach of warranty, misrepresentation or a failure to recall a defective or dangerous product. They will not get away with such things. All this legislation does is highlight the fact that the small consumer, and anybody else, has a remedy for such problems that he might experience. If the Trade Practices Commission itself can play a part, it will do so, and it will do so on an intelligent basis. I do not know anybody who would want to do away with the Commission. It is proving its worth. Of course everybody wants to improve performance, and that will be under consideration all the time. Judging from the contributions made in this debate it is clear that there might need to be further discussions about what we are doing in cases where people are defrauded-it is as simple as that. It is clear that some people operate in the market-place without any bona fides, without any intention of staying in the market-place, but have a penchant for being able to exploit a situation, make a profit and get out, leaving somebody with a lot of liabilities. That has happened, for example, with regard to health studios. Mr Ronald Edwards —The renovation industry. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Or the renovation industry. There is an obligation on people to offer advice and services that are up to standard. What is wrong with that? Mr McGauran —What about the recall provisions? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The recall provisions are applied virtually on a voluntary basis. Let me make this point about the recall provision. It comes into being-listen to these words-`where there is an imminent risk of death, serious illness or serious injury'. Let us make it very clear that we are not just going to recall something because we do not like it; we will recall it when there has been a major injury or a death. That has happened and I have cited the cases and the products involved. It is far too late when we go to the funeral to say that it should not have happened. That does not get us very far. What about the children who have been buying products which appear to be toys but which could well disembowel them or inflict some equally serious injury? What about lead poisoning, for example? Importers bring in products caring only about the mark-up. We have the responsibility for the people of this nation. Profits do not always mean integrity; they can mean a dangerous product. That is the reason that we have to talk about the danger to the public. Mr McGauran —But there is no appeal. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is basically limited to those terms. We are not going willy-nilly to put something in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 46 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCross, M. D. Maher, M. J.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Martin, S. P.Darling, E. E. Mayer, H.Dawkins, J. S. Mildren, J. B.Dubois, S. G. Milton, P.Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G.Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P.Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Slipper, P. N.Hall, Steele Smith, W.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Sullivan, K. J.Hodges, J. C. Tuckey, C. W.Hodgman, W. M. Watson, DavidJull, D. F. Webster, A. P.Katter, R. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. J.Price, L. R. S. Coleman, W. P.Bilney, G. N. Everingham, P. G. E.Punch, G. F. Andrew, J. N. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Clauses 1 to 8-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 9. (Additional operation of Act). Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.00) —I formally move amendment (1): Clause 9, page 3, after paragraph (c) insert the following paragraph: ``(ca) by omitting from paragraph (2) (h) `or sub-section 88 (9)'; '' Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.01) —The Government has proposed 14 amendments. Of those amendments we oppose Nos (1), (7), (8) and (12). Nothing very much need be said about amendment (1). Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 10 to 14-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 15 (Contracts, arrangements or understandings restricting dealings or affecting competition). Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.01) —I move amendment (2): Clause 15, page 6, omit the clause. The proposed sub-section 45 (7) contained in clause 15 is no longer considered necessary. The existing sub-section 45 (7) in the Act already provides that section 45 apply to contracts, arrangements or understandings which are antecedent or collateral to those actually effecting an acquisition. The proposed amendment was thought necessary to overcome what was considered a weakness in section 50 relating to joint venture acquisitions, but that problem now can be adequately covered by the amendments to section 50. Accordingly, I move the amendment. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.03) —The Government's amendments have been circulated today. They raise some important questions. What the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has done is to accept at this very late stage the entirety of the reasoning of the Law Council of Australia and he has moved to omit this provision. We have made the point that this sort of legislation needs serious consideration, and that it is ill-conceived and ill-drafted, and the Attorney-General has just furnished the most convincing evidence in support of that proposition by moving to delete what was originally an important provision in the Bill. We support the deletion of that provision because it makes some improvement to the Bill and accepts in its entirety the submission of the Law Council of Australia, which we also support. Amendment agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.05) —by leave-I formally move: (3) Clause 17, page 7, line 31, omit ``A corporation'', insert ``Without in any way limiting the manner in which the purpose of a person may be established for the purposes of any other provision of this Act, a corporation''. (4) Clause 35, page 25, line 36, omit ``within the time and in the manner'', insert ``in the manner, and within such reasonable time, as are''. (5) Clause 35, page 25, lines 38 and 39, omit ``in accordance with the notice'', insert ``in accordance with such reasonable requirements as are specified in the notice''. (6) Clause 35, page 25, line 41, omit ``at a time and place'', insert ``at such reasonable time and place as are''. (7) Clause 35, page 26, line 1, omit ``the Minister'', insert ``an authorised officer''. (8) Clause 35, page 26, line 5, omit ``the Minister'', insert ``the authorised officer''. (9) Clause 35, page 26, after proposed sub-section 65Q (2) insert the following sub-sections: `` `(2A) The powers of an authorised officer under sub-section (2) shall not be exercised except- (a) pursuant to a warrant issued under sub-section (2C); or (b) in circumstances where the exercise of those powers is required without delay in order to protect life or public safety. `(2B) An authorised officer may apply to a person who is a judge of the Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or territory for the issue under sub-section (2C) of a warrant to exercise the powers of an authorised officer under sub-section (2) in relation to premises. `(2C) Where an application under sub-section (2B) is made to a person who is a judge of such a court, the person may issue a warrant authorising an authorised officer named in the warrant, with such assistance as the officer thinks necessary and if necessary by force, to enter the premises specified in the warrant and to exercise the powers of an authorised officer under sub-section (2) in relation to those premises. `(2D) A person who is a judge of such a court shall not issue a warrant under sub-section (2C) unless- (a) an affidavit has been furnished to the person setting out the grounds on which the issue of the warrant is being sought; (b) the applicant or some other person has given to the first-mentioned person such further information (if any) as the first-mentioned person requires concerning the grounds on which the issue of the warrant is being sought; and (c) the first-mentioned person is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for issuing the warrant. `(2E) A warrant issued under sub-section (2C) shall- (a) specify the purpose for which the warrant is issued; (b) state whether entry is authorised to be made at any time of the day or night or during specified hours of the day or night; (c) include a description of the kind of goods authorised to be inspected or sampled; and (d) specify a day, not being later than 7 days after the day on which the warrant is issued, at the end of which the warrant ceases to have effect.''. (10) Clause 35, page 26, lines 28 and 29, omit ``A person referred to in sub-section (2) who refuses or fails to provide an authorised officer'', insert ``A persons who refuses or fails to provide an authorised officer acting in accordance with sub-section (2)''. (11) Clause 35, page 26, line 38, omit ``and any document produced by a person under this section'', insert ``any document produced by a person under this section, and any information, evidence or document obtained under this section''. (12) Clause 37, page 27, line 36, omit ``services'', insert ``goods or services, or goods and services,''. (13) Clause 57, page 45, lines 21 and 22, omit paragraph (a), insert the following paragraph: ``(a) by omitting sub-section (9) and substituting the following sub-section: `(9) Subject to this Part, the Commission may, upon application by a person- (a) grant an authorisation to the person to acquire shares in the capital, or to acquire assets, of a body corporate; or (b) grant an authorisation to the person to acquire a controlling interest in a body corporate within the meaning of section 50A, and, while such an authorisation remains in force- (c) in the case of an authorisation under paragraph (a)-section 50 does not prevent the person from acquiring shares in the capital, or from acquiring assets, of the body corporate in accordance with the authorisation; or (d) in the case of an authorisation under paragraph (b)-section 50A does not, to the extent specified in the authorisation, apply in relation to the acquisition of that controlling interest.'; and''. (14) Clause 59, page 45, before sub-clause (1) insert the following sub-clause: ``(1A) Section 90 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in sub-section (9) ``or in respect of the acquisition of a controlling interest in a body corporate within the meaning of section 50A'' after ``body corporate''. I will save my remarks for when I reply. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(9.06) —I wish to raise briefly two matters in the context of the clauses before the Committee. One of them relates to the conduct of builders and renovators in the renovations industry. Clearly, in view of the number of failures and consumers getting into difficulties, there is a need to establish a builders bond system. I think it is important in the context of these clauses to draw that to the attention of the Government. I am aware that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is at the table, is conscious of that need. The Federation of Consumer Organisations has talked substantially about the number of fly-by-night operators in the renovations industry. In addition, in the context of these clauses, there clearly is a need for appropriate arbitration tribunals at the State level to deal with these matters in terms of the supply of services. This is a major problem in the community. I believe that we ought to be directing the attention of the community to the need to establish a bonding system to cover fly-by-night operators so that in the instance of an operator not providing the services, as recognised in the Bill, the consumer who is defaulted upon has a claim against that bond and as a result has a chance to have the rest of the work carried out. The second matter I wish to raise is the need for consumers to have ready access to an arbitration system so that they can resolve particular difficulties they have with renovators and builders. The only other point I wish to make relates to the provision of unsolicited goods or services. I refer to the growing problem amongst consumers and small businesses which are receiving claims for advertisements lodged with obscure journals. I have previously drawn this major matter to the attention of the House. People find themselves being billed for advertisements in obscure journals which they have not placed. I thank the Committee for allowing me the opportunity of drawing these matters to its attention. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(9.08) —I refer to clauses 21 and 22 of the Bill. My comments will be brief. I refer the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to the comments I made before the suspension of the sitting for dinner in relation to the most extraordinary provision which will become section 51A of the Act. The proposed new section effectively says that a representation shall be taken to be misleading-that is, deemed to be misleading-even, as I have pointed out, if it turns out to be true. Since the suspension of the sitting I have looked again at the judgment of His Honour Mr Justice Franki in Thompson v. Mastertouch TV Services Pty Ltd (1977), 15 Australian Law Reports commencing at page 487 and the passage from His Honour's judgment on page 495. Having read that again I would, with respect, submit that that is an impeccably correct statement of the law. The additional comments made in support of this proposed amendment simply do not add up. The category referred to in the judgment of Mr Justice Franki in Thompson's case is that of a person who `did not believe that the forecast or prediction would be satisfied or was recklessly indifferent concerning the forecast or prediction'. I just do not understand why we are passing this nonsensical legislation. I repeat: If the prediction turns out to be true, we have a deeming provision and a reverse onus of proof which says it was misleading and a person can be convicted. I want again to complain bitterly at the failure of this Government to front up to the task of defining `unconscionable'. It is no good at all for the Government to rely on the proposed new section 52A (2) as giving some sort of a pointer or indication to a court as to what unconscionable conduct is. The plain fact is that the Government, by its own admission in its explanatory memorandum to this Bill, admits that it was not prepared to define `unconscionable'. It will require every businessman, manufacturer and retailer in Australia to ensure that they do not engage in conduct which is unconscionable, yet it will not damn well tell them what `unconscionable' is. I submit that this is a very serious matter. It is a grievous matter. It is no good at all quoting Amadio's case and sections of the judgments of Mr Justice Deane and Mr Justice Mason, great judges as they are. Unconscionable to one judge may not be unconscionable to another. The Government is doing this in the context, as the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has pointed out, of legislation which gives quasi-judicial powers to an administrative tribunal. It gives the Minister unlimited powers. There is no right of appeal-and I only question where the prerogative writ might lie-and a reverse onus of proof. If this is not the most socialistic legislation this Parliament has seen since the bank nationalisation Bill of Ben Chifley, I do not know what is. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.12) —I just want to answer what the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has said. He raised the issue that arose because of the difficulties created by Thompson v. Mastertouch TV Services Pty Ltd. I am reminded by my notes that the Trade Practices Commission has received 54 complaints concerning false or misleading statements and predictions about future performance or profitability. But these were considered suitable only for private action under the Trade Practices Act because of the difficult threshold imposed by Thompson v. Mastertouch. The idea behind this provision is to try to help in these terms: Unless the corporation making the prediction has reasonable grounds for making the prediction such statements will be deemed to be misleading. The reversal of the legal onus of proof on the corporation is on the balance of probabilities that it had reasonable grounds for making the prediction. That is justified because these are matters usually within the knowledge of the corporation. Because of the difficulties that have been created as to where the knowledge might be-- Mr Spender —There have been successful prosecutions since Thompson v. Mastertouch. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There might have been, but the reasoning behind this is that, as I say, there have been 54 complaints on the basis that a case was not able to be pursued. Let me talk about what unconscionable conduct is. The issue is to redress the balance of bargaining power between consumers and suppliers. This relates only to consumer transactions, not commercial transactions. The case I am advised to rely on is Sharman v. Kunert. It was held that a contract for the sale of land, although otherwise binding, may be declared void under the New South Wales Contracts Review Act on the basis of what was unconscionable by reason of the vendor's illiteracy and highly emotional state. So one can get that set of circumstances. I acknowledge what the honourable gentleman has been saying. But there are factors in life which mean that people may not understand the nature of the document. Because of those difficulties-in other words, trying to redress the balance-there is an opportunity for a court to have a look at the matter. I am sure that the honourable gentleman would agree that, if conduct is in those terms, a court would be anxious to ensure that it did not make a decision without some evidence as to what might be deemed to be the lack of equality in bargaining power. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(9.14) —I have listened to what the Attorney-General (Mr lionel Bowen) has said. But, with the greatest of respect, I again ask him to look at what the Bill is doing. I will give him a simple example. If somebody is wishing to purchase a business and he says to the proprietor or the corporation that is selling it `What do you reckon the profits of this business will be in the next five years', he will scare the pants off the vendor. The vendor will not be game to give that information, or make representation, because he knows that unless he has reasonable grounds for so doing-the onus will be on him-he can finish up in the dock. This is just unreal. From a legal drafting point of view the legislation is very tight but out in the real world, the commercial world, the Government will scare the pants off every businessman in Australia. When the Government adds a reverse onus of proof and denies people the right of appeal-I do not believe that the Government has tried to exclude the prerogative writ; the Government will get more prerogative writs on this matter than it has seen for a very long time-the main thing the Government will do is bring ordinary business transactions to a grinding halt because people will not be prepared to take a risk. I conclude on the point made by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). A man could be convicted under this section for making a representation which, at the time, he did not have reasonable grounds for doing but which turned out to be true. Under the Government's legislation it is deemed to be misleading. If that is not convoluted logic, nonsensical, ludicrous and absurd, I ask the Attorney what is. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.16) —As I have pointed out, the amendments before us now, which are amendments to the Trade Practices Amendment Bill, are by no means small. Some of them are extremely important and in part deal with questions that should have been dealt with a long time ago, that is, when the original Bill was before this chamber. If the whole matter had not been dealt with so quickly perhaps they would have been. It is all very well for the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to talk about being in continuous consultation with the Law Council of Australia but if that means continuous contact by telephone or letter, he does not really mean that and it is absolute nonsense. The Attorney means that occasionally acknowledgment is given to the Law Council's work. The best kind of acknowledgment has been given today when, at ten past four in the afternoon of the day when the Bill will be passed, amendments were circulated which reflect views expressed by the Law Council. I have criticised, and I still criticise, the way in which this Bill has been drafted. Let me make it perfectly plain; I am not criticising those who have the unhappy job of seeking to translate the Government's instructions into legislation. My criticisms are directed to the Attorney and this Government. Amendments (3), (4), (5) and (6) make some marginal improvements on a very ill-conceived proposal relating to entry into premises. It may well be that in various Bills one finds provisions which state that entry into premises are in the public interest. At common law this is not allowed and as a general principle it should not be allowed except for the most compelling reasons. However, the amendments make some marginal improvements and therefore we support them. Amendment (7) gives to an authorised officer, in place of the Minister, the power of determining whether goods of a particular kind might be found and that, as it were, starts off the basis for an authorised entry into premises. Our view is that the power should stay with the Minister. If such a serious power is to be exercised, the person responsible should be the Minister and not some authorised officer who could be anyone at all. At least the Minister must come into the House and answer questions. The Opposition does not agree with amendment (8). It again seeks to put an authorised officer in the place of the Minister for the purposes of forming a belief which, in turn, forms the basis of entry into the premises of a person who has goods which are thought to require inspection. These cases should stay with the Minister. Amendment (9) makes some improvements on the entry powers. There has to be a warrant to enter. Is that not the central thing? Are we not in this society of ours far too prone to give persons the power to enter and to demand information which violates essential rights? I believe that this amendment is now justified on the basis of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights has been around this place as a Bill for quite some time. I should have thought that it would be put on a much simpler basis; that is, in the event that we are authorising an intrusion into the rights of others, then it has to be on the most compelling of grounds and a warrant should be obtained. There are other consequential amendments which are to be found in amendment (10). Amendment (11) improves the protection against self-incrimination, and that should be supported. Once again, we are far too prone to give to authorities the right to compel answers and to question people. That is something that is better found in a police state than in this country. Inquisitorial powers and powers of entry should be authorised only for the most compelling of reasons and not just for reasons associated with trade practices, or because it seems to be a good thing, or because these provisions will not be abused. Of course they will be abused. All power is abused; it is the nature of power. If we repose a power of entry and a power to compel questions in the hands of people they will abuse those powers unless they are constrained by the courts, and the courts have very little chance at all to do anything by way of constraining the exercise of the powers under this Act. The remaining matters require little comment. We do not support amendment (12) concerning link contracts. Amendment (13) again seems to make matters less rigid and this, once more, is an acceptance of the objections made by the Law Council of Australia and illustrates the unnecessarily rushed nature of this legislation. It would have been very much better if it was allowed to lie on the table until further consideration could have been given to it, assuming, of course, that the Government was ever willing to look to setting up a real balance between the interests of the consumer and the interests of the efficient operation of business. Nobody on this side of the House supports the kind of hair-raising examples that have been put by this Minister. We are not in favour of shoddy goods being sold and we are entirely opposed to dangerous goods being sold, but there are existing powers. If we are to establish a system which empowers a Minister to make orders of a wide-ranging and virtually unreview- able nature, we should do so in a way which constrains the Minister's powers, which provides a basis for challenge of the exercise of those powers, and which provides a basis for compensation for those who are injured. For the Minister to say that we can go to the Administrative Review Council and get orders against a direction made by him is unintentionally misleading. Once the Minister exercises his powers and does so in a bona fide way-that is, he has no desire to exercise his powers for purposes other than those for which they were given to him-it does not matter a damn whether he is right or wrong; the power is exercised and the damage is done. It is this sort of thing which is virtually beyond any challenge at all. It is an example of precisely the wrong kind of way to go about reposing recall powers in a Minister. We would therefore simply repeat the objections that we have made to this Bill. We have made it plain that we will not call for any divisions on the various clauses which are now proposed. Some clauses improve matters somewhat, but overall they are only marginal improvements on an Act which, whilst it contains some things which one can support, contains very many things which we do not support, which should not be supported and which are not necessary for the purposes of striking a fair balance between the interests of the consumer on the one hand and the interests of business on the other hand. It is that balance, which the Opposition seeks to strike and this Bill manifestly does not seek to strike, which gives the lie to all of the anti-regulation, pro-business rhetoric in which the Hawke Government has engaged since the last election and before. We hope and believe that this kind of legislation will finally make people in the business world come entirely to their senses-that is, those who have not been brought to their senses by the masterly conduct of the economy which is so evident in the deficit on current account and the value of the Australian dollar. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.26) —For the benefit of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), the Australian dollar might be in difficulty now, but the current account has been in deficit since about 1960. Mr Spender —Not to this extent, though. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, but it has increased every year because of the fundamental flaws in the economy, some of which we will now deal with under the Trade Practices Act. The honourable gentleman is getting a bit political; it is not like him, I know. The issue about which the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) was concerned is the interpretation under clause 21 of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill. We are not amending clause 21, but I am entitled to rebut what he said. He did not think it was fair that a corporation, when it did not have reasonable grounds for making misleading representations, should be brought to book on that issue. The point I make is that there have been 54 complaints. If corporations are unwise or silly enough to make predictions about the future, they will be bound by those predictions as a representation. The obvious solution is not to make them. Why would we have 54 complaints unless people relied on the representations? It is as simple as that. The honourable member for North Sydney was anxious to mention the matters he has. I say in reply that he did not put a lot of effort into his opening remarks on the basis that these products were dangerous, unsafe or likely to cause death. He regarded it as an excessive over-regulation. I am trying to get him to focus on the fact that the Minister, no matter who he is, would not be banning products willy-nilly because it suddenly came into his mind to do so. There would have to be a cogent reason given to the Minister to show that the product was dangerous. I tell the honourable member that as a matter of practice State Ministers are concerned about the damage done to consumers. Life and limb has suffered and they have not been able always to get products recalled. There has to be some sanction. I assure the honourable gentleman that they do not go around doing this on the basis that it is a pleasant exercise. The Minister has to have some knowledge of what he is about; some concept that it may cause injury. I make the point again that if that is so, he would not do it of his own volition; the evidence would have to be given to him. I have mentioned, and the honourable gentleman will not accept it, that there would have to be consultation with the Trade Practices Commission and recommendations from the Commission. The honourable gentleman is concerned about warrants for entry into premises. He has suggested that the authority should remain with the Minister. I make the point that the warrants would be issued only by a judge of the Federal Court of Australia or a supreme court-- Mr Spender —Yes, but you have to form the belief. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is the point, There would have to be some evidence as to why the warrant was wanted. It is made clear that the authorised officer at least would have a lot of knowledge about the fact and would have to make an affidavit. The Minister would not have that knowledge per se; the authorised officer would. The requirement of having to make an affidavit provides a pretty good safeguard. He has to make an affidavit stating the grounds on which he bases his belief. I cannot see that the Minister would be able to do that. He would only be relying on hearsay evidence at best. An officer would, of course, be in a position to make an affidavit. I say that by way of explanation to the honourable gentleman, as it seems to be the cause of some concern. Finally, I am sure it will delight the honourable member to note that my officers have advised me that they attend monthly meetings with the trade practices committee of the Law Council of Australia and they regard that as continuous consultation. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.31) —I am glad that these monthly meetings are taking place. I do hope that the officers of the Attorney-General's Department in future take a lot more notice of the Law Council of Australia. Had they taken more notice of the Law Council before the Trade Practices Amendment Bill came before the House the Government would not have had to introduce some of the last minute amendments which have been introduced. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has still disregarded a very large number of the criticisms made by the Law Council. I do not say that the Law Council is always right, but they are most compelling criticisms and they have not been answered in this debate. The only other point that I wish to make, since the Minister has raised it, is that he takes the view that it is better that an authorised officer form the belief which is the initiating process leading to the request for a warrant. The view that I put to the Minister is that if the Minister has the responsibility, he will look at questions of recall or entry into premises very much more closely because he can be subjected to questioning and censure in this House and the authorised officer cannot. Amendments agreed to. Remainder of Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Motion (by Mr Duffy)-by leave-agreed to: That Standing Order 48A, as amended by sessional order, relating to the adjournment of the House, and standing order 103, 11 o'clock rule, be suspended for this sitting. Debate resumed from 9 October, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(9.34) —I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the trend towards increased regulation, legal complexity and cost related to proceedings before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and believes that greater reliance should be placed upon self-regulation by broadcasters than on regulation imposed by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal'. I move that amendment on behalf of the Opposition because it signals the approach the Opposition will take in formulating policy in this field of radio and television broadcasting. The ultimate proof of the costly and, I believe, stupid overregulation is in the hearing of the application for the third commercial television licence in Perth. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is very well aware of that problem. There is no doubt in my mind that what is now happening in Perth is not in the public interest and indeed it is a defiance of Government policy. Government policy has not only been frustrated, it has been defied-and in a very real sense I believe it has been defeated. I will come back to that in a moment. It is important to say that we have just had the adjournment debate again wiped off. This legislative program is very heavy and as the problems that I am alluding to are well known in the industry, I will not go into detail about them. It is sufficient to say that the Opposition believes very strongly in the principle of self-regulation. It believes that those broadcasting standards which a government considers to be very important should be in the Act. If those standards are in the Act, the means of enforcement should be specified in the Act. Other standards could be then codified and could be enforced by self-regulation. If there is a failure to comply with self-regulation and with a codified set of standards less important than the standards contained in the Act, that would attract the attention of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and it would have the power, as it does under the Act-we inserted it in the Act-to suspend or revoke a licence. If one translates that philosophy to the amendment that I have moved, I must state that I intend preparing on behalf of the Opposition a policy aimed at reducing greatly the regulations imposed by this Parliament and by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal upon the broadcasting industry. Moreover, we are determined to remove the potential for abuse of procedures designed to help the public. We are witnessing in Perth, I know to the Minister's chagrin, an abuse of the procedures that is the defeat of the policy which he has steered through Cabinet. I am bound to say that I think it is a sensible policy regarding the granting of a third commercial licence in Perth. The less the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is asked to do or is allowed to do, the less the organisations appearing before that Tribunal will be able to delay or otherwise frustrate the decisions of the government of the day. The present Government has decided that Perth should have a third commercial television licence. I have already said that we agree with that decision. What we cannot agree with, and what I do not think the Government is comfortable with, is the fact that the two existing licence holders are setting out to take every point of objection they can, to go on every appeal that they possibly can go on and deliberately to delay the granting of a licence by the Broadcasting Tribunal until at least after the America's Cup has been telecast. They are quite determined to go ahead and the overregulation of this industry enables them to do that. Their reasoning is that it is cheaper to pay the massive legal fees than to face the loss of advertising revenue from increased competition. That is an intolerable situation. It is intolerable for the people in Perth who might want to watch a third channel and the variety that that should bring. While the Opposition disapproves of the tactics employed, it does not blame the particular licensees. To be quite frank, almost any licensee well advised would do that under the present rules. The problem is in the level, the nature and the detail of the regulation. It is the level of regulation which makes this scandal possible; and it is a scandal. It is that situation which might deprive the people of Perth of a third commercial television channel, at least for some time and certainly until after the America's Cup, which will be an important time for the development and extension of communications in Perth. Meanwhile, while all these appeals and points of order are being taken within the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court of Australia and even, if necessary, the High Court of Australia, the Government's policy cannot be implemented and the Tribunal's resources are so stretched that other television and radio licences cannot be dealt with. There are hearings regarding the granting of television licences in-- Mr Hodgman —Tasmania. Mr MACPHEE —Not just in Tasmania, although certainly there. Tasmania is very important. In Mildura and other places applications for radio and television licences are banking up to the embarrassment of the Tribunal and to the detriment of the public. The only people who benefit are the lawyers. Mr Charles —How will self-regulation fix that? Mr MACPHEE —Self-regulation will do a great deal to fix this situation. The more one minimises the points of argument, the more one gets on with the decision making, leaving it to the people who invest capital and those who choose to watch programs to make a judgment. The more one regulates and the more one gets fine points of law, the more one has to interpret, the more decisions are made and the more one gets appeals and appeals from appeals. That stands out to those of us who have watched the growth of administrative law in this country. Some of us on this side of the House were party to the introduction of what we thought were sensible measures in administrative law. We watched it burgeon beyond all proportion of what was sensible. I am not making party political points, because we established the Broadcasting Tribunal. I am saying that it is time to review the monster that was then created, not to extend its powers but to curtail them. We urge the Government to accept our amendment. We commit ourselves to overhauling the Broadcasting and Television Act according to the philosophy which I am spelling out. When we are re-elected we shall do that. Consistent with that philosophy, we will move an amendment to proposed new section 119 in the Committee stage of this debate. To save time I will not speak in the Committee stage but will explain the amendment now. Proposed new section 119 would empower the Tribunal to prohibit persons from broadcasting or otherwise to restrict their broadcasting. We feel that this power is appropriate for something which a government or a parliament has thought important enough to be a standard imposed by the Act. We think it is an appropriate power for the Tribunal to haul somebody over the coals for breach of a standard which was imposed by the Parliament or introduced by a government in the Act. But we do not think that the Tribunal should have this power in regard to standards set by itself. I put it to the Minister that that is a very important distinction. He may not recognise it on this occasion. But this legislation is one of those pieces of legislation, like the tax Act and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which seem to be amended in every session of Parliament. More is the pity, but that is the way it is. I leave with the Minister the thought that is worth saying that the legislation of this Parliament sets certain standards and also delegates standard-making to the Tribunal. Being new to this policy area, conceptually it seems to me that the proper thing to do, as the Fraser Government did with the standards relating to the advertising of tobacco products, is to say: `We will expect certain standards to be honoured because they are imposed by the Act and any non-compliance with the Act will be dealt with in a certain way. Other standards which may relate to quite trivial matters, such as the number of minutes in the hour allocated to advertising or the conduct of certain people on air, should be dealt with by station management'. In a moment I shall come to the sections of the Act which impose that obligation. Rather than cluttering up the Tribunal's activities will all sorts of authorities to act on minor breaches it seems to me that the present Government, or the next government, ought to give thought to the points I have raised. That is the line which I believe we will follow. We will produce policies consistent with that kind of philosophy. So where the Tribunal sets standards-I know it is in consultation with the industry; nonetheless they are set by the Tribunals-it is extremely important that the Tribunal recognise that the power to suspend or revoke a broadcasting licence is the ultimate sanction. That it really what matters. To decide whether somebody has pressed the seven-second button to stop a former test cricket captain or some other person on air from saying something offensive to a certain section of the population ought not be the daily problem of the Tribunal; in the end it is the daily problem of the management of the radio or television station. We propose to amend clause 12 of this Bill to delete the Tribunal's power of enforcement following the non-compliance of program standards set by the Tribunal. The provision regarding non-compliance with the Act will remain. That is not opposed by us because it is consistent with the spirit and the mechanism of the Act as a whole. After all, we introduced the Act. Of course, we do not have the capacity in this debate to amend the other parts of the Act anyway, so there is no point in our trying to amend this legislation piecemeal and leave inconsistent parts of the principal Act. But we do give notice, not really to the Government but to the industry, that this is the philosophical direction in which we intend to move and in which our policy review is proceeding. The ultimate sanction for a serious or repeated breach of standards is, as I said, the loss or the suspension of a broadcaster's licence. The onus, I repeat, should be on management to ensure that standards are adhered to by those preparing or presenting programs. Mr Peacock —Your are quite right, you know. Mr MACPHEE —The honourable member for Kooyong says that I am quite right. My views are reinforced. He has friends in the industry who understand these things. Mr Peacock —You are not telling me about my little mate, are you? Mr MACPHEE —Yes, he has a little mate. The Act already places that onus on broadcasting licensees. Under the Act it is very clear that the broadcasting licensees are already obliged to administer the standards imposed not just by the Act but by the Tribunal itself. Under clause 8 of the Bill, which amends section 99 of the principal Act, sub-clause (1A) states: A licensee shall supervise the broadcasting of the licensee's programs in such manner as to ensure that the program standards are complied with. Mr Charles —You are about to knock the standards out. Mr MACPHEE —No, I am not. The honourable member for Isaacs, enthusiast that he is for this industry, has misunderstood what I have said. I am not interested in knocking out the standards; I am interested in the manner of enforcement of the standards. So in this Bill we have a statement of commitment by the Government, and there are statements in the principal Act consistent with this, about the obligation of the licensee to supervise the broadcasting of programs in such a manner as to ensure that the program standards are complied with. I am not opposed to the setting of standards and it is not the role of this Parliament, unless it deems it important enough to put them in the principal Act, to make a judgment about the standards set by the Tribunal. The issue I am raising is whether, once they are set, by consultation but ultimately by the Tribunal, they should be self-regulated by management or regulated by a highly intrusive, highly legalistic, highly costly and inefficient system of regulation by the Tribunal. There are three separate issues. One is the making of the standards, and another is the question of whether we have a voluntary code set by the industry-which we can have-or a mandatory code set by the Tribunal, or by the Parliament, set down in the Act. We shall indicate when we release our policy which of those options or combinations we prefer. We certainly can make them mandatory, but if we do that we have the question of enforcement to look at. Is the enforcement to be by the licensee, by self-regulation, by the Tribunal, or by the courts? Our policy will, in due course, state our preference. I want to illustrate the absurdity of trying now to proceed by way of a mandatory enforcement via the Tribunal and via this piece of legislation. To give just one example, I refer to an advertising standard. Paragraph 39 of the Advertising Standards set by the Tribunal states in respect of advertisements which have overseas content that `20 per cent of the duration of advertisements may be of pictorial matter photographed outside Australia'. If the average advertisement on Australian commercial television is of 30 seconds duration, then 20 per cent of that-I think that is six seconds-may be filmed outside Australia. So if an advertiser wants to show Guiseppe eating an Australian brand of spaghetti in Rome and to have a shot of Rome of greater than six seconds duration, he must fly an Australian film crew and an Australian actor overseas. Mr Charles —Quite right. Mr MACPHEE —The honourable member for Isaacs says that is quite right. I put it to the House that that is an absurd proposition. As a matter of the market place, most commercials in Australia selling Australian goods or services will be made in Australia and will feature Australians, with Australian accents and characteristics in Australian places. But there will be times when novelty will demand that there be an overseas content greater than 20 per cent of the duration of the program. Paragraph 39 also says that the Australian crews requirement applies only where more than 20 per cent of the material filmed overseas is to be included in the Australian-produced advertisement. It goes on to say that up to 50 per cent of imported archival material may be permitted. I put it to the House that whilst that approach has been around for quite a long time-it certainly did not begin with this Government or with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; it began with the Broadcasting Control Board-it is nevertheless stupid and unnecessarily intrusive and ought to be open to the most enthusiastic review. I understand that the Broadcasting Tribunal is now in the process of revising its standards. I say in passing that I have the same view of many of the standards now prevailing in radio broadcasting and in television programs as I have of advertising programs, but we will examine those at another time and perhaps in another place because they are not really within the scope of this legislation. In this legislation we are empowering the Broadcasting Tribunal to set the standards and to enforce them. Proposed new section 99 clearly says that the term `programs' includes advertisements. I think other parts of the Act say that as well, but it is certainly stated in this Bill. The effect of the amendment that I propose would be to exempt breaches of advertising standards as well as breaches of programming standards. That is very significant in terms of section 119 as now proposed by the Government in this Bill. If the Government does not accept the amendment, I ask the Minister, when he replies to me, to assure the House that he will direct the Broadcasting Tribunal to administer the standards moderately, consistently and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Mr Peacock —This Minister is a tyrant. Mr MACPHEE —The Minister is a tyrant. He may have a successful system on the race course, but he is a tyrant when it comes to the administration of this legislation. The Minister will have received submissions from the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations and the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters. Mr Duffy —All the time. Mr MACPHEE —The Minister says: `All the time'. I get copies of them. I am pleased to see that the Minister has responded to the television station representations by inserting a broadcaster's defence which is similar to the well-established publisher's defence. I will be very interested to hear, as will the industry, from the Minister why he has not responded positively to its representations regarding proposed new section 119. I invite the Minister to respond tonight to those representations. In fact, earlier I made available to the Minister a copy of the representations which I had received, which I do not doubt he had received. In the interests of time I will not read them, but I ask the Minister, when he does respond, to respond to the document which I gave him earlier from the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations regarding section 119 as proposed in this Bill; that is, the restrictions on participation in broadcasts. Similarly, I gave the Minister extracts from representations from the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters. Those representations are rather shorter on this point so I will read them: While appreciating there are certain safeguards under the legislation (a confirmed breach must have occurred, and the Tribunal's decision may be subject to review on the merits) our concerns are that the very existence of the power is intimidating if it can be applied for trivial breaches of the Act or standards, and that it ignores the basic responsibilities of licensees. Presumably it has been felt necessary to make this provision to deal with situations in which the broadcaster has a defence in terms of the new section 99. In our view such situations can be adequately dealt with under the new sub-section 99 (2). I put that to the Minister as a very pertinent point which does require a response. There was a further point, which I think I also referred to the Minister, regarding clause 10 of the Bill. In view of the time I will not now comment upon it, but it also came from the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters. In respect of clause 10, we do not propose an Opposition amendment, but we do think that the Minister ought to respond. I now move on to the question of preclassification of children's television programs. Despite the disclaimer in the Minister's second reading speech, section 16, as amended by clause 6 (1) of the Bill, does introduce a form of censorship. The High Court of Australia described the preclassification system as such and I agree respectfully with the court. As a matter of principle the Opposition is opposed to the concept of censorship, but after due deliberation we accept the need for prior approval of programs in order that they be given the C classification to show that they are designed especially for children. The Opposition is quite adamant about the fact that this is the only type of preclassification which is tolerable and, even then, it ought not necessarily be continued in perpetuity. We also understand the difference between children's programs and family programs. Essentially, children's programs are those that are seen through the eyes of children and involve children and animals as well as some adults. Family programs have an element which titillates adults and tries to keep the whole family watching and laughing, albeit on different levels. We know that there is a highly subjective judgment to be made about what is children's programming. Mr Duffy —It is very regulatory. Mr MACPHEE —Very regulatory-I agree-and that is why I also think, as a matter of principle, it ought to be temporary. I therefore ask the Minister for his views on the recommendations of the Film Industry Standing Committee. I gave these to the Minister. They are very important. I ask leave to incorporate the re- commendations of the Film Industry Standing Committee in Hansard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Is leave granted? Mr Duffy —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr MACPHEE —I shall ask the Minister to respond to those recommendations. Essentially they are setting out a means whereby the subjectivity of judgment is reduced. They are saying: `Let's broaden it beyond the Broadcasting Tribunal itself'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I advise the honourable member for Goldstein that what he wishes to have incorporated in Hansard does not conform to the guidelines and would not be able to be incorporated. Mr MACPHEE —That is a shame, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall read into Hansard the relevant extract in the Committee stage. The Minister has just indicated that he will respond, anyway. The points made are worth putting on the record. The important point is that the C classification, in the submission of the Film Industry Standing Committee, ought to be available at the final script stage and not merely at the program stage. As one reads the Act, the terms `program' and `sample of program' are used. It is not clear to me that that includes the script. It seems to me that there is great merit in giving the Tribunal authority to make a judgment to have a provisional classification at the script stage, or a final classification there, or, indeed, to ask people to come back after making a program. We support the views expressed by the Film Industry Standing Committee, which comprises film producers as well as scriptwriters and includes representatives of many of the State film commissions. Not to accept the Committee's approach might result in some excellent scripts never being presented as programs because of the possibility of being denied a C status. If a script prepared for children is denied a C status, it may not have appeal for adults, and it is, after all, the adults where the real commercial income is earned. Even the fact that there are quite generous tax deductions for the making of quality Australian films for children, that may not be itself enough. So what we suggest is that the Tribunal be given a clear power-which is not clear, with respect, on the face of this legislation; if the Minister can make it clear, we shall be delighted-so that it can make a judgement at the script stage and grant a final C certificate, so that that will encourage more investment and encourage more commitment on the part of writers, producers and actors to produce high quality children's programs. Any departure from the C classification granted at the script stage can be dealt with still by the sanction of suspension or revocation of the licence of the broadcasting station. We hope that this flexibility will also mean that programs can then be run live. As it now is, given the time zone between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. in commercial television, they are all pre-recorded programs. I should have thought that as a form of entertainment and as a cost factor room to do programs live would be quite important. So does `program' incorporate scripts? I know that the Minister will respond to that matter. When we prepare our policy, we shall be looking at the appropriateness of keeping that 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. time zone or, indeed, any other specified time zone. We shall be looking at the appropriateness of the six to 13 years age limit. I should foreshadow at this stage that my colleague the shadow Minister for Health will be moving in Committee an amendment regarding the placing of pharmaceutical advertisements. For all these reasons, we believe that the Government, through the Minister, has a good deal to answer, both at the end of the second reading debate and in Committee. Meanwhile, we press very strongly the amendment which I have moved. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Jull —I second the amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker, and reserve my right to speak. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.05) —I am a little stunned at the speech which has just been given by the honourable member of Goldstein (Mr Macphee). One would be led to believe that we were talking about companies that were making something like chocolates rather than companies that owned a precious commodity-the airwaves-which has been regulated in most parts of the world because of its precious nature and the tremendous capacity that it has to influence society culturally, politically and in other ways. I think that this will become increasingly so as technologies really overtake us as we move into the twenty-first century. The networks have bled all over the parliamentary benches for about 29 years about one thing or the other. I think that they will continue to do so because things do not seem to have changed very much. The Government's legislation, the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985, seeks to amend several main areas of the principal Act. If anyone really wants a detailed explanation of the legislation, the excellent and very informative second reading speech of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) covers all parts of this very complex legislation. The first part that I would like to deal with is the standards making powers of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Most people in the broadcasting and television industry believed that the ABT had the power over qualitative and quantitative standards, although as far back as 1963 the doubt over the ABT power regarding quantitative standards was brought into question by a Senate select committee. However, acting in a way that could only be described as par for the course, the conservative government of the time did absolutely nothing. Then along came Maggie Thatcher's advertising agency, Saatchi and Saatchi, which promptly challenged the ABT's powers regarding standards. The court ruled in the advertising agency's favour; that is, that the ABT's power related to quality but not quantity. Of course, this undercut all the standards that are laid down by the ABT, not only advertising standards but also other standards, some of which include the advertising time standards, the Australian content program standards and children's program standards. Of course, this would have been an intolerable situation. Unlike in 1963, the Minister now in the chamber immediately announced to the Parliament that the appropriate amendments would be moved to the Act to clarify the situation and leave no question as to the ABT powers. That is the position we all thought prevailed, that the ABT had the power to set all standards and conditions both of a qualitative and of a quantitative nature. A properly set platform of standards and conditions by the ABT must form part of the regulation of the broadcasting and television industry, particularly in the areas I have already mentioned. I suggest that Australian content, particularly drama content, would never have reached the level it has today, although it is still too small, if it had not been for the gentle persuasion of the standard requirements, which are very important for the good of the industry as a whole. The second area on which I would like to comment briefly is the pre-classification of children's programs. I believe the Minister will further comment on this issue at a later hour tonight. However, the Bill seeks to affirm the Tribunal's powers to set standards for children's television programs. It also seeks to extend the pre-classification standards to programs designed for younger children than are covered at present. Right now the C classification is confined to the six to 13 years age group. It will now apply to all programs designed for children under the age of 14. I believe that children's programming is an extremely important area. Unfortunately it is one in which the industry has failed. It is an area in which the industry should have done more. There is no doubt that the twenty-fifth re-run of Superman, held together with various pieces of 3M sticky tape, has prevailed in the board rooms of some of our major networks over the 29 years of television in this country. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Bill, however, the Government, to quote the Minister's second reading speech `is not in favour of a general power of pre-classification'. The Minister went on to say: The Bill, therefore, expressly limits the Tribunal's power to require pre-classification to that of children's programs. It is interesting to note that the two sections of the Bill that I have mentioned thus far basically only reaffirm what all of us thought that the Broadcasting and Television Act said in the first place. I move to the next part of the Act to which the amendments before the chamber refer; that is, section 119 and the repealing of section 101, about which some people appear to have forgotten. The latter reduces the control over broadcasters, and that should be emphasised. The changes to section 119 are important. I believe that the Opposition, as the honourable member for Goldstein has mentioned, will be moving an amendment during the Committee stage. That will be an extremely interesting debate, to say the least. I will confine most of my remarks regarding section 119 to the Committee stage of the Bill. However, the proposed amendment by the Opposition does relate in a way to the amendment which the honourable member for Goldstein has moved to the motion for the second reading-that is the old `it would be better under self-regulation' bit. I have heard that nonsense for 20 years. The major networks' track record, whilst good on many things, particularly in the smaller areas and organisation of the industry, is less than adequate on some of the bigger or more important issues such as an Australian content, particularly in quality drama and children's programming. Humphrey B. Bear's light shines so brightly because there is precious little else. How can any serious-minded Australian want the entire broadcasting and television industry-an extremely important one for our society, as I have said before-left to the self-regulated whims of the monopolies that control the whole industry in this country? The air-waves are a precious commodity and are quite lucrative in commercial terms. The vast responsibilities this industry has to our society will increase as we rocket, literally, into the twenty-first century. Therefore, the functions and responsibilities, program standards and conditions-not only ones for profit but also ones that relate to the social and cultural responsibilities of the industry-must be regulated. Notwithstanding these standards and regulations which bring the industry under the control of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, the industry generally has a pretty free run on most matters. There are no bureaucratic milestones at every corner to hinder good broadcasting and television in this country. We do not have a perfect system. However, we-that is, the Government-are working towards changes that will move us closer to that elusive perfect system. However, we still have one of the best systems in the world. It is quite different from the tight control that exists in many European countries and from the `gone crazy' free market, anything goes madness that exists in the United States of America. The honourable member for Goldstein spoke of these standards and the cost in lawyers and in general legal terms with which this Government is supposedly burdening the industry. If my memory serves me correctly, this situation started with the first public hearing, which I think was in Adelaide some years ago. Anyone who had an interest was welcome to put their bit to the Tribunal inquiry at that time. When several people fronted, the industry, the major networks, decided that that was not good enough and at the next inquiry, which I believe was in Sydney, fronted with a barrage of lawyers. Ever since people with an interest, such as Mr and Mrs Canberra, Melbourne or Sydney, are virtually not allowed to get in the front door and do not have a say in those hearings. It is the industry that has self-imposed these massive legal costs on itself. The Government is not imposing legal costs on the industry. The Government has not intervened in the Perth situation, it is the industry: It is one operator against another. It is the industry that fronts with barrages of lawyers at every conceivable hearing that has gone before the Tribunal in the last decade. That has nothing to do with the Government. By interjection I asked the honourable member for Goldstein a question which I still do not believe he has answered. I would like to hear his answer, quite seriously. How would self-regulation fix that problem? I just do not see how it would do one iota to help the problem that exists. We would still have one operator intervening into an inquiry against another operator, as is the case in Perth. Self-regulation is nonsense. That would not fix that situation at all. Yet that was part of the reason the honourable member for Goldstein was putting up, saying: `We must get away from legal costs because that is the panacea that will fix everything'. However, he forgot to say that the industry itself has imposed these costs; they were not imposed by the Government. As I have said, the Government has introduced many measures-it has been in government for nearly three years-in moving towards a much better system. I think we are getting there. This is very complex legislation and it reinforces certain powers of the Tribunal. I will have more to say about that in the Committee stage of the debate. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr JULL(Fadden)(10.16) —Yet again the broadcasting and television legislation has been opened up for amendment before the House. It would almost seem an article of faith that every session we have to open up the Broadcasting and Television Act for one reason or another. Tonight, for the first time for many a long year, we have seen in the House the philosophical approach as to the future direction that the broadcasting and television industry could take under a Liberal-National Party coalition government. I back completely the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) in his moving the amendment tonight. For the first time we will see some light at the end of the tunnel in terms of the regulation of the commercial broadcasting and television industry in Australia. It never ceases to amaze me that over the years we have managed to compile regulation after regulation and impose them on that industry. To listen to my friend the honourable member for Isaccs (Mr Charles) tonight, it would seem that the big, bad, bogy men of Australian radio and television are at it again. The Government's attitude is that they cannot be trusted and that over the years they have reached no sense of maturity whatsoever in delivering Australian radio and television programs. That seems absolutely crazy to me. I think we should remind ourselves of a few of the facts. There is no denying that over the years it was necessary to have some regulations and standards to foster and to encourage the industry. I believe that that has happened. It is interesting to note in the Australian television scene today that more than 50 per cent of the programs on the three commercial networks have Australian content. The demand is there for Australian programs. That is what the people want and that is what the networks are providing and will continue to provide as long as we have the quality. It is strange that over the years anybody who dared to criticise the Australian Broadcasting Corporation about the programs it delivers was howled down with comments of interference in that august organisation. There is never a mention about the commercial stations which have the largest share of the audience and which are, to a very great extent, delivering the goods that the general public wants. It seems to me that it is about time that future governments allowed this industry to mature. There is a great deal to be said for the comments made tonight by the honourable member for Goldstein about the implementation of a code of conduct for broadcasters. What the shadow Minister said was perfectly right. If one wants to improve standards one puts provisions in the legislation. If those standards are breached one would know exactly where to go. We have really got ourselves into an absolute bind with some of the minor infringements of regulations. Goodness knows how the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal will be able to continue to operate if problem after problem is heaped upon it. Surely we have got to a stage in Australia where we can allow a little self-regulation into the system and make sure that we continue to develop as one of the best broadcasting industries in the world. Australian television stations deliver some of the finest services of any radio and television organisation in the world. We have now reached a stage where we can stack up quite proudly against organisations such as the British Broadcasting Corporation and the major American networks and producers. The enforcement provisions that have been mentioned tonight-they have been called the Hinch provisions, the Ian Chappell provisions and the John Laws provisions-- Mr Peacock —It doesn't matter what you call them; what we are doing is right. Mr JULL —What we are doing is right. To say that somebody such as John Laws, who is acknowledged as one of the great broadcasters of the world, has to go through the situation in which he is faced with the possibility of having to pre-record his programs is absolutely ludicrous. We should have enough respect and he should have enough nous in a situation to be able to control what goes out on his signal. There are all sorts of delay provisions in radio studios these days to do that. To say that people of this calibre should be restricted by some of these regulations is really quite ridiculous indeed. I sincerely hope that we never get to a stage where we have to go along to the producers and say: `Everything must be pre-recorded before we allow it to go to air'. That really would be quite silly. Obviously, if we can get to a stage where we have a code of conduct for broadcasters and telecasters in Australia we will get beyond this program. The vexed question of chidren's television production raises its head again. It has been a major point of contention for the past three decades in Australia. We have had inquiry after inquiry as to the future for children's television programs and the effect of those programs. I think the honourable member for Goldstein was quite right in pointing out tonight that, as far as the Opposition is concerned, the classification of children's television programs should be at the script stage and that we should have a look at it later on if we have to. I think the point he made about the financing of children's television programs was a most salient one. If we get any further regulation or requirement than that classification at the script stage we will have the capacity to inhibit and stifle the creativity of some of those children's programs. Australia is at the stage now where it is evolving as a quite significant producer of quality children's television programs. Indeed, the runs are on the board. We are starting to sell a lot of those programs overseas. Productions by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the commercial organisations are finding their way onto the major networks of the United Kingdom, the United States of America and other markets as well, and they are to be congratulated for that. I would hate us to reach a stage where the innovative people who are involved in the production of children's television programs feel that they can no longer continue on a particular line a script might take because of the sanctions that might occur in this post- classification situation. It is true that a great deal of money has to be invested in children's television programs. especially in the production of children's television drama and in many cases the return on those investments is low. We would want to do the absolute minimum in terms of restricting that type of situation in case we did not allow children's television programs to reach their true potential. I believe that there will continue to be a great potential for the production of children's television programs in Australia and, as the years go by, we will see Australia become more and more a major production house for children's programs to be delivered world wide. In talking about some of the other amendments, in particular in regard to clause 39 on advertising standards, I was interested to hear the comments made by the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) about Australian television commercials. Mr Peacock —Was he wrong again? Mr JULL —He was not quite right. I have done a little research in this area recently. One of the big problems for Australian production houses at the moment is to get enough qualified personnel to make those television commercials. A great number of them have gone into the Australian film industry and we know how well that is developing at the moment. Quite often, I know, we say when we sit down and watch them that television commercials are a scourge on our very houses, but some of the creativity and some of the contributions that producers of television commercials are making are quite important. In fact, at the moment Australia is producing a number of commercials for overseas distribution. I was speaking to the people in one advertising agency within the last 24 hours who told me that last year they made a series for Husqvarna sewing machines which was produced in Brisbane and has now been shown world wide. Commercials such as the one for Coca Cola have had their very roots in Australia. A lot of the footage and the techniques that have been used here has been exported overseas. It is an industry that has developed well and is producing a great deal of revenue for Australia. Once again, I think the shadow Minister is perfectly right in identifying that as an area that we can loosen up. To say that only 20 per cent of a commercial can be made overseas at the moment is quite ludricrous. The industry has developed a long way since those early regulations were brought in and it is time to open up the whole thing again. There is a capacity for Australian commercials to be exported overseas and in fact we are in the big league now. We hope that we would not be so small minded that we could not take some of the expertise from overseas. I give an example of the production of a Mercedes Benz television commercial in which the producers wanted to use some footage of a film of a safety controlled test at its factory in West Germany. Because of the restriction of the 30 second commercial, they could use only six seconds of that footage. They made the commercial and backed it up with the other 24 seconds being made in Australia, and it worked out quite well, but it was not as good as it could have been if they had had access to more of that footage. It is in areas such as this that we should be flexible. To a great extent the industry has come of age. Now that it has come of age and taken that responsibility and has the acceptance of the Australian public, as I think it has, maybe it is time to start looking back over the past 30 years. Those regulations were necessary and worked well in their day, but now that we have reached this stage of our development it is time for us to loosen up and let the industry move into the area of self-regulation. While not opposing the legislation completely, I commend the amendment of the honourable member for Goldstein, which for the first time in many years sets out the philosophical direction which will be taken by the Liberal Party in government in terms of the future development of the Australian radio and television industry. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(10.26) —I wish to deal with the power allowed under the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to set standards for children's television programs by providing for the extension of preclassification of those programs. A lot has been said about the suitability of television programs for children. Not surprisingly, some of the programs which are most popular with children are adult programs such as A Country Practice, Prisoner, Patrol Boat and even Yes Minister, with its half truths. There are few Jim Hackers in ministries and there are no doubt times when the message in Yes Minister applies. A writing of the history of Bombala in the south-east of New South Wales would have to acknowledge that that community asked and waited for a television service for at least eight years, during which time it got no action from the predecessors of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), in spite of the fact that there would have been little cost to the Government. Eventually there came a positive co-operation between the Minister and his Department, the Bombala community and Capital 7 television, so that Bombala Shire gained its commercial television service at virtually no cost to the Department of Communications. There was no Hacker-Sir Humphrey relationship there. Programs such as Yes Minister, A Country Practice and Prisoner may not be philosophically enlightening, but I suspect that they fulfil a psychological need in the community. In years hence I have no doubt that they will be shown by the Australian National Library to reflect our people, culture and traditions. Even Days Of Our Lives may have some psychological relevance. As Dennis Pryor said, the television serial is our own version of the epic poem; the long imaginative work which sets out how a country thinks about its own people and traditions. Perhaps he was talking about Rush or Days Of Our Lives; perhaps he was referring to both. Whatever program he was referring to, when people watch them it goes without saying that they find it entertaining and relevant to their lives. Children enjoy adult programs and we all too often insult them in the children's programs we dish out to them. There are exceptions. I often wonder why my daughter watches Inspector Gadget with such interest and enthusiasm. Perhaps John Docker, the writer, academic and student of television and its effects, was right when he said that children like Inspector Gadget because it reflects what is so obvious-to the children, at least-that little girls and dogs are much wiser than adults. Perhaps they are fantasising. Perhaps there is a degree of truth in their attitudes. I believe that John Docker has shown us that children prefer fantasy to rational knowledge and they can learn appropriate values from fantasy, particularly where it involves an inversion of the real world adult-child relationship. In the programs that are most popular with children, the goodies are small children and the silly ones are the big adults. This Bill provides for the preclassification of children's drama programs. Preclassification took place in 1979 and certainly seems to have produced a marked improvement in the quality and variety of children's programs. Court hearings knocked out the requirement for preclassification. Why have vetting of children's television programs before they are screened? Not to do so would be to ignore the power of the medium. To digress for a moment from children's programs, communication changes, particularly television, have changed the world. The changes have been so fast that we have had trouble adapting our beliefs. I give just one example: In primitive times people found protection in the tribe. Today the tribe has become the whole world. When one asks `Who is my neighbour?' the answer is no longer an injured person on the side of the road. Over 20,000 victims from the dreadful flow of the volcano near Bogota and hundreds of thousands of starving people in Africa become the people who cry out in need. Such events portrayed on television give us many neighbours. We either become immune and ignore those events by turning them off or give a little money and we worry. I have noticed how these things do worry our young people in particular. Television brings the events of humankind into our own lives. Under the old principle of the tribe there was care about the introduction of children to what were seen as the things of the world. Somehow the Tribunal has to come to terms with these needs, which can be contradictory. Two points were made by Mrs Hazel Hawke recently. Firstly, what children see ought to be understood by them and, secondly, what children see must not encourage the bypassing of important social and learning skills. Hazel Hawke made these points at a Melbourne conference on children's television. The Tribunal must also recognise the sensitivity of its task. Ultimately children know best what they enjoy. They know best what gives them the most satisfaction. I see preclassification as beneficial, so long as adults doing the job take care not to impose their own adult values. Rapid technological advance, the decline of the extended family, of the small tribe, does not take away the need for guidance and a balanced attitude to children's television programming. That is the intention of the Bill. I have decided to support the Bill. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(10.33) —I am not going to speak at any great length. I think the previous speaker, the honourable member for Eden Monaro (Mr Snow), gave an example of what should be done at this hour of the night. I am not going to indulge in technicalities and legal ramifications as we did on a previous Bill tonight. I interpret the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill as setting a new era in the establishment of standards. Whether we look at the amendment and agree that there should be deregulation or that there should be individual decision in matters regarding broadcasting and televising in this country is a matter for individual judgment. The judgment on this side of the House is that the amendment should be supported. In relation to matters of this nature, as one who represents vast areas which are away from the golden boomerang, I know that there is always a basic apprehension. That apprehension applies not only to decisions in regard to our broadcasting and televising, but also to the argument for privatisation. If we put responsibility for decisions in the hands of a group of people whose interests are more particularly in the golden boomerang, the area extending around the coast and involving the capital cities, the people who keep this nation operating are likely to be forgotten. Hence, though I support the decision of our coalition in regard to the amendment, I do so with the one stipulation that the legislation should protect the people who do not enjoy living in the golden boomerang. Let us get down to the purpose of this Bill, which is to implement government decisions regarding the power of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to make program standards. There are then two or three categories. I would like to add one or two other categories. One category that I would like to enlarge on a little is one that has been mentioned in the House by two or three of the previous speakers, and that is in relation to children's programs. Let us look at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation because that is the one we are most concerned with. We are most concerned with the ABC because there are many parts of this nation in which, until the satellite does its thing up there, the ABC is all people see. Our whole concept of television and broadcasting is based on what we see through the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and hence we demand certain standards from that corporation-standards which we hope, as a result of this Bill, will be maintained as they were 10 years ago. Honourable members might think: There go the National Party members; they live in the past; they are reactionaries and they do not want change. Too damned right we do not want change if it is the sort of change we have seen over the last couple of years. We did not want to see a change to the National. If we are talking about standards, what happened to Australian control of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation? For some unknown reason we handed over control of this magnificent organisation. With all due respect to those who work at the ABC-they are probably very able people-surely among that great team of people who had supported the Australian Broadcasting Commission, as it was, in the good old days before it degenerated to what it is now, there was someone who could have taken over the management of the ABC. Did we have to bring in an import to handle the television programming and organisation of this nation? If we are going to talk about standards, let us look to the standards of the past. I think that a man such as Richard Carleton would have well been able to be the player-coach as he is a man immensely experienced, a man who understands what Australians want, and he is a man who could have provided just that. I hope that when the dismissing of so many of the notable characters in the ABC comes to an end we reintroduce what we all enjoyed most, and that was the previous concept. If we are going to talk about standards I will refer to one or two programs. I strongly suggest that when this new era of standards comes in we should begin to restore some of the decent standards of the ABC. Mr Nehl —Hear, hear! Maintain the family values. Mr KATTER —Maintain the family values, as my colleague here so honestly puts the point of view. There are one or two programs I wish to refer to and I think one is called Hypotheticals. Whether the host has ants in his pants or whether there is something wrong I do not know, but he walks around wringing his hands. Maybe he is waiting for a baby to arrive. The fellow conducting that program gave me the shimmies. Mind you, I only looked at it for two or three minutes and then I turned the damned thing off, as most people did. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! I think the honourable member for Kennedy is moving away from the Bill. The Chair appreciates that he will be returning to it fairly soon. Mr KATTER —We have heard a lot of legalities here tonight and a lot of technicalities. I am afraid that I am not entirely capable of going into that side of the Bill. However, I think if we get down to the actual practical application of these standards, we are doing a service to the nation. To return to children's programs, I think there is nothing better than Play School. There are one or two better programs in other categories. Mr McVeigh —Those people over there are not interested in the kids. Mr McGauran —They are anti-children. Mr KATTER —I suppose that the phrase `anti-children' is a description of much of what comes from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation these days. I put the case that, when these standards are being revised, we should look particularly to two things that very much affect the life of this nation where it matters, and where it matters is where the wealth-producing industries exist. For some reason God decided that the minerals would be put right out in the wilderness, that sheep would best be raised hundreds of miles from the coast and that cattle would thrive hundreds of miles away from the favoured areas. If standards are to be given serious consideration and are to be meaningful, we should make sure that the weather reports we get in the more isolated areas are more continuous, more accurate and are based in the area about which the information is obtained. Weather reports and news services are extremely important to the life of this nation. I conclude by reiterating that it is high time the Australian Broadcasting Corporation got back to Australian control and dispensed with its weird, imported ideas and very peculiar programs such as Australia, You're Standing In It-a program that should be well and truly demolished. By the way, I thank the Minister for the fact that we saw the Melbourne Cup. We are very much encouraged by the fact that he is to provide Test cricket coverage for us out in the mulga country. We thank him very much indeed. All I want him to do now is to sack a few people at the top and bring the ABC back to what it was-one of the finest broadcasting and television services in the world. Now it is one of the least respected. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.43) —The act of the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) will be a very hard act to follow. Mr McGauran —You couldn't stand in his shadow. Mr MARTIN —What a terrible thing to say! I shall try to focus the attention of the House back on to the legislation before us this evening, the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985. I believe that this legislation is most significant, particularly in respect of the power of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to set program standards for children. I do not think anyone can deny that there is a need to ensure that our children are not subjected to mindless drivel from ill-conceived and ill-produced television programs. It is a power that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal enjoyed for some time until the recent High Court of Australia challenge. Therefore, the Government is not really introducing any draconian sort of legislation to confer upon this organisation powers that will have a detrimental effect on the programs Australian children will view on television. The Bill instils legal power in the Tribunal to continue the practice of pre-classification of children's programs and the inclusion of quantitative elements in the standards. Of major significance will be the ability of the Tribunal to apply standards which relate to Australian content in production. I could not better echo the sentiments expressed by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Kennedy, regarding the need for Australian content in television programs, but more particularly in children's television programs. That will mean something that is of great concern to this Government-more jobs for more people. Quite simply, if we have people in the television and film industries producing these sorts of programs for children and see them on Australian television, it will mean more jobs for producers, actors and so on. I refer briefly to the activities of the local WIN television station in Wollongong. It will continue to produce such outstanding programs as Kid's News, Space Ace and a variety of children's programs which give a great deal of entertainment and enjoyment to children in the five to 16-year age group in our area. It is interesting to look at some of the types of television programs on at the moment because part of this legislation empowers the Tribunal to ensure a certain percentage of Australian programs, to look at what can be shown between the hours of 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. and to set relevant standards. I refer honourable members to a typical television program and present for their edification tonight the television program in today's Sydney Morning Herald. If we quickly look at what is on in the 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. time slot we see that on the ATN7 network tennis is on until the news. It started at 11 o'clock this morning and went through to six o'clock. On the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Play School kicks off at 4 o'clock but preceding that was Sesame Street. Play School is followed by Andy Robson, Flight of the Heron, Voltron-Defender of the Universe, Come and Get it, and then the favourite of all time favourites for my kids, Inspector Gadget. On TCN9 there is the Curiosity Show, Ossie Ostrich-an all time favourite which appeals to members of the National Party of Australia-Mickey and Donald and Blankety Blanks. On channel 10 we find that doyen of children's programs, Simon Townsend's Wonder World, followed by Good Times and Perfect Match. I do not know whether Perfect Match appeals to the five to 10-year olds but certainly it appeals to some of the older people. There is nothing on the Special Broadcasting Service station until 5.30 p.m., but then comes Granny's Little Grandson, from Yugoslavia. Some of the regional channels also have children's programs during this time. We are concerned about having programming that allows a meaningful input into the ability of children to appreciate the world around them. We are not looking at hard educational material but at material that should be introduced so that children have an appreciation of the world in which they are growing up. Television is something that will entertain them but it does not necessarily have to show only hard, rigid instructional material. It is most important that we have something to say about the reasons for pre-classification and why there should be the power to pre-classify C programs. It is a fact of life that children spend more time in front of the television than doing anything other than sleeping. The justification for the pre-classification of children's programs is overwhelming. A number of independent inquiries have consistently concluded that children's programs need special treatment. For example, a paper presented at the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Perth in 1983 by Patricia Edgar clearly demonstrated that the Children's Program Committee had been convinced that without regulation of children's television there would be no children's television at all. She went on to say that children's television in the United States, by way of example, is disappearing because of the lack of regulation; in fact, there is no regular children's program on weekday commercial network television in the United States. The Children's Program Committee has always stressed that programs should not be didactic, instructional and overly educational but must first be entertaining television, and the programs should be about subjects which interest children and designed and presented in such a way that they can be readily understood and appreciated by those children who are viewing them. That view was further given credence by the Chairwoman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Children's Program Committee, Dr Shelley Phillips, who said that the years from six to nine were crucial for children's imagination. She said: Researchers are increasingly producing evidence that if children are fed unimaginative stodge at a period when fantasy and make-believe are crucial, then they may be rendered intellectually and emotionally passive. I am sure that even honourable members on the other side of the House would not want to see this country's children grow up that way. I think it is important to realise that this Bill does set the parameters. What we are talking about is providing television for children. We are talking about pre-classification to see that rubbish is not presented and that the Australian content is maintained. It will build on to the viability of the television industry in Australia. In my belief it is an extremely valuable piece of legislation and will see a marked improvement in the quality and variety of children's programs particularly given that it will only continue a trend of pre-classification that has been around for some time. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(10.51) —I say in starting this brief speech that I strongly support what has been said by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) and the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull). Both have shown an awareness, and I do not intend to repeat what they have said. I listened with great interest too to the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles). I did not necessarily agree with all he said but I thought it was important that someone with his practical experience within the industry should be making a contribution to this debate on the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). I am concerned by the intention of this Bill, as stated in the explanatory memorandum: `To make some improvements to the provisions relating to enforcement of program standards in accordance with recommendations of the Administrative Review Council'. I note that the Tribunal is to be given the power to issue a reprimand and require it to be published. I believe that this deserves an interpretation to the House of what standards are being or should be set for programs. Having been a member of the New South Wales State Advisory Committee of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation I am, in principle, against interference in the contents of programs. While I believe a common sense of decency is exercised by most of the various forms of broadcasting and television programming-I do support the principle of self-regulation-I am still concerned as to what publicity or action will be given to certain types of programs. We know how disturbing and tasteless it is to show road accidents. We know how distressing it is to those families who have been victims of such tragedies to see the ghastly event on television in living colour. Most channels maintain a proper sense of balance here. We also know the horror of international tragedies being brought right into our homes in vivid, full and vibrant colour. Tragedies such as the Mexican earthquake, the Lebanese war and the Iran-Iraq war do not leave any of us untouched or unmoved. However salutary these matters are, there comes a time when some taste must be observed because of the sensititivity of large sections of the watching audience. The Minister for Communicatins (Mr Duffy), who is at the table, will be aware that last week I wrote to him regarding the television program of 16 October on the ABC entitled Strike Swiftly. The matter was brought starkly to my attention by a long-serving member of the New South Wales Police Force and presently an instructor at the New South Wales Police Academy, Mr Robert Holley. In his own words, this program `dealt with facets of specialist training (Black Beret) within the Commonwealth Army'. Mr Holley continued: My objections refer specifically to scenes dealing with unarmed combat. These scenes graphically taught the ABC viewers how to kill a person easily, with minimal effort. The scenes were as follows: (1) How to strangle a person using a leather lace or wire. (2) How to correctly (as opposed to incorrectly) slit a person's throat. (3) How to insert a knife into the kidneys so as to cause trauma and death. (4) How to hang a person or decapitate using a leather lace or wire. Mr Holley continued: I would like to make it clear that I have nothing whatsoever against the Army or programs that deal with Army training. I am however appalled that the content of this particular program was allowed to go to air. I share the great concern that Mr Holley made known to me. I share his outrage that this information could be used to hurt innocent people and police themselves. Mr Holley went on to illustrate this point by referring to a story which appeared in the Sydney Daily Telegraph on 16 October. He said: The report is about a rape victim who survived attempts to murder her simply due to the ignorance of her attackers. The ABC has now removed a great deal of this necessary ignorance. This is a matter which calls for responsibility towards the community by those who have the authority of controlling which programs they show. Therefore, I ask the Minister for Communications, who is sitting at the table-I would like to have his statement now in this debate-how such a program as I have just described shall be handled. What is the position of this House towards such an irresponsible program which was shown at 8.35 p.m. on a Wednesday? I wrote to the General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr Whitehead, and in part I said: I am very conscious of the sensitive nature of approving and not approving specific programs. However, I must say that I found this particular programme the source of great concern to me and I would be very pleased to have your response as to what the philosophy of the ABC is with regard to such programmes in the future. I support the amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) in condemning the increased regulation contained in the Bill and the trend towards legal complexity. In view of the late hour of this debate and the agreement that the Whips have reached for reduced speaking time, I shall not repeat the arguments put forward by my colleagues earlier in this debate. However, I conclude by again asking the Minister how he sees his new Bill handling the obscenity of such programs as I have described tonight. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.57) —I too join in the remarks by the last speaker in this debate, the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie). I will keep my remarks brief and to the point. I support, from the outset, the views expressed by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) on behalf of the Opposition. Mr Hand —You are like pepper and salt. Mr HODGMAN —Somebody else has wandered in again from the Soviet Embassy. It is very nice to see him with us. I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Goldstein and, and, on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, I condemn the trend towards increased regulation, more legal complexity and higher costs related to proceedings before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. I believe that greater reliance should be placed upon self-regulation by broadcasters than on regulation imposed by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. In other words, like the honourable member for Goldstein, I believe that the legislation is moving in precisely the wrong direction. In a moment I intend to read some of the passages of the legislation so that the people of Australia will see that it is no exaggeration, notwithstanding the benign countenance of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), to say that the legislation is Orwellian. It surprises me that we are dealing with it in 1985 instead of 1984. Like the previous speaker, the honourable member for Cook, I served for some five years as a member of the State Advisory Committee of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, as it was then, in Tasmania. Needless to say, and no fault to the Minister-I am not going to say that he did a Dame Leonie Kramer on me-when the new arrangements came in, I and many others went out. During the period I was a member of the Committee I did have the opportunity-- Mr Duffy —You know that I do not appoint the advisory councils. Mr HODGMAN —I know. The Minister is getting touchy again. Mr Macphee —If he had, he would have appointed you. Mr HODGMAN —I think that he might have. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for Goldstein, who is at the table, will give the honourable member for Denison a go. Mr HODGMAN —I thank you both. I am getting protection from both the Left and the Right. I will leave that for somebody else to work out. The Minister made a small point but it is one that should be clarified. I accept that he had nothing to do with who was appointed. I might just say that further appointments to the ABC State Advisory Committee in Tasmania have been advertised and I might well apply. I must admit that it would be the height of optimism to expect that I would be appointed. However, I take this opportunity to say that during my five years on that Committee I had the chance to discuss matters in some detail and to hear views expressed in relation to where we were heading. Whilst I do not doubt the Minister's intention, once again we have legislation that looks very much as if the Hawke socialist Government has again capitulated to the mad Left. Some of the provisions in this Bill are, frankly, incredible. I refer specifically to the provisions of what will be section 119. Honourable members and people listening to this debate will be shocked to hear what the legislation provides. Section 119, as it will be, deals with restrictions on participation in broadcasts. It states: ``119. (1) Where a person has- (a) presented in a live broadcast the whole or a part of a program; or (b) passed or selected for broadcasting the whole or a part of a program (being a program that was subsequently broadcast), in respect of which, or in respect of the broadcasting of which, the program standards were not complied with or this Act was contravened, the Tribunal may, by direction having either indefinitely or for a period determined by the Tribunal- (c) prohibit the person from presenting programs in live broadcasts or passing or selecting programs for broadcasting; or (d) impose restrictions on the presenting by the person of programs in live broadcasts or on the passing or selecting by the person of programs for broadcasting. ``(2) The Tribunal shall not give a direction to a person under sub-section (1) unless it has, by notice in writing served on the person, called upon the person to show cause, within a period specified by the Tribunal, why the direction should not be given. ``(3) A person shall not contravene a direction of the Tribunal under this section.''. The Minister says: `Look, this is all right; what we are doing is to make people responsible for what they say and do'. But is that the effect, and is this the power that the Parliament ought to be giving to the Tribunal? I have spoken with some of those in regional television in New South Wales only within the last few weeks. They are petrified as to what might occur. One does not have to be a Mr Derryn Hinch or a Mr Mark Day- Mr Charles —That is absolute nonsense. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member comes to life and says that is nonsense. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for Isaacs has had a go at this. He will cease interjecting. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Isaacs ought to take the time to talk to people in the industry about the way that they see this matter. We in Tasmania have a memory of the actions of the predecessor of the present Minister, who put TVT6 off the air in our State-I refer to Dr Cass, the then Minister-in circumstances which I can only say at that time brought home to me very forcefully what could be done if an excessively wide power was given. Now there is no appeal against the Tribunal's decision. We again rely on the prerogative writ for people to bring proceedings. Mr Charles —You have not read the Bill. Mr HODGMAN —Not only have I read the Bill but I have read the second reading speech, and I have also read the Saatchi decision. I am more than happy to argue with the honourable member at any time. The problem with him is that he cannot argue-because the honourable member, with the greatest respect.... Mr Charles —Is not a QC like you. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Isaacs will cease interjecting and will heed the Chair. Mr HODGMAN —I think that the honourable member ought to go back to Kindergarten of the Air.... Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Denison will not make comments; he will get on with his speech. Mr HODGMAN —Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I withdraw that; The Muppet Show would be more appropriate. The power is an extraordinarily wide one. The power may not be abused by the present Minister, but I resent the giving of such a broad power. The only other matter to which I want to refer-because I shall not be speaking in the Committee stage- is section 101. Whatever the Government's intention, if ever there has gone on the statute book legislation which reeks of the Orwellian 1984 tradition, it is this: ``(1) Where a licensee has contravened sub-section 99 (1A) in relation to the broadcasting of programs, or the programs broadcast by a licensee, the Tribunal may issue to the licensee in writing a reprimand or admonishment. ``(2) The Tribunal may, in addition to issuing a reprimand or admonishment to a licensee under sub-section (1), direct the licensee in writing to publish the reprimand or admonishment in such form and manner as is specified by the Tribunal in the direction, and the licensee shall comply with the direction. ``(3) The issue of a reprimand or admonishment or the giving of a direction under this section in relation to a contravention of sub-section 99 (1A) does not affect any other action that the Tribunal may, apart from this section, take under this Act in relation to the contravention.''. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you have followed precisely what that says and what it means. The Tribunal can admonish a licensee but then the Tribunal directs the licensee to publish the reprimand or admonishment in such a form and manner as specified by the Tribunal. It does not matter whether it is wrong. People get upset about the warning printed on cigarette packets at government direction that smoking is a health hazard and all of the other things that will happen if one smokes. This legislation is incredible because it gives the Tribunal power to admonish and reprimand and then direct the licensee to publish that reprimand or admonishment in the form and manner specified by the Tribunal. If that is not Big Brother 1984, I do not know what is. The moment has come for me to bring my speech to a conclusion. There is no right of appeal for the licensee. So what does the licensee do? He has to cop it sweet. I hope that those in the industry will recognise that this is now going to be part of the law of Australia. I believe that the honourable member for Goldstein summed the matter up precisely in his amendment. I am saddened that the Minister, who appears to me to be well intentioned, has been party to legislation that does no credit to this Parliament and certainly no credit to the broadcasting and television industry of Australia in the year 1985. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(11.08) —At this late hour of the night and mindful that we have to deal with further business before we adjourn, I shall not delay the House at any length. However, because of my dubious privilege of being chairman of the Opposition communications committee I want to register my interest in the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 which I have had the occasion to address in prospect. I could possibly offer the House a number of thoughts that I have. However, honourable members who have spoken in this debate canvassed matters very broadly. Indeed, in the case of my friend and colleague, the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), one could fairly say that one would have to go a long way to get a broader canvasser. Notwithstanding that, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), in his most persuasive manner, has put a proposition before the House for self-regulation. Unquestionably, in the ultimate that is a highly desirable goal. Of course, the honourable member also mentioned that there must be standards and that the industry itself would apply and maintain those standards. I guess the whole question devolves on the reliability that one can place on the intention and integrity of those charged with such a responsibility. Standards there must be, but the problem is one of who determines the standards in the ultimate. There are a million views as to what constitutes standards. We also have to take into account the process of gradualness in which the threshold keeps being moved. We could argue for weeks as to what constitutes an impeccable standard. However, we remain at risk. It is a rather ironical coincidence and circumstance that on the very day that we are addressing this question it has come to my knowledge that there is a lighthearted jest of a slightly indelicate nature on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's breakfast session. I do not wish to impugn the gentleman who ventured in that particular respect but I am prompted to put what happened to the House to illustrate the difficulty attendant on making a judgment as to what constitutes fair, fitting and proper radio propagation. Mr Hodgman —Are you going to say the word? Mr MILLAR —If the House will bear with me, as I recall, the anecdote related to two people, a voluptuous young female and a male, who met in the shallow water at the seashore. They were engaged in conversation. The attractive female suggested to the male that they might have a swim and adjourn to her flat, which was overlooking the beach, have some fun, go for a swim and adjourn again to the flat. At this juncture her intentions were perfectly clear to the male. He was bound to say that he was confronted with a dilemma-I mean that in its literal sense. He suggested that they might retire to deeper water so that people on the beach could not see what they were talking about. I put it to honourable members that when they ponder on that they will concede that it may fairly be argued that it is somewhat indelicate for a bored audience listening to what we are talking about. I hope that that does not get me into deep water. If I am in deep water, I am there for different reasons altogether from those of the character in the story that I recounted to the House! This is the difficulty. We must have standards. It is a moot point whether in the ultimate the proposition put by the honourable member for Goldstein should prevail because we do not know, in prospect, whether it will. If there is very substantial punitive action by whoever contains that power to punish, to use an ugly term, those who fall short of the standards we expect of them, and if we can establish those standards, certainly that is worthy of support; it is a laudable objective. Whether in the reality it is attainable on a sufficiently reliable basis will be known only after the event, but in prospect we certainly should aspire to it. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.12) —At this stage the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) has foreshadowed two amendments to be moved at the Committee stage. In relation to the amendment which he has already moved I think it is necessary to address a few matters. It appears to me that members of the Opposition, including the honourable member for Goldstein, need to have spelt out to them again in fact what the purpose of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill (No. 2) is. The purpose of the Bill is to restore-it is not, in fact, introducing new powers-to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal the power to make standards for programs broadcast on radio or television by commercial licensees. In doing that the Bill overturns two recent court decisions in the cases of Saatchi and Saatchi Compton (Victoria) Pty Limited v. the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and the Herald-Sun TV Pty Ltd and others v. the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal which invalidated ABT standards containing quantitative elements, particularly those in relation to Australian content of advertisements and pre-classifications of children's television programs. I just find it absolutely extraordinary that tonight people are in fact opposing, in a broad sense, under the guise of deregulation, the restoration to the ABT of powers which clearly everyone accepted that it had for a long while. However, the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles), in a very clear exposition on this point, pointed out-some of those opposite were otherwise engaged at the time and I therefore have to repeat it-that this had been challenged from time to time, but not to the extent that it was by those two decisions to which I have referred. The government of the day just did nothing about the situation. The fact is that we are not prepared to allow that to happen. So those powers have been restored. Secondly, the Bill is to change the basis for the enforcement of program standards. I remind the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) that that decision-the basis for enforcement of program standards-is in accordance with recommendations of the Administrative Review Council. He referred to my proposals as Orwellian. I think the honourable member for Goldstein talked about them being tyrannical. Mr Macphee —Oh, no! Mr DUFFY —Oh, yes. The fact is that the enforcement of program standards in the Bill is in accordance with recommendations of the Administrative Review Council. The Bill provides, firstly, that a breach of program standards can no longer be prosecuted as a criminal offence. That is something which the Opposition left in the Act for years and years. The Government has taken it out. It was a criminal offence. Honourable members opposite talk about this Bill being tyrannical! Before we got to the stage of biting the bullet and amending the legislation the Opposition left the breaching of program standards a criminal offence. Secondly, the Bill will place an obligation on a licensee to supervise the broadcast of programs to ensure compliance with standards. Thirdly, it will provide a new defence for licensees in relation to their compliance with program standards and, fourthly, will provide a range of remedies, including a power in the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, to issue a reprimand and require that it be published. I will deal with that in a little more detail in a moment. Finally, the Bill also clarifies and strengthens the ABT's power to restrict individuals from participating in the broadcasting of material in certain circumstances. To achieve those objectives the Bill changes some of the concepts in the Act. Firstly, it does away with the artificial distinction between programs and advertisements by making advertisements a category of programs. Secondly, it removes the distinction between program standards and conditions by defining the word `standard' to include condition. The Bill also amends the provisions relating to public broadcasters to make the standards enforcement system applicable to them. Further, it amends the Broadcasting and Television Act 1985 to allow the new uniform inquiry procedures to be applied more widely than they have previously. It is necessary to deal with one point made by the honourable member for Denison because, as a lawyer, he should have had a closer look at what he was on about when he indicated that the power of the Tribunal to deliver a reprimand or admonishment was not subject to any appeal. That matter was put by the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations and was looked at before this legislation came before us. It is certainly the view of the Government that FACTS considered that the legislation should stipulate that the ABT act reasonably. Such a measure would provide a licensee with a ground of appeal against any unreasonable decision. However, I point out to the honourable member for Denison that in the absence of a specific reasonable requirement an unreasonable direction given under this section by the ABT quite clearly will be subject to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The honourable member is shaking his head. I can assure him that if any such action is taken under the Act that provision will apply and it will be appealable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Before I move to the specific amendments with which we will have to deal in a little more detail, I think it is necessary, because some honourable members did not listen to what was said by the honourable member for Isaacs, to deal in the broad sense with the proposal put forward by the honourable member for Goldstein that it is not necessary to have regulation; he was on the deregulation track. What the Government has done in this area has to be spelt out. Amendments were passed in 1984 and in the autumn session this year to simplify ABT procedures and the whole basis of licensing broadcasting. I commend to the honourable member for Goldstein the reading of that legislation. In 1984 amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act were passed, for example, to allow the automatic extension of licensed periods pending completion of a licence renewal hearing and the formation of divisions of the Tribunal with power to make decisions on behalf of the Tribunal. These two measures will significantly contribute to a more rational allocation of Tribunal resources, something that the Opposition had plenty of time to do when it was in government but which it did not touch. In the autumn session this year we passed amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act which constituted a thorough review and simplification of legislation. The amendments, which in large part come into effect on 1 January 1986, provide a framework for a set of uniform inquiry procedures to be implemented in regulations which are presently being drafted. These regulations will put in place the main thrust of the Administrative Review Council and ABT inquiry procedures. The ARC in its report proposed a uniform inquiry procedure and, largely, that has been carried out. The central feature of the new procedures is the Tribunal's power to abridge or dispense with various stages of an inquiry where it is just and expeditious to do so, while at the same time clarifying the right of participation of parties in an inquiry. As the Administrative Review Council recognises in its report, it is the philosophy of direct broadcasting accountability which is the basis of the current regulation of broadcasting. This Government, in its support for the uniform inquiry procedures, has confirmed this principle and strengthened its operation. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Goldstein is based on a misconception. When we analyse it we see that it has really confused cause and effect in a quite remarkable way. The Government agrees that proceedings before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal have become too complex, too protracted and, hence, more costly. The question is: What has caused this clearly undesirable state of affairs? It is definitely not increased government-imposed regulation of the broadcasting system. It is certainly not the provisions of this Bill, quite obviously, which seems to be the point the honourable member for Goldstein is trying to make. How can it be as it is not even in force? Moving to the provisions of the Bill, I must disagree with the claim that they increase the regulation of broadcasting. I think this is something which, quite clearly, has been spelt out by previous speakers and I do not need to go into it in any more detail at this stage other than to refer to one thing. In regard to the powers of the Tribunal to make program and advertising standards, this Bill aims to re-state and rationalise the Tribunal's powers which were assumed to be valid until they were overturned earlier this year. There is nothing new about it at all. For details of the provisions I refer the honourable members to the second reading speech on 9 October. I do not propose to go again over the arguments in favour of the need for government regulation of broadcasting-this most pervasive and powerful force in our society-and it is just ridiculous for honourable members to come into this chamber and talk about deregulation. I state clearly the Government's belief that it has a responsibility to regulate and supervise, through the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, some important aspects of radio and television programs, and advertisements particularly, in areas such as children's programs and Australian production. I do not propose to relinquish the Government's powers in this area, with the attendant danger that we will slip backwards, rather than build on the broadcasting industry's undoubted achievements-and nobody doubts those. The Government has also proposed in this Bill a significant simplification of enforcement, despite what has been said by honourable members opposite. The present situation is that a breach of program standards, which the former Government left there for years, is a criminal offence. We have not continued that nonsense. It is proposed that the Tribunal will be able to utilise its own procedures instead of criminal sanctions. Surely nobody would be arguing for criminal sanctions. I do not want to deal with any of the other amendments until we move into the Committee stage, with the exception of one matter which is of considerable importance-a matter which was raised by the honourable member for Goldstein in relation to pre-classification at the script stage. This matter was raised by him not only tonight in this Parliament but also with me privately and he has expressed considerable concern about that aspect. It was necessary to take on board the matters raised by the honourable member for Goldstein. After he raised them I sought the views of the officer from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel who drafted the Bill, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and officers of my own Department. They are all clearly of the view that the Bill as currently drafted would allow the making of a standard requiring pre-classification at the script stage. It seems that it is a matter of interpreting all of the provisions together. The question does not turn simply on whether the expression `program' in proposed sub-section 16 (5) is limited to the completed recording. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is to examine the desirability of making a standard which will allow approval for children's television programs to be based on the script for the program rather than the completed program. It is anticipated that investors will be more confident about going ahead with production where the script has been approved in advance, so that, provided production proceeds in accordance with that script, the final program cannot be refused approval. If feasible, this proposal may significantly encourage the investment of funds in innovative productions. In relation to the matters of considerable and justifiable concern to the honourable member for Goldstein in this regard, I put on record the intention that this Bill will allow the Tribunal to adopt any reasonable method of filtering children's program material prior to broadcast, including giving full approval at the script stage. I hope that this statement will be taken into account in interpreting the Bill, should the question arise. I will leave my remarks in relation to the specific amendments foreshadowed by the honourable member for Goldstein until the Committee stage. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Macphee's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cross, M. D. McLeay, LeoCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Maher, M. J.Darling, E. E. Martin, S. P.Dawkins, J. S. Mayer, H.Dubois, S. G. Mildren, J. B.Duffy, M. J. Milton, P.Duncan, P. Morris, AllanEdwards, Ronald Morris, PeterFatin, W. F. Mountford, J. G.Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. J.Price, L. R. S. Coleman, W. P.Bilney, G. N. Everingham, P. A. E.Punch, G. F. Hunt, R. J. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 10-by leave-taken together. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(10.36) —I wish to speak briefly to clause 6 firstly. I wish to thank the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) very much for the points that he made in response to my request during my speech on the second reading regarding the inclusion of scripts as programs, therefore enabling pre-classification of children's television scripts for the final C classification to be made when the final script is presented in contrast to the presentation of the final recorded program. In fact, looking at the wording of clause 6 (1), which seeks to introduce an amendment to section 16 (5), one would have thought frankly that programs did not include scripts. I think the same reading is true, looking at the proposed section 16 (7), as amended by this legislation. I am delighted with the Minister's assurance because in the event that it proves not to be so, under the amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 the Minister's comments should help that interpretation to be proved to be so. I do appreciate the co-operation of the Government in achieving this very important reform, which as I said earlier and which the Minister confirmed, will be important for the preparation of children's programs of high quality seen through the eyes of children and for the use, therefore, of the generous taxation benefits for the making of those programs, which otherwise would not be done because of the limited commercial revenue for the showing of children's programs. In respect of clause 8, section 99 of the principal Act-the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1985-is amended, and I referred to that matter earlier. Again, I am delighted that the question of program standards covers not only advertising; the setting of standards can relate to scripts as well. In respect of clause 10, which was referred to earlier by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), I merely make the observation that the change to section 101 appears to me to be possibly unnecessary. The Minister made some reference to the need for it because in my speech in the second reading debate I did refer him to a contribution of the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters. In respect of clause 10 that organisation said that this power to admonish or reprimand is really more a power to punish the licensee. The organisation said: Our concern is not with the power to admonish or reprimand, but with the power to direct publication. I quote again from the Federation: We regard this as a particularly vindictive and ill-founded provision. The underlying assumption seems to be that an admonishment or a reprimand may be ineffective unless the Tribunal has the power to direct publication. The Federation goes on to make the point, which I agree with, that the real responsibility should be with the licensee. As I have said several times, the ultimate sanction against the licensee is the suspension or revocation of the licence. Those are the matters with which I am principally concerned in regard to this part of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will take note of them. I make an additional point about the script stage of the pre-classification of children's programs. It relates to the document I tried to table earlier, a proposal put to the ABT by the Film Industry Standing Committee, a diverse grouping of people concerned with the making of films: The Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association, Actors Equity of Australia, the Australian Writers Guild, the Australian Screen Directors' Association, the Association of Drama Agents, the Australian Children's Television Foundation, the Screen Production Association of Australia, the Producers and Directors Guild of Australia, the South Australian Film Corporation and the Australian Guild of Screen Composers. Several other film corporations are members with observer status. For the record I quote from the proposal by the Film Industry Standing Committee. It states: The FISC believes the system of pre-assessment of children's programs before they go to air is vitally important for the future of children's television and does not believe this assessment should be in the hands of the networks. The current regulation procedures have succeeded in producing quality Australian children's drama programs, for the first time. However, the production industry is not happy with the current procedure for pre-classification which is having an adverse effect on the financing of children's programs. The Children's Program Committee continues to classify imported and completed programs. . . . In the case of Australian Children's Drama for the Children's Drama Quota, FISC proposes the following: An expert Commitee of four (a director, producer, writer and actor) assess scripts and grant a full `C' to a final draft script. The Minister has agreed to the final draft script. I would like him to comment on the idea of the Committee. The document continues: The Committee members, nominated by the Australian Writers' Guild, Actors Equity of Australia, Screen Producers Association of Australia, Australian Screen Directors' Association, Producers and Directors Guild of Australia, and the Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association (Directors), be drawn from a pool of 24 people (6 actors, 6 writers, 6 producers, 6 directors). The people who make up the Committee should be different each time it meets. The A.B.T. call together the Committee of 4 when needed-a quorum to be 3 members. That is an important proposal which I think the Minister should comment on by way of giving some guidance to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. This submission was essentially to the Tribunal. The rest of the submission, which I shall not read, is clearly a matter for the Tribunal. What I was hoping the Minister might comment on, seeing he is very concerned about the quality of children's television-I share that concern with him in spite of his suggestion that perhaps I do not-is a way of finding a way through and gaining more objectivity. If it is left to the Tribunal, people will be appointed who are qualified in many areas but who are not necessarily in touch with the consumers of children's programs who are, after all, children. It strikes me that the suggestion by the Film Industry Standing Committee is at least worth considering seriously, not just by the Tribunal but also by the Minister, who should recommend it. The proposal concerns a rotating system and different viewpoints which will be, to use the Minister's word, innovative. We can get some creativity, creating exciting new ways of looking at the world through the eyes of children for children to enjoy. It strikes me that there is a lot of merit in the proposal or some variation of it. If the Minister were prepared to comment-I have given him some notice that I intended to raise the subject-it might be of some guidance to the Tribunal when it responds to the submission from this body. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.45) —The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) has again raised the question of allowing approval for a children's program to be based on the script for a program rather than on the completed program itself. As indicated earlier tonight, he has raised this matter with me and I do not propose to comment in detail again, having already done so earlier tonight. I merely confirm what I said then, that I wish to put on record what the intention of the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill is. It may appear that the matter that the honourable member raised earlier-he indicated to me that he would raise it-was of some surprise to me, but I am well aware of the difficulties because I have had a look at some of the contracts of people involved in the production of television programs for children. There is no question that the provisional C classification creates enormous problems for people investing. That is not a view held only by the industry; it is a view shared by people who are not like us here tonight but who have dedicated a great deal of their lives to children's television. So there is no disputing the need for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to look very closely at how it uses this tool of being able to pre-classify. It is clearly a matter of great importance. I close by repeating that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal intends to examine the desirability of making a standard which allows approval for children's television programs to be based on the script for the program rather than the completed program itself, on the basis of the submission which the honourable member referred to and which I have seen previously though not in its completed form. I am not prepared to say tonight, as I would not prepared under any circumstances to indicate to the Tribunal, what the Tribunal ought to do. I am saying that as far as I am concerned it has been clearly established that there is a need for classification at that script stage rather than the provisional C classification. On the basis of the submissions made from a wide section of people, not just those at television stations, producers and writers but people closely associated with children's television and genuinely concerned about it, I really do not think that in the future it will be a matter of great contention. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(11.48) —The subject being debated is most important to all of us who have children or who have at some stage or other had them go through the household. It is interesting to note the time that we spend watching television. By the time we reach the age of 65 years-some honourable members opposite are just about there-we will have watched television for a total of nine years. If we have children at school, they will have watched television for approximately 20,000 hours by the time they leave high school. That gives us some idea of the tremendous part this medium now plays in our daily lives. I point out to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) that the amendment is for self-regulation and not deregulation. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mildren) —Order! There is no amendment before the Committee. Mr Duffy —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman: There is no one I would want to interrupt less than the honourable member for Maranoa but the fact is that there is no amendment before us at the moment. The amendment he is referring to was voted on some time ago. Mr IAN CAMERON —I am sorry about that. The hour is getting late and perhaps I am a bit sleepy. Mr Slipper —Like the Government. Mr IAN CAMERON —That is something I am not. In the debate on the amendment to which I referred, the Minister for Communications was talking about deregulation. It is self-regulation of the industry for which we have been calling tonight. I think it is important to understand that all the industries over which we have control, such as the oil industry, the aviation industry and the communications industry, are totally over-regulated. Hopefully, we are on the track of freeing up some of that regulation. I should like to take just a few more minutes to ask the Minister whether he can deregulate the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in granting licences, in particular for Channel 10 in Toowoomba. With the advent of the satellite, bush children will now be able to view many of the programs that will be signalled from capital cities around Australia. I think it is important for the Minister to understand that those of us who live in inland Australia wish to receive signals. The Department of Communications ought to set up a task force to talk to shire councils and interested groups to see whether they can be helped in establishing some of the receiving equipment that will be necessary to receive signals. We are finding that the pickup on the satellite is slow, so many children in inland Australia are not going to get television quite as soon as we had hoped. I think there is a great need for education in this area. People need to be informed of exactly what is available to them. They are not really sure at this stage. The other thing I wish to mention concerns Channel 10. Goondiwindi and Miles have both been taken off the free list for commercial television receiving. I see a big smile on the Minister's face. I will not let him get away with this one too easily. He has his officers over there. I expect them to see that the application from Channel 10 gets swift passage through the Minister's Department, the tribunals and all the other bureaucratic setups that exist under his Ministry. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will remain relevant to the Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. In parts of my electorate, Goondiwindi and Miles, problems are being experienced. I live on the fringe and my children, who are aged from five to 15, are unable to watch television other than to see a slight blur and a blob that comes on occasionally. I put it to the Minister that, if he is prepared to get his Department into action and get Channel 10's application for a licence quickly through his Department, we will be able to see a decent, clear commercial children's signal for the first time. No doubt we will be joyful about that. I believe we must congratulate Aussat Pty Ltd on the conversion of the satellite.... The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mildren) —Order! Mr IAN CAMERON —But, Mr Deputy Chairman, for the first time.... The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! If the honourable member wishes to continue he will listen to the Chair, he will take note of the Chair, he will not talk back to the Chair, and he will remain relevant. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Chairman, I am finishing. I just want to congratulate Aussat. For the first time, probably 20,000 or 30,000 children in inland Australia will be able to receive a television signal through the Aussat network. I believe that Mount Molloy was the first station in North Queensland to change over to the new system, which is now in operation but which will officially come into operation on Australia Day. I believe that we should take this opportunity of congratulating Aussat for the good job it is doing. We look forward to seeing that signal for both adult programs and children's programs. Not only do the children's programs need a bit of censoring, but also many of the adult programs. Mr PORTER(Barker)(11.54) —I think it is regrettable that, due to the incompetence and the chaotic state of the Government's program, we are debating this legislation at what is now close to midnight. Mr Hollis —And it is not even being broadcast. Mr PORTER —It is not even being broadcast-the honourable member is quite right-and we have another piece of legislation to come. Nevertheless, this debate on the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill provides an ideal opportunity to raise a matter of concern to the pharmaceutical industry regarding the time taken by the Department of Health to issue approvals for advertisements for medicines under section 100 of the Broadcasting and Television Act. Honourable members will be well aware of the enormous cost of research and development involved in bringing to the market a new medicine and I refer both to proprietary and prescription medicines. Before such a product can be marketed in Australia it has to be approved by one or a number of the following committees: The Australian Drug Evaluation Committee, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, the poison scheduling committees in each State, the National Health and Medical Research Council Committee and the various State Department of Health committees which operate under Acts such as the therapeutic goods and cosmetics Acts in New South Wales. In addition to the plethora of State rules and regulations and Commonwealth rules and regulations, there are also voluntary codes to be adhered to. Once approved for marketing, those non-prescription drugs which are approved for sale over the counter, without special advertising restrictions, may be advertised. Before such advertisements can go to air, however, they must be submitted for approval by the Commonwealth censor in the Department of Health. Section 100 (6) of the Broadcasting and Television Act requires: A licensee shall not broadcast or televise an advertisement relating to a medicine unless the text of the proposed advertisement has been approved by the Director-General of Health or, on appeal to the Minister under this section, by the Minister. The provision does not provide the basis upon which the Secretary of the Department is to give or withhold his approval. In fact, the Act leaves the decision to the absolute discretion of the Secretary, or his or her nominee. However, it is clear that it is not intended that the role of the Secretary's nominee is again to consider the suitability of the product for marketing or for use in Australia. That has already been done by the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee or the other committees to which I have already referred. The role of the Health Department censor should be to check the veracity of the claims made for the product and the suitability of the advertisement itself. It is the advertisement, not the product, which is subject to review under this Act. Unfortunately, the current nominee of the Secretary of the Department of Health has taken upon herself a very wide discretion. As a result, and as the Broadcasting and Television Act does not specify a limitation on the period that can be taken for the review, manufacturers and licensees have found that they may be disadvantaged if the review drags on for months. A delay of three or four months, which manufacturers inform me occurs not infrequently, can mean a product misses a prime marketing period. For example, a cough mixture submitted for approval in February, if delayed for four months, would miss much of the winter cold and flu season. In light of the potential for undue hardship as a result of the unnecessary bureacratic delay, I move the following amendment: Clause 9, page 5, after paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: ``(aa) by adding at the end of sub-section (6)`, provided that, where a period of 60 days has elapsed from the date of the lodgment of the text of the proposed advertisement and the Director-General of Health or his delegate has not notified his approval or disapproval, the licensee may broadcast or televise the advertisement in the terms of the text as lodged with the Director-General or his delegate'; and''. Sixty days provides a generous time frame which will not impose undue hardship on the Department while, at the same time, it provides some relief to manufacturers and licensees from the burden of excessive delay. The Opposition sees the 60 days as an absolute maximum. A maximum turnaround of around 10 working days would be consistent with the efficient administration of this provision. The time limit makes it possible for manufacturers to time their applications in anticipation of optimal timing for the release of commercials. Also, providing for automatic-that is, de facto-approval at the end of 60 days, administrative complications are avoided. I should also point out that in addition to the requirements of the present Act which, of course, are compulsory, a therapeutic advertising code has been drawn up and formulated jointly by manufacturers, the Commonwealth Department of Health and the Media Council of Australia. This is a voluntary code. However, members of the Proprietary Association of Australia are required to observe the code, and advertisements have to be approved by the Australian Federation of Advertisers before they can go to air. The general principles of the therapeutic advertising code state that an advertisement relating to goods for therapeutic use, including analgesics and vitamins, shall not contain incorrect statements, half-truths or unverifiable claims. It shall not be designed to arouse unwarranted expectations of product effectiveness through the use of text, illustrations or sound effects, noting that individuals' words should be chosen with care, in terms of both dictionary definitions and their general use by the public. It should not mislead directly or by implication or through emphasis, comparisons, contrasts or omissions with regard to safety, usage or immediacy of relief and it should not misrepresent or be likely to mislead the consumer to unwisely rely on medicines to solve emotional or mood problems. The voluntary code then goes on to provide in considerable detail various requirements for information to be provided as well as prohibitions relating to a wide range of concerns. For example, an advertisement relating to goods for therapeutic use shall not contain any matter that it is effective for the prevention, relief or cure of a disorder which should be under the care of a registered medical or dental practitioner. In addition to the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act and the voluntary therapeutic advertising code, therapeutic products are also subject to the consumer protection provision of the Trade Practices Act. Also, consumer complaints about advertisements can be referred to the Advertising Standards Council. I think it is fair to say that there is no shortage of review procedures. It would seem, therefore, appropriate to alleviate any undue hardship which the present Act might impose on manufacturers and licensees relating to bureaucratic hold-ups. Sixty days should be seen to be the absolute maximum that the Department should take to review any advertisement under this section or, indeed, for advertisements subject to review by the Department under other regulations. In fact, 10 days is referred to as being a reasonable period for approval. We will be reviewing the experience under this provision if it passes this House and the Senate; and if it is not satisfactory, we will be looking to shorten the period further. Finally, let me add that as part of my policy review of the health portfolio, I am investigating ways of reducing bureaucratic regulation not only in relation to pharmaceutical products but also in relation to the sale of such products, including the provisions of products under the pharameceutical benefits scheme and the method of payment of pharmacists. I am not convinced that Pharmpay is the most efficient way of handling the remuneration of chemists under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, and I shall be closely looking at the alternative options. Wednesday, 20 November 1985 Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(12.04 a.m.) —The Government rejects the amendment. It is quite unnecessary, quite frivolous and totally unsubstantiated. That does not prevent the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) from making allegations against civil servants of considerable repute. In the last 10 minutes we have had a mixture of ignorance and misinformation. But, as I say, despite that, he is quite prepared to attack public servants for their performance of their particular duties. The amendment is quite unsubstantiated. The honourable member talked about the pharmaceutical industry. We have never had a single complaint from a pharmaceutical manufacturer about delays in the approval of advertisements. Not one single example was advanced in his quite specious case. We certainly are not going to add complicated amendments to Government Acts on that kind of unsubstantiated argument. Let me deal with some of the problems of ignorance that beset the whole approach to this question by the honourable member for Barker which, of course, I must say is fairly typical of his whole approach to health matters. First of all, we are not involved in censorship. There is nothing to prevent any of these companies or organisations advertising. What we are saying is that there has to be some public protection. What we are talking about is not censorship but a prohibition of any unjustified or unsubstantiated therapeutic claims. That is quite a different thing from censorship. Of course, that did not prevent our friend from Barker making remarks about health censors, et cetera. Let me just explain the situation because, again, the honourable member confused the Committee about his understanding of it. Section 100 (6) of the Broadcasting and Television Act says in effect that a licensee may not broadcast an advertisement relating to a medicine unless its text has been approved by the Secretary of the Department of Health or his delegate. But it is important to recognise that although the honourable member noted the existence of a voluntary code, he did not notice that the voluntary code runs parallel with this provision and in fact provides the guidelines under which this section operates. That is, all the guidelines which we have agreed with the advertising industry to use are written in the voluntary code. All that section 100 (6) does is in fact is to give a legal sanction to that voluntary code. But the principles and guidelines that operate are in the voluntary code itself. The publication that the Australian advertising industry puts out in relation to self-regulation and in relation to this code notes that 10 working days are required for approval of an advertisement. I would like to point out that the Department complies with that undertaking to advertisers in more than 90 per cent of cases. Occasionally that 10-day rule would be exceeded. This would happen in circumstances such as over the Christmas period or in some isolated instances. Some of those instances arise from the fact that the Department does not endeavour to act in a dictatorial way. However, if there is a problem with an advertisement it enters into negotiation with the company concerned. As I said, some 90 per cent of cases are dealt with within 10 days. During the year I had a complaint, not from a pharmaceutical manufacturer, about the working of the system. I had my private secretary check immediately with the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters so that we could get some effective evidence. My private secretary spoke to an employee of the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters who said the voluntary therapeutic advertising code worked well, and that the Health Department staff who administered it were very helpful. So much for the criticisms that were made of the official concerned. When I heard today that this amendment was to be proposed I had my private secretary speak to the Deputy Director of the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters, Mr Rushton. My private secretary told him that the issue would be raised in the Parliament today. Mr Rushton confirmed the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters view and, when told the nature of the Opposition's amendment, said: Claims about delays are very ill-founded as far as radio is concerned. Mr Smith —Did you tell him that you were going to quote him? Dr BLEWETT —I am quite sure he is perfectly happy to be quoted because he believed that the kind of remarks that have been made tonight are completely unfounded and are a slur on the work of an excellent officer in the Department. I think that unless the claims can be effectively substantiated there is no case whatsoever. Those claims have not been substantiated. Indeed, the evidence from the broadcasters themselves is that this aspect of the Health Department is working very well and that there are no undue delays in relation to advertising. On those grounds, the Government clearly rejects the amendment. Mr PORTER(Barker)(12.10 a.m.) —What a remarkable contribution that was from the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett)! The Minister said that he had not received any complaints from pharmaceutical manufacturers in this country about the operation of the section. I wonder whether the Minister has ever thought about why he has not received any complaints. Let me tell him that I have received plenty of complaints. I also checked with the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association and the Proprietary Association of Australia and they are very much in favour of the amendment. Of course, the reason the Minister has not received complaints and the reason manufacturers are very hesitant about raising complaints with him or his Department is that-- Mr Steele Hall —They are gutless. Mr PORTER —No, not because they are gutless. The reason is that they know that when they next put an application forward for approval it will go to the bottom of the pile. Six and nine month delays, I think, are totally unreasonable. I am not suggesting any malpractice on the part of the public servant involved. She may well be acting on the Minister's direction. Let me make the second point very clear. If the Minister is right in saying that 90 per cent of the applications are approved in 10 days-and I am asking for a maximum of 60 days-why will not the Minister agree? The Minister is saying that the applications are being approved within the terms of my amendment, yet he will not agree to the amendment. I suggest putting on a 60-day maximum and the Minister suddenly says: `Oh, no, that is terrible'. Is that because we have proposed the amendment? Is the Minister so small-minded that he cannot accept an amendment from the Opposition? The amendment has not been moved as a partisan ploy. I discussed it with the Minister; I gave him the amendment this morning. There is no trick in the amendment. All we are trying to do is to ensure that bureaucracy does not run rife in this area. The Minister in fact undermined his own case. He said that his Department was supposedly applying the voluntary code. If it is applying the voluntary code, why not leave it to the industry to apply the voluntary code? The Advertising Federation of Australia Ltd, I understand, abides by the code, and even has to approve it after it has been through the Minister's Department. The Minister had two major arguments. Firstly, he said that he has not had any complaints. I know very well why he has not had any complaints-the advertisers are terrified to complain because they know that they will be severely disadvantaged if they complain. Secondly, the Minister supported the amendment when he said that 90 per cent of the cases are approved within 10 days. If that is the case, what does the Department have to be afraid of? What does the Minister have to be afraid of by applying a 60-day maximum, if the majority of cases are approved within 10 days? It appears to me that he has nothing to be afraid of. Why on earth is he opposing the amendment? Question put: That the amendment (Mr Porter's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. M. Ruddock) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hodgman, W. M.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron Ewen Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Child, J. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCross, M. D. Maher, M. J.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Martin, S. P.Darling, E. E. Mayer, H.Dawkins, J. S. Mildren, J. B.Dubois, S. G. Milton, P.Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G.Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P.Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Humphreys, B. C.Coleman, W. P. Price, L. R. S.Everingham, P. A. E. Bilney, G. N.Hunt, R. J. D. Punch, G. F. Question so resolved in the negative. Clauses agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Amendment (by Mr Macphee) proposed: Clause 12, page 5, lines 33 and 34, omit ``the program standards were not complied with or''. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(12.24 a.m.) —I wish to speak briefly on this matter. The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) has spoken to the amendment in his speech in the second reading debate. I am surprised that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to whom I referred, perhaps loosely, as a tyrant earlier in the debate by way of interjection-I amend that to at least a benevolent one-would have considered writing this clause into the proposed legislation. I remind honourable members that this clause vests in the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal the power to prohibit a person from presenting programs in live broadcasts or passing or selecting programs for broadcasting, or to impose restrictions on the presenting by a person of programs in live broadcasts or the passing or selecting by a person of programs for broadcasting. It therefore allows the Tribunal to take action against persons, to take them off air in a live capacity indefinitely and in some instances to allow them to continue broadcasting if they prerecord their programs. To vest such power in the Tribunal to remove a person, perhaps for life, because the period is indefinitely.... Mr Charles —In whom should it be vested? Mr PEACOCK —If the honourable member listens to me on this matter, puts his mind to it and recognises that we are dealing with legislation-not producing a program, which was his previous occupation-that we are enshrining in law a power to be vested in the Tribunal to make it an offence not only against the Act but also against standards which have not yet been determined by the Tribunal, the honourable member will recognise the concern I have. When the honourable member realises that the power is to be vested in the Tribunal to take people off air indefinitely, or for a period that the Tribunal determines, after a direction has been served on them requiring them to prove their innocence and that the onus of proof is to be placed on the persons so served, he will recognise the concern we have. In measured terms the honourable member for Goldstein moved the amendment, which in effect says: `Look, if there is in fact a breach of the Act, we are prepared to give the Tribunal the power, but if it is a breach of standards, we are not prepared to give it that power. We do not believe that it is the role of the Tribunal to reach beyond the licensee and penalise and employee, but that self-regulation ought to apply and management should take action'. I am wary, particularly when taken in conjunction with, say, section 101 of the Broadcasting and Television Act, which we are not seeking to amend- Mr Duffy —I am glad you are not seeking to amend it, because we are repealing it. Mr PEACOCK —The Government is repealing it. When one reads section 101 and proposed section 119 together, I am concerned. I am pleased that the honourable member for Goldstein moved that amendment. Succinctly put, it places the Tribunal-if the amendment is accepted-with the capacity, which concerns me somewhat, to take action if there is a breach of the Act, but not to take action in regard to standards. The concern I have is that not only is the Tribunal given widespread power, but also that there is a reversal of the onus of proof. By a direction which can be given by this Tribunal a person has to plead his or her innocence. In terms of the practical operation of programs, the right of occupation of individuals and the reversal of the onus of proof, which to me indicates grave inequity, I strongly support the amendment. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(12.29 a.m.) —The comments of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), and many of the other speakers in the second reading debate and the debate in the Committee on this Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), I would have to conclude are the greatest lot of balderdash I have ever heard. I am amazed at the forthcomings from the people opposite. I refer to several things that have been said tonight by members of the Opposition, firstly by the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie). The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) all raised the issue of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The honourable member for Cook spoke at length about the Corporation. I am not decrying what they said-in fact, the honourable member for Cook raised a very important point that I think we all would probably agree with-but these honourable members, especially the honourable member for Cook, were not talking about this legislation or about this section which we are now debating; they were talking about something entirely different. The honourable member for Cook was suggesting that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation should be under the control of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. He compared the standards in the commercial areas with what the ABC did or did not do. He suggested that the ABC was allowed to get away with murder. That may be true. He was arguing for the ABC to be brought under the control of the Tribunal. I have great sympathy with that. I think everyone who operates in the broadcasting and television area, whether a privately owned company or a statutory authority such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or the Special Broadcasting Service, should in fact be under control of the one body. That is a separate argument and it is not applicable to this legislation. The honourable member for Cook and other honourable members talked about how the commercial networks abide by the standards. That is what the standards are all about. I am glad that they do abide by them. The standards that the honourable member for Kooyong said are not determined are laid down by the Tribunal. The amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) to take the standards out of the clause before us would mean that one could only contravene the Act and that the standards would not apply. I am glad to hear that the honourable member for Denison does not believe that someone should show cause to the Tribunal for being blasphemous, indecent, obscene, encouraging or condoning crime, acting vulgarly or in a suggestive fashion or attacking any religious faith. That is what the standards are. Mr Macphee —Put it in the Act. Mr CHARLES —The honourable member is saying that we ought to put it in the Act. Mr Hodgman —You are misrepresenting me. Mr CHARLES —No, I am not misrepresenting the honourable member. That is what the amendment says. Opposition members are taking the standards out of this clause. That is what the honourable member for Denison said. He also said this was a much broader power. In fact, it is the opposite. He said that he had read the legislation before the House, but has he read the Act? The present Act states: . . . the tribunal has reason to believe that a person which has caused or may have caused offence to a section of the public. That is the Act as it now stands. The Tribunal has wide ranging powers. In other words, one small section of the community-this has occurred-can take a broadcaster to the Tribunal for anything right at this minute. That is what this measure is changing. In fact, it brings more consistency and predictability into the regulation of programs. It is much narrower and quite the opposite to what the honourable member for Denison said earlier this evening. I am absolutely amazed that those opposite, supposedly the Right on the political spectrum, should say that individuals-John Laws, Derryn Hinch or anyone else; it does not really matter which individual-are above the law and can say or do what they like. I could go on air and be blasphemous. I would have no accountability at all. Opposition members are saying that we should put all the responsibility on the management. That is what the honourable member for Kooyong said. What absolute nonsense. Among the most important and precious things we have in our society are the airwaves, the communications system, and Opposition members are saying: `Let the management run the whole thing. Let it decide the standards'. What absolute balderdash, to put it bluntly. In fact, the presenters whose names have been mentioned here this evening, I believe, are better off under this legislation than they are under the present law. Under the present Act the presenters have no recourse if the Tribunal decides that they are out, only one appeal. Under this provision there are about four different ways. Firstly, they have to have breached the law. Secondly, they have the show cause requirement. Thirdly, if they are found guilty, they can still appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. There are several avenues for them to appeal. It may take months before somebody is put off the air under the legislation that is being introduced this evening. The Act, as it exists now, is much wider. In fact, if I were a broadcaster, I would not see any problems with it whatsoever. In fact, if I were a presenter, I would think it is better. I would think it is much easier for me to live with and I would have no problems with it whatsoever. If any presenter argues that his program is going to be damaged by it, he must have some devious things in mind to present on his programs. It is outrageous that some people in our society are actually saying they can say or do whatever they want on airwaves around Australia and get away with it. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) nods his head saying: `Yes, that is what they are saying'. What absolute nonsense all this is. The standard provisions that are in the legislation before us tonight are better than the ones in the Act. They are easier to live with and I have no problem with them. Any presenter, whether it be in radio or television, should not have any trouble with them. As I said earlier, the standards are there for everyone to see and they should be abided by. There is no reason at all why the amendment should be agreed to because it does the exact opposite to what I think people out there in the general public would want to occur. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(12.28 a.m.) —I think that the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) covered the matters that needed to be covered. The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) spoke on this matter, not in Committee, and raised some matters that he genuinely wanted addressed. He was then joined by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) and both honourable members, I hope in a good natured way, referred to me as a tyrant in relation to this legislation. Therefore, I think I should explain what the legislation is about. One thing I want to draw to the attention of both the honourable member for Goldstein and the honourable member for Kooyong is the present legislation. I refer to section 101 which we are repealing. The honourable member for Kooyong, who has an extensive knowledge of the matter, indicated that he was not seeking to amend it. I am pleased that he is not because it is being repealed by this legislation. It was inserted by his Government and amended by it later. What it in fact says is: Where the Tribunal has reason to believe that any matter (including an advertisement) which it is proposed to broadcast or televise is of an objectionable nature, that matter shall be subject to such censorship as the Tribunal determines. That is the sort of legislation the Opposition tolerated in the years when it was in government. We are repealing that. I think one has to look at section 119 as it is. It reads: (1) Where- (a) a person is convicted of an offence against section 118- That is the blasphemous, indecent or obscene section. The alternative is: (b) the Tribunal has reason to believe that a person- (i) has rendered for broadcasting or televising an item; or (ii) has passed or selected for broadcasting or televising an item (being an item broadcast or televised from a broadcasting station or a television station, as the case may be), which has caused or may have caused offence to a section of the public, the Tribunal may call upon that person to show cause why an order should not be made prohibiting him from rendering an item, or from passing or selecting an item, for broadcasting or televising, or placing restrictions on his rendering items, or passing or selecting items, for broadcasting or televising. That is the sort of legislation that the honourable member for Kooyong presided over. Section 119, as presently drafted, clearly provides that, where a person is convicted under section 118, that action is taken against such a person. One objection which has been raised by the broadcasting industry and which was obviously put to the honourable member for Goldstein is that there was concern that the existence of the power is in some way intimidatory. In response to that I say that the power to suspend the licences of broadcasters has been applied very rarely. There is no reason why this situation will change. The proposed new section provides adequate safeguards against any arbitrary or capricious use of the powers of the ABT. I make it very plain that review of an ABT decision under this section is possible at four levels. First, an actual breach must have been perpetrated; and this is reviewable as a matter of law. Secondly, the section has a `show cause' requirement. Thirdly, people invited to show cause have the protection of the uniform inquiry procedures which we-not the Opposition-introduced. Fourthly, the ABT's decisions are reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal pursuant to section 119A of the Act. With all of these constraints upon the ABT, it can clearly not make intimidatory or arbitrary use of this section. It is just a nonsense to suggest that it can. If a particular direction were to be unreasonably onerous, a person could always have recourse to the AAT under section 119A. Further, this Government has decided that the Administrative Review Council should report again upon the exercise of the ABT's substantive powers after the uniform inquiry procedures have been implemented. This will concentrate upon the effectiveness of the review. It is expected that the use of section 119 will form part of that review. The appropriateness of the proposed new section will be looked at again then should it become necessary. Mr Peacock —Why do you hate Derryn Hinch? Mr DUFFY —The honourable member for Kooyong has not put his interjection seriously. I could go back to some of the amendments Opposition members moved earlier tonight and ask why they hate kids. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Goldstein would mean that action under section 119 could be based only on a breach of the Act and not a breach of the program standards. The honourable member for Isaacs dealt with that. The standards are laid out. The Tribunal's standards contain important restrictions. The Opposition's amendment would limit section 119 so that effective action could be taken only to prevent a person from further broadcasting the following sorts of material. The standards were outlined by the honourable member for Isaacs. I will not go through them again. Examples are techniques of crime, or condonation of crime, and discrediting the law or the process of law enforcement. The other standard mentioned was the simulation of brutality displayed in detail. They are the sorts of things we are talking about. They are important restrictions serving a clear public interest. I accept that the standards contain a wide range of other restrictions, many of them far less important that those listed by the honourable member for Isaacs and those I have just run through. But the Tribunal will temper its actions under section 119 to suit the circumstances of each breach. What is important, however, is that the remedy is available in the cases where it is justified. It should be remembered that the provisions in clause 12 in part balance the discrimination of breaches of standards. I remind honourable members opposite again that this legislation which has been criticised in this sense does away with the things that they were not prepared to do away with, such as the criminal aspect and what was nothing more than a censorship provision in section 101. For those reasons, the Government rejects the amendment moved by the honourable member for Goldstein. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.45 a.m.) —I wish to take only one minute to reply to the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles). He totally misrepresented me. I did not contend, as he claimed, that the amendment was open slather for blasphemy, indecency and the like and I do not take kindly to a former director of The Box making such imputations. I might just say in passing that he was better on The Box than he is on the brain. The honourable member totally missed the point that I was making. I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) and supported by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). We could argue for a long time tonight but we will not; I simply say to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) that when the people of Australia and the industry see what the Government has done with section 119 and section 101 of the Broadcasting and Television Act they will believe that it is 1984 and not 1985; they will believe that the Minister's name is not Michael Duffy but George Orwell. It is as serious as that, and I think that this legislation does the Government no credit. It is a tyrannical piece of legislation. For this all to be done to keep Derryn Hinch quiet is over the odds. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(12.46 a.m.) —I think that I should put in a word for Haydn Sargent in Brisbane because in the amendments to the Bill the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has assumed powers which never existed to this extent. Last week we went through the charade of what the Government called its human rights Bill- Mr Charles —That is not true. Mr DONALD CAMERON —It was a charade; don't antagonise me because I want to speak for only half a minute. This week the Government, through the Minister, is giving its henchman the powers of a tyrant. The Minister has been described by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) as a tyrant. Such powers go absolutely beyond the pale. I would ask the Minister, who read out the explanation in response to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Goldstein, to move to adjourn the House immediately because obviously he is tired. He did not understand what he was reading. We could come back tomorrow morning and he would be able to face the amendment fresh and realise that what is being proposed by this side of the chamber is with virtue and a lot of sense. What the Government proposes for Haydn Sargent up in Brisbane is absolutely beyond the pale, unfair and unjustified. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(12.47 a.m.) —In my five years in this Parliament I have never heard more drivel emanate from the Opposition than has been the case during this debate. It has been complete nonsense. That is why, for all the reasons that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has put forward, we oppose the amendment moved by the Opposition. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Macphee's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCross, M. D. Maher, M. J.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Martin, S. P.Darling, E. E. Mayer, H.Dawkins, J. S. Mildren, J. B.Dubois, S. G. Milton, P.Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G.Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P.Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Aldred, K. J. Humphreys, B. C.Coleman, W. P. Price, L. R. S.Everingham, P. A. E. Bilney, G. N.Hunt, R. J. D. Punch, G. F. Question so resolved in the negative. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy)-by leave-read a third time. House adjourned at 12.58 a.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 19 November 1985: Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the date on which the following Act shall come into operation-Insurance Contracts Act 1984-1 January 1986. Public Service Act-Determinations-1985-Nos. 89, 91. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 578) Mr Cadman asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) How many officers in the Minister's Department, or in statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, are provided with credit cards. (2) Which companies are used to provide these cards (e.g. American Express, Diners Club). (3) Who pays the membership and service fees. (4) At what level is an officer entitled to credit cards. (5) What limits are placed on the usage of the cards. Mr Young —The National Crime Authority has advised that, in relation to the answer previously provided to part 1 of this question (Hansard, 31 May 1985, pages 3323-3324), the number of officers issued with credit cards in that organisation was not Nil but was one. The amended answer to (1) above is as follows: (1) Department of the Special Minister of State-12. Australian Federal Police-9. Australian Electoral Commission-25 permanently-4 other cards are issued to officers as required. National Crime Authority-1. Commonwealth Grants Commission-2. Remuneration Tribunal-2. (Question No. 1337) Mr Hawker asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: (1) How many staff employed by his Department are primarily involved in detecting overpayment and fraud of social security benefits. (2) What sum has the activities of these staff saved his Department. (3) What is the estimated cost to his Department of overpayments and fraud. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As at 30 June, 279 staff in the various State Headquarters were primarily involved in the detection of social security overpayments and fraud, including prosecutions and work relating to fraudulently negotiated cheques. Detection of overpayment of social security benefits also forms part of the daily tasks of some staff in the Department's Regional Offices. However, it is not the primary part of their work and staff are not especially allocated to the work. (2) Information as to savings produced by staff primarily involved in the detection of overpayments and fraud is not available. (3) During the year ended 30 June 1985 overpayments (including fraudulent payments) amounting to $60.1m were established. This amount represented 0.42 per cent of the total amount paid out that year on pensions, benefits and allowances. During the same period the amount outstanding was reduced by $40.6m. (Question No. 1366) Mr N. A. Brown asked the Attorney- General, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: When were (a) the applications for legal aid made to the Sydney Branch of the Australian Legal Aid Office by Mr A. Smyth and Mr O. Keasberry received, (b) determinations made in respect of the applications and (c) the determinations communicated to the applicants and their solicitors. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The information sought cannot be supplied in this case without disclosing details of the personal dealings of the persons connected with the Australian Legal Aid Office. Since the Australian Legal Aid Office was established it has been a major concern of successive Attorneys-General that persons who have applied for assistance from, or to whom assistance is provided by, the Office should have the same privileges arising from the relationship between solicitor and client as they would have if dealing with private solicitors. In these circumstances it would be improper for me to provide a detailed answer in the Parliament. Accordingly, I have written to Mr Brown in connection with the matters raised by him in the question. (Question No. 1367) Mr N. A. Brown asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: (1) How many (a) applications for legal aid have been received and (b) grants made, by the Australian Legal Aid Office in Sydney in each year since its establishment. (2) How many grants of legal aid have been made with respect to (a) family law matters, (b) criminal matters, (c) claims for personal injuries and (d) defence of debt recovery actions, in each year. (3) What was the average delay between the receipt and the making of a determination on applications each year. (4) What were the Office's staffing levels each year. (5) What procedures does the Office have for hand- ling urgent applications for legal aid. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Due, in part, to the paucity of meaningful statistics that can be used to examine the operations of the major legal aid bodies, the Commonwealth and the independent State legal aid commissions are in the process of establishing the Computerised Legal Aid Services System which, for example, will enable detailed information as to the types of matters being handled, and the cost of different delivery methods, to be provided once the system is in operation. However, the information requested in certain parts of the question is not available at the present time and I do not intend to direct the diversion of the Office's resources from normal tasks associated with the provision of legal aid services to the research and compilation of data for the relevant period unless I can be convinced that there are compelling reasons to do so. (1) and (2) The following information is available in respect of the operations of the Sydney Office of the ALAO, located in Phillip Street, Sydney, as requested. It does not include the regional offices of the ALAO in New South Wales. Applica- tion received (a) Grants of Aid Grants of Aid in Family Law Matters (b) Grants of Aid in Criminal Law Matters (c) 1974-75... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1975-76... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1976-77... 7,231 6,163 5,008 n.a. 1977-78... 6,872 4,918 3,742 n.a. 1978-79... 6,472 4,635 3,063 n.a. 1979-80... 4,500 4,060 3,018 n.a. 1980-81... 6,072 4,853 3,594 n.a. 1981-82... 8,014 5,401 3,765 33 1982-83... 12,387 7,451 4,231 115 1983-84... 12,240 7,060 4,065 146 1984-85... 9,937 5,171 3,071 101 Notes: (a) Since 1 July 1982, requests for extensions of a grant of aid have been recorded as separate new applications for aid. Prior to that date, a request for extension of aid was regarded as forming part of the original application. (b) The relevant available statistical information distinguishes, for the most part, only between applications for legal aid arising in family law and general law matters. The latter broad category includes civil and criminal matters such as those described in parts (b), (c) and (d) of question (2). (c) The number of matters shown as grants in criminal law matters relates only to those applications involving State laws. Figures relating to grants of aid in Commonwealth criminal law matters have not been separately recorded (see note (b) above). (3) There is no information available as to the average delay between the receipt and the making of a determination on applications in respect of each year since the Sydney Office was established. However, I understand that at the present time, unless an application for aid is seen clearly to be urgent (see answer to question (5) below), the time taken to determine an application for aid from its receipt until a letter notifying the decision is dispatched is, on average, 10-12 working days. (4) Information as to the staffing levels of the Sydney Office, in Phillip Street, is readily available for the period since 1980 only. The establishment level and also the average staffing level for each year ending at 30 June are as follows: Establish- ment Average 1980... 60 . . 1981... 63 . . 1982... 65 64 (1) 1983... 68 66 (1) 1984... 76 78 (4) 1985... 98 90 (8) Prior to those dates, available records show only the total staffing level of the Office in New South Wales (i.e. Sydney Office plus regionals). The number shown in brackets after the average staffing level represents the number of officers seconded from the NSW Branch in connection with the Commission of Inquiry into Compensation Arising from the Social Security Prosecutions. (5) Where an application for aid is made to the Office that is seen clearly to be urgent, for instance it may have been hand-delivered or preceded by a telephone enquiry, it will be immediately directed to the relevant section for consideration by a senior officer. The usual practice is for the applicant or his or her solicitor to be informed of the decision by telephone before formal notification of the decision is made in writing. The Office will also consider applications for aid in urgent cases that are made by telephone. The NSW ALAO Office instructions stipulate that: If time permits, the solicitor making such a request should be required to submit an application in the usual manner. If it is not possible in the time available for the solicitor to obtain a completed application form from the client he may be able to submit a letter containing the relevant facts. However, if the matter is of such urgency that an application form cannot be obtained and the solicitor cannot forward a letter regarding the matter, consideration can be given to the application on the facts obtained by telephone. A careful note of the relevant facts should be made when the matter is being discussed with the solicitor, including the full name and address of the client, and the solicitor should be advised to submit a proper application without delay. If the facts stated in the application confirm the information furnished by telephone the grant of aid will backdate to the date of the telephone conversation. In no circumstances can a formal grant of legal aid be made over the telephone. Special registers are maintained of grants of aid made in this way. (Question No. 1444) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What advertising campaigns and research studies have been conducted or commissioned by the Minister's Department since March 1983. (2) Did any other Government agencies advise or co-ordinate any of these campaigns or research studies. (3) If an advertising agency or market research firm was used (a) what was its name and (b) what amount was it paid. (4) What was (a) the cost and (b) in the case of advertising campaigns, the split between agency fees and actual campaign costs for each campaign or study. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Research Study-Objective Trade Descriptions for Meat (1) Development in November 1984 of a monitoring plan and risk listing proposal for objective trade descriptions for meat based on a fee-for-service. (2) No. (3) (a) Siromath Pty Ltd. (b) $10,000. (4) (a) $10,000. (b) Not applicable. Research Study-Review of Export Marketing Arrangements for the Apple and Pear Industry (1) A review of the export marketing arrangements of the Australian apple and pear industry was undertaken by a senior officer of the Department, Mr E.L. Jenkins, in 1983/84 titled ``Australian Apple &Pear Export Marketing Arrangements-A Review of Possible Measures for Change, EL Jenkins, Forestry &Horticultural Crops Division, Department of Primary Industry, Canberra, July 1984.'' (2) No Government Agencies advised or co-ordinated the report. (3) No advertising agency or market research firm was used. (4) The cost (excluding Mr Jenkins' salary) was approximately $4,300. Research Study-BAE Meat Consumption Survey (1) Household Meat Consumption Survey. (2) No advice or co-ordination was provided by any other Government agency. (3) (a) Reark Research Pty Ltd. (b) $85,969. (4) (a) Total cost excluding cost of Bureau research staff-$87,969. (b) Not applicable. Grape and Wine Industry Inquiry (1) Inquiry into the Grape &Wine Industries. (2) The Secretariat of the Inquiry comprised three officers of the Department of Primary Industry and one officer of the Industries Assistance Commission; the Department of Primary Industry, the Treasury, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the Trade Practices Commission and the Australian Wine &Brandy Corporation made submissions to the Inquiry. (3) No advertising agency or market research firm was used. (4) The cost of the Inquiry (excluding salaries of the Secretariat) was $132,888. Advertising Campaign-Income Equalisation Deposits (1) Advertising campaign on ``Income Equalisation Deposits'' for primary producers. (2) The campaign was co-ordinated by the Information Co-ordination Branch of the Department of Sport, Recreation &Tourism. (3) Not applicable. (4) (a) The cost of the campaign was $33,926 for the media and $11,688 for advertising in Post Offices. (b) Not applicable. Advertising/Publicity Campaign-Quarantine (1) Publicity to increase awareness of Australia's quarantine regulations amongst people entering Australia and to heighten the general public's awareness of interstate plant quarantine regulations. (2) Co-ordinated through the Information Co-ordination Branch of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. (3) (a) Fountain Huie Fish Pty Ltd. (b) $4442. (4) (a) $100,457. (b) $4442 paid as agency fee. (Question No. 1464) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What journals, digests, files, periodicals and the like are produced by instrumentalities within the Minister's portfolio. (2) For each publication (a) when was it established, (b) which section within the Minister's portfolio produces it, (c) how many staff are involved in its production and for what percentage of time are they involved, (d) how often is it produced, (e) by whom is it printed and what is the print run, (f) what is the circulation and to whom, or where is it circulated, (g) who has editorial control, (h) what are its stated objectives and (i) what are the printing, staff and administrative costs associated with its production. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Labour Force Programs and Services Guide. (2) (a) 1983 (originally published as ``Employment &Manpower Services'' in 1980) (b) DEIR, Policy Co-ordination Branch. (c) 3 staff at approximately 2%; 1 at 11%. (d) Annually. (e) Either by commercial printers or AGPS Printing Branch; 130,000. (f) Bulk copies to Departmental State Offices and Offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service and copies to individuals upon request. (g) DEIR, Policy Co-ordination Branch. (h) To serve as a guide to the Department's labour force programs. (i) Printing cost 1984-$16,195; staff and administrative costs approximately $5000. (1) Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Programs. (2) (a) 1981 (b) DEIR, Management Resources Branch. (c) 20 staff; 16 at 2%, 2 at 4%, 2 at 1%. (d) Annually. (e) AGPS Printing Branch; 5000. (f) (Pre-budget) restricted media, (post-budget) members and senators, internal departmental, interested individuals. (g) DEIR, Policy Co-ordination Branch. (h) To provide details on labour force programs and related budget appropriations. (i) Printing cost 1984-$3,200; staff and administrative cost approximately $5,500. (1) Occupational Outlook. (2) (a) 1984 (originally published as ``Employment Prospects by Industry and Occupation'' in 1978). (b) DEIR, Occupational Analysis Branch. (c) 20-30 staff nationwide in information gathering; 8-10 in central office co-ordination. Information gathering 100%, co-ordination 50%. (d) Annually. (e) Usually by commercial printers under contract to AGPS; 5,500. (f) Overseas posts, immigration offices, educational institutions, State and Federal departments, contributing employers, media users, interested individuals. (g) DEIR, Occupational Analysis Branch. (h) To provide ongoing occupational classification and assessment for industry, training and immigration policy. (i) Printing cost 1984-$25,000; staff and administrative costs are too complex to disaggregate. (1) Industrial Relations Courses and Subjects-Inventory. (2) (a) 1984. (b) DEIR, Trade Recognition and Industrial Relations Education Branch. (c) 2 staff; 1 at 12% and 1 at 6%. (d) Annually. (e) Usually by commercial printers under contract to AGPS; 5,000. (f) Students, intending students of industrial relations, teachers, lecturers, careers counsellors and staff development officers. (g) DEIR, Trades Recognition and Industrial Relations Education Branch. (h) To provide information on industrial relations courses and subjects taught at post secondary educational institutions in Australia. (i) Printing cost 1985-$8,000; staff and administrative costs approximately $4,500. (1) Apprenticeship Statistics (2) (a) 1970. (b) DEIR, Training Branch. (c) 2 staff, 30%. (d) Annually. (e) Either commercial printers or AGPS Printing Branch; 350. (f) Libraries, TAFE Colleges, Commonwealth/State Training Advisory Committee (COSTAC). (g) DEIR Training Branch, COSTAC. (h) To provide information about apprentices from administrative records of the State and Territory apprenticeship authorities and Commonwealth Departments and instrumentalities. (i) Printing cost 1985-$1,350; staff and administrative costs approximately $10,000. (1) Essential Features of Australian Apprenticeship Systems. (2) (a) Continuous since 1980. (b) DEIR, Training Branch. (c) 2 staff, 20%. (d) Annually. (e) Either by commercial printers or AGPS Printing Branch; 2,100. (f) Libraries, TAFE Colleges, Unions, Employer Groups, State Labour Authorities. (g) DEIR, Training Branch, COSTAC. (h) To provide information on apprenticeship systems throughout Australia e.g. conditions of apprenticeship, technical training involved, legislation and description of authorities. (i) Printing cost 1984-$7,200; staff and administrative costs approximately $5,000. (1) Facts on Women at Work in Australia. (2) (a) 1980. (b) DEIR, Women's Bureau. (c) 2 staff; 25%. (d) Annually. (e) Usually by commercial printers under contract to AGPS; 10,000. (f) CES network, Career Reference Centres, schools, universities, women's groups. (g) DEIR, Women's Bureau. (h) To disseminate statistics and information on the position of women in the workforce. (i) Printing cost 1984-$7,500; staff and administrative costs approximately $11,000. (1) Women and Work Newsletter (2) (a) 1977. (b) DEIR, Women's Bureau. (c) 1 staff; 50%. (d) Quarterly. (e) Canberra Publishing and Printing Co; 10,500 per issue. (f) CES Network, Career Reference Centres, schools, universities, women's groups. (g) DEIR, Women's Bureau. (h) To promote discussion and provide information on issues relating to women's employment. (i) Printing cost estimated at $7,500 annually; staff and administrative costs-approximately $11,000. (1) DEIR News Review (2) (a) 1984. (b) DEIR, Policy Co-ordination Branch. (c) Mainly staff contributions, too complex to disaggregate, plus 50% of a Journalist Grade A1. (d) Bi-monthly. (e) Green Apple Graphics; 8,700 per issue. (f) Distributed to staff in the Department, the news media, peak employer groups, trade unions. (g) DEIR, Policy Co-ordination Branch. (h) To keep staff and interested groups informed of policy and activity developments. (i) Print cost estimated at $8,000 annually; staff and administrative costs too complex to disaggregate. (1) Work and People (2) (a) 1975 (originally published as ``Personnel practice Bulletin'' from 1945-74). (b) DEIR, Working Environment Branch. (c) 5 staff; 10%. (d) 3 issues per annum. (e) Finepress (Sydney); 6,000 per issue. (f) Individual Subscribers. (g) DEIR, Working Environment Branch. (h) To provide up-to-date information on Australian industry and overseas trends on subjects of interest to employees, employers, industrial organisation, managers, etc. (i) Printing cost estimated at $13,860 annually; staffing and administrative costs approximately $12,000. (1) Employee Participation News (2) (a) 1983. (b) DEIR, Working Environment Branch. (c) 5 staff; 8% (d) Quarterly. (e) Pirie Printers (ACT); 13,000 per issue. (f) Employee and employer organisations interested in industrial relations. (g) DEIR, Working Environment Branch. (h) To report on developments in employee participation theory and practice and related organisational and industrial democracy issues. (i) Printing cost estimated at $8,400 annually; staff and administrative costs approximately $9,000. (1) Working Environment Series (2) (a) 1980. (b) National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC). (c) 3 staff; 8%. (d) Bi-annually. (e) Union Offset (ACT); 900 per issue. (f) Mainly sold through AGPS bookshops plus small individual subscriber list. (g) NOHSC. (h) To focus attention on the indivisable links between employer-employee relations, productivity and the safety and health of the individual worker. (i) Printing cost estimated at $11,000 annually; staffing and administrative costs approximately $7,000. (1) Employee Participation Research Report Series (2) (a) 1983. (b) DEIR, Working Environment Branch. (c) 3 staff; 8%. (d) 3 issues per annum. (e) Either by commercial printers of AGPS Printing Branch; 1,000 per issue. (f) Mainly sold through AGPS bookshops. (g) To disseminate information from research into industrial democracy and employee participation to employers, employees and trade unions. (i) Printing costs estimated at $13,000 annually; staff and administrative costs approximately $7,000. (1) Bulletin of Labour Market Research (2) (a) 1981. (b) Bureau of Labour Market Research (BLMR). (c) 1 staff; 20%. (d) Quarterly. (e) Canberra Publishing and Printing Co; 2,000 per issue. (f) Tertiary institutions, libraries, media, State governments, employer and employee groups, unions etc. (g) Director, BLMR. (h) To disseminate articles and information on labour market research. (i) Printing cost estimated at $6,800 annually; staffing and administrative costs approximately $6,000. (1) CES Statistics (2) (a) 1983. (b) DEIR, Planning and Review Branch. (c) 5 staff; 2%. (d) Quarterly. (e) Ruskin Press (Vic); 5,500 per issue. (f) MPs, Senators, State MPs, public institutions, Employer Groups, Trade Unions etc. (g) DEIR, Planning and Review Branch. (h) To provide labour market statistics. (i) Printing cost estimated at $17,600 annually, staff and administrative costs approximately $8,000. (1) Harvest Timetable (2) (a) 1983. (b) DEIR, Employer Services Branch. (c) 2 staff; 2%. (d) Annually. (e) Sands and McDougall (Vic); 40,000. (f) Job seekers via job centres. (g) DEIR, Employer Services Branch. (h) To inform job seekers of harvest schedule. (i) Printing cost estimated at $3,450 annually; staff and administrative cost approximately $1,200. (1) CES Job Guide and CES Job Guide Library (2) (a) Job Guide-New South Wales 1984, Victoria 1967, Queensland 1978, Western Australia 1977, South Australia 1971, Tasmania 1975, Northern Territory 1984, Australian Capital Territory 1984. Job Guide Library-New South Wales 1981, Victoria 1981, Queensland 1981, Western Australia 1981, South Australia 1981, Tasmania 1981, Northern Territory 1981, Australia Capital Territory 1981. (b) DEIR, Occupational Information Section. (c) 10 staff; 100%. (d) Annually. (e) Watson Ferguson (Qld); Ambassador Press (NSW); Advocate Press (Vic.); West Web (Vic.); Waverley Offset (Vic.); Brown, Prior and Anderson (Vic.). Job Guide 290, 895, Job Guide Library 3,986. (f) CES Job Guide-to CES outlets, secondary and tertiary education institutions, public libraries and selected employment/welfare organisations. CES Job Guide Library-to CES outlets and secondary schools. (g) Occupational Information Section in each State Office DEIR. (h) To provide occupational information to persons making or intending to make work related decisions. (i) Printing cost estimated at $1,050,831 annually; staff and administrative cost approximately $240,000. (1) Work Wise. (2) (a) 1980. (b) DEIR, Occupational Information Section. (c) 1 staff; 5%. (d) Annually. (e) Usually by commercial printers under contract to AGPS; 80,000. (f) State/Territory Offices, CES, Tertiary Institutions. (g) DEIR, Occupational Information Section. (h) To assist tertiary students with employment seeking information in relation to job search, applying for jobs and coping with job interviews. (i) Printing cost estimated at $26,000 annually; staff and administrative cost approximately $1,000. (1) Career Planning Pack (includes Discussion Leaders Notes, Student Booklet, Job Investigation Sheets). (2) (a) 1976. (b) DEIR, Occupational Information Section. (c) 1 staff; 10%. (d) Annually. (e) Usually printed by commercial printers under contract to AGPS; 4,780 packs. (f) State/Territory Offices, secondary schools. (g) DEIR, Occupational Information Section. (h) To help students explore factors involved in making job decisions and to foster self awareness through students participation and involvement in work related group discussions. (i) Printing cost estimated at $64,455 annually; staff and administrative cost approximately $2,000. (1) Aboriginal Employment News. (2) (a) 1978. (b) DEIR, Policy Co-ordination Branch. (c) 4 staff; 4%; 1 at 33%. (d) Quarterly. (e) Canberra Publishing and Printing Co. (ACT); 11,000 per issue. (f) Employer groups, aboriginals, CES offices, trade unions, educational institutions, interested individuals. (g) National Aboriginal Employment Development Committee (NAEDC). (h) To increase the number of aboriginal people in stable employment. (g) Printing cost estimated at $8,000 annually; staff and administrative costs approximately $14,500. (Question No. 1476) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What journals, digests, files, periodicals and the like are produced by instrumentalities within the Minister's portfolio. (2) For each publication (a) when was it established, (b) which section within the Minister's portfolio produces it, (c) how many staff are involved in its production and for what percentage of time are they involved, (d) how often is it produced, (e) by whom is it printed and what is the print run, (f) what is the circulation and to whom, or where is it circulated, (g) who has editorial control, (h) what are its stated objectives and (i) what are the printing, staff and administrative costs associated with its production. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The following publications are produced within the Department of Social Security: The Social Security Journal, Jumbunna, Social Security News. (2) (i) The Social Security Journal. (a) 1973 (b) Secretariat and Communications Branch (c) Because the Journal attracts contributions from other Commonwealth Government Departments as well as academic institutions and non-government organisations and individuals, it is not possible to calculate the percentage of time staff members are involved in its production. (d) Twice a year. (e) AGPS contractor. The print run is 10,000. (f) Approximately 10,000. It is circulated to a wide variety of organisations, individuals and community groups. (g) Assistant Secretary, Secretariat and Communications Branch. (h) To foster and stimulate informed community debate across a broad range of social welfare issues and to keep readers informed of overseas developments in this area. (i) It is not possible to disaggregate all costs associated with production. In the current year, $25,000 is budgeted for production as part of the Department's annual publishing program. (2) (ii) Jumbunna (a) 1980 (b) Secretariat and Communications Branch (c) Production requires about 30% of the time of the branch's Aboriginal Information Officer. (d) Three times a year (e) AGPS contractor. The print run is 500. (f) Approximately 500. Jumbunna is distributed to all Aboriginal staff, to State Directors and to the heads of several national Aboriginal organisations such as the Aboriginal Development Commission. (g) Director of Communications, Secretariat and Communications Branch. (h) The objectives of the newsletter are: to inform Aboriginal staff of developments in the department; to exchange information about Aboriginal staff activities; and to help foster a sense of corporate identity. (i) As Jumbunna is produced largely from in-house resources it is not possible to separate cost factors. The amount budgeted for Jumbunna under the annual publishing program in 1985-86 is $1500. 2 (iii) Social Security News (a) 1981 (b) Secretariat and Communications Branch. (c) Production requires about 50 per cent of the time of one staff member. (d) 11 times a year (e) AGPS contractor. The print run is 16,000. (f) Approximately 16,000. Social Security News is distributed to all members of staff. (g) Final editorial responsibility rests with a Deputy Secretary. (h) The major objective of the newspaper is to improve communication between staff at all levels, particularly between Central office and State and regional offices. (i) It is not possible to disaggregate all costs associated with production. In the current year, $16,000 is budgeted for production as part of the Department's annual publishing program. (Question No. 1488) Mr Blunt asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What brands of computer or ADP hardware are in use in the Minister's Department and each authority for which the Minister is responsible. (2) For each major system (a) what is its principal function, (b) when was it installed, (c) what was the hardware cost, (d) what is its anticipated life and (e) what action is being taken in relation to its replacement. (3) Is any major system shared with any other user; if so, who and for what main purpose. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (1) The main computer system was supplied by Datapoint. The Department also has a small number of IBM microcomputers, a cluster of Raytheon terminals, an Apple microcomputer, and DEC and Olivetti word processing equipment. (2) (a) Information storage and retrieval and word processing. (b) installation commenced in August 1984. (c) $1,581,998. (d) 7-10 years. (e) no replacement action. (3) No. Office of the Public Service Board (1) The Office's main computer system was supplied by Burroughs. The Office also uses equipment manufactured by IBM, Tandy, Apple, Hewlett Packard and Wicat. (2) There are two major systems: (i) Burroughs Model A3 and B25's. (a) word and data processing. (b) June 1985. (c) $1,152,285. (d) 10 years (e) nil at present. (ii) Computer Based Education System. (a) computer awareness training. (b) May 1984. (c) $100,000. (d) 10 years. (e) nil at present. (3) No. Australian Audit Office (1) IBM and Compaq microcomputers. (2) (a) Audit planning and performance monitoring, and general administrative tasks. (b) progressively installed since November 1983. (c) there are 39 microcomputers which cost $5,000-$10,000 each depending on the peripherals installed. (d) 7-10 years for each computer. (e) no action. (3) No. The Office of the Economic Planning Advisory Council (1) The Office's main computer was supplied by Data General with peripherals from Hewlett Packard, NEC, and Mannesmann Tally. Ther are also two IBM microcomputers and a cluster of Raytheon terminals. (2) (a) Electronic office support, econometric mod- elling, access to external economic and library databases. (b) progressive installation from April 1984 to June 1985. (c) $435,192. (d) 5 years. (e) no action. (3) The system is used by the Executive Projects Unit of the Department of the Special Minister of State for statistical analysis and production of charts (line, bar, file). Commonwealth Ombudsman (1) Convergent Technologies Megaframe minicomputer supplied by Sigma Data Pty Ltd and Olivetti text editors. (2) (a) Automated office information tasks and word processing. (b) installed progressively from October 1984 to June 1985. (c) $136,610. (d) 5 years. (e) no action. (3) No. Advisory Council for Inter-governmental Relations (1) Wang. (2) (a) Preparation, editing and revision of the Council's research studies, routine correspondence and library cataloguing. (b) first installed in August 1982-gradually upgraded between then and December 1984. (c) $65,000 total cost. (d) 10 years. (e) no action. (3) No. Australian Science and Technology Council (1) Wang and Exxon. (2) (a) Word processing. (b) Exxon in 1984, Wang in June 1985. (c) $56,000 for Wang; $54,000 for Exxon. (d) 1990/91 for Wang; 1988 for Exxon. (e) Wang equipment is replacing the Exxon equipment. (3) No. Office of National Assessments (1) Wang. (2) (a) Word processing. (b) installed in two stages in April 1984 and April 1985. (c) $164,000. (d) 10 years. (e) no action. (3) No. Australian Bicentennial Authority (1) Honeywell. (2) (a) To provide word processing and data processing facilities in relation to the Authority's operations. (b) installation commenced in February 1983 in the National Office-the system has since been upgraded to provide expanded facilities for National Office and most State/Territory Offices. (c) $706,120 to 24 September 1985. (d) 30 June 1990, the remaining life of the Authority. (e) no replacement action. (3) No. (Question No. 1690) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 13 September 1985: Has his attention been drawn to the decision of Mr Justice Gun in the case of Vasile-Horaich and Matina as a result of which children who were formerly regarded as Australian citizens are now classified as foreigners; if so, does he propose to take any action in response to the judgment, and what are the details. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. My attention has been drawn to the decision in Horaicu and Horaicu. That decision did not have the result that children who were formerly regarded as Australian citizens are now classified as foreigners. In the course of his judgment, Mr Justice Gun said: ``It appears from the provisions of s. 10 of the Australian Citizenship Act that the child is not an Australian Citizen.'' The child referred to was born in Australia. Section 10 of the Australian Citizenship Act provides that, subject to two exceptions, a child born in Australia is an Australian Citizen. The two exceptions concern children born in Australia to foreign diplomatic and consular officials and children born in war-time in enemy-occupied territory of parents who are enemy aliens at the date of birth. Section 10 of the Australian Citizenship Act is regarded as clearly conferring Australian citizenship on children born in Australia save in the limited exceptions mentioned above. This position is not affected by what was said by Mr Justice Gun. There is therefore no need for me to take any action in response to the judgment. (Question No. 1872) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 24 September 1985: (1) What Community Employment Programs have been funded in the South Australian district council areas of (a) Mount Barker, (b) Onkaparinga, (c) Stirling, (d) Mount Pleasant, (e) Goolwa and Point Elliott, (f) Victor Harbour, (g) Yankalilla, (h) Dudley (i) Kingscote, (j) Strathalbyn, (k) East Torrens, (l) Gumeracha, (m) Happy Valley, (n) Murray Bridge, (o) Noarlunga, and (p) Willunga. (2) What was the (a) amount funded and (b) number of people employed in each of the projects. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Available information to 23 September 1985, relates to Community Employment Program (CEP) projects approved in each of the district council areas as detailed in the following tables: CEP Total Jobs Sponsor project grant value created $ $ Mount Barker Mount Barker Institute, Inc... Renovate Institute building and toilet... 68,618 98,026 13 Synod of the Diocese of Adelaide of the Anglican C... Lighting natural springs campsite... 5,140 9,515 1 Brukunga &District Country Fire Service... Brunkunga &District CFS, construct premises... 49,885 52,685 12 Mount Barker South Family House... Mt Barker South Neighbourhood House construction... 78,173 115,673 14 Mount Barker Country Fire Service... CFS extensions, Mt Barker... 75,296 99,339 13 Ngeringa Association... Ngeringa Community House for Handicapped... 38,060 47,420 2 Nairne Golf Club, Inc... Clubhouse extensions and landscaping... 51,970 58,810 11 Kuitpo Colony, Inc... Redevelopment of Kuitpo Colony... 221,473 369,306 35 Mount Barker Catholic Parish School... Hearing-Impaired Class... 5,100 7,902 1 Mount Barker (DC of)... JOLOR Base Grant Mount Barker... 18,000 25,715 2 Woods &Forests (Dept of)... Brukunga Mine tree planting... 18,463 26,375 4 Total 630,178 910,766 108 Onkaparinga Onkaparinga Community House, Inc... Onkaparinga Community House Project... 9,334 11,666 1 Onkaparinga (DC of)... Local Roads Construction and Maintenance... 18,000 26,000 3 Onkaparinga (DC of)... Kerb and Watertable Onkaparinga... 29,100 41,572 7 Onkaparinga (DC of)... Kerbing and guttering of Township Roads... 107,313 134,147 11 Onkaparinga (DC of)... District Heritage Conservation Study... 21,560 25,960 2 Onkaparinga (DC of)... Bushland Park Development and street walling... 43,160 53,950 4 Onkaparinga (DC of)... Development and printing of a Community Information Handbook... 20,600 25,750 2 Onkaparinga (DC of)... Local Government Sub Program-Onkaparinga-Clerical records upgrade... 6,905 8,631 1 Total 255,972 327,676 31 Stirling Reorganised Church of Jesus Christ LDS (Grace Vall)... Grace Valley Camp Development Project... 27,550 36,850 3 Stirling (DC of)... JOLOR Base Grant-Stirling... 18,000 35,572 4 Stirling (DC of)... Roadside-Tree Maintenance Stirling... 38,972 48,715 4 Stirling (DC of)... Public Toilet Improvement Program... 32,384 48,480 12 Stirling (DC of)... District Arboretum-Pine St Reserve Establishment... 75,689 94,611 7 Stirling (DC of)... District Roads Study-Strategic Plan... 5,307 9,269 1 Stirling (DC of)... Stirling Oval Development... 51,073 64,094 5 Stirling (DC of)... Heathfield Oval Improvements... 64,674 105,549 5 Stirling (DC of)... Mylor Township Facilities Development 99,112 123,888 14 Stirling (DC of)... L Govt Sub Program-Stirling-Upgrd Clerical Records... 13,810 17,262 2 Stirling (DC of)... Local Govt Sub Program-Stirling-Workshop/Gardening Expand... 21,537 26,919 3 Total 448,108 611,209 60 Mount Pleasant Mount Pleasant (DC of)... Unblocking Stormwater Pipes... 14,410 20,586 2 Mount Pleasant (DC of)... Stormwater Pipes Unblock... 18,000 25,710 3 Mount Pleasant (DC of)... Roadside Maintenance... 35,266 44,082 4 Total 67,676 90,378 9 Goolwa and Point Elliot Mount Compass War Memorial Community centre Inc... Recreation Facilities Construction... 163,413 234,683 20 Port Elliot &Goolwa (DC of)... Expansion of Works Program... 18,000 29,000 4 Port Elliot &Goolwa (DC of)... Guide and Scout Group Hall Construction... 51,438 90,818 10 Total 232,851 354,501 34 Victor Harbour Encounter Craft &Social Centre Inc... Woodwork Instruction Provision... 18,591 24,841 1 Encounter Craft &Social Centre Inc... Assistant Co-ordinator &Clerical Support... 10,169 13,569 1 Victor Harbour (DC of)... JOLOR Base Grant Victor Harbour... 18,000 25,715 2 Victor Harbour (DC of)... Indoor Recreation Centre... 980,513 1,430,513 63 Victor Harbour (DC of)... Granite Island Horse Tram... 110,500 210,000 19 Total 1,137,773 1,704,638 86 Yankalilla Yankalilla (DC of)... JOLOR Needs Grant Yankalilla... 24,000 47,000 7 Yankalilla (DC of)... Normanville Caravan Park and Foreshore Redevelopment... 545,118 817,018 38 Woods and Forests (Dept of)... Recreation Development, Second Valley Forest Reserve... 75,500 108,113 5 Woods and Forests (Dept of)... Pre Commercial Thinning Second Valley... 59,824 85,463 8 Total 704,442 1,057,594 58 Dudley American River Progress Association Inc... American River Health Centre Construction... 47,759 91,325 30 Dudley (DC of)... Reconstruct Muston Road (N)... 60,000 86,800 9 Dudley (DC of)... JOLOR Base Grant (B)... 18,000 25,715 4 Total 125,759 203,840 43 Kingscote Kingscote (DC of)... Construct Cycleway &Junct Cygnet Rd &Dauncey St... 28,390 44,690 9 Strathalbyn Clayton Bay Recreation Centre Inc... Community Hall Construction... 120,250 161,499 23 Clayton Bay Boat Club Inc... Clayton Bay Mooring Facilities Extension... 21,310 27,488 4 Strathalbyn Tennis Club Inc... Community Tennis Project... 76,546 88,561 4 Strathalbyn (DC of)... JOLOR Base Grant Strathalbyn... 18,000 25,715 3 Strathalbyn (DC of)... Strathalbyn-Ashbourne Road Reconstruct... 95,000 154,000 11 Strathalbyn (DC of)... Cost Coronation Rd/Adelaide St &Nth Parade... 63,565 123,065 13 Strathalbyn (DC of)... Angas River Development Plan Formulation... 6,915 9,878 1 Strathalbyn (DC of)... Construct Extn to Amenities Block at Clayton Caravan Park... 37,906 54,288 10 Strathalbyn (DC of)... Milang Institute Centenary Upgrade... 50,495 57,105 9 Strathalbyn (DC of)... Strathalbyn Swimming Pool Upgrading &Landscaping... 40,637 51,494 3 Woods &Forests (Dept of)... Pre Commercial Thinning Kuitpo... 20,902 30,403 7 Total 551,526 783,496 88 East Torrens Scout Assoc. of Aust.-SA Branch... Restortion ``Old House'' Woodhouse... 244,210 315,761 35 Scout Assoc. of Aust.-SA Branch... Challenge Hill Commando Course Upgrading... 57,147 85,205 7 East Torrens (DC of)... Yanagin Road Construction and Landscaping... 30,620 38,420 5 East Torrens (DC of)... Upgrading of Three Buildings and Tennis Courts... 26,675 38,138 9 East Torrens (DC of)... Property Neglect Develop Remedial Management Program... 18,431 26,330 1 East Torrens (DC of)... Ashton District Sporting Assoc. Clubrooms Extension... 106,041 149,341 21 East Torrens (DC of)... Clubrooms Uraidla Show Society Extensions... 112,856 16,156 22 East Torrens (DC of)... Demolish Old Home and Build a Storeroom with Reclaimed Material... 68,057 87,619 9 Total 664,037 896,970 109 Gumeracha Gumeracha (DC of)... JOLOR Base Grant Gumeracha... 18,000 25,715 2 History Trust of SA... Birdwood Mill Collection Catalogue... 29,119 41,599 2 History Trust of SA... Birdwood Mill Landscaping... 53,875 76,965 8 Total 100,994 144,279 12 Happy Valley Happy Valley Hockey Club Inc... Hockey Club Grounds Development... 8,460 11,150 1 HUB YMCA (THE)... Street Youth Worker... 16,353 25,855 1 HUB YMCA (THE)... Women's Recreation Needs Survey... 16,353 24,271 1 Happy Valley (City of)... Meadows Bicycle Track Project... 67,651 115,695 13 Happy Valley (City of)... Winter Flood Protection &Road Maintenance-Happy Valley... 32,200 46,000 3 Happy Valley (City of)... Special Projects Engineer Provision... 10,922 17,832 1 Happy Valley (City of)... Happy Valley Club Rooms Construction... 299,291 431,038 23 Happy Valley (City of)... Development of Local History Collection... 8,730 12,472 1 Happy Valley (City of)... Kangarilla Community Complex... 196,719 278,376 22 Happy Valley (City of)... Greening of Adelaide-Meadows District... 10,528 15,040 3 Happy Valley (City of)... Cherry Gardens CFS Construct... 45,000 49,029 12 Happy Valley (City of)... Local Govt Sub Program-Happy Valley-Kerbing and Watertabling... 7,719 8,973 1 Happy Valley (City of)... Local Govt Sub Program-Happy Valley-Upgrading Cncl Plant... 7,179 8,973 1 Happy Valley (City of)... LG Sub Program-Happy Valley-Upgrade Reserves... 21,535 26,919 3 Happy Valley (City of)... LG Sub Program-Happy Valley-Dev. Toy Library Services... 14,530 18,142 2 Happy Valley (City of)... Local Govt Sub Program-Happy Valley-Clerical Records Expansion... 6,905 8,631 1 Happy Valley (City of)... LG Sub Program-Happy Valley-Data Base Update... 13,810 17,262 2 Happy Valley (City of)... Local Govt Sub Program-Co-ordinator Happy Valley... 13,396 16,744 1 Happy Valley (City of)... Toy Library Resource Assistant-Aberfoyle Park... 6,994 9,074 1 Education (Dept of)... School Resource Centre Assistance (Aberfoyle Park)... 7,295 10,422 1 Woods &Forests (Dept of)... Recreation Development Kuitpo Forest Reserve... 63,000 89,702 5 Total 874,030 1,241,600 99 Murray Bridge Community Youth Assistance Committee Murray Bridge... Self Support Programs for Disadvantaged... 22,580 22,580 1 Murray Bridge Sailing Club Inc... Sailing Club Site Development Plan... 27,359 36,374 6 Murray Bridge High School Council... Language Centre Assistant... 14,773 23,833 2 Lower Murray Toy Library-C/o MB Pre School Kinde... Toy Library Resource Assistant... 7,950 8,990 1 Murray Bridge High School Council Inc... Agriculture Studies Research &Development... 20,246 24,596 2 Murray Bridge (DC of)... Kerb and Guttering Footpath Paving... 18,000 25,715 5 Murray Bridge (DC of)... Historical Records Archival... 22,275 42,694 2 Murray Bridge (DC of)... Upgrading Catalogue Reference System.... 7,637 10,962 1 Murray Bridge (DC of)... Toilet Block Construction... 28,229 26,793 4 Murray Bridge (DC of)... LG Sub Program-Murray Bridge-Clerical Records Update... 20,715 25,893 3 Murray Bridge (DC of)... Local Govt Sub Program-Co-ordinator Murray Bridge... 13,396 16,744 1 Murray Bridge (DC of)... Local Govt Sub Program-Murray Bridge-Tree Plant/Plant Main... 21,537 26,919 3 Murray Bridge (DC of)... Emergency Accommodation Research Project... 8,483 11,183 1 History Trust of SA... Schuberts Farm Improvements... 22,295 31,850 7 Woods &Forests (Dept of)... Management of Reforested Farmland... 45,338 64,768 3 Community Welfare (Dept of)... Community Response Team Provision-Murray Bridge... 29,951 42,787 3 Woods &Forests (Dept of)... Rural Tree Scheme Survey... 23,065 32,950 3 Community Welfare (Dept for) Family Day Care... Toy Library Resource Assistant... 7,441 10,629 1 Total 361,270 506,260 49 Noarlunga Noarlunga Community Information Centre... Research &Update Community Directories... 9,655 11,855 1 Basketball Assoc of S.A. Inc.... Morphett Vale Stadium Extension Construction... 35,999 204,002 10 Wirreanda High School Council... School Resource Centre Add Staff... 12,600 20,600 1 Dogs Rescue Home Inc.... Dogs Rescue Home Redevelopment... 143,305 237,305 26 Catholic Church Endowment Society Inc. Morphett Vale... Youth Needs Survey... 5,051 6,760 1 Christies Beach Women's Shelter.... Landscaper/Shelter Grounds &Shelter Upgrading... 23,700 24,740 3 Christies Beach Women's Shelter.... Shelter Clerical Assistance... 9,750 10,080 1 Offenders Aid and Rehabilitation Services of S.A. Inc.... Establish Co-op Management Systems... 12,405 14,380 1 Society of St Vincent De Paul Inc.... St. Vincent Family Welfare Furniture Repairs... 36,430 37,918 4 Girl Guides Assoc of S.A. Inc.... Douglas Scrub Caretakers Res Construction... 14,000 19,640 9 Southport Surf Life Saving Club.... Southport Clubhouse Rebuild... 24,690 24,690 17 Early Childwood/Family Services Centre... Childhood Services Information Upgrade... 7,060 7,820 1 Salvation Army Noarlunga (The).... Salvation army Youth Employment Project... 59,230 94,025 9 Noarlunga (City of)... JOLOR Base Grant Noarlunga... 18,000 26,700 3 Noarlunga (City of)... Honeypot Road Widening... 39,070 59,470 5 Noarlunga (City of)... District Roads Survey... 28,794 41,994 3 Noarlunga (City of)... Onkaparinga Estuary Consvn &Development... 345,407 495,407 27 Noarlunga (City of)... Main South Road Beautification... 16,640 26,640 3 Southern Region of Councils Inc.... Southern Adelaide Regional Promotion Project... 17,220 22,800 2 Noarlunga (City of)... Research &Collate Council Services Information... 9,018 15,687 2 Noarlunga (City of)... Microfilming Council Records... 84,956 114,956 4 Noarlunga (City of)... Christies Bowling Club Const Amenities... 71,650 76,150 13 Noarlunga (City of)... Public Library Computer Catalogue Project... 15,900 23,650 2 Noarlunga (City of)... Noarlunga Historical Collection Project... 36,571 49,971 3 Noarlunga (City of)... Local Govt Sub Program-Noarlunga-Upgrade Parks and Gardens... 14,358 17,946 2 Noarlunga (City of)... Local Govt Sub Program-Co-ordinator Noarlunga... 13,396 16,744 1 Noarlunga (City of)... Local Govt Sub Program-Noarlunga-Technical Services Expansion... 13,810 17,262 2 Noarlunga (City of)... Local Govt Sub Program-Noarlunga-Financial Records Upgrade... 6,905 8,631 1 Noarlunga (City of)... McLaren Flat Bowling Green... 124,547 160,097 19 Noarlunga (City of)... Construction of Aquatic and Bowls Clubroom-Onkaparinga... 430,350 615,350 32 Noarlunga (City of)... Timothy Road Reserve-Upgrading... 76,376 97,276 12 Community Welfare (Dept for).... Community Response Team Provision-Noarlunga... 127,753 182,505 11 Education (Dept of)... Health Development Project... 26,841 38,344 2 Education (Dept of)... Health Development Project-Nutrition.... 29,073 41,533 2 Education (Dept of)... School Resource Centre Assistance (Reynella East)... 5,926 8,466 1 Housing Trust (SA)... Reserve Planting Morphett Vale Noarlunga Hackam West... 114,930 225,856 20 Fisheries (Dept of)... Aquaculture Research Station... 124,480 177,828 7 Community Welfare (Dept of)... Family Day Care; Toy Library Resource Assistant... 6,522 9,317 1 Education (Dept of)... Early Childhood Family Service; Toy Library Resource Assistant... 5,057 7,224 1 Total 2,297,425 3,291,619 265 Willunga McLaren Vale School Council Inc... Adventure Playground Construction... 9,324 14,269 2 Willunga (DC of)... JOLOR Kerbs Parking and Bike Track Construction... 185,982 232,477 16 Willunga (DC of)... Willunga Linear Park Bike Track Construction... 97,934 157,934 9 Willunga (DC of)... Continuation of Council Records &Filing System... 7,980 12,980 1 Willunga (DC of)... Aldinga Willunga Pool Room &Reserve Development... 34,500 52,091 3 Willunga (DC of)... Local Govt Sub Program-Willunga-Engineering Records Upgrade... 6,905 8,631 1 Willunga (DC of)... LG Sub Program-Willunga-Updating Correspondence Records... 6,905 8,631 1 Willunga (DC of)... Local Govt Sub Program-Willunga-Kerbing and Watertabling... 7,179 8,973 1 Total 356,709 495,986 34 TOTAL ALL AREAS 8,837,140 12,665,502 1094 (Question No. 2067) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What amounts have been paid to Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their companies, or principals of their companies, for services rendered to the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control and for what purposes in each case. (2) What amounts have been paid to each of these people or companies for (a) travel allowance, (b) air fares, (c) accommodation costs, (d) hire car expenses and (e) any other expenses incurred. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) An amount of $1,483.00 has been paid to Mr Phillip Adams and $924.00 to his company, Monahan Dayman and Adams Pty Ltd. The payments related to Mr Adams' statutory office of Chairman of the Commission for the Future for sitting fees, in accordance with the rates set by the Remuneration Tribunal, airfares and travelling allowance for attendance at Commission meetings and for the transaction of other Commission business. No payments have been made to Mr Rod Cameron or his company. (2) The following amounts have been paid to Mr Phillip Adams: (a) $24.00 (b) nil (c) nil (d) nil (e) $1,459.00 The following amounts have been paid to Monahan Dayman and Adams Pty Ltd for the reimbursement of Mr Adams' expenses incurred as Chairman of the Commission for the Future: (a) nil (b) $801.00 (c) $123.00 (d) nil (e) nil (Question No. 2204) Mr Conquest asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 15 October 1985: (1) Was the contribution by Mr J. E. West, of Rosedale, Qld, to the National Campaign against Drug Abuse, which included `A First Australian Report on the Orthomolecular Treatment of Drug Addiction' by Drs A Kalokerinos and G. Dettman, incorporated in the Federal Government's submission to the Premiers' Drug Summit held in 1985; if not, why not. (2) If so, has any further investigation or follow-up action been undertaken; if not, why not. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, the submission by Mr J. E. West, of Rosedale, Queensland was received and its views incorporated in a report to the 2 April special Premiers' Conference on Drugs, along with a number of other submissions concerning the orthomolecular treatment of drug dependency. (2) A total of over 600 submissions were received on a range of issues, with all submissions forming the basis of the report to the Premiers and Prime Minister. The names of those who provided submissions were kept confidential. Following the Premiers' Conference a National Strategy Document was produced for the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse, outlining a range of strategies being undertaken or developed by governments in the fields of education, treatment and rehabilitation to combat drug abuse. The Strategy Document has the support of all Australian governments. (Question No. 2220) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Social Secur- ity, upon notice, on 16 October 1985: How many appeals by residents in the Electoral Division of Flinders (a) have been lodged pursuant to the assets test provisions, (b) have been determined, (c) remain undetermined and, (d) have resulted in a variation in the favour of the appellant, as at 1 October 1985. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Figures are not available of the number of appeals or results of appeals lodged by residents of a particular Electoral Division. (Question No. 2257) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 October 1985: How many people were prosecuted for offences under the social security legislation in (a) 1982, (b) 1983 and (c) 1984. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Relevant statistics for the year ended 30 June are as follows: (a) Social Security Act, 1453; Crimes Act, 243. (b) Social Security Act, 1549; Crimes Act, 230. (c) Social Security Act, 1885; Crimes Act, 178. The figures do not include Australian Federal Police prosecutions relating to the fraudulent negotiation of social security cheques or imposition, or other prosecutions not initiated by the Department of Social Security. (Question No. 379) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) What (a) statutory authorities and (b) advisory panels or councils come within the Minister's jurisdiction and what is the (i) name, (ii) date and period of appointment of each member. (2) What (a) remuneration and (b) travelling allowance, is payable for each position. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Statutory Authorities Name and Membership Appointment Date Period Remun- eration Travelling Allowance $ $ HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION F. W. Millar (Chairman)... 1.11.1985 5 years $17,981 per annum $140/105*+ W. A. Butterss (Commissioner)... 1.11.1985 5 years $ 9,052 per annum $140/105*+ Judge R. Layton (Commissioner)... 1.11.1985 5 years Nil*** $140/105*+ R. L. Gradwell (Commissioner)... 1.11.1985 5 years $ 9,052 per annum $140/105*+ R. N. H. Denton (Commissioner)... 1.11.1982 5 years $ 9,052 per annum $140/105*+ P. P. Glenning (Commissioner)... 1.11.1982 5 years $ 9,052 per annum $140/105*+ J. S. Deeble (Commissioner)... 21.12.1983 5 years $ 9,052 per annum $140/105*+ L. J. Willett (Commissioner)... 14.9.1984 5 years Nil* $140/105*+ C. R. Wilcox (General Manager/Commissioner)... 7.8.1981 5 years Nil* $140/105*+ * Capital City rate/other than Capital City rate per day. + When travelling allowance is not payable, a fee of $30 for part day of more than 10 hours is payable. * Full-time public servant. * Deputy President of Administrative Appeals Tribunal. COMMONWEALTH SERUM LABORATORIES COMMISSION N. L. C. Batt (Chairman)... 20.10.83 4 years $16,860 per annum $140/105*+ Dr T. H. Hurley (Vice Chairman)... 1.7.84 4 years $10,141 per annum $140/105*+ C. Kidson (Commissioner)... 20.10.83 4 years $ 6,781 per annum $140/105*+ H. D. Huyer (Commissioner)... 1.7.84 4 years $ 6,781 per annum $140/105*+ V. B. McMullan (Commissioner)... 1.7.84 4 years $ 6,781 per annum $140/105*+ L. J. Willett (Commissioner)... 14.9.84 4 years Nil* $140/105*+ H. Kolbe (Commissioner)... 16.5.85 4 years $ 6,781 per annum P. Wade (Commissioner)... 16.5.65 4 years $ 6,781 per annum $140/105*+ Dr N. J. McCarthy (Director)... 19.9.84 5 years $76,527 and 3,967 per annum office allowance $140/105*+ * Capital City rate/other than Capital City rate per day. + Full-time public servant. * When travelling allowance is not payable, a fee of $30 for part day of more than 10 hours is payable. NATIONAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Mr B. V. McKay (Chairman)... 1.1.85 1 year Nil* Council meets Dr D. De Souza (Member)... Dr R. Cumming (Secretary)... Prof K. Adkins (Member)... Prof G. R. Andrews (Member)... Dr R. W. Beal (Member)... Dr V. Brown (Member)... Prof J. P. Chalmers (Member)... Miss J. Cochrane (Member)... Dr N. C. Davis (Member)... Dr J. H. Evans (Member)... Prof R. S. Finckh (Member)... Dr E. M. Stack (Member)... Mrs M. E. Grant (Member)... Dr H. A. Kilham (Member)... Mr R. Kronborg (Member)... Dr P. G. Livingstone (Member)... Dr G. Mackay-Smith (Member)... Dr N. J. McCarthy (Member)... Dr J. C. McNulty (Member)... Dr P. Mudge (Member)... Prof D. G. Penington (Member)... Dr M. G. Pinner (Member)... Prof R. Porter (Member)... Prof B. Raphael (Member)... Mr D. Richmond (Member)... Dr G. Trevaks (Member)... Dr B. J. Shea (Co-opted member)... Prof R. R. H. Lovell (Co-opted member)... For 1985, an interim membership of 1 year applies due to a review of Council structure and functions. Appointment is normally for 3 years. Nil* Nil* Nil Nil* Nil Nil* Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil* $131/Session Nil $131/Session Nil* Nil* Nil* Nil Nil* Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil* Nil* $131/Session Nil twice per year for two days in different locations throughout Australia. Travelling allowance is paid at a rate of $110 per day Commonwealth officers are paid the rate appropriate to their rank. * Full time public servant A.C.T. HEALTH AUTHORITY Mr J. A. Bissett (Chairman)... 23.5.85 6 years $68,460 and 1,984 p.a. office allowance + Dr N. A. Elvin (Member)... 23.5.85 * $54,995 and 1,415 p.a. office allowance + Mr J. B. Kelly (Member)... 18.2.85 * $54,995 and 1,415 p.a. office allowance + * Appointed to fill vacancy in the office of member. Office is held until the vacancy is filled or for a period of 12 months, whichever occurs first. + Not applicable when attending meetings of the Authority. A.C.T. CHIROPRACTIC BOARD Mr F. L. Wyss (Chairman)... 21.6.84 3 years Nil Nil Mr D. A. McDowall (Member)... 21.6.84 3 years Nil Nil Mr J. Small (Member)... 21.6.84 18 months Nil Nil Mr M. P. Tapper (Member)... 21.6.84 3 years Nil Nil Mr F. A. Weston (Member)... 21.6.84 18 months Nil Nil A.C.T. DENTAL BOARD Dr D. T. Taylor (Chairman)... 8.12.82 3 years Nil Nil Dr C. R. Watson (Member)... 8.12.82 3 years Nil Nil Dr R. K. Kettle (Member)... 8.12.82 3 years Nil Nil Dr R. C. Swanson (Member)... 8.12.82 3 years Nil Nil Dr W. T. Diebert (Member)... 5.6.84 3 years Nil Nil Dr S. W. Parsons (Member)... 5.6.84 3 years Nil Nil Dr C. J. Rickard (Member)... 5.6.84 3 years Nil Nil A.C.T MEDICAL BOARD Dr K. E. Goard (Chairman... 22.12.84 3 years Nil Nil Dr B. R. Appleby (Member)... 1.1.83 3 years Nil Nil Dr V. J. Hill (Member)... 1.1.83 3 years Nil Nil Dr R. Porter (Member)... 1.1.83 3 years Nil Nil Dr A. G. Robson (Member)... 7.8.84 3 years Nil Nil Dr D. B. Nott (Member)... 7.8.84 3 years Nil Nil Dr R. G. Pembrey (Member)... 7.8.84 3 years Nil Nil A.C.T. NURSES BOARD Sister Justin Cook (Chairman)... 12.6.83 3 years Nil Nil Miss J. A. James (Member)... 12.6.83 3 years Nil Nil Mrs M. M. Kellow (Member)... 12.6.83 3 years Nil Nil Mrs J. L. Lowde (Member)... 12.6.83 3 years Nil Nil Ms R. M. Redmond (Member)... 12.6.83 3 years Nil Nil Miss R. R. Bettiens (Member)... 26.2.85 3 years Nil Nil Mrs K. M. Walters (Member)... 26.2.85 3 years Nil Nil Mrs M. E. Porra (Member)... 2.10.84 3 years Nil Nil Mrs E. M. Woods (Member)... 2.10.84 3 years Nil Nil A.C.T. OPTOMETRISTS BOARD Mr B. H. Coleman (Chairman)... 24.8.84 3 years Nil Nil Dr G. H. Henry (Member)... 4.6.85 3 years Nil Nil Mr L. J. Evans (Member)... 4.6.85 * Nil Nil * Appointed by Minister for Health to fill vacancy in the office of the elected member. Holds office for a maximum period of 12 months or until an election is completed, whichever occurs first A.C.T. PHARMACY BOARD Mrs E. I. Barnes (Chairman)... 5.6.84 18 months Nil Nil Mr J. Cable (Member)... 5.6.84 18 months Nil Nil Mrs S. M. Rintoul (Member)... 5.6.84 18 months Nil Nil Mr R. E. M. Wilson (Member)... 5.6.84 18 months Nil Nil Mr K. F. Owen (Member)... 29.5.84 3 years Nil Nil Mr J. J. Stephens (Member)... 29.5.84 3 years Nil Nil Mr R. P. Davies (Member)... 29.5.84 3 years Nil Nil ACT PHYSIOTHERAPISTS BOARD Miss J. J. Riley (Chairman)... 17.1.85 3 years Nil Nil Mrs S. P. Kaye (Member)... 14.5.83 3 years Nil Nil Mrs P. J. Levick (Member)... 14.5.83 3 years Nil Nil Mrs J. Plumstead (Member)... 14.5.83 3 years Nil Nil Ms N. Baxter (Member)... 2.10.84 3 years Nil Nil Mrs J. A. White (Member)... 2.10.84 3 years Nil Nil Mrs D. N. Moyle (Member)... 2.10.84 3 years Nil Nil ACT VETERINARY SURGEONS BOARD Mr K. A. Doyle (Chairman)... 23.5.85 3 years Nil Nil Mr R. W. Gee (Member)... 23.12.83 3 years Nil Nil Mr R. W. Lemin (Member)... 23.5.85 3 years Nil Nil Mr P. A. Creagh (Member)... 26.3.85 3 years Nil Nil Mr W. K. McDonald (Member)... 26.3.85 3 years Nil Nil Note: Bodies subordinate to those listed above not shown. (b) ADVISORY PANELS OR COUNCILS Name and Membership Appointment Date Period Remuneration Travelling Allowance $ $ PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY (NATIONAL HEALTH ACT) New South Wales Mr B. Collins (Chairman)... 1.3.84 4 years $163/Session Nil Mr S. Bashir (Member)... 1.3.82 4 years $131/Session Nil Mr K. P. Grew (Member)... 1.3.82 4 years $131/Session Nil Mr J. A. Bell (Member)... 1.3.84 4 years $131/Session Nil Victoria Mr S. C. McBride (Chairman)... 1.3.84 4 years $163/Session Nil Mr B. L. Butcher (Member)... 12.5.83 2 years 9 months* $131/Session Nil Mr P. R. Millar (Member)... 1.3.84 4 years $131/Session Nil Mr M. J. Wilson (Member)... 1.3.82 4 years $131/Session Nil Queensland Mr C. V. Barwick (Chairman)... 1.3.84 4 years $163/Session Nil Mr N. Edmiston (Member)... 1.3.82 4 years $131/Session Nil Mr N. A. Hunt-Sharp (Member)... 1.3.82 4 years $131/Session Nil Mr R. G. James (Member)... 10.7.85 2 years 7 months* $131/Session Nil Western Australia Mr G. D. T. Allan (Chairman)... 1.3.84 4 years $163/Session Nil Mr G. J. Ludkins (Member)... 12.5.83 2 years 9 months* $131/Session Nil Mr M. T. Adams (Member)... 12.5.83 2 years 9 months* $131/Session Nil Mrs M. J. Humphreys (Member)... 1.3.84 4 years $131/Session Nil South Australia Mr K. Phelps (Chairman)... 1.3.84 4 years $163/Session Nil Mr P. J. Bayly (Member)... 1.3.82 4 years $131/Session Nil Mr J. W. Bourne (Member)... 1.3.82 4 years $131/Session... Nil Mr W. Erikson (Member)... 1.3.84 4 years $131/Session Nil Tasmania Mr D. M. Tremayne (Chairman)... 1.3.84 4 years $163/Session Nil Mr R. D. Tapping (Member)... 1.3.82 4 years $131/Session Nil Mr D. E. Jones (Member)... 1.3.82 4 years $131/Session Nil Mrs C. Wedd (Member)... 1.3.84 4 years $131/Session Nil * Not full term MEDICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY (NATIONAL HEALTH ACT) New South Wales Dr J. Asher (Chairperson)... 1.7.85 4 years $163/Session Nil Dr E. Connolly (Member)... 1.7.85 4 years $131/Session Nil Dr M. R. Joseph (Member)... 1.7.83 4 years $131/Session Nil Victoria Dr F. B. M. Phillips (Chairman)... 1.7.83 4 years $163/Session Nil Dr Y. J. Mathew (Member)... 1.7.85 4 years $131/Session Nil Dr J. A. Streeton (Member)... 1.7.83 4 years $131/Session Nil Dr H. M. Lowy (Member)... 1.7.85 4 years $131/Session Nil Queensland Dr H. W. A. Forbes (Chairman)... 1.7.83 4 years $163/Session Nil Prof. T. Cramond (Member)... 1.7.85 4 years $131/Session Nil Dr E. W. Ringrose (Member)... 1.7.85 4 years $131/Session Nil Dr A. J. Holmes (Member)... 1.7.83 4 years $131/Session Nil Western Australia Dr P. Kessly (Chairman)... 1.7.85 4 years $163/Session Nil Dr D. L. Gulland (Member)... 1.7.85 4 years $131/Session Nil Dr A. E. Jones (Member)... 1.7.83 4 years $131/Session Nil Dr A. R. Burkitt (Member)... 1.7.83 4 years $131/Session Nil South Australia Dr D. P. Reid (Chairperson)... 1.7.85 4 years $163/Session Nil Dr D. O. Southgate (Member)... 1.7.85 4 years $131/Session Nil Dr R. T. Cotton (Member)... 1.7.83 4 years $131/Session Nil Dr N. F. Denton (Member)... 1.7.83 4 years $131/Session Nil Tasmania Dr J. D. Cannon (Chairman)... 1.7.85 4 years $163/Session Nil Dr T. S. Kirkland (Member)... 1.7.85 4 years $131/Session Nil Dr A. H. Woodhall (Member)... 1.7.83 4 years $131/Session Nil Dr J. W. O'Halloran (Member)... 1.7.83 4 years $131/Session Nil PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Dr W. G. Grigor (Chairman)... 1.9.85 4 years $163/session 110/session+* Dr B. D. Cowling (Member)... 1.9.85 4 years $131/session 110/session Prof. M. J. Eadie (Member)... 1.9.83 4 years $131/session 110/session Prof. D. J. Birkett (Member)... 1.9.83 4 years $131/session 110/session Dr J. F. MacDonald (Member)... 1.9.83 4 years $131/session 110/session Dr W. J. R. Middleton (Member)... 1.9.83 4 years $131/session 110/session Mr E. K. Graver (Member)... 1.9.83 4 years $131/session 110/session Mr C. J. Massie (Member)... 1.9.83 4 years Nil* Nil* Prof. A. Pitt (Member)... 1.9.85 4 years $131/session 110/Session+* * Full time public servant + Capital City rate per day * When travelling allowance is not payable, a fee of $30 for part day of more than 10 hours is payable. NATIONAL THERAPAUTIC GOODS COMMITTEE Mr B. V. McKay (Chairman)... 24.9.84 No fixed term Nil Nil Mr R. E. Wilson (Member)... 8.11.84 No fixed term Nil Nil Mr B. T. Mewes (Member)... 2.5.83 No fixed term Nil Nil Mr F. Ahearn (Member)... 1.3.78 No fixed term Nil Nil Mr E. Aldred (Member)... 26.2.79 No fixed term Nil Nil Mr K. Keefer (Member)... 22.2.78 No fixed term Nil Nil Mr F. Ryan (Member)... 22.2.78 No fixed term Nil Nil Mr J. L. Davis (Member)... 7.4.84 No fixed term Nil Nil Mr V. Bugler (Member)... 15.9.76 No fixed term Nil Nil Mr G. Fyson (Member)... 28.3.79 No fixed term Nil Nil Mr B. P. Wall (Member)... 11.8.84 No fixed term Nil Nil THERAPEUTIC GOODS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Mr B. V. McKay (Member)... Ex Officio Appointee Nil* Nil* Dr L. Dodson (Member)... Ex Officio Appointee Nil* Nil* Mr R. Wilson (Member)... 21.7.82* 3 years Nil* Nil* Dr R. Hecker (Member)... 13.2.84 3 years $131/session * Mr R. Boon (Member)... 21.7.85 3 years $131/session * Mr R. Davies (Member)... 21.7.85 3 years $131/session Nil Dr W. Morgan (Member)... 21.7.85 3 years $131/session Nil Mr W. Kirsop (Member)... 21.7.85 3 years $131/session Nil Mr A. W. Morley (Member)... 21.7.85 3 years $131/session Nil Mrs S. Alexander (Member)... 13.2.84 3 years $131/session Nil Dr H. Rosenberg (Member)... 21.7.85 3 years $131/session Nil Mr G. Dedomenico (Member)... 1.1.85 3 years $131/session $110/session+* Mr B. O'Connor (Member)... 1.1.85 3 years $131/session $110/session Professor T. Crammond (Member)... 1.1.85 3 years $131/session $110/session Mr L. Knuckey (Member)... 1.1.85 3 years $131/session $110/session * Full-time public servant + When travelling allowance is not payable, a fee of $30 for part day of more than 10 hours is payable. * Capital city rate per day. * Position under review THERAPEUTIC GOODS STANDARDS COMMITTEE Dr L. Dodson (Chairman)... Ex Officio Appointee Nil* Nil* Professor F. Bochner (Member)... 1.1.85 3 years 131/Session * Mr A. Green (Member)... 3.10.84 3 years 131/Session * Professor I. Gust (Member)... 13.10.83 3 years 131/Session * Professor P. McDonald (Member)... 1.1.85 3 years 131/Session * Professor B. Morris (Member)... 13.10.83 3 years Nil Nil Mr R. Norris (Member)... 13.10.83 3 years Nil Nil Dr W. O'Reilly (Member)... 3.10.84 3 years 131/Session * Dr L. Sansom (Member)... 3.10.843 years 131/Session* Professor G. Vaughan (Member)... 1.1.85 3 years 131/Session * * Full-time public servant * When travelling allowance is not payable, a fee of $30 for part day of more than 10 hours is payable. AUSTRALIAN DRUG EVALUATION COMMITTEE Sir John Frew (Chairman)... 13.11.82 3 years 163/session * Professor I. Pitman (Member)... 13.11.82 3 years 131/Session * Professor M. Eadie (Member)... 13.11.82 3 years 131/Session * Professor P. Castaldi (Member)... 13.11.82 3 years 131/Session * Dr L. Mashford (Member)... 8.12.81 6 years 131/Session * Professor J. Turtle (Member)... 8.12.81 6 years 131/Session * Professor J. Chalmers (Member)... 8.12.81 6 years 131/Session * Professor W. Louis (Member)... 8.12.81 6 years 131/Session * * When travelling allowance is not payable, a fee of $30 for part day of more than 10 hours is payable. ADVERSE DRUG REACTIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Dr L. Mashford (Chairman)... 13.11.82 3 years 163/Session * Dr P. Roeser (Member)... 26.11.82 3 years 131/Session * Dr T. Sorrell (Member)... 28.5.82 3 1/2 years 131 Session * Dr J. Ingham (Member)... 1.1.84 3 years 131/Session * Dr D. Henry (Member)... 1.1.84 3 years 131/Session * Dr T. Mathew (Member)... 1.1.85 3 years 131/Session * * When travelling allowance is not payable, a fee of $30 for part day of more than 10 hours is payable HUMAN PITUITARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Dr L. Lazarus (Chairman)... 14.9.84 4 years 163/Session 110/Session*+ Dr H. Burger (Member)... 14.9.84 4 years 131/Session 110/Session Dr J. Evans (Member)... 14.9.84 4 years 131/Session 110/Session Dr K. Ferguson (Member)... 14.9.84 4 years 131/Session 110/Session * Capital city rate per day. + When travelling allowancde is not payable, a fee of $30 for part day of more than 10 hours is payable. EXECUTIVE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE AUSTRALIAN PRESCRIBER Dr R. Hall (Chairman)... 1.1.84 3 years Nil* 107/75+** Prof. D. T. Birkett (Member)... 1.1.84 3 years 131/Session 107/75+ Dr T. Morgan (Member)... 1.1.84 3 years 131/Session 107/75 Dr B. Cowling (Member)... 1.1.84 3 years 131/Session 107/75 Dr P. J. Fletcher (Member)... 1.1.84 3 years 131/Session 107/75 * Full-time public servant. + Capital city rate/other than Capital city rate per day. * When travelling allowance is not payable, a fee of $30 for part day of more than 10 hours is payable. HEALTH INSURANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Mr R. R. Walker (Chairman)... 19.11.76 No fixed term Nil Nil Mr D. D. Maclarn (Member)... 11.10.82 No fixed term Nil Nil Mr M. W. Campbell (Member)... 2.8.77 No fixed term Nil Nil Mr D. J. Wrigley (Member)... 5.8.85 No fixed term Nil Nil Mr J. Mansfield (Member)... 19.11.76 No fixed term Nil Nil Mr D. A. Shaw (Member)... 19.11.76 No fixed term Nil Nil Mr C. R. Wilcox (Member)... 14.9.81 No fixed term Nil Nil (Vacant)+ Mr A. J. Bansemer (Member)... Ex Officio Appointee No fixed term Nil* Nil* Mr W. Taylor (Member) Ex Officio Appointee No fixed term Nil* Nil* * Full time public servant. + A representative of the Standing Committee of the Australian Health Ministers' Conference. HEALTH BENEFITS REINSURANCE TRUST FUND Mr E. N. M. Finnie (Chairman)... 19.11.82 3 years 163/Session Nil Mr J. F. Cade (Administrator)... 19.11.82 3 years 131/Session Nil Mr B. P. Barling (Administrator)... 9.4.85 3 years Nil* Nil* * Full time public servant. MEDICAL SERVICES COMMITTEES OF INQUIRY (HEALTH INSURANCE ACT) M.S.C.I. No. 1 for New South Wales Dr J. Asher (Chairman)... 1.8.85 2 years $163/Session $110/85+* Dr J. D. Campbell (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr G. Douglas (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr M. R. Harris (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr K. Rawle (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 M.S.C.I. No. 2 for New South Wales Dr C. H. Thorburn (Chairman)... 1.8.85 2 years $163/Session $110/85+* Dr C. B. Degotardi (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr B. G. E. Jeffrey (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr C. G. C. MacArthur (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr N. A. Fowler (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 M.S.C.I. No. 1 for Victoria Dr N. J. Radford (Chairman)... 1.8.85 2 years $163/Session $110/85+* Dr J. A. Horgan (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr A. W. Burton (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr A. R. Waterhouse (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr S. S. Kwong (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 M.S.C.I. No. 2 for Victoria Dr M. V. Clarke (Chairman)... 1.8.85 2 years $163/Session $110/85+* Dr W. M. McCubbery (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr M. A. McKenzie (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr R. M. McLennan (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Mr G. J. Royal (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 M.S.C.I. for Queensland Dr R. J. Morris (Chairman)... 1.8.85 2 years $163/Session $110/85+* Dr D. L. Backstrom (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr C. A. Mitchell (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr O. W. Powell (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr V. M. Hinckley (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 M.S.C.I. for Western Australia Dr V. T. White (Chairman)... 1.8.85 2 years $163/Session $110/85+* Dr J. R. Akers (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr J. B. Blackwell (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr N. L. Fitch (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr P. G. Bastian (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 M.S.C.I. for South Australia Dr D. A. Game (Chairman)... 1.8.85 2 years $163/Session $110/85+* Dr R. T. Cotton (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr C. G. Wilson (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr J. C. Bampton (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 M.S.C.I. for Tasmania Dr W. Mcl. Thompson (Chairman)... 1.8.85 2 years $163/Session $110/85+* Dr J. B. Felstead (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Mr H. B. Gatenby (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr C. B. MacDonald (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 Dr P. J. Beaumont (Member)... 1.8.85 2 years $131/Session $110/85 + Capital City rate/other than Capital City rate per day. * When travelling allowance is not payable, a feee of $30 for part day of more than 10 hours is payable. MEDICAL SERVICES REVIEW TRIBUNALS (HEALTH INSURANCE ACT) M.S.R.T. No. 1 The Hon. Sir Sydney Frost, QC (President)... 18.10.85 2 years $286/Session $140/105+* Dr B. L. Cornish (Member)... 18.10.85 2 years $211/Session $140/105+* Dr M. M. Kehoe (Member)... 18.10.85 2 years Nil* $107/75*+* M.S.R.T. No. 2 The Hon. G. D. Clarkson, QC (President)... 1.3.84 2 years $286/Session $140/105+* Dr N. R. Van Dugteren (Member)... 1.3.84 2 years $211/Session $140/105+* Dr D. D'A Webling (Member)... 1.3.84 2 years Nil* $107/75*+* + Capital City rate/other than Capital City rate per day. * Full-time public servant. * When travelling allowance is not payable, a feee of $30 for part day of more than 10 hours is payable. MEDICARE BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Dr C. K, Churches (Chairman)... 13.2.84 2 years 163/Session Dr G. A. G. Scarlett (Deputy Chairman)... 13.2.84 2 years 131/Session Dr J. C. H. Morris (Member)... 13.2.84 2 years 131/Session 110/85+# Dr J. T. B. Linn (Member)... 13.2.84 2 years 131/Session Dr P. Gunton (Member)... 13.2.84 2 years Nil* Nil* Dr L. J. O'Keefe (Member)... 13.2.84 2 years Nil* Nil* Dr J. W. Donovan (Member)... 13.7.84 1 1/2 years Nil* Nil* Mr N. M. Hill (Member)... 26.3.84 1 1/2 years Nil* Nil* * Full-time public servant. + Capital city/other than Capital city rate per day. # When travelling allowance is not payable, a fee of $30 for part day or more than 10 hours is payable. MEDICAL BENEFITS SCHEDULE REVISION COMMITTEE Dr F. B. M. Phillips (Member)... 27.2.81 No fixed term Nil Nil Dr T. G. Pickering (Member)... 3.9.82 No fixed term Nil Nil Dr J. F. Lee (Member)... 16.6.76 No fixed term Nil Nil Dr A. L. Passmore (Member)... 3.12.80 No fixed term Nil Nil Dr D. A. Tilsley (Member)... 17.9.83 No fixed term Nil Nil Dr J. W. Donovan (Member)... 21.9.84 No fixed term Nil Nil Dr L. J. O'Keefe (Member)... 6.8.75 No fixed term Nil Nil Mr N. M. Hill (Member)... 16.3.84 No fixed term Nil Nil Dr K. H. Cooke (Member)... 27.2.81 No fixed term Nil Nil Dr P. Gunton (Member)... 16.3.84 No fixed term Nil Nil SPECIALIST RECOGNITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE New South Wales Dr W. J. Garrett (Chairman)... 10.8.85 3 years $163/Session Nil Dr W. Adams (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr I. Fielding (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr R. Kater (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr R. Allen (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Victoria Dr W. Maxwell (Chairman)... 10.8.85 3 years $163/Session Nil Dr B. Callopy (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr P. Ebling (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr R. Zacharin (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr P. Stone (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Queensland Dr B. Wilson (Chairman)... 10.8.85 3 years $163/Session Nil Dr J. Cohen (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr J. Tiernan (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr P. Monks (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr M. Mahoney (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Western Australia Dr A. Cohen (Chairman)... 10.8.85 3 years $163/Session Nil Dr P. Brine (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr J. Hanrahan (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr M. Smith (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr R. Sims (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil South Australia Dr J. Maddern (Chairman)... 10.8.85 3 years $163/Session Nil Dr E. Cant (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr L. Cleland (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr R. Sweet (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr D. Gill (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Tasmania Prof. J. Correy (Chairman)... 10.8.85 3 years $163/Session Nil Dr R. Gale (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr L. Wing (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr J. Morris (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr G. Dick (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Australian Capital Territory Dr W. Garrett (Chairman)... 10.8.85 3 years $163/Session Nil Dr W. Adams (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr I. Feilding (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr R. Kater (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr R. Allen (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Northern Territory Dr J. Maddern (Chairman)... 10.8.85 3 years $163/Session Nil Dr E. Cant (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr L. Cleland (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr R. Sweet (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr D. Gill (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil SPECIALIST RECOGNITION APPEAL COMMITTEE Dr J. Goldie (Chairman)... 10.8.85 3 years $163/Session Nil Prof. J. May (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Prof. P. Kincaid-Smith (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr J. O'Loughlin (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil Dr A. Fisher (Member)... 10.8.85 3 years $131/Session Nil MEDICAL BENEFITS (DENTAL PRACTITIONERS) ADVISORY COMMITTEE Dr R. M. Cook (Chairman)... 1.1.83 3 years 163/Session Nil Dr R. W. Hession (Member)... 1.1.83 3 years 131/Session Nil Dr E. W. Kings (Member)... 1.1.83 3 years 131/Session Nil Dr C. H. Wall (Member)... 1.1.83 3 years 131/Session Nil Dr R. G. Henry (Member)... 1.1.83 3 years 131/Session Nil NATIONAL PATHOLOGY ACCREDITATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Mr B. V. McKay (Chairman)... 10.9.84 No fixed term Nil* 140/105*+* Dr W. E. L. Davies (Member)... 5.9.85 3 years 131/Session 110/85+* Prof. V. D. Plueckhahn (Member)... 5.9.85 3 years Nil 110/85+* Dr J. H. Maynard (Member)... 5.9.85 3 years Nil 110/85+* Dr J. Whitfield (Member)... 1.10.85 No fixed term 131/Session 110/85+* Dr A. J. Webber (Member)... 5.9.85 No fixed term 131/Session 110/85+* Dr C. Reed (Member)... 5.9.85 3 years Nil 110/85+* Dr G. Rich (Member)... 5.9.85 3 years Nil 110/85+* Dr J. Crotty (Member)... 9.9.85 Nil* 82/63*+* Dr D. M. Hailey (Member)... Dr G. Mackay-Smith (Member)... Dr D. Race (Member)... Dr B. J. Kearney (Member)... Dr I. S. Wilkey (Member)... Dr T. Gaha (Member)... Dr B. Wadham (Member)... 2.3.82 19.3.79 31.10.84 28.2.85 7.3.79 21.6.79 20.3.80 As determined by the relevant Common- wealth, State and Nil* Nil* Nil* Nil* Nil* Nil* Nil* 107/75*+* Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil* Dr J. Rippey (Member)... 14.7.83 TerritorialNil* Nil Dr R. Tozer (Member)... 20.3.80 AgenciesNil* Nil * Full-time public servant. * State/Territorial representative. + Capital City rate/other than Capital city rate per day. * When travelling allowance is not payable, a fee of $30 for part day of more than 10 hours is payable. NATIONAL HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY PANEL Dr D. M. Hailey (Acting Chairman)... 14.12.84 No fixed term Nil* 107/75*+* Dr D. J. Dewhurst (Member)... 14.9.85 3 years 131/Session 110/85+* Mr P. F. Gross (Member)... 14.9.85 3 years 131/Session 110/85+* Dr M. W. Heffernan (Member)... 6.7.83 3 years Nil 110/85+* Dr I. G. McDonald (Member)... 20.2.85 3 years 131/Session 110/85+* Dr A. L. Passmore (Member)... 14.9.85 3 years Nil 110/85+* Dr R. B. Scotton (Member)... 14.9.85 3 years Nil Nil Dr J. M. Sparrow (Member)... 14.9.85 3 years Nil Nil Mr P. M. Trainor (Member)... 14.9.85 3 years Nil 110/85+* Mr J. Blandford (Member)... 16.4.85 3 years Nil 110/85+* * Full-time public servant. + Capital City rate/other than Capital City rate per day. * When travelling allowance is not payable, a fee of $30 for part day of more than 10 hours is payable. NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Dr D. Hailey (Chairman)... 23.1.84... No fixed term... Nil*... $107/75*+# Professor G. Benness (Member)... 10.4.84... No fixed term... $131/Session... $110/75*+# Dr I. McDonald (Member)... 15.5.85... No fixed term... $131/Session... $110/75*+# Dr D. Dewhurst (Member)... 23.1.84... No fixed term... $131/Session... $110/75*+# Dr W. Sorby (Member)... 16.7.85... No fixed term... Nil... Nil Professor W. Hare (Member)... 16.7.85... No fixed term... Nil... Nil Dr A. Robertson (Member)... 16.7.85... No fixed term... Nil... Nil Dr K. Siddle (Member)... 16.7.85... No fixed term... Nil... Nil Dr J. Glancy (Member)... 16.7.85... No fixed term... Nil... Nil * Full-time public servant + Capital City rate/other than Capital City rate per day. # When travelling allowance is not payable, a fee of $30 for part day of more than 10 hours is payable. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON AIDS Miss Ita Buttrose (Chairperson)... 21.11.84... No fixed term... $163/session... $110/85+# Ms Lynda Stephens (Member)... 21.11.84... No fixed term... $131/session... $110/85+# Miss Noreen Minogue (Member)... 21.11.84... No fixed term... $131/session... $110/85+# Prof. David Penington (Member)... 21.11.84... No fixed term... $131/session... $110/85+# Mr Phil Carswell (Member)... 21.11.84... No fixed term... Nil... $110/85+# Mrs Jenny Ross (Member)... 21.11.84... No fixed term... Nil... $110/85+# Mr Lex Watson (Member)... 21.11.84... No fixed term... Nil... $110/85+# Dr Tony Adams (Member)... 21.11.84... No fixed term... Nil... $110/85+# Dr Anne Summers (Member)... 21.11.84... No fixed term... Nil... $110/85+# Mrs Ann Kern (Member)... 21.11.84... No fixed term... Nil*... $107/75*+# Dr Jeanette Linn (Member)... 21.11.84... No fixed term... $131/session... $110/75*+# Ms Catherine Healy (Member)... 21.11.84... No fixed term... $131/session... $110/75*+# Assoc. Prof. Ron Penny (Member)... 19.4.85... No fixed term... $131/session... $110/75*+# * Full-time public servant + Capital City rate/other than Capital City rate per day. # When travelling allowance is not payable, a fee of $30 for part day of more than 10 hours is payable. PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL Hon K. C. McKenzie (Chairman)... 12.5.84... 2 years... Nil*... Nil Mr J. D. Crail (Member)... 13.11.84... 3 years... $211 per day... $140 per day Ms M. A. Jackson (Member)... 12.9.85... 13 years... $211 per day... $140 per day * Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission MEDICARE BENEFITS REVIEW COMMITTEE Ms R. A. Layton (Chairperson)... 13.7.84 No fixed term ** 107/75+* Dr D. J. Formby (Member)... 13.7.84 No fixed term 375 per day 107/75 Dr G. D. Repin (Member)... 13.7.84 No fixed term Nil 107/75 Dr B. J. Shea OBE O.STJ. (Member)... 13.7.84 No fixed term $375 per day 107/75 Dr R. H. C. Wells (Member)... 13.7.84 No fixed term Nil* 107/75 Dr J. W. Donovan (Member) (i)... 2.10.84 No fixed term Nil 107/75 Dr J. S. Deeble (Member) (ii)... 24.6.85 No fixed term Nil 107/75 + Capital city/other than Capital city rate per day. * Full time public servant. * When travelling allowance is not payable, a fee of $30 for part day of more than 10 hours is payable. ** Arranged by Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Note (i) Dr Wells was replaced by Dr J. W. Donovan from 30 January 1985 for all meetings relating to Item 2 of the Committee's Terms of Reference. Note (ii) For consideration of Item 1 of the Terms of Reference Dr Donovan was replaced by Dr J. S. Deeble while Dr Formby and Dr Repin were withdrawn by the Australian Medical Association with the agreement of the Minister. AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD Prof. Ralph Doherty (Chairman)... 9.11.85 1 year $163/Session $110/85+* Prof Ross Kalucy (Member)... 9.11.85 1 year $131/Session $110/85 Prof. Gary Andrews (Member)... 9.11.85 1 year Nil** Nil Dr Anna Howe (Member)... 9.11.85 1 year $131/Session $110/85+* Dr Brian Shea (Member)... 9.11.85 1 year $131/Session $110/85 Dr Draginja Kasap (Member)... 9.11.85 1 year $131/Session $110/85 Ms Carol Davis (Member)... 9.11.85 1 year $131/Session $110/85 Dr Neville Hicks (Member)... 9.11.85 1 year $131/Session $110/85 Ms Phillipa Smith (Member)... 9.11.85 1 year $131/Session $110/85 Mr David Richmond (Member)... 9.11.85 1 year Nil** Nil Mrs Ann Kern (Member)... 9.11.85 1 year Nil* $107/75+* Dr John Deeble (Member)... 9.11.85 1 year Nil* $107/75 * Full time public servant. ** State Health Department representative. + Capital City rate/other than Capital City rate per day. * When travelling allowance is not payable, a fee of $30 for part day of more than 10 hours is payable. (Question No. 1382) Mr Langmore asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) How many overseas students have withdrawn from their courses in 1985 to date because they were unable to pay their visa charges. (2) How many students (a) have had to return home or (b) have changed their courses as a result of the increase in fees for overseas students announced early in 1985. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) I have been informed by my Department that it has not been advised by any students that they were withdrawing from courses in 1985 because they were unable to pay the Overseas Students Charge. (2) The increased charges announced in March 1985 do not come into effect until the 1986 academic year, and my Department is not aware of any students who have returned home or changed courses during 1985, because of the 1986 level of the charge. (Question No. 1607) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) What involvement did he have in (a) the selection of the Newcastle firm G. Hawkins and Sons for an $11 million contract for roadworks on the Stuart Highway section of the National Highway in South Australia, (b) the selection of the Newcastle firm Allco-Hawkins Joint Venture for 77 kilometres of roadworks and bridges between De Rose Hill, SA, and the Northern Territory and (c) the selection of the Newcastle firm Allco Construction Pty Ltd for the construction of 3 bridges between Marla and De Rose Hill. (2) Is he able to say whether there is financial, investment or personal connection between G. Hawkins and Sons, Allco-Hawkins Joint Venture and Allco Construction Pty Ltd; if so, what are the details. (3) What was the estimated effect of this project on unemployment in (a) the Newcastle area and (b) South Australia. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Tenders for the three projects were called and contracts let by the South Australian Highways Department in accordance with established government tendering practice. For the project between De Rose Hill and the Northern Territory border, the lowest conforming tender was submitted by Allco Construction Pty Ltd to build the three bridges, and the lowest conforming tender by G. Hawkins and Sons Pty Ltd for the roadworks. For the project between Marla Bore and De Rose Hill, Allco Construction Pty Ltd won the contract for the bridges, and G. Hawkins and Sons the contract for the roadworks, each in their own right and against competition from other tenders. I am advised there is no connection between Allco and Hawkins on these two contracts for this project. (2) I am advised that there is no financial, investment or personal connection between G. Hawkins and Sons Pty Ltd and Allco Construction Pty Ltd. Both companies are incorporated in New South Wales although Allco Construction was originally based in Whyalla. (3) (a) Negligible. (b) G. Hawkins and Sons Pty Ltd at present employ 29 staff and up to 50 subcontractors on the highway projects, only 4 of which are from Newcastle. Allco Construction Pty Ltd at present employ 34 staff and 7 subcontractors. I am informed that the policy of both companies has been to maximise local employment and the use of local equipment and materials. The contracts have maintained existing jobs and created others. The maximum benefit has therefore been created in South Australia, Whyalla and Port Augusta in particular. (Question No. 1655) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: How many people were employed in each of his Department's organisational divisions, in each of the former Public Service divisions, or their current equivalent, as at (a) 1 March 1983 and (b) 30 June 1985. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of Transport was created on 11 March 1983. Prior to this date the functions currently performed by the Department were performed by the then Department of Transport and Construction. The following table shows the number of full-time and part-time operative staff as at 29 February 1983 and 30 June 1985. The figures provided for 29 February 1983 relate only to those elements of the Department of Transport and Construction solely concerned with the performance of transport related functions. Staffing figures are not provided for those parts of the Department the functions of which were common to both transport and construction activities. It is not possible to provide statistics on the numbers of staff in each of the former Public Service divisions (i.e. First, Second, Third and Fourth) as at 29 February 1983 since the relevant information was not retained following the abolition of the divisional structure on 1 July 1984. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Division/region Employees as at 29 February 1983 Full-time Part-time Employees as at 30 June 1985 Full-time Part-time Central Office Executive... (a) 5 Sea transport policy... 69 72 Maritime safety... 202 (b) 187 Land transport policy... 49 52 1 Roads... 50 52 Road safety... 73 85 Management and co-ordination... (a) 244 25 Major transport projects... 2 0 Sub-total Central Office... 445 0 697 26 Regions New South Wales... 70 1 88 1 Victoria/Tasmania... 146 158 Queensland... 299 341 South Australia/ Northern Territory... 61 2 69 2 Western Australia... 75 86 1 Sub-total Regions(c)... 651 3 742 (c)...4 Bureau of Transport Economics... 96 2 99 3 Total... 1,192 5 1,538 33 (a) These organisational units carried joint responsibility for both the transport and construction elements of the Department. (b) Then called Marine Operations Divisions. (c) Staff numbers increased in the Regions after the split of the Department because of the need to provide separate management services support groups. (Question No. 1668) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report prepared for the South Australian Government which proposes that a major tourist service should operate on the Adelaide to Victor Harbour railway line. (2) Has he received representations from the Premier of South Australia since May 1985 regarding the upgrading of the railway line and the operation of a tourist service between Adelaide and Victor Harbour. (3) Has the Federal Government offered South Australia $70,000 for the upgrading of the Victor Harbour railway line. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I understand that such a report exists but I have not seen a copy. I am aware of a recent announcement by the Premier of South Australia concerning use of the line for tourist services. (2) and (3) Discussions have been held with the Premier and the South Australian Minister of Transport. During these discussions the issue of possible Federal assistance has been canvassed. An amount of $1.258m has recently been approved under the Federal Government's Community Employment Program for expenditure on rehabilitation of the Victor Harbour line. Further discussions to determine the detailed arrangements for the return of the line to South Australia will be held. (Question No. 1896) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: What is the (a) cost to his Department and authorities under his control and (b) number of recipients of recurring `act of grace' payments. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The cost to the Department of Social Security for `act of grace' payments in 1984-85 was $111,043.10, of which $102,998.57 was paid to recipients receiving recurring payments. (b) There were 33 recipients receiving recurring `act of grace' payments in 1984-85. (Question No. 1916) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) What award increases or changes occurred in 1984-85 that affected employees of his Department and authorities under his control. (2) What was the financial effect of these award changes. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) A National Wage Case and an Anomaly Pay Claim were determined by the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and a reclassification of Regional Managers by a Commissioner of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Details follow: National Wage Case 2.6 per cent effective from 18 April 1985. Cost of $1.6m in 1984-85 and $6.7m in a full year ACOA/APSA Anomaly Pay Claim 2 per cent for Clerical staff 4 per cent for Keyboard staff effective from 30 May 1985. Cost of $0.5m in 1984-85 and $6.4m in a full year Reclassification of 30 Regional Managers from Clerical Administrative Class 8 to Clerical Administrative Class 9 effective from 2 May 1985. Cost of $12,000 in 1984-85 and $66,000 in a full year. (Question No. 2000-2027) Mr Braithwaite asked all Ministers, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) How many staff were employed in the Minister's Department and in statutory organisations under the Minister's control at (a) 30 June 1975 and (b) 30 June 1985. (2) Is it a fact that public corporations are required under Commonwealth law to properly record and annually declare all provisions; if so, were provisions provided within the Minister's Department and statutory organisations under the Minister's control at 30 June 1985, in regard to (a) accrued retirement provisions, including unfunded superannuation and pension entitlements, (b) accrued annual leave, (c) accrued sick leave and (d) accrued long service leave. (3) If provisions were not made, what is the Minister's Department assessment of the value of these accrued liabilities at 30 June 1985. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question on behalf of all Ministers: (1) The information sought by the honourable member is available in the annual reports of the Public Service Board and of individual departments and statutory authorities tabled, or shortly to be tabled, in the Parliament. (2) and (3) Commonwealth companies are required to report in accordance with the Companies Act which contains certain disclosure requirements with respect to provisions. Those statutory authorities that are bodies corporate (and could be termed `public corporations') operate their own bank accounts and are required by the `Guidelines for the Form and Standard of Financial Statements of Commonwealth Undertakings', issued by the Minister for Finance, to prepare financial statements that accord with generally accepted (accrual) accounting practices. In this respect the Guidelines reflect the requirements of the Companies Act and the Australian Accounting Standards promulgated by the accounting profession. Thus, these authorities are required to disclose all provisions, including those relating to employee benefits. Information on the types and amounts of the provisions made by each organisation is provided annually to the Parliament through their respective annual reports. Departments of State and statutory authorities operating through the public account (which are not `public corporations') are bound by the accounting requirements of the Audit Act 1901 and related finance Regulations and directions. The cash based, fund accounting system set out in that legislative framework is designed to meet the Constitutional requirements and associated Parliamentary appropriation process that, together, underpin the executive Government's financial operations. Accrual accounting concepts such as the provisions mentioned in the question are not necessary to meet these requirements and, accordingly, the accounting system is not designed to produce such information. However, the Forward Estimate procedures are an important part of the Commonwealth's budgetary system and provide an information base for budgetary policy decisions on future payments of salary, including payments of superannuation and various kinds of leave entitlements. In addition, in June 1982, the Australian Government Actuary published a report on the long-term costs of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme and I refer the honourable member to that part of the report which deals with projections of future costs. With respect to reporting superannuation entitlements the Guidelines have, since February 1985, required of statutory authorities, disclosures that go well beyond what is required of private sector entities; Paragraph 34 states: In the absence of any extant accounting standards in Australia in the superannuation area, details indicating the general nature of superannuation arrangements made for employees in respect of each pension plan or scheme are to be provided as follows: the associated employee group; the nature of the employer's obligation to make contributions; the amount of employer contributions paid or payable in respect of the current and previous accounting period; the date of the last actuarial review of the plan or scheme; the ongoing contribution rate (expressed as a percentage of superannuable salaries) recommended by the actuary as sufficient to meet the cost of benefits accruing in respect of future service, allowing for new entrants; explanation of any material departures from the actuary's recommended contribution rate; where employers contribute to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme on the `pay-as-you-go' basis, the amount by which the balance in the authority's notional account is less than or exceeds the present value of future benefits payable to pensioners and the benefits accrued in respect of service to date by contributors; in the case of other authorities which operate on the `emerging cost' basis, whether the employer contributions retained in the entity are based on actuarial advice and are expected to be sufficient to pay the employer share of employee superannuation benefits as and when it becomes payable; other relevant information. Information on the types and amounts of the provisions made by each organisation is provided annually to the Parliament through their respective annual reports. Any detailed information required by the honourable member relating to a particular authority or department may be found in the relevant annual report or through a specific question to the Minister concerned. (Question No. 2045) Mr Blunt asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: What has been Mr P. Steedman's role in connection with the Priority One Campaign, and its development and does the Government propose to re-employ him in any capacity? Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Mr Steedman was engaged as a consultant to the Honourable J. S. Dawkins, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs, to undertake a study of youth media participation in the context of International Youth Year (IYY). Mr Steedman's involvement in the Priority One Campaign grew from that study. He has been assisting with the development of youth policy strategies as well as consulting with the youth sector and relevant State Government bodies. Mr Steedman's contract has been extended for a further twelve (12) months from the end of September 1985. He will continue to be involved in consultations and review of youth policies, including the end of year review I announced in my August 18 Address to the Nation. Mr Steedman's background, experience and personal qualities make him ideally suited to advise on effective means of communication with young people. (Question No. 2053) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What amounts have been paid to Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their companies, or principals of their companies, for services rendered to the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control and for what purposes in each case. (2) What amounts have been paid to each of these people or companies for (a) travel allowance, (b) air fares, (c) accommodation costs, (d) hire car expenses and (e) any other expenses incurred. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following response to the honourable member's question: I am advised that no such amounts have been paid. (Question No. 2138) Mr Hollis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 11 October 1985: (1) To which international organisations were catch-up payments made in 1984-85 in order to comply more closely with their financial arrangements. (2) When do these organisations commence their financial year. (3) Has Australia paid its contributions to all these organisations in respect of their current financial years, if not, to which organisations are Australian contributions still due. (4) Will the 1985 Budget appropriations permit Australia to pay its contributions to these organisations on the due dates in their respective financial years. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) United Nations in respect of the regular budget; United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation; International Atomic Energy Agency. (2) 1 January each year. (3) Yes. (4) As the 1986 assessments for Australia's contributions to these organisations had not been received when the 1985-86 Budget was finalised, the Budget estimates are based on the 1985 level of assessment. Subject to changes in the levels of assessment for 1986, and the exchange rates applicable at the time, it is expected that the 1985-86 Budget appropriations will allow Australia to pay its 1986 contributions to these organisations by the due date, 1 January, or within 30 days of receipt of a communication from either the Secretary-General or the Directors-General notifying Australia of its contribution. (Question No. 2187) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 14 October 1985: (1) Is he able to say what plans the New South Wales and Victorian railways authorities have to upgrade the Sydney-Melbourne line to allow `piggyback' freight. (2) What involvement does his Department have in the plans. (3) Is he able to say what percentage of road freight traffic between Sydney and Melbourne is expected to change to `piggyback'. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (2) and (3) Any plans to upgrade the Sydney-Melbourne line to allow `piggyback' operations are the responsibility of the New South Wales and Victorian governments. I am advised that neither government has such plans at the present time. (Question No. 11) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) In view of the alleged fraudulent transactions involved in Bishopsgate Insurance Aust. Ltd collapse, can he say (a) where the company had its reinsurance placed after it was taken over by its new owners, (b) whether the reinsurers were incompetent reinsurers and (c) which company cancelled its reinsurance agreement with the company after the takeover. (2) Is it a fact that a director of the company organised a reinsurance policy with an overseas reinsurer; if so, when did this take place, how much was involved and who was the reinsurer. (3) Is it also a fact that the overseas reinsurer placed most of the policy again with another insurer which was a captive company of the Australian company or its associate; if so, will he furnish details of the companies or the reinsurers involved. (4) Is the mechanism referred to in part (3) as a medium to launder money extremely difficult to detect. (5) Can he explain how Mr Stathis of Bishopsgate Insurance was able to transfer management of the company investment portfolio from BT Aust. (Merchant Bank) to his own investment company without the approval of his co-directors. (6) Was the transfer referred to in part (5) a contravention of the Companies Act; if so, will he raise this matter with the Attorney-General or what action does he intend to take. (7) In view of alleged fraudulent manipulation of the reinsurance placements, will the Government prepare regulations that will require reinsurance brokers and ceding companies to furnish the Reserve Bank with evidence of the bona fides of overseas reinsurers to whom reinsurance premiums are to be paid, through the submission of forms 12 and 13. (8) Does sub-section 44 (4) of the Insurance Act 1973 provide that an insurance company must lodge with the Commissioner a statement of assets and liabilities in Australia within 6 weeks after 31 March, 30 June, 30 September and 31 December in each year. (9) Is it a fact that Mr Stathis had until early June 1983 to send in the prescribed form for the March quarter 1983 when it should have been lodged before 15 May 1983; if so, why. (10) Does the Insurance Commissioner have the power to require information about these returns within 7 days of serving notice; if so, who signed the prescribed form from the quarter ending 31 March 1983. (11) Did the Office of the Insurance Commissioner seek an explanation as to why the form was not lodged on 15 May 1985; if not, why not. (12) Can he say whether representatives of the company's auditors arrived at the company's offices immediately after the close of the financial year 1983-83; if so, were the company's books in order. (13) If the company's books were not in order when inspected by the auditors, did they report that fact to the Insurance Commissioner; if not, does he know the reason. (14) Is he able to say who in the company authorised and signed cheques, share transfers and similar documents. (15) Are forms 1, 2 and 3 the only documents that the general insurance companies have to produce for the Insurance Commissioner which are made public. (16) Does form 4 give the calculation of the solvency margin under the Insurance Act 1973 and have insurance brokers been pressing for it to be a published document. (17) Is he prepared to require the publication of form 4; if not, why not. (18) Do forms 5 to 10 permit a full picture of the underwriters results by this main class of business with outstanding claims provisions, unearned premiums and expenses. (19) Is he prepared to require the publication of forms 5 to 10; if not, why not. (20) Are general insurance companies obliged to send in returns in enormous quantities to a variety of federal and State government authorities, especially the Australian Insurance Commissioner; if so, will he take action to ensure that shareholders are given the same information in annual reports. (21) Are companies, whether listed on the Stock Exchange or not, obliged to disclose their technical underwriting results; if not, is most of that information, not of their whole business but divided by class of business, already available because the general insurance companies have to include the information in the returns to the Insurance Commissioner. (22) If the information referred to in part (21) is kept confidential, will he take action to ensure that it is made public; if not, why not. (23) Is one of the cardinal tenets of the insurance industry its pledge to the principle of good faith to its policy holders, and the community at large; if so, is it reasonable to expect not only the company, but those who own, control and direct it, to be committed to uphold that principle. (24) Does he accept that the Insurance Commissioner should be empowered to take these matters into consideration when granting authorisation, in the granting of a licence, or if a change of ownership or control is proposed, and that the same matters should be subject to scrutiny again, before such changes take place, as a prerequisite to the issue of authorisation or licence to the company. (25) Under the present Act can the Commissioner (a) seek additional information, (b) direct the company not to dispose of assets or remove assets from Australia or (c) appoint an investigator if the Commissioner is of the opinion that the company is, or is likely to become, or about to become, unlikely to be able to meet its liabilities or that it has breached the provisions of section 51 or 52 of the Act. (26) Is the Commissioner put in a strong position to ascertain opinion allowing him to exercise the powers under sections 51 and 52 of the Act if there is an appointment of a person as a director or the acquisition of control by a person that the Commissioner believes to have suspect business ethics. (27) Does he accept that the Commissioner should have power to examine whether directors are fit and proper persons. (28) Do policyholders pay premiums to an insurance company in exchange for a promise to provide financial indemnity by the payment of claims. (29) Does the lack of access to information needed to reach an assessment prevent a policyholder and his broker assessing the financial viability and security of a company. (30) Can a policyholder ascertain whether a company has been authorised under the Act, but does this authorisation merely indicate that a company is within the minimum solvency margin required by the Act. (31) Is it a fact that an insurer may release information about its assets and liabilities in its published accounts but that these assessments may not be accepted by the Commissioner. (32) When a company submits financial statements to the Commissioner, is he empowered to adjust those figures if he disagrees with the basis on which they have been assessed; if so, are these adjusted figures then used to determine the solvency margin, but the figures not made available to policyholders, brokers or the public. (33) Has the Commissioner pointed out on a number of occasions the fact that while an insurer does comply with periodic solvency tests, this does not mean, much less guarantee, continuing viability. (34) Did the Department of the Treasury state in its submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission in August 1979, relating to insurance contracts, that its concern in regard to current arrangements in relation to the financial standards of general insurers is not so much that the standards laid down in the Insurance Act 1973 are too weak but that it is difficult for the insuring public to be able to make discriminating choices between insurers. (35) Did the Department of the Treasury in the same submission suggest that one approach which should be considered would be the publication by the Commissioner of more relevant data on individual companies and that the indirect effects of this proposal would be to provide an incentive to insurance companies to strive to improve their financial position and that, incidentally, this would encourage them to put additional effort into collecting outstanding premiums because the less outstandings they have the better their solvency margin would be. (36) Did the Department of the Treasury also submit to the Australian Law Reform Commission that the approach referred to in part (34) would reduce the possible opprobrium which the Government might incur under the present system if an authorised insurer were to fail, because the extra data to be made available would place many more insurance buyers, and certainly their professional advisers, in a position of being able to make an informed choice. (37) Will he take steps to make available to policyholders and the public a greater range of information currently collected under the Insurance Act 1973 to enable them to make more informed decisions about which insurer they intend to do business with and ensure that this information will include at least a detailed dissemination of assets and liabilities. (38) Does he accept that a greater degree of disclos- ure would no doubt encourage companies with higher standards to publicise the fact, using it as a competitive weapon, resulting in a rationalisation of the industry. (39) Will he give consideration to amending the Act to ensure that companies (a) dislose their technical underwriting results by main class of business, namely (i) fire classes, (ii) liability classes, (iii) motor vehicle business, (iv) marine insurance and (v) others and (b) are obliged to show (i) gross and net premiums, (ii) increase in premium reserves, (iii) incurred claims, (iv) commissions, (v) expenses and (vi) investment income attributed to the class of business. (40) Is there a need to include in the provisions of the Act a position of Principal Officer of these companies who should be accredited as a fit and proper person to occupy that position and who is obliged to notify the Commissioner if he intends to leave the country, when he intends to return, and the name of the relieving officer. (41) Will he take steps to ensure that (a) the annual accounts, and annual company returns Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4 are signed by the Principal Officer, the Chairman and another Director of the company, and that all other annual returns are signed by the Principal Officer and a Director and (b) that form 16 is signed by the Principal Officer and a Director or Secretary of the company. (42) Has his attention been drawn to my repeated questions relating to the critical need for more effective legislation as it relates to office holders being fit and proper persons and the need for adequate provisions relating to company investments. (43) Is Australian insurance legislation very similar in structure to that of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 of the United Kingdom; if so, will he give urgent consideration to having incorporated into the Australian legislation provisions dealing with (a) control of insurance company investments and (b) oversight of the suitability of directors and other executive officers of such companies. (44) Will he take steps to have the Insurance Act 1973 amended by including a new section 21A similar to section 7 of the UK Act, with consequential amendments to sections 22 and 27. (45) Will he also take steps (a) to have section 29 amended by inserting a new provision concerning whether a person is a fit and proper person to manage the affairs of a body corporate, (b) to have section 52 amended by inserting the provisions of section 46 of the UK Act, (c) to insert new sections 62A, 62B and 62C similar to sections 60, 61 and 62 of the UK Act and (d) to amend section 30 to incorporate the investment provisions contained in section 38 of the UK Act. (46) Will he also give urgent consideration to have amendments similar to those referred to in parts (44) and (45) made to the Life Insurance Act 1945. (47) Has he indicated his intention of introducing amendments to the Insurance Act to protect policyholders; if so, will he give urgent consideration to ensuring that the proposed legislation will include provision for (a) indemnity or other assistance to policyholders similar to that contained in the provisions of the Policyholders Protection Act 1975 of the UK which provides for payment of 90% of the amount of any liability of a company in liquidation towards UK policyholders, (b) the imposition of levies on the insurance industry for the purpose of financing this protection and (c) the establishment under his guidance, subject to the affirmative resolution of the Parliament, of a Policyholders Protection Board, whose functions would include (i) taking measures for indemnifying or otherwise assisting policyholders and others who have been or may be prejudiced by the inability of insurance companies carrying on business in Australia to meet their liabilities, (ii) financing expenditure on the performance of their functions by the imposition of levies on these insurance companies and (iii) the regulation of intermediaries, i.e. insurance brokers and insurance agents. (48) Does the Insurance Commissioner exercise supervision by ensuring that insurance companies are likely to continue to meet their liabilities and obligations; if so, why did he allow a substantial portion of Bishopsgate Insurance's investment portofolio to be placed with one company, AEK Nominees Pty Ltd. (49) Is it a fact that (a) the collapse of Northumberland Insurance Co. Ltd was due largely to excessive investment in Cambridge Credit Corporation, a finance company which went into receivership in 1974 as a result of heavy losses in speculative real estate development projects and (b) the failure of Palmdale Insurance Limited can be largely attributed to the extent of its investment in an ailing soft-drink manufacturer. (50) In the light of recent events, is consideration being given to amending the Insurance Act 1973 by placing limitations on the investments of insurance companies to ensure that the liquidity and financial stability of insurers will not be threatened. (51) Has his attention been drawn also to my repeated questions relating to the urgent need to set up an Accounting Standards Review Board; if so, can he say what progress has been made by the Australian Accounting Research Foundation set up jointly by the Australian Society of Accountants and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, in the preparation of a discussion paper on accounting and financing reporting in the Australian general insurance industry. (52) Is there an urgent need for the adoption of standardised accounting practices by all insurance companies; if so, will he take immediate action to set in place standards for companies to comply with. (53) Will he take immediate steps to amend the Insurance Act 1973 to ensure the greater supervision of companies by inserting the provisions set out in section 54 of the Life Insurance Act 1945 within the framework of the Insurance Act 1973. (54) Can he say whether Mr Stathis cancelled BT Aust. (Merchant Bank) as Bishopsgate Insurance's money marketing investment managers and substituted AEK Nominees Pty Ltd, a company which he controlled; if so, will he take immediate steps to reveal the financial position of this company, and the degree of control exercised by Mr Stathis. (55) Does he accept that in the case of companies which resort to money market investment advisers, such advisers ought to be subject to the provisions of the Securities Industry code; if so, will he raise with the Attorney-General the need for an urgent review for the purpose of amending that code to ensure that the provisions apply to all people who deal or act as dealers in financial investments. (56) Has there been a record of procrastination by the Ministerial Council in dealing with amendments to both the companies and securities codes; if so, will he take immediate steps to ensure that investment advisers to the companies referred to in part (55) are endorsed by the Insurance Commissioner. (57) Will he obtain an early report from the liquidator of Bishopsgate Insurance to gain an indication of the assets available, and the percentage return that unsecured creditors might be expected to receive. (58) What (a) underwriting agencies were involved in the collapse of Bishopsgate Insurance, (b) is the proportion of the volume of losses occurring through agencies in this collapse and (c) effect will this collapse have on the viability of these agencies. (59) In an attempt to ameliorate the position in which members of the insuring public find themselves when such a company goes into liquidation, will the Government give early consideration to the introduction of a bill relating to the winding up of insurance companies which will place, in an order of priority, those insured who have suffered an insured loss and whose claims have not been paid so that they will be entitled to priority after creditors claiming, e.g. for wages and related items, and as such will no longer be treated as ordinary unsecured creditors, but will enhance their prospects to recover their claims. (60) Does he agree that it is best to give priority to those insured with claims since it is persons of that class who are most likely to suffer a heavy loss and may even lose their homes in which they live as a result of an insurer's insolvency. (61) Has his attention been drawn to my repeated questions as to adequate staffing of the Office of the Insurance Commissioner; if so, has the Commissioner sufficient staff to conduct proper examinations of all facets of an insurance company's operations on a regular basis; if not, will he ensure adequate staff is provided immediately. (62) What action does he intend to take to my written submission of 17 March 1983 that the supervision of both Life and Insurance Commissioner's responsi- bilities be amalgamated in one office. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised by the Insurance Commissioner that Bishopsgate's reinsurance arrangements were spread over a number of Australian authorised and overseas reinsurers and that only minor changes to participants on treaties occurred subsequent to the change in ownership. The Commissioner has further advised that he has no information which suggests that the Bishopsgate reinsurers were incompetent in any relevant sense and has noted that most are supervised under the Insurance Act. (2) See (1) above. The information required to be lodged with the Commissioner under the Insurance Act does not extend to the role performed by individual representatives of authorised insurers in organizing reinsurance arrangements. (3) and (4) Information obtained from authorised insurers does not include information on the placement (retrocession) of reinsurance by overseas reinsurers-these companies are outside the jurisdiction of the Insurance Act. There is, therefore, no comprehensive information available to the Commissioner of relevance to the matter raised in (4). It should be noted, however, that the Commissioner's guidelines with respect to reinsurance arrangements are applied on a basis that generally limits the amount of premium that may be ceded to overseas reinsurers. (5) The Commissioner has advised that internal company procedures of this kind are not required to be notified under the Insurance Act and that details of the matter raised are not known to him. (6) I have been informed that an investigation into these matters is currently being conducted by the New South Wales Government with assistance from Victoria. I would expect that, if this investigation reveals inadequacies in company law, this would be raised by the NSW Minister in the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. (7) The essential purpose of exchange control has been to support macro-economic policy management and, in particular, exchange rate and monetary policy management. When the Government decided to float the Australian dollar, it was necessary to abolish most of the restrictions implemented through exchange control. Overseas payments do not now require exchange control approval, although there are various requirements under the Government's taxation screening arrangements. It would be inappropriate to re-introduce exchange control requirements for the purpose proposed. In any event, the assessment of an authorised insurer's reinsurance arrangements is essentially a matter for the Commissioner who has advised me that he has no evidence of misuse of reinsurance arrangements to transfer funds to other than bona fide reinsurers. In this context, the Commissioner's guidelines referred to in (3) and (4) above are also of some relevance. (8) Yes. (9) The Commissioner has advised that the Form 16 for the quarter ended 31 March 1983 was received by the due date and that an amendment of the Form 16 for that quarter was lodged in June 1983. (10) Sub-section 44 (9) of the Insurance Act empowers the Commissioner to request information on an account or statement lodged under this section within such a period after service of a notice as is specified in the notice not being less than seven days. The original Form 16 lodged for the quarter was signed by the Company's Head Office Accountant while the amended Form 16 was signed by the Company Secretary. (11) See (9). (12) and (13) The Commissioner has advised that he does not have information on the matter raised in (12). The Insurance Act does not require auditors to report to the Commissioner-the statutory requirement is for an annual audit certificate to be provided to the company by the auditor for lodgment with the Office of the Insurance Commissioner. (14) The Commissioner has advised that he is unable to say who in the Company authorised and signed cheques, share transfers and similar documents. Internal company procedures of this nature are not required to be notified under the Insurance Act. (15) Yes. (16) and (17) The Statement of Assets and Liabilities (Form 4) provides for the calculation of an authorised insurer's statutory solvency. I understand that some interests within the broking sector of the insurance industry have expressed support for increased disclosure in this area. In general terms the Government is sympathetic to the view that there should be an increase in public disclosure of financial information of an insurer's solvency and will be giving careful consideration to this matter in the ongoing review of the Insurance Act. However, the publication of Form 4 in its present form could create certain problems as a result of an insurer including a solvency margin calculation derived from its own estimates of values of approved assets and its own assessment of its liabilities. These values and assessments are not necessarily accepted or adopted by the Commissioner in his assessment of an insurer's solvency in terms of the Insurance Act. The Form 4 is thus not an official endorsement of an insurer's statutory solvency. In some cases, it may, in fact, be seriously misleading to the public if it were to be interpreted that way. (18) and (19) Forms 5 to 10 provide, by class of insurance business, mainly the underwriting information summarised on Form 1. It is the latter Form which consolidates the trading operations of each insurer in order to reflect the overall underwriting result. Form 1 is available to the public. As indicated at (16) and (17) above, the Government will be giving careful consideration to further public disclosure of financial information submitted by authorised insurers. (20) Authorised insurers are obliged to forward returns to the Commissioner as an integral part of the continuous assessment of each insurer under the Insurance Act. The Forms are numerous and the information extensive. I understand that comprehensive information is also furnished to State workers' compensation insurance authorities. There are serious practical problems in requiring that individual shareholders be given the same information in annual reports forwarded to them; for example- business information would become publicly available that could be used by competitors; there would be a deterrent to full and frank dis- closure to the Office of the Insurance Commissioner if the information were made widely available by giving it to shareholders; in many instances the Office of the Insurance Commissioner finds it necessary to adjust information provided in assessing solvency margins. Such adjustments would not be available to shareholders, resulting in a presentation of a company's financial position different to that assessed by the Commissioner. (21) and (22) See (18) and (19) above. (23) It is a principle of sound insurance that both insurers and insureds should exercise utmost good faith in entering into an insurance contract. It would be reasonable to expect those who own or control an insurance company to uphold that principle. (24) An examination is currently in process regarding possible proposals to amend the Insurance Act to incorporate provisions concerned with oversighting the suitability of directors and owners of authorised insurers and associated matters. This work will take into account relevant United Kingdom legislation and a submission received in April 1985 from the Insurance Council of Australia. (25) (a) Yes. Sub-section 44 (9) and paragraph 51 (1) (a) of the Insurance Act refer. (b) Yes. Paragraph 51 (1) (b) of the Insurance Act refers. (c) No. Only the Treasurer is empowered to appoint an inspector pursuant to the provisions of sub-section 52 (2) of the Insurance Act. (26) The powers conferred on the Commissioner by sections 51 and 52 of the Insurance Act relate to the inability or the likely inability of an authorised insurer to meet liabilities including, in the latter case, contravention of the provisions of the Act. The Commissioner has no powers under the Act relating to the appointment of a person as a director or the acquisition of control by a person. (27) See (24) above. (28) Yes-subject to conditions specified in insurance policies. (29) Such assessments will naturally be more difficult without relevant information. Nevertheless, by the nature of the insurance mechanism, the financial viability and security of an authorised insurer can be very difficult to assess with precision and will always involve subjective judgements. See (16) and (17) above. It is, of course, open to potential policyholders and brokers to seek information directly from insurers and to take into account their responses in choosing an insurer. (30) A policyholder is able to ascertain if an insurer has been authorised. Authorisation indicates, inter alia, that an insurer has been assessed as having met the minimum solvency margin required by the Insurance Act. However, authorisation under the Act is not a guarantee against failure of an insurer. (31) Yes. See (16) and (17) above. (32) Yes. (33) Yes. See (30) above. (34) Yes; at paragraph 61 of the Submission. (35) and (36) The Department's views are outlined at paragraphs 34 and 63 respectively of the Submission. (37) See (16) to (20) above. (38) It is possible that disclosure would encourage authorised insurers with higher standards to publicise this fact. Insurers with higher standards are free to publish this information if they wish. (39) See (16) to (20) above. (40) and (41) See (24) above. (42) Yes. (43) The Insurance Act was developed from a study of overseas insurance legislation including the United Kingdom legislation. (a) Additional control of authorised insurers' investments would need to be subject to careful consideration to avoid inhibiting the legitimate investment activities of bona fide insurers. As far as existing controls are concerned, section 30 of the Insurance Act contains provisions governing the extent to which assets, including certain investments, can be taken into account for solvency purposes and section 9 of the, as yet unproclaimed, Life Insurance Amendment Act empowers the Life Insurance Commissioner to restrict investments of life insurance companies in certain circumstances. The controls embodied in the above provisions reflect the extent of the Government's commitment at this time to the regulation of insurance company investments. The matter will be kept under review in the light of experience in the administration of the Acts. (b) See (24) above. (44) See (24) above. (45) See (24) and (43) above. (46) See (24) above. The Government's consideration of these proposals will extend to the Life Insurance Act 1945. (47) The honourable member will be aware that the Insurance Amendment Act 1983, which was passed by Parliament in December 1983, provided for some strengthening in solvency and other requirements applicable to authorised insurers. In addition, the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984 which was passed in June 1984, but is as yet not fully proclaimed, provides for a system of regulation of insurance agents and brokers. The question of further protection of policyholders in line with the Policyholders Protection Act 1975 of the United Kingdom will be given careful consideration in the context of assessing the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission on controls over directors and a guarantee scheme. (Recommendations 74 and 75 respectively of the Insurance Contracts Report (ALRC No. 20) refer.) (48) The Commissioner exercises his supervisory role on the basis of his powers and responsibilities as reflected in the Insurance Act. I am informed that the Insurance Commissioner was not aware of the full details involving investments placed with AEK Nominees Pty Ltd until his officers commenced their inspection of Bishopsgate. (49) The Office of the Insurance Commissioner has informed me that the factors referred to probably contributed to the ultimate failure of the insurance companies mentioned. (50) See (43) above. (51) and (52) I am aware of the honourable member's interest in this matter. I understand that the Australian Accounting Research Foundation has taken on a project to develop and publish a discussion paper and has been informed that the paper will be available for comment in the next few months. The Office of the Insurance Commissioner is represented on the project advisory panel which assists the Foundation in the consideration of the papers that are prepared by contractors employed by the Foundation. The Government will be monitoring this work and will give careful study to any recommendations put forward by the accounting profession for improved accounting and reporting standards in this area. (53) The provisions of section 51 of the Insurance Act provide comparable powers to those provided under section 54 of the Life Insurance Act except that the Insurance Act provision applies only to a situation where it appears to the Commissioner that an authorised insurer is likely to become unable to meet its liabilities. Section 115 empowers the Commissioner to require the production of books. (54) See (5) and (6) above. (55) and (56) I am informed that the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) is presently conducting a review of the requirements of the securities industry legislation relating to licensing of persons who carry on business in the securities industry. The Attorney-General has instructed his Department to ensure that the matter raised in parts (55) and (56) of the honourable member's question is brought to the NCSC's attention during this review. (57) I am informed that creditors' meetings were held in Melbourne and Sydney on 15 and 16 February 1984 respectively and received wide coverage in the media. I understand that as relevant information becomes available to the liquidator it will be released to creditors and the general public. (58) Underwriting agencies are not supervised under the Insurance Act and the information sought is not available to the Office of the Insurance Commissioner. (59) and (60) I understand that the honourable member has been advised by the former Attorney-General of his views and those of the Australian Law Reform Commission on this matter. Officials in my Department are currently consulting with insurance industry representatives on the two related proposals mentioned at (47) above. (61) I am aware of the honourable member's interest in this matter. The Insurance Commissioner included relevant comment in his 1983-84 Annual Report and I am informed that a recruitment campaign for his Office is being actively pursued. (62) Now that a number of other more pressing issues in the insurance area have been dealt with, I understand that the matters raised in the Submission are being given careful consideration. (Question No. 1110) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 May 1985: (1) Is it a fact that (a) there is tension, conflict and instability within and between a number of Middle East countries, all of which are important to continued world stability, (b) the USSR military intervention in Afghanistan, together with the war between Iran and Iraq, has given rise to tension, concern and instability to countries affected by and/or bordering this conflict and (c) the West has few pre-stationed forward bases to respond to a conventional conflict; if so is he able to say (i) where these bases are, (ii) how many personnel are involved and (iii) the types of weapons platforms and systems on each base. (2) Is he also able to say how many Soviet military divisions are deployed in (a) Central Asia, (b) Afghanistan, (c) Turkestan, (d) Trans Caucasus, (e) West Siberia, (f) Central Strategic Reserve, (g) Trans-Baikal area, (h) Central Strategic Reserve Moscow, (i) Odessa and (j) Kiev, and whether the divisions stationed in (e) and (f) are within 2 or 3 days striking distance of the Middle East. (3) Is he able to say how many Soviet divisions are stationed, or are at the Soviet's disposal within the (a) Far East and (b) Soviet Southern Theatre Afghanistan. (4) In view of the probability of an escalation of tension leading to a broadening of countries involved in conflict in this region, what contingency plans has the Government in place to respond to this situation. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) I refer the honourable member to the International Institute for Strategic Studies publication The Military Balance 1984-85 (pages 10, 11, and 31-49) which provides details of relevant deployments by the US and other NATO countries. The Government regards The Military Balance as a reliable source. I also refer the honourable member to the `Report of the Secretary of Defence Casper W. Weinberger to the Congress on the FY 1986 Budget, FY 87 Authorisation Request and the FY 1986-1990 Defence Programs, of February 4, 1985, pages 229-237. This outlines the US rapid deployment strategy, UN military capabilities for the region, and security assistance to regional countries which are relevant to the honourable member's question. (2) I refer the honourable member to The Military Balance 1984-1985, page 19. (3) I refer the honourable member to The Military Balance 1984-1985, pages 19 and 22. (4) I believe that it would not be desirable to speculate about possible Australian responses to a hypothetical situation. Any actions would necessarily be closely attuned to the circumstances of the time and would need to take account of a wide range of factors, including possible effects on our activities that support the security of our region of primary strategic interest-South East Asia, the South Pacific, and the nearest parts of the Indian Ocean. (Question No. 1173) Mr Price asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 16 May 1985: (1) Do formal procedures exist for the handling of ministerial representations in the Minister's Department and statutory authorities for which the Minister is responsible; if so, (a) what are the titles of the instructions and when were they issued and (b) are target times provided (i) formally or (ii) informally; if so, what are they. (2) Is the performance with which representations are dealt with monitored; if so what was the percentage of representations that met their targets in 1985, to 16 May. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No formal instructions for handling ministerial representations currently exist in the Department, the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation or the Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Limited. From time to time I have informed the Department of my preferences in relation to particular aspects of processing and drafting. Departmental procedures contemplate wherever possible representations being acknowledged within thirty working days from the date of receipt in the Department. Where this is not practicable, interim replies are usually sent. (2) Ministerial representations are recorded centrally and outstanding responses are followed up each month. Functional areas of the Department provide status reports and explanations for delays in finalising replies. Performance is regularly reported to senior departmental management. The percentage of representations that met the target response time in 1985, to 30 September was approximately 40 per cent. Of 1392 representations requiring a response during that period, 1147 concerned either local government or property matters. Severe resource constraints in these functional areas is the main reason why the percentage of representations finalised within the target response time is not higher. (Question No. 1193) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 May 1985: (1) Further to the answer by the former Minister for Transport to question No. 1592 (Hansard, 3 October 1984 page 1571), what are the advantages and disadvantages of the Alice Springs/Darwin railway as put forward by the (a) Chief of the Defence Force (b) Secretary of his Department, (c) Chief of Naval Staff (d) Chief of the General Staff and (e) Chief of the Air Staff. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I have nothing to add to the answer given by the Minister for Transport other than to say that personal advice was not put forward by any of the five officers listed. (Question No. 1592) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: (1) Will the Minister provide details of all expenditure within his Department in 1984-85 for compensation and legal expenses as outlined in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86. (2) What was the (a) amount and (b) nature of the expenditure in each case for (i) compensation and (ii) legal expenses. (3) What was the name of each recipient of payment for legal expenses. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, Central Office (i) Compensation under Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act: Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $37,769. This covered regular ongoing compensation payments ($19,552) made to six former employees in accordance with determinations of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation. The balance of expenditure ($18,217) covered payments to medical practitioners, chemists, physiotherapists, hospitals, etc. relating to employee compensation determinations in respect of 63 officers and comprising 297 individual transactions. (ii) Other compensation payments: Nil. (iii) Legal expenses: (i) In respect of the taxation provisions for films scheme-application for an Order of Review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, for the following films: The Return of Captain Invincible Amount Recipient Service $ 4,440 Mr L. Katz Legal fees 351 Mr B. Smith Travelling allowance 395 Ansett Airlines Fares (B. Smith) 7,725 Mr D. M. J. Bennett, QC Legal fees 2,150 Dashing Printing and Stationery Printing of appeals book-`Captain Invincible' On the Run Amount Recipient Service $ 3,100 Mr D. M. J. Bennett, QC Legal fees 2,225 Mr L. Katz Legal fees 961 TAA Fares-Departmental officers 180 Ms T. Wright Travel allowance 239 Mr B. Smith Travel allowance Weird and Wonderful Amount Recipient Service $ 4,222 Messrs Abraham Meese and Co. Legal costs and fees 300 Mr N. Moshinsky Legal fees (ii) In respect of the following cases: Recovery of coins from shipwreck, Gilt Dragon Amount Recipient Service $ 500 Mr M. C. Lee, QC Counsel fee 534 Mr S. Wilson Travel expenses, phone expenses, 2 days salary 40 Department of Administrative Services, Ascotvale Car hire (S. Wilson) 28 Department of Administrative Services, Perth Car hire (S. Wilson) 630 Ansett Airlines Fares (S. Wilson) Freedom of Information request, re Paterson and Department of Home Affairs and Environment Amount Payee Service $ 2,345 Dr G. A. Flick Legal expenses Environmental Impact Statement-Application in respect of Garden Island Dockyard Amount Payee Service $ 625 Australian Government Solicitor's Office Payment to F. M. Douglas for counsel fees Australian Archives (i) Compensation under Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act: Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $68,712.26. This covered regular ongoing compensation payments ($38,101.28) made to four former employees, as well as compensation payments ($10,961.73) to current employees in accordance with determinations of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation. The balance of expenditure ($19,649.25) covered payments to medical practitioners, chemists, etc. relating to employee compensation determinations. (ii) Other compensation payments: Nil. (iii) Legal expenses: Amount Recipient Service $ 5,941.45 Australian Government Solicitor Disbursement of plaintiff's costs re: Commonwealth of Australia v. Roughley National Film and Sound Archive (i) Compensation under Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act: Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $89.00. This amount represented payments for medical expenses relating to employee compensation determinations in respect of one officer and comprising two individual transactions. (ii) Other compensation payments: Nil. (iii) Legal expenses: Nil. (Question No. 1689) Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 13 September 1985: (1) Can the Minister indicate what Australian tertiary institutions recruited staff from South Africa between 1975 and 1978. (2) Can the Minister indicate whether the Western Australian College of Advanced Education has ever recruited staff from South Africa; if so, is the Minister able to say (a) when senior staff of the Western Australian College of Advanced Education last visited South Africa to recruit staff, (b) how often Western Australian College of Advanced Education senior staff visited South Africa between 1975 and 1985, (c) what was the cost of any visits to South Africa, (d) what was the cost of advertising undertaken by the Western Australian College of Advanced Education in South Africa between 1975 and 1985 and (e) whether the Western Australian College of Advanced Education has ever recruited staff from Zimbabwe in breach of UN sanctions when that country, then Rhodesia, was subject to such sanctions. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) The Commonwealth Government provides funds to higher education institutions for teaching and research purposes. The institutions are, however, self-governing bodies established under State legislation and are responsible for all matters relating to internal administration, including staffing. I do not therefore have the information sought. (Question No. 1855) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: (1) Is he able to say whether United States Forces have undertaken training in non-violent civilian based defence techniques as proposed by Gene Sharp in his book, The Politics of Non-Violent Action. (2) Have steps been taken to keep Australian forces informed of and competent in these techniques; if so, what are the details. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am informed that United States Forces have not undertaken such training. (2) Although the Defence organisation is conscious of the potential value that non-violent civilian-based techniques might have in the unlikely event that another country were to invade Australia, the ADF is not given training in these techniques because conventional forms of training are more appropriate to credible Australian defence contingencies. (Question No. 1926) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: Will he bring up to date the information contained in the answer to question No. 178 (Hansard, 13 May 1985, pages 2261-62) and provide similar information for the Pacific Ocean. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There have been no developments which would warrant changes to the information contained in the answers given previously to question No. 178 part 1 (Hansard, 13 May 1985, pages 2260-61). Information given in response to question No. 178 part 2 concerning development at Dahlak Island, Aden, Socotra Island and the Bay of Turbah remains current. Monthly class/day figures of Soviet naval associated ships during the period 1 March to 31 August 1985 are shown in the following table: Soviet Naval Activity Indian Ocean (Ship days) March 1985-August 1985 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Cruisers Kresta... 31 8 Destroyers Kashin... 31 30 35 44 31 31 Frigates Krivak... 59 54 31 14 22 Submarines Charlie... 62 47 Echo II... 9 Victor... 14 30 31 30 31 31 Foxtrot... 12 15 30 31 31 Minesweepers Natya... 31 23 Yurka... 8 31 30 31 31 Landing Ships Alligator... 62 38 31 11 Ropucha... 15 30 31 31 Auxiliaries Oilers... 38 30 40 52 31 31 Repair ships... 31 30 51 60 49 55 Sub tenders... 31 30 31 30 31 53 Merchant tankers... 31 47 31 30 31 31 Miscellaneous... 187 163 161 158 124 131 Others Oceanographic... 53 24 41 31 Hydrographic... 31 54 31 30 31 49 Intelligence Collectors... 31 30 31 6 Comprehensive and detailed data on Soviet naval movements in the North and West Pacific Ocean is derived from a variety of sources, including sensitive intelligence sources and information made available by allies on a confidential basis. It would not be appropriate for the Australian Government to make such data publicly available. There has been no significant Soviet naval activity in the South Pacific since the information given in response to question No. 1681 part 2 (Hansard, 9 October 1984, pages 1980-81). (Question No. 2033) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: Has he personally assured himself that the various arms of military intelligence under his control are not keeping records on Australian civilians; if not, will he do so. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Defence Security Branch is a combined military and civilian organisation responsible for formulating central security policy and control and co-ordinating both civilian and military security measures and practices. Clearly there are circumstances in which it is necessary for defence security to record details of Australian civilians; for security checking of potential recruits into the Australian Defence Force and Reserves; where a civilian is implicated in a Service investigation of offences concerning Service personnel or property (in which case the investigation is conducted in conjunction with appropriate Commonwealth or State authorities) and, for civilians who require direct access to classified defence material, to areas declared under defence-related acts, or who are employed with the Australian Defence Force. If the purport of the honourable member's question relates to whether personal `security' information is improperly held by defence security on civilians the answer is that no records are improperly held. (Question No. 2060) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What amounts have been paid to Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their companies, or principals of their companies, for services rendered to the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control and for what purposes in each case. (2) What amounts have been paid to each of these people or companies for (a) travel allowance, (b) air fares, (c) accommodation costs, (d) hire car expenses and (e) any other expenses incurred. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Mr Phillip Adams has received no payments in respect of services rendered, travel allowance, air fares, accommodation costs, hire car expenses or any other expenses. Mr Adam's company, Monahan Dayman and Adams Pty Ltd has been paid $1,706,115 for radio and television advertising charges. Mr Noel Gladstone of Monahan Dayman and Adams Pty Ltd has been paid $159.50 for travel allowance and an amount of $428.20 for air fares. Mr Rod Cameron has received no payments in respect of services rendered, travel allowance, air fares, accommodation costs, hire car expenses or any other expenses. Mr Cameron's company, Australian National Opinion Polls has been paid $25,000 as the Defence contribution to the survey into Young Australians Today carried out by the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. (Question No. 2125) Dr Klugman asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 October 1985: What was the per capita income of Australians in 1985 dollars in (a) 1950, (b) 1960, (c) 1965, (d) 1970, (e) 1975, (f) 1980 and (g) the latest year for which figures are available. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is given in the following table: The table shows gross domestic product (GDP) at constant prices per head of population. GDP is the only income measure for which the ABS compiles constant price estimates. As 1979-80 is the most recent base period for constant price estimates, the series in the table are shown on this base. The estimates are shown on a financial year basis as calendar year data are not available for all periods. GDP at average 1979-80 prices ($ million) Population (1) ('000) GDP (at average 1979-80 prices) per head of population ($) (a) 1949-50 (2)... 33,251 8,046 4,133 (b) 1959-60 (2)... 49,913 10,161 4,912 (c) 1964-65 (2)... 63,983 11,280 5,672 (d) 1969-70... 83,469 12,407 6,728 (e) 1974-75... 102,518 13,832 7,412 (f) 1979-80... 116,417 14,603 7,972 (g) 1984-85... 134,746 15,649 8,611 Sources: `Quarterly estimates of national income and expenditure, June quarter 1985' (ABS catalogue No. 5206.0). `Australian Demographic Statistics' (ABS catalogue No. 3101.0). (1) As at 31 December of year shown. (2) Constant price estimates for years prior to 1969-70 have been derived by `splicing' estimates on earlier base years. (Question No. 2256) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 17 October 1985; What classes for English as a second language are held within the Electoral Division of Lowe. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: My portfolio is responsible for the adult migrant education program. Under this program, the New South Wales Adult Migrant Education Service provides classes at the following venues: (1) Community classes at: (a) Ashfield Care Force: 4 classes x 4 hours per week (b) Ashfield Public School 4 classes x 4 hours per week (c) Burwood Woodstock Community Centre 6 classes x 4 hours per week (d) Burwood Public School 3 classes x 4 hours per week (e) Summer Hill Public School 1 class x 4 hours per week (f) Five Dock Public Library 1 class x 4 hours per week (g) Homebush West Public School 1 class x 4 hours per week (h) Homebush Boys' High School 5 classes x 9 hours per week (i) Flemmington St. Dominic's School 1 class x 4 hours per week (2) English in the Workplace Classes: (a) Ford-Homebush 4 classes x 4 hours per week (b) Concord Hospital 2 classes x 4 hours per week (c) State Rail Authority, Flemmington 2 classes x 4 hours per week (d) Grosvenor Hospital, Summer Hill 1 class x 4 hours per wek (3) Adult Migrant Education Centres: There are no such centres in the Electoral Division of Lowe. However, students from this division are enrolled at Adult Migrant Education Centres at Belmore, Bankstown and Blackfriars (Chippendale) which offer a comprehensive range of programs. (4) Home Tutor Scheme and Correspondence Courses: In addition to formal classes, students have access to the Home Tutor Scheme and Correspondence Courses. (Question No. 19) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) Within the air navigation regulations, and within the ambit of the Independent Air Fares Tribunal, are there provisions for Ansett, TAA, or any other carrier to operate non-scheduled charter services between points within Australia; if so, what would hinder a private tour operator, government travel instrumentality, or the airlines themselves, in providing non-scheduled, out of hours special tourist flights, which do not conflict with scheduled `on-demand' services already operating. (2) Is it a fact that the economics of operating an Airbus A-300 or Boeing 767 in an all-economy configuration, between 10 p.m. on a Saturday and 6 a.m. Sunday between Melbourne or Sydney and Cairns, would result in a viable fare for the airlines of between $200 and $250 return and a fare between Melbourne and the Gold Coast between $100 and $150 return; if so, will he actively encourage the major airlines to provide such off-schedule charter services to enable major holiday destinations in Australia to actively compete in the Australian market place against overseas destinations. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Air Navigation Regulations provide for the operation of non-scheduled charter services by appropriately licensed oparators. Specific authorisation from the Secretary to the Department of Aviation is required for the operation of charters more than once within any four week period over a route on which a regular public transport service operates. Rates charged by charter operators are not subject to determination by the Independent Air Fares Committee. Intra-state charter operations may, in addition to requiring a Commonwealth licence, require a State licence, depending on the State concerned. A licence issued by the Northern Territory administration is required for operations within the Territory. Provided an operator holds the appropriate charter licence(s) and operational approvals, the operation of charter services is a matter for the commercial judgment of the individual operator. (Question No. 1036) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 May 1985: (1) Is it a fact that at least 2 international airlines operate direct Australia to Copenhagen services using a change of flight numbers technique at their home bases and that Qantas have arrangements with SAS and Finnair for carriage of passengers to and from Scandinavia and Finland. (2) What plans does Qantas have to begin direct services to Copenhagen to carry the fast increasing tourist traffic to and from Scandinavia and Finland. (3) Is it a fact that Qantas is planning a charter flight from Copenhagen; if so, what are the details of this plan. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) I understand that Qantas has no present plans to begin direct services to Copenhagen. Although the market for travel between Australia and Scandinavia/Finland is growing, it is not yet at a level sufficient to support the operation of regular scheduled services by Qantas and SAS. (3) I am advised that Qantas has no current plan to operate a charter flight to Copenhagen. (Question No. 1037) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 May 1985: (1) How many charters either (a) totally or (b) in part were undertaken by Qantas Airways (i) in 1984 and (ii) to 10 May in 1985 and for each charter for whom were the charters undertaken and between which ports did they operate. (2) What plans does Qantas have for charter operations for the remainder of 1985 and between which ports will they operate. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Details of charter flights operated totally by Qantas during the period 1 January 1984-10 May 1985 are as follows: 24 March 1984: for Hogg Travel Agency from Manchester to Manchester 26 March 1984: for Air New Zealand from Melbourne to Christchurch to Melbourne 8 April 1984: for Macarthur Mutual Credit Union from Sydney to Sydney 26 April 1984: for Air New Zealand from Brisbane to Auckland to Brisbane 5 May 1984: for Air New Zealand from Brisbane to Auckland to Brisbane 4 June 1984: for South Perth Rotary Club from Perth to Perth 4 July 1984: for Air New Zealand from Sydney to Auckland to Sydney 30 August 1984: for Australian Tourist Commission from Frankfurt to Bergen to Frankfurt 23 September 1984: for Iwasaki Sangyo Co. (Aust) Pty Ltd from Melbourne to Christchurch to Melbourne 27 October 1984: for Turramurra Rotary Club from Sydney to Sydney 16 November 1984: for British Airways from Sydney to Perth to Sydney 26 November 1984: for British Airways from Sydney to Auckland to Sydney 26 December 1984: for Air New Zealand from Melbourne to Christchurch to Melbourne 27 December 1984: for Air New Zealand from Sydney to Auckland to Sydney 2 May 1985: for Davids Holdings from Sydney to Chicago via Honolulu (1) (b) Qantas has not been involved in any part charter flights. (2) At present Qantas has no plans to operate further passenger charter flights during the remainder of 1985. (Question No. 1430) Mr Everingham asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Are station owners in the Northern Territory required to pay a $30 landing fee for mail delivery flights; if so, can he confirm that this discriminates against the people living and working in remote areas. (2) Has he considered imposing a $30 fee for a postal delivery to urban dwellers. (3) Will the charge be reviewed. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, from information provided by Australia Post, is as follows: (1) Australia Post has not imposed any fee. I understand that some station owners in the Northern Territory are required by the Department of Aviation to pay landing fees as a contribution towards the cost of providing them with an air transport service. Australia Post makes use of such air transport services for the delivery of mail and contributes substantially towards the operating costs of the services. In 1984/85, payments of this nature to air transport operators in the Northern Territory totalled $0.234m for mail deliveries to 109 properties and settlements, at an average annual cost of about $2,150 for each point. However, Australia Post is not responsible for the provision of the services, which also convey passengers and freight. The payment of landing fees is a matter between the station owners, the Department of Aviation and the operators of the air services. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. See (1) above. (Question No. 1500) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What brands of computer or ADP hardware are in use in the Minister's Department and each authority for which the Minister is responsible. (2) For each major system (a) what is its principal function, (b) when was it installed, (c) what was the hardware cost, (d) what is its anticipated life and (e) what action is being taken in relation to its replacement. (3) Is any major system shared with any other user; if so, who and for what main purpose. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRY (1) Wang Australia is a major supplier to the Department. Control Data Australia is also a significant supplier. (2) (a) (i) The Wang hardware is configured as an Australia wide network with two medium and one small mainframe computers in Canberra and five satellite computers in each State capital except Darwin. The network is supplemented by 15 specialist word processing systems, 14 Wang Personal Computers, and some 120 general workstations (VDUs). The systems provide general ADP, word processing, and management information to the Department. (ii) The Australian Fisheries Service is the major partner in a Control Data Cyber 810 computer housed at Braddon which is shared with the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service. This is a specialised scientific machine which is linked to CSIRONET and addresses fisheries management and National Animal Disease Information Systems. (b) (i) A Wang VS80 system was purchased in mid 1981 for word processing. This was upgraded to a VS100 in mid 1982 to provide some general ADP functions. Wangnet was installed in The Edmund Barton Building, in Canberra, in mid 1984. Currently a major upgrade, commenced in mid 1985, is being completed. (ii) The Cyber 810 was installed in June 1985. (c) (i) The cost of the Wang system has been borne over a number of years. The current upgrades resulted in an expenditure of $2.5 million and the estimated value of installed equipment is a further $0.5 million. Total value of Wang equipment is between $3 million and $3.5 million. (ii) The Cyber 810 including foreign exchange which has still to be settled will cost $600,000. (d) The minimum life of both systems is expected to be three years. (e) No replacement is proposed at present. However, further extension of the system would require replacement which would include an extension to provide linkages to slaughtering, export, and testing establishments. The replacement cost is estimated to be between $10 million and $15 million (present day prices). In order to successfully migrate to widely deployed ADP systems the major task facing the Department is to gain widely based professional and user ADP skills to enable new systems to be successfully specified and managed. (3) No. AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD (1) IBM 4381, Model 1. (2) (a) The computer is used for commercial computer processing including-Grower payments, Sales, General Ledger, Fixed Assets. (b) The computer hardware was installed progressively from July 1984 to December 1984. (c) The hardware cost for the mainframe computer was $1,400,000. Terminals and printers have cost, to date, $569,000. (d) The anticipated life of the equipment should be at least another 5 years. Significant upgrade potential is provided. (e) None. (3) No. AUSTRALIAN DAIRY CORPORATION (1) Hewlett Packard. (2) (a) Financial Systems. (b) September 1978. (c) $202,600. (d) Obsolete in February 1988. (e) It was foreshadowed in the 1985-86 Corporation budget papers that an upgrade will need to be budgeted for in the 1986-87 financial year. (3) No. AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVESTOCK CORPORATION (1) Wang. (2) (a) Word processing, statistical analysis, accounting, administration generally and quota administration. (b) July 1983. (c) $109,000 after trade-in. (d) About 8 years. (e) No current plans for replacement. (3) Shared with the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation for word pro- cessing, accounting, general administration and analysis. AUSTRALIAN WOOL CORPORATION (1) Brands of hardware utilised by the Australian Wool Corporation are: Burroughs, Prime, Amalgamated Wireless Australasia (AWA)-Microstar, Wang, Cromenco, IBM PC, Apple, Arrow QT, Photon phototypesetters. (2) Major Systems in Use Are: Burroughs Mainframe B2930 (a) The principal function of this system is to support the reserve price scheme (RPS) and wool inventory systems. The equipment also supports the Corporation's economics reporting and transportation systems. (b) The equipment was leased and installed in 1980. (c) The rental cost of the equipment for 1985 is $14,228 per annum. (d) and (e) The long term plan is to transfer the Burroughs files and systems to the Prime network. Although some files have been transferred to the Prime there is no scheduled replacement of the Burroughs mainframe equipment. Burroughs Minicomputer B25 Equipment (a) This equipment will support the wool auction system. (b) The equipment was purchased in July/August 1985. The system will be installed in December 1985. (c) The cost of the equipment was $474,218. (d) and (e) There are no existing plans for replacement. AWA Micromax Microcomputers (a) This equipment currently supports the wool auction system. (b) The equipment was originally purchased in 1979. Extra equipment has been subsequently purchased. (c) The cost of the equipment was $213,763. (d) The equipment will be replaced after December 1985 by the Burroughs B25. (e) The replacement machines have been purchased. Prime 50 Series Minicomputer Network (a) The equipment supports several administrative functions at the Corporation. It also operates as a national communications network between the Corporation's three regional offices and the Parkville Head office. The main applications supported by the equipment are the regional sales data and stock control systems. The Corporation's financial and accounting systems and the Wool Marketing Service (WMS). (b) The equipment was originally purchased in 1982. It has been subsequently upgraded. The historical record of the upgrades is as follows: September 1982-850 system installed at head office September 1983-550, 750 and 850 systems installed at 3 regional offices September 1983-850 head office system upgraded to 9950 December 1983-550 system upgraded to 750. (c) The overall cost of the equipment was $1,877,827. (d) and (e) There are no existing plans to replace the equipment. Cromemco CS-100 Microcomputer Small Network (a) The equipment supports the research and development functions of the Corporation. (b) The equipment was purchased in late 1984. (c) The equipment cost was $25,790. (d) and (e) Due to statutory changes, the Australian Wool Corporation will now administer the Wool Research Trust Fund. The Corporation's Research and Development Department will assume responsibility for the fund. The current system will need to be enhanced or replaced and is under review. The new system is scheduled for installation in July 1986. Wang Word Processing Equipment (a) The equipment supports the word processing centre of the Corporation. (b) The equipment was first installed in 1981. It has been upgraded in 1983 and 1985. (c) The equipment cost was $214,426. (d) and (e) There are no current plans to replace the equipment. Photon Pacesetter Mk1 Model Phototypesetter Driven by a Wang Word Processing Front End System (a) The equipment supports the typesetting requirments of the Corporation. (b) The Photon equipment was purchased in 1977. The Wang equipment was purchased in 1981. (c) The Photon equipment cost $42,000 and the Wang equipment cost $34,000. (d) The Photon is now obsolete and due for replacement. (e) The replacement of the equipment is presently being reviewed as part of a corporate office automation study now in progress. (3) No. AUSTRALIAN WINE AND BRANDY CORPORATION (1) IBM personal computer printers. (2) (a) Accounting, statistics and word processing. (b) 1984. (c) $20,000 (approx). (d) Unknown. (e) None. (3) No. AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVESTOCK RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (1) The Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation (AMLRDC) has the use of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation's (AMLC) computer hardware which is a Wang main frame. The AMLRDC owns an Apple/McIntosh personal computer. The answers to part (2) of this question relate to this personal computer. (2) (a) Word Processing, Graphs, Statistical Information Storage, Projections. (b) 1985. (c) Approximately $7,500. (d) 3-4 years. (e) Nil. (3) See (1) above. AUSTRALIAN APPLE AND PEAR CORPORATION (1) Olivetti M24 personal computer. (2) (a) Word Processing and Accounting/Statistical. (b) 4 September 1985. (c) $6,740. (d) 10 years. (e) None. (3) No. AUSTRALIAN DRIED FRUITS CORPORATION (1) The Australian Dried Fruits Corporation is in the process of installing a Labtam 3020M. (2) (a) Computerisation of current manual tasks: (i) Export Shipping Register for the recording/reporting of Certificates of Authority to Export Dried Fruits. (ii) Production of monthly Levy Exemption Certificates. (iii) Data base for production and sales statistics for Australia and other producing countries. (iv) Equalisation records comprising- recording domestic and export sales by each packer and exporter; recording levies paid on each variety subject to equalisation; recording entitlement to equalisation payments (and advances) on each variety subject to equalisation. (b) Final installation will be effected before the end of 1985. (c) The estimated cost is $27,182. (d) Unknown. (e) None. (3) No. AUSTRALIAN CANNED FRUITS CORPORATION (ACFC) (1) Convergent Technology. (2) (a) To produce information required for operation of the industry equalisation scheme and for EDP management in relation to the scheme. (b) November 1984. (c), (d) and (e) Equipment is leased from Australian Canned Fruit (IMO) Pty Ltd, an affiliate organisation to the ACFC which is owned by the canners and markets Australian canned fruit in the United Kingdom. The annual cost to the ACFC is $80,000 which is made up of a leasing charge to pay for the use of the computer by the ACFC in respect of the industry equalisation scheme plus a charge for an EDP management service provided to the ACFC. (3) See 2 (c), (d) and (e) above. PORK PROMOTION COMMITTEE (1) Olivetti. (2) (a) Word processing. (b) 23 November 1984. (c) $11,500. (d) Not determined. (e) None. (3) No. AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVESTOCK POLICY COUNCIL (1) Wang (one terminal). (2) (a) Word processing. (b) June 1985. (c) $8,697. (d) 10 years. (e) None. (3) Terminal is shared with the Meat and Wool Division of the Department of Primary Industry. (Question No. 1628) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) What is the present Air Navigation Regulation covering charter flights. (2) When was the regulation (a) made and (b) last reviewed and what is its purpose. (3) Is he able to say what the various State regulations are for intrastate charters. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Air Navigation Regulation (ANR) 191 (c) defines charter operations. ANR197 requires that specific authorisation from the Secretary to the Department of Aviation be obtained for the operation of charters more than once within any four week period over a route on which a regular public transport service operates. ANR198 requires that, where a person uses an aircraft in commercial operations, a licence must be obtained by that person from the Secretary to the Department of Aviation. ANR198A requires that a charter licence be obtained for the conduct of charter operations. A charter cargo licence may be obtained where charter operations do not involve the carriage of passengers. ANR199 deals with the issue of licences and conditions which may be imposed. (2) (a) The requirement to hold charter licences was introduced in 1947. Statutory Rules 1982 No. 270, which commenced 1 February 1983, amended the regulations to introduce the cargo charter licence, which followed from the most recent review of the abovementioned regulations. (b) The provisions of the ANRs for the classification and licensing of air service operations, including charter operations, provide a base for applying operational standards appropriate to the nature of individual operations. (3) Victoria and South Australia do not have air service licensing legislation. The other States have legislation requiring the licensing of the commercial carriage of passengers and goods, but do not distinguish between charter and other classes of operation. The relevant State legislation is set out below: New South Wales Air Transport Act 1964 Queensland Air Transport Act 1960 Western Australian Transport Commission Act 1966 Tasmanian Traffic Act 1925 The Northern Territory Aviation Act 1980 distinguishes between classes of operation and requires that a licence be held for the conduct of intra-territorial aerial work, charter or regular public transport operations. (Question No. 1824) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 13 September 1985: Has any agency over which he has control been involved with (a) advertising or (b) research in connection with the Government's Tax Summit; if so, what (i) was the nature of the advertising or research, (ii) was its cost, (iii) agencies or companies were involved and (iv) fees were paid. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (b) Yes. The Information Co-ordination Branch of my Department arranged advertising and research services. (a) (i) to advertise the availability of the booklet `A Guide to Tax Reform'. (ii) $95,195. (iii) John Clemenger (Vic) Pty Ltd. (iv) $2,354. (b) (i) to provide the Government with an understanding of community attitudes and needs relating to the taxation summit and tax reform. (ii) $160,000. (iii) ANOP Market Research. (iv) not applicable as agency fees apply only to advertising. (Question No. 1921) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) Does his Department (a) produce, (b) supply or (c) distribute Aboriginal flags; if so, (i) what is the cost of this activity, (ii) how many flags have been distributed and (iii) to what categories of recipient have they been distributed. (2) Are Aboriginal flags available on free issue; if so, what are the criteria for obtaining them. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The Department does not produce Aboriginal flags. (b) (c) From time to time the Department supplies and distributes flags which are purchased from the supplier, Southern Cross Flags, Sydney. (1) (i) In 1984-85 the cost was $2388. (ii) In 1984-85 sixty flags were distributed. (iii) In 1984-85 flags were distributed to the Department's Regional and Area Offices and were also presented to two Aboriginal Councils plus an Aboriginal school. (2) Not generally, but see response to 1 (iii). (Question No. 2235) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 17 October 1985: Is he proposing to establish an IDC or steering group to coordinate and promote the consideration of the application of search and rescue satellites for Australia; if so, who would be included in such a group. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. However, CSIRO Office of Space Science and Applications (COSSA) has convened a Technical Liaison Committee to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the 406 MHz SARSAT/COSPAS rescue system. As part of this evaluation it is proposed to carry an experiment beacon on the communication ship in the Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race in December 1985. This activity will be carried out as part of the normal COSSA space R& activity. The findings of the Technical Liaison Committee will be presented to the Australian Interdepartmental Telecommunications Advisory Committee (TAC) for evaluation and recommendation on the possible implementation of an operational system. The following Government Departments and related organisations have been invited to participate in the work of this Committee: Department of Transport Department of Aviation Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce Department of Science Department of Communications The Commissioner, Australian Federal Police The Director, National Safety Council.