Wednesday, 27 November 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Bill presented by Mr Cohen, and read a first time. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(10.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to protect Australia's heritage of cultural objects and to extend certain forms of protection to the cultural heritage of other nations. As a result of these steps, Australia will be able to accede to the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. All nations possess objects which illustrate in unique or significant ways their history and culture. In Australia's case, some of these objects date back beyond recorded history to the deep roots of Aboriginal life; others relate to the period of exploration and settlement and to the progressive growth over the last 200 years of a distinctively Australian society. In speaking of cultural objects I am not simply referring to works of art, although the cultural heritage obviously embraces paintings, prints, crafts, sculpture, manuscripts, books, furniture and other art objects. I am referring to the full range of cultural heritage material. This also includes stamps, coins, maps, military objects and technological objects, including machinery, scientific material, inventions, archaeological finds, artefacts from Aboriginal life, government records, important documents, photographs, films and television material. Rare and valuable cultural objects are increasingly sought after by collectors. In recent decades a thriving international market has developed with high prices being paid for rare objects. In some instances systematic looting of cultural treasures is known to be organised by black market operators in the big buying centres. The loss of material has reached crisis level in certain countries, particularly in the Third World, which has already suffered depletion at the hands of explorers, colonists, traders and missionaries. UNESCO has long been active in encouraging its member states to protect the finite and vulnerable evidence of their cultural histories. In 1970 UNESCO drew up a convention to deal with the question of illicit international trafficking in cultural treasures. Fifty-three nations have now become parties to this Convention, which imposes treaty obligations to return important cultural objects illegally exported from other parties. The definition of cultural material given in the Convention is broad, embracing archaeology, pre-history, history, literature, art and science and includes the range of material which I mentioned a moment ago. Although its primary focus is on illegal international traffic, the Convention proposes other forms of protection, including a national inventory of protected cultural property, support for collecting institutions, rules for curatorial conduct, educational measures, controls on antique dealers and supervision of archaeological sites. Australia's decision to accede to the 1970 Convention was announced by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) to the General Conference of UNESCO in Paris in October 1983. The legislation before the House will put us in a position to do this. These steps have been long advocated by our museums, galleries, libraries and archives. The States are big holders of cultural collections and have a direct interest in this matter. I have been anxious to ensure therefore that whatever steps the Commonwealth took should be acceptable to the States. The proposals embodied in the Bill have the support of the States. Most of the protective measures set out in the 1970 Convention have long been practised in Australia, both at Commonwealth and State levels. The Customs Act 1901 and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Heritage (Interim Protection) Act 1984 provide protection for certain categories of cultural material. The States and Territories have laws which affect the removal of objects from archaeological sites and regulate the operations of antique dealers. All governments in Australia support collecting institutions which fulfil many of the Convention's objectives, namely conservation, security, presentation and public education. In general our record on protection of our cultural heritage is good and the responsibility is widely shared. In deciding how to approach the matter of accession to the 1970 Convention the Government has taken the view that the Commonwealth should not attempt to subsume or replace arrangements already in hand at State or local level. However there are certain steps which must be taken at Commonwealth level before accession and those steps are the subject of this Bill. In summary the Bill provides for: New export and import controls to regulate the movement of important cultural objects. This will enable the establishment of reciprocal arrangements with other countries for the return of illegally exported material. A national heritage fund to help with the acquisition of important cultural objects prohibited from export and for associated purposes. New administrative arrangements to manage these Commonwealth initiatives and maintain liaison with the States. Let me deal first with the export and import controls. I should say at the outset that the Government is not seeking to stop movement of all cultural material or even most of it. We are concerned only to see that those objects the export of which would constitute an irreparable loss to our cultural heritage remain in Australia. The categories of material to be protected are outlined in clause 7 of the Bill. A national cultural heritage control list will be drawn up, setting out these categories in greater detail, together with the criteria by which export controls will be exercised. The criteria will include such factors as age, rarity, quality, monetary value and extent of inclusion in public collections. The control list will distinguish between class A objects, namely, those objects so rare and important as to be considered inalienable and class B objects which in certain circumstances may be given an export permit. Much of this material is already prohibited from export under the Customs Act and subject to seizure and forfeiture if an offence is committed. The relevant Schedules of the Customs Act have been developed over many years, yet do not cover all categories of important cultural material. When the new control list is established the present regulations under the Customs Act will be appropriately amended. All the categories to be included in the control list will be prescribed by regulations, thus subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The control list will be widely circulated and people owning valuable objects will have every opportunity to inform themselves as to the nature of the export controls. In drawing up the arrangements for Australia we have studied Canada's experience with similar legislation. There, in any given year, fewer than 20 objects are prevented from export. Most of these are bought for display in public institutions or for return to tribal museums or communities in the case of Indian material. I would expect the Australian experience to be somewhat similar. The Act provides for strong sanctions against illegal export and attempted illegal export. Since we are concerned only with objects of great importance it is proper that people taking such objects out of the country without authority should be subject to heavy penalties. An object which has been exported unlawfully will be immediately forfeited to the Crown, so that we may move at once to institute recovery proceedings overseas. In the case of attempted illegal export, the object will be seized and liable to forfeiture. However, the owner will have the right to seek recovery for possession through the courts. Of course, there will be certain instances in which international movement of important objects may be warranted for purposes of conservation, study, exhibition or display, or an owner may for a temporary period be residing in another country. In such circumstances conditional export permits may be issued. Given the range of cultural material for which permits may be sought, it will be necessary to have access to expert advice. A register of expert examiners will be established, including institutions whose professional staff will provide this service and individuals from academic, commercial and other backgrounds. If, despite the export controls, an important object is illegally exported from Australia and is subsequently found in a country which is already party to the 1970 Convention, the Commonwealth will be able to seek the return of that material through official channels once Australia has become a party to the Convention. This will occur as soon as possible after the Act is proclaimed. The import controls will apply only to important cultural material which has been imported into Australia without the requisite export authorisation from the country of origin. There will be no search of incoming luggage or freight. The import controls exist solely to enable Australia to respond if an official complaint is received from a foreign government that an illegally exported object has been brought to Australia. If a foreign government does not consider an object sufficiently important to lodge such a complaint, we do not consider ourselves as having an obligation to protect that country's cultural property on its behalf. Although these controls relate essentially to Australia's treaty obligations under the 1970 Convention, they will also make it possible for the Government to provide this form of protection to countries which may not yet be party to the Convention. An institution or individual buying an important cultural object from overseas will need to be satisfied that the requisite export authorisations have been issued in the country of origin. This is already the practice of all reputable collecting institutions and private collectors. In any case the interests of innocent third parties are safeguarded by the 1970 Convention. A country requesting the return of an object is required by the Convention to offer financial compensation to an innocent third party purchaser. I made reference earlier to the national cultural heritage fund. The decision to establish the fund addresses two important matters of principle. The first is to ensure that important objects of the national heritage which are barred from export should be readily available to the Australian public. Where objects are refused export permits, they will be acquired wherever possible for display in a public collection. The fund will help facilitate these acquisitions. The second principle relates to the rights of owners. The Bill is designed to recognise an individual's right to enjoyment of property while establishing the nation's right to restrict the movement of that property where it represents an irreplaceable part of the cultural heritage. We realise that, by imposing export controls, we are in a sense intervening in the right of individuals to dispose of property as they see fit. We therefore believe that a means should exist of helping an owner to reach a fair price on the local market for an object which he may have wished to sell internationally. The administration of this Act will require close co-operation between Commonwealth and State departments and authorities. A committee will be established to assist in the administration of the new arrangements. The committee will advise on the establishment of the national cultural heritage control list, maintenance of a register of expert examiners, advice on the operation of the export and import controls and on allocations from the fund. The committee will also provide advice periodically on the general situation with regard to the movable cultural heritage and on policy issues which may require resolution. It is intended that the committee will operate in a flexible manner and will respond readily to special applications. It is essential that the membership of the committee should reflect the diverse professions with involvement in cultural heritage matters. I therefore propose to ensure that the membership of the committee includes representatives of archives, museums, libraries and galleries, as well as universities which hold large cultural collections. Other people will be appointed with an eye to relevant experience and access to the professional expertise which will be required to run the new arrangements efficiently. The Committee will also include a nominee of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. This recognises that special provisions may be required for the protection of our unique Aboriginal heritage and, in particular, rare art works or secret sacred objects. I propose to consult on these matters with my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) in order to ensure that the administrative arrangements will accommodate the particular needs of Aboriginal tradition and society. The costs of implementing the legislation will not be great, approximately $50,000 for administrative costs for 1985-86, and approximately $200,000 for 1986-87. Both staff and costs will be accommodated within my existing departmental resources and approved portfolio targets. An important component of initial costs will be an educative program to inform the public of this protection to cultural heritage. The amount to be provided to the fund will be a matter for the Government in the Budget context. Finally, let me stress that the Convention is not concerned with restitution of cultural property taken from this country in the past or brought here in past years from other countries without proper authority. The restitution of cultural property is the subject of other United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation efforts, but it is not the subject of the 1970 Convention or the purpose of this legislation. Rather, the concern is to draw a line across history to ensure that in future years transfers of important and valuable cultural objects from one country to another take place in a legal and orderly fashion and that sanctions imposed will discourage illicit trafficking in cultural material. People all over the world are becoming increasingly aware of the precious and finite nature of their cultural heritage. Australians are now more conscious of the distinctive experiences and values of their national life. Those objects which uniquely represent that heritage should, wherever possible, remain in Australia for Australians to enjoy. There are too many countries whose citizens have to travel to museums and galleries in other lands in order to see the vestiges of their national heritage. We cannot allow this to happen to Australia. This legislation is designed to ensure that it does not happen. In conclusion, I would like to pay tribute to a couple of people who played a very important role in this legislation. First of all there is His Excellency, Australia's Ambassador to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Mr Whitlam, former Prime Minister. All in my Department, my staff and the Leader of the House (Mr Young) can relax for the rest of the year now that this Bill has been introduced because His Excellency has pressed us on this matter for a long, long time. I know that he will get enormous pleasure to know that this Bill has been introduced this morning. In turn, we will get pleasure to know that he is happy. I would also like to pay tribute to Dr Jean Battersby, who is in the House, the former General Manager of the Australia Council and a distinguished member of the arts community who has spent so much time working on this Bill. Debate adjourned. Mr Sinclair —I do not think the debate was actually adjourned. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the Leader of the National Party, as he will see if he examines the Standing Orders, that it is a custom but not a necessary step that the debate be adjourned by a member of the Opposition. Mr Sinclair —Very desirable, however. Mr SPEAKER —I will accept that the honourable member for O'Connor, so moved. However, I do point out that the debate can be adjourned in that way without an adjournment motion from the Opposition. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —by leave-I would like to dwell for a moment on the question of our response, from the point of view of the Joint Intelligence Organisation, to the tabling by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of the report on the Office of National Assessments and the Joint Intelligence Organisation by the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. The Prime Minister, in his tabling statement, advised honourable members that Mr Justice Hope found JIO to be a competent and professional agency and that I would be recommending to the Government what action to take in response to the detailed recommendations and suggestions of Mr Justice Hope on JIO. Honourable members will be aware that the Joint Intelligence Organisation is an element of the Department of Defence created in 1970 by combining the military intelligence assessment elements of the three Services with the Joint Intelligence Bureau, which focused primarily on maintaining and analysing geographic and infrastructure information addressing economic and scientific developments abroad relevant to the Defence portfolio. In providing the Government's response to Mr Justice Hope's recommendations on JIO I want to emphasise the fundamental place of intelligence in Australia's defence planning and preparation. Intelligence is particularly relevant to Australia in our present strategic situation. Good intelligence provides a reasonable assurance that changes in military capability in areas of relevance to our national security will be detected at an early stage and it enables defence policies and the Defence Force to be shaped against realistic strategic assessments. Intelligence assessment and early warning of changes that might affect our security adversely or which are to our advantage and need active support and encouragement are the heart of Australia's defence. It is essential for Australia's security that we have available a profound knowledge and understanding of the complex world in which we live, with a particular focus on detailed knowledge about our neighbourhood. I believe that we can be confident that the Australian intelligence community can now provide a very satisfactory level of independent assessment and analysis of developments in our neighbourhood. Integral to that capability is the facility on matters of national significance to draw on Australian origin material either directly or to provide collateral. I have been most impressed in my time in the Defence portfolio with the capability and potential of defence intelligence in terms of its direct value to my ministerial responsibilities, the support it provides to the Defence Force and Department, its contribution to the wider Australian intelligence community, and its contribution to international intelligence co-operation. The Royal Commission confirmed the value of defence intelligence and the contributions it makes in the areas I have just mentioned. I would like to dwell for a moment on the relationship between our close intelligence co-operation with the United States of America, the United Kingdom and New Zealand and the requirements for the independent knowledge and assessment capability I referred to earlier. The two elements do not now stand in opposition as has sometimes been claimed in the past. I have said that we can be confident in the knowledge we have of the region around us and in our capability for assessment. Our international intelligence relationships support those capabilities by providing, in the case of the United States, access to very technically advanced systems, to information on global issues and on areas remote from Australia's primary strategic focus, and to information and assessments on the Indian and Pacific Ocean areas that enable a comparison with our own judgments. Australian intelligence in return contributes uniquely in many respects to the knowledge of our allies. The Royal Commission's main recommendations concerning JIO were directed towards improving the process of consultation between the organisation and its main customers. I am pleased to be able to inform honourable members that the Government, now having considered the detailed recommendations concerning JIO contained in Mr Justice Hope's report, has agreed to all of them. In particular, the Government has agreed to the setting up of a JIO advisory committee which will facilitate better consultation between JIO and its main customers. The Government also has agreed to suggestions by Mr Justice Hope aimed at improving JIO's organisation and structure, manning, training and forward planning. Action has been initiated to implement these recommendations, which should enable JIO to tackle with great confidence the challenges of the future. Considerations of national security often preclude the product of those involved in intelligence assessments, particularly in the defence field, from being publicly available. I believe that the Australian public can take considerable assurance from the Royal Commission's report on JIO that its important functions are being competently and effectively performed. I present the following paper: Office of National Assessments and Joint Intelligence Organisation-Ministerial Statement, 27 November 1985. Motion (by Mr Hurford) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.24) —I am delighted that we have a motion before us that the House take note of this paper as it will allow the ministerial statement to be debated more fully. I think it is worth commenting that it is unfortunate that we are discussing a comprehensive report on the function and range of Australia's intelligence agencies on a non-broadcast day and at an hour of the morning when very little attention is paid to what goes on in the House. They are of very prime significance for not only the Defence Force but also the general range of Federal policy decisions in that the input is significantly the base of the strategic basis paper. From our intelligence agencies we need to glean that information from which a response can be developed with respect to a wide range of matters pertaining not only to defence responsibility but also to the responsibility of the Department of Foreign Affairs. A number of current issues highlight the need for a strong and capable intelligence service within the Australian Government. I know that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) normally is eminently unquotable and I am delighted that he takes such note of those statements I make even in those more far-flung parts of Australia. In an answer he gave in this place on 15 November, as recorded on page 2938 of the House of Representatives Hansard, he referred to the continued functioning of Soviet surveillance satellites. We need to remember that what goes on in this part of the world is watched by the Soviet Union, that those satellites are in a position to be able to make an assessment of developments in this part of the country and that we do not live in a vacuum in the world. More significant, I think, are the circumstances of the tragic death of those 60 people in Malta in a terrorist raid on an Egyptair aircraft earlier this week. We all know that one Australian girl unfortunately was on board, together with an Australian man. The girl was shot as a result of that accident and we all extend our sympathies to her family. It is important to understand that terrorism is a regrettable factor of international politics today. Many seek to legitimise that process as a means of enforcing their own political prejudices. Given the irrational attitude of a number of the political regimes of the world, I fear that terrorism could increase in the future. Looking at the requirement for intelligence, let me point out before turning to Mr Justice Hope's report, firstly, that we have the reality that the world is increasingly under surveillance by those who do not necessarily share our attitudes and views on democracy, human rights or other fundamental issues. The second point is that whilst there may be no imminent threat to Australia there is certainly a circumstance within which Australian nationals and Australian interests are under threat, particularly through the encroachment of the reality of terrorism and its impact on the lives and interests of Australians. In that climate we need to turn to the report of Mr Justice Hope. I commend Mr Justice Hope for yet another inquiry into the intelligence organisations of the Australian Government. I believe that, as on earlier occasions, he has accredited himself with distinction and I think every member of this House is indebted to him for the manner of his surveyal of those responsibilities. I regret that the only fundamental recommendation, as I see it, is the one that requires the setting up of yet another committee. I think within the defence area there are far too many committees. Bureaucracy has found it so easy, every time it seeks to defer a decision, to refer the matter to a committee. I believe that the necessary pyramid-style structure, in that the Chief of the Defence Force has the ultimate command of the Defence Force, should have permitted a direction to those who might undertake intelligence gathering rather than the priorities being determined by a committee, albeit that it represents those from the Defence Force, the Department of Defence and others. But let me come to that in a moment. It should be said that within the Minister's response to the report today there is only a very brief assessment of the issues that have been canvassed by Mr Justice Hope in the report tabled by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and that which was received separately by the Government. Many issues are canvassed in that report and the Minister has dealt with only a few of them. However, I have a number of concerns arising from the Minister's response today and I am disappointed that he has not told us a little more about them. The first and obvious one for those of us who have been following the unfortunate and tragic breakdown of ANZUS is the change in defence relationship between Australia and New Zealand following the requirement by the United States of America that intelligence previously gleaned from ANZUS-type facilities should not be shared with the New Zealand Government. The Minister's statement contained a very brief reference to New Zealand. He seems to give the general indication that all is well. He talks about our close intelligence co-operation with the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand in one sentence, but does not even admit to the fact that very real problems emerge from the United States requirement that information we glean from sources related to the United States, and in particular joint facilities, is not for New Zealand eyes. We know that earlier this week there was a deliberate decision by the United States to exclude New Zealand from advice about the outcome of the summit talks in Geneva. So we have a statement by the Minister and a report on an intelligence committee, an acceptance that all is well with the United States, United Kingdom and New Zealand sources as though they were one, and yet the reality is not that. It is unfortunate to be left without any understanding in the public sense of the present state of play so far as the New Zealand intelligence sharing is concerned. I regret that the Minister has not seen fit to include that in the statement. There is little doubt that the relationship with the United States, as the Minister's statement implies, has been particularly important in that through the functioning of the joint facilities in Australia there has been an ability for Australia to receive from technically advanced systems information on global issues that would not otherwise be available to us. I have several concerns in that area. The first is that obviously we are short on the ground, and inevitably an interpretation of that intelligence information must rely extensively on the assessment of the Americans. Not that one would in any way criticise that because, from my own understanding and knowledge of what is undertaken there, that assessment is done on a highly professional basis. I believe that in general as a result the Australian intelligence gleaned from those sources is as accurate as could be expected. However, it is in the general field of interpretation of factual intelligence that I have found that our intelligence agencies are perhaps not as adequate as I would like. I am not too sure whether it is because we depend too much on that factual interpretation by others that much of the linguistics expertise is not available in Australia. Although we have a range of skills in our own Australian intelligence gleaning agencies, there is a problem in ensuring that interpretative processes are there so that, particularly in the second area I addressed in my introduction to this response, there can be an understanding of where the pressures of terrorism are likely to fall, or where in the deteriorating strategic situation in the Pacific and in South East Asia pressures in the future are likely to increase. I believe that there is a problem in trying to glean sufficient interpretative accuracy on some of the factual information that our intelligence agencies handle so well. I worry whether the report by Mr Justice Hope has adequately addressed that matter. Within the report there are a number of issues which again the Minister has not addressed. In the time available to me it is not possible to cover all the public report that was tabled in the House by the Prime Minister, but it is worth commenting on a number of particular problems. I am delighted that the Minister for Defence has said that he accepts in full Mr Justice Hope's recommendations. I have already expressed my reservations about the new defence intelligence committee which is to provide some sort of political direction. I accept the need for political direction. I think that the priorities are necessarily a little vague as they now are for the JIO. I think Mr Justice Hope has quite properly identified that in his comments on page 68 of the published report. I believe that JIO's work could with advantage be focused more directly on specific areas and issues; he talks about the consultative arrangements. There are problems in the relationship with the Office of National Assessments. Mr Justice Hope refers to those. I believe that those problems could have been redressed by a more effective defence command structure rather than by the establishment of the Defence Intelligence Committee. I am concerned that there still seem to be problems in the relationship between JIO and ONA because of the uncertainty of command and responsibility. I note that Mr Justice Hope has suggested the posting of some military personnel to ONA. That is a recommendation which I understand from the Minister's paper he intends to accept, although he has not specifically referred to it. I understand JIO's reservations. I hope that the qualification it has had will be met, that that posting will in no way reduce the degree to which JIO and ONA co-operate in their task, and that ONA will not ignore JIO's specific requirements. The simple fact that it has military personnel as part of its own staff does not in any way reduce the need for continued consultation between the two organisations. I am not happy about the command structure or the relationship with the Defence Force, and particularly with CDF, of available intelligence facilities and I therefore regret the solution put forward of the appointment of this Defence Intelligence Committee. I do not really believe that the problem as I perceive it has been redressed. On page 81 of Mr Justice Hope's report, however, is the fundamental area of deficiency. I do not know whether it has been picked up at all by the Minister. In paragraph 4.55 Mr Justice Hope comments: The extent of the Defence organisation's planning in relation to JIO's precise role in a contingency situation or war is limited. He continues: . . . it would seem desirable for some preliminary consideration to be given to JIO's responsibilities in such situations . . . In paragraph 4.58 he continues: . . . I am surprised that there does not appear to be an agreed position at present on such fundamental issues as the respective wartime roles of JIO, JMOP and the ADF generally in assessing operational intelligence and in providing advice to CDF on such issues. Within Defence, those are fundamental issues. I have found repeatedly that there seems to be a regrettable lack of co-ordination of intelligence understanding even by those participating in the field because of the provision of information so often on a need-to-know basis. I know that there are problems, but I believe with a greater direct relationship to CDF many of those co-ordinating problems could be solved. Those issues have not been specifically addressed by the Minister in his statement today. I know that he will say that the Defence Intelligence Committee provides some opportunity for the priorities to be assessed and, presumably, that Committee will also have some capacity to deal with that comment by Mr Justice Hope. In paragraph 4.139 there are a number of specific recommendations which again, because of the generality of the Minister's comment, I am not sure whether he accepts. They certainly suggest that there needs to be some clarification of the responsibility of the organisations and some assessment of how intelligence spending will operate efficiently during a national crisis or war. Inevitably, one does not expect those situations to occur, but it is important that we do not just accept the situation which has continued, fortunately, for so long in that generally there has been no military involvement by the Australian Defence Force. However, there certainly needs to be planning and an understanding of how our intelligence agencies would work in the event of their being required to commit themselves, and I do not believe that that has been adequately addressed. Some comments are made in the addendum to the report about defence attaches. I think there is a very important relationship between our intelligence agencies domestically and our defence attaches abroad. I hope that some greater dedication can be given to the training and the lingual skills of defence attaches and that, once given an opportunity to train abroad, they might be posted there as defence attaches and work with our intelligence forces for a reasonable period. The present process of posting staff as defence attaches and returning them to the general stream of the Defence Force I think too often denies the advantage that an understanding of a country should provide. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Mr Ronald Edwards) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 26 November. Clauses 1 to 16-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Schedule 1. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.41) —I move: Schedule 1, page 22, before the proposed amendment to sub-section 13 (3) of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966, insert the following amendment: ``Sub-section 4 (8)- Omit `if a similar act or omission by an Australian citizen that took place outside Australia would be an offence against a law of the Commonwealth'.''. European countries, in particular, have extradition facilities to enable them to deal with offences committed by their nationals outside their states. We are in the process of negotiating extradition treaties, for example, with Switzerland. Those countries expect that if their citizens have committed offences while in Australia they should be subject to extradition so that they can be dealt with for those offences in their own countries in accordance with the law of those countries. Our own law is somewhat restricted by the provision we now propose to omit; that is, a similar act or omission by an Australian citizen that takes place outside Australia has to be an offence against the law of the Commonwealth. In many cases we do not have extraterritorial application of laws and, therefore, it is not correct to suggest than an Australian citizen would be in a similar position to that of a foreign national. He may well commit an offence outside Australia but, at the moment, we do not have the legal power to deal with it in every respect. The Crimes Act has extraterritorial application so the amendment is appropriate, particularly now because the Swiss have raised this matter with us in the course of negotiating a treaty at present. The amendment to sub-section 4 (8) permits Australia to grant extradition to foreign states for offences which, although committed outside the territory of the foreign state, are nevertheless justiciable by their courts pursuant to their criminal law. The criminal law of many civil law countries extends to the commission of offences by their nationals outside their territory. On the other hand, Commonwealth and State criminal law has limited extraterritorial application. The amendment puts beyond doubt the availability of extradition in circumstances where the foreign state has jurisdiction over the offence committed outside its territory but the equivalent Australian offence does not have extraterritorial operation. Amendment agreed to. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(10.44) —I move: Schedule 1, page 36, in the amendments to the Postal Services Act 1975, after proposed sub-section 63 (2A) insert the following amendments of the Act: ``Section 85- Add at the end the following sub-sections: `(3) Where the Minister, after consultation with the Commission, is satisfied that, by reason of an industrial dispute or for any other reason, the Commission is unable to operate its postal services in such a manner as will meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian people for postal services- (a) throughout Australia; or (b) in a particular part of Australia, the Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette, suspend the operation of sub-section (1) throughout Australia or in that part of Australia, as the case requires, until the notice is revoked. `(4) The Minister shall, by notice published in the Gazette, revoke a notice under sub-section (3) suspending the operation of sub-section (1) throughout Australia or in a part of Australia, upon becoming satisfied, after consultation with the Commission, that the Commission is then able to operate its postal services in such a manner as will meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian people- (a) in a case where the operation of sub-section (1) is suspended throughout Australia-for postal services throughout Australia or in a particular part of Australia; or (b) in a case where the operation of sub-section (1) is suspended in a particular part of Australia-for postal services in that part of Australia. `(5) Where, while a notice under sub-section (3) is in force suspending the operation of sub-section (1) in a particular part of Australia, a notice is made under sub-section (3) suspending the operation of sub-section (1) throughout Australia, the first-mentioned notice shall be deemed to be revoked by the second-mentioned notice. `(6) While a notice under sub-section (3) is in force suspending the operation of sub-section (1) throughout Australia, any person may- (a) carry or convey a letter for reward; or (b) cause a letter to be carried or conveyed for reward, otherwise than by the Commission, from a place within Australia for delivery at a place within or outside Australia or from a place outside Australia for delivery within Australia. `(7) While a notice under sub-section (3) is in force suspending the operation of sub-section (1) in a particular part of Australia, any person may- (a) carry or convey a letter for reward; or (b) cause a letter to be carried for reward otherwise than by the Commission, from a place within that part of Australia for delivery at a place within or outside that part of Australia or from a place outside that part of Australia for delivery within that part of Australia. `(8) Where a notice under sub-section (3) is revoked, sub-section (1) does not apply to the carriage or conveyance of a letter for reward after the revocation of that notice if- (a) that letter had been received or accepted for carriage or conveyance before that notice was revoked; and (b) the carriage or conveyance of that letter for reward would have been authorized by sub-section (6) or (7), as the case requires, if that notice had not been revoked. `(9) In this section- `Australia' includes- (a) the prescribed external Territories; and (b) the adjacent areas in respect of the States and Territories; `industrial dispute' has the same meaning as it has in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 and includes a dispute (including a threatened, impending or probable dispute) as to industrial matters (within the meaning of that Act) that does not extend beyond the limits of any one State.'.''. This amendment to the Postal Services Act 1975 will implement a key recommendation of the Bradley Committee of Inquiry into the Monopoly Position of the Australian Postal Commission. Its purpose is to remove Australia Post's monopoly on letters-I quote from the report-when the Government: . . . is satisfied that, by reason of an industrial dispute or for any other reason, the Australian Postal Commission is unable to operate its postal services in such a manner as will meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian people. The postal service is an essential social and economic service to the people of Australia. It is the Government's responsibility to see that the mail does get through. Regrettably, the mails have not been getting through, as we well know, and this has been debated in this chamber in recent weeks. In fact, over the past six weeks Australia's mail services have been chaotic. Bans and strikes have caused massive financial and personal hardship to businesses and private individuals around the country. An estimated eight million postal articles were held up for some weeks in New South Wales because a small band of militant troublemakers in mail exchanges wanted to perpetuate an overtime roster which was a rort and which the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission called a `blatant waste of taxpayers' money'. The severity of this disruption may be gauged by the fact that over 40 per cent of all Australian mail is processed in New South Wales. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) was forced to say in this chamber on 16 October: The fact is that at the moment we have what can be described only as a tragic situation in postal services in New South Wales. We have had unilateral bans by postal workers on mail to South Africa, Zimbabwe and eight other neighbouring and island countries. Only last week, a strike by 400 mail officers at Melbourne's international mail clearing centre held up some 500,000 items of Christmas mail. There is some doubt now as to whether that mail will be delivered in time for Christmas. Clearly, the Opposition is not directly blaming the Government for all of these problems. The industrial relations problems at the Redfern mail exchange are notorious and are the product of very bad engineering and bad planning, many years ago, but the fact is that the Government must accept the responsibility for ensuring that Australians do have an effective mail service. This is particularly so when the Government's statutory authority, Australia Post, enjoys a total legal monopoly on the carriage of letters weighing less than 500 grams. The 1982 Bradley report stated at page 49: An option suggested to the inquiry for the relaxation of the Postal Commission's monopoly relates to the carriage of mail by private operators during disruptions to the Commission's postal services. The Committee considered that, as a matter of principle, if the monopoly supplier is unable for whatever reason to service the genuine needs of the community, the law should not prohibit the community from pursuing its interests through reasonable alternative avenues. For that reason, the Committee favoured amendments of the Postal Services Act to allow formal relaxation of monopoly provisions in the event of substantial disruption of the Commission's postal services from whatever cause. The Committee formally recommended that the Act be amended: . . . to provide exemption from the statutory monopoly of the Australian Postal Commission for the carriage of letters for reward . . . in circumstances where the Minister determines that the suspension of the monopoly is warranted because the Australian Postal Commission is unable to provide a service. Currently, when Australia Post is unable to provide a service, Australians have no legal alternative means of having their letters delivered. Indeed, if they attempt to do so they risk a fine of $1,000 a letter. The Opposition takes the view, and I have put it in this chamber before-I believe it is supported widely in the community-that, as a matter of principle, it is no longer acceptable for Australia Post to retain a legal monopoly on letters when industrial disputes or other factors prevent it from providing a service. We take the view that a legal monopoly is justifiable only if it enables a cheap and efficient service to be provided to consumers. At times when Australia Post is unable, for whatever reason, to provide a reasonably efficient service, there can be no justification for retaining that monopoly and it should be suspended. The Opposition's amendment is designed to put the acid on the government-not just the present Government, but whichever government is in power-by making it directly responsible for seeing that mail can be sent by alternative means during postal disruptions. I emphasise that this is not a draconian measure. The Minister, whoever it may be, will have the total discretion in any dispute or other limitation on the distribution of mail to decide whether the monopoly should be suspended or not. If the Minister decides to do nothing, he will have to justify that decision to the Parliament and to the Australian people who are deprived of their mail services. The Opposition supports the view expressed by the Confederation of Australian Industry last month when it said: Since it is Government policy to retain Australia Post as a government monopoly, the Minister for Communications must accept full responsibility for the current intolerable lack of service to the community. The major mail users of Australia, representing more than 20 per cent (in excess of $200 million) of Australia Post's revenue, is determined that the Minister face up to these responsibilities. The Confederation further said: Business users of Australia Post's services are becoming increasingly angry and frustrated as they see the flow of mail, essential to the wellbeing of their businesses, slow to a trickle . . . As a monopoly organisation, Australia Post has a total responsibility to ensure the continued flow of mail. As Minister responsible for Australia Post, business users of Australia Post expect you to ensure that that result is achieved. That comment was addressed to the Minister for Communications. This amendment, therefore, is about bringing responsibility and accountability to the Government. The Opposition very much regrets the failure of the Minister to intervene, as I believe he should have done, in the recent costly New South Wales postal dispute. I remind honourable members that section 8 (1) of the Postal Services Act states: The Minister may, after consultation with the Commission, give to the Commission, in writing, such directions with respect to the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers, as appear to the Minister to be necessary in the public interest. I have said in this chamber before, and I repeat, that governments should-if necessary, they must be forced to do so-give greater priority to the public interest. That is what they are there for. Currently, governments too often avoid their responsibilities on the grounds that the deficient service is provided by a statutory authority which must be immune from political interference. Frankly, that is not good enough. It is not good enough for the present Minister or any other Minister for Communications to always stand so much at arm's length and accept no responsibility for the fact that mail is not distributed. In conclusion, we believe very strongly that the power to temporarily suspend the monopoly would force the government and the Minister of the day to take responsibility for the postal services provided or not provided, would put pressure on militant postal workers by enabling an alternative means of having letters delivered, and so reduce their monopoly position, and reduce the incidence of breaches of the law by couriers using inefficient and artificial contrivances-breaches to which Australia Post apparently turns a blind eye. I have mentioned examples of those breaches before. It is a fact that some people are sending, by private couriers, letters that ordinarily would weigh less than 500 grams and, in some cases, putting them in heavy manila folders so their weight exceeds 500 grams; thereby they are not in breach of the law. In some other circumstances people are using private couriers and are in breach of the law. The Minister and Australia Post turn a blind eye to that. I suggest that my amendment is not of a provocative nature. It would not be provocative as far as the postal workers are concerned. Certain of them might not like it, but the situation, as I understand it, is that the New South Wales branch of the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union is fighting against the Federal Executive of that union. Within the New South Wales postal workers there are serious differences of opinion between postal sorters and postal delivery people. Outside the Sydney metropolitan area many differences exist even between the mail sorters. I would have thought that this would be an extra pressure point upon the dissident group, the small, spoilt extortioners of the public, and that it would be a useful thing for the Government, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Federal Executive of the APTU to have at their disposal. It would enable mail to get through in spite of bans and thereby bring to an end perhaps the rebel action, or the rebel group, which has caused so much dislocation. In any event, it is in the public interest that the amendment be accepted, and I commend it to the Committee. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.55) —I am concerned generally about monopolies, but monopolies are not the major issue involved in the amendment that we are considering today. I have no hesitation in supporting the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee). I hope that the Government will join us in a bipartisan approach to this amendment. This amendment is simply about service to Australians. A number of years ago people used to say that come rain, hail, floods or snow, the mail must get through. Unfortunately, in recent times, as outlined by the honourable member for Goldstein, this has simply not been occurring. Australians deserve better and I know that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) wants Australians to have a better service. In fact, I compliment the Minister on the very many courteous replies he makes to my many representations to him on behalf of constituents. He is one of the most helpful Ministers in the Government. I believe that the amendment which is before the Committee now will place a further tool in the hands of the Minister to ensure that Australians obtain the service from Australia Post which they deserve. We remember what an utter disgrace it was when people were not able to post mail to South Africa. It does not matter what one thinks of the political system in that country. There are people living here who have family members in South Africa. I read in a newspaper about one case in which a woman had a 92-year-old mother in South Africa. Naturally, she was concerned about her mother's health, but was not able to get any communication to her through the mail. I have been approached by a constituent who has family in Botswana. Mail for Botswana is routed through South Africa, so he was not able to contact his family. Another constituent who was desirous of importing products from another African state which must, again, be sent through South Africa contacted me. He, similarly, was prejudiced. The Minister condemned the bans and the blockades but unfortunately did not move against them. We remember that earlier this year postal workers imposed a blockade on Queensland because of the industrial legislation brought down by the Queensland Government to ensure a continuity of electricity supply. It simply is not the role of postal workers to block the mail. The mail must get through. It is a basic entitlement of citizens in our country. In regard to mail between Brisbane and Canberra, there have been four-day delays. I understand the mail was taken from Brisbane to Sydney, placed in the mess called the Redfern Mail Exchange and then ultimately it would emerge, and be sent to Canberra if we were lucky. Who knows whether some mail was delivered at all. There is little support amongst postal workers for some of the crazy industrial actions of a militant few. I would like to compliment the staff of Australia Post, particularly those residing and working in my electorate of Fisher. I have invariably found them helpful and courteous. But I think that they, like other Australians, believe that the mail should get through and that citizens in a democracy are entitled to receive the post without undue delay. This amendment, hopefully, will be approached in a bipartisan way. It will help the Government and the Minister to provide the service which the people of Australia, including the people of Queensland-in fact everyone-demand. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(10.58) —The Government rejects this amendment. I will deal with the reasons why it is rejected. I want to deal with two areas-firstly, the basic philosophical area and, secondly, what I consider to be quite grave defects in the amendment in any event, even if from a general point of view it had anything to recommend it. The fact is that this amendment is not aimed at reducing the field of monopoly only during industrial disputes. The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) from time to time raises the issue that I should have taken action under section 8 of the Postal Services Act in relation to these disputes and he then moves an amendment such as this. He cannot have it both ways. If the power is clear under section 8, which it is not, I do not know why he would want to move such an amendment. If it is not clear under section 8, I do not know why he accuses me repeatedly of not taking action under that section when he says that I should. It is clear that this amendment is part of that overall campaign which the Liberal Party of Australia has been carrying out on the question of privatisation. It has been trumpeting about removing such things as the monopoly that Australia Post has. This amendment is designed as part of a far larger campaign. It is not directed at what it is claimed to be directed at. The removal of Australia Post's monopoly on letter carriage would seriously harm consumers, particularly those living in rural and remote locations. I was pleased to hear the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) indicate that there is difficulty, of course, in those areas. The vast majority of Australian postal workers were commended by him-and ought to be commended by us all-for the work that they do. The cross-subsidy in relation to giving people in country areas the mail service at the price they are charged is estimated to be approximately $30m per annum. This debate is really about the failure to acknowledge-the honourable member for Goldstein failed to acknowledge-that this is part of the overall program of privatisation. This debate is really about the $30m subsidy which is transferred from profitable services to less profitable services. Another point, too, has not been made today about Australia Post. It is about time that there was some defence of it in a period in which there have been difficulties. One must be somewhat cynical when the honourable member for Fisher talks about the fact that a number of years ago, come rain, hail or snow, the mail got through. Not all that many years ago, come rain, hail or snow, the mail did not get through because under a Liberal administration we had the worst period of industrial disputes in the history of Australia Post. I have discussed that matter previously and I do not propose to go over it again. But it is ludicrous for people to suggest that this Government in some way has failed in the industrial relations area. The honourable member for Goldstein well knows that that is so. But honourable members opposite still decide to kick Australia Post at a time when, at the moment, with the difficulties that it faces, it needs support on a bipartisan basis and not this sort of nonsense of people saying that this sort of amendment should be supported on a bipartisan basis. It is further evidence of the Liberal Party turning its back on traditional Australian institutions in its quest for ideological purity because it has no policies, and this is one of the things on which it falls back in this desperate situation. In regard to that point, neither this Government nor, may I say, the overwhelming body of Australia Post employees is insensitive to the damage and inconvenience that have been caused to consumers by industrial action within Australia Post. Australia Post, particularly in the last six months, has set upon a course which is calculated to improve the performance within Australia Post and it has the support of this Government, as has been clearly shown in recent times. I do not propose, as the responsible Minister, to be deflected from those efforts to get Australia Post back on the rails by this sort of shabby exercise today which is, as I said, part of a far wider matter-that is, the whole issue of privatisation. The second point that I want to deal with is the question of the problems in regard to the amendment. The circumstances set out in the amendment in which section 85(1) may be waived are very broad and vaguely expressed. The term `industrial dispute' is defined in proposed section 85(9) to have the same meaning as in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. If one looks at that Act one will find that this includes `threatened, impending or probable dispute and a situation which is likely to give rise to a dispute on industrial matters'. This is compounded further by the addition of the phrase `or for any other reason'. It is not limited in any way to industrial disputes. It refers to `for any other reason'. Finally, the amendment adds the words `as will meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian people'. That is another broad and vague piece of terminology for such a specific action as is purportedly proposed in this amendment. In no way does it provide for alternative services in any positive sense, nor is there any way in which it seeks to regulate those services which just might spring up; no attention is given to alternative services at all. I put it to the Opposition that the service provided by Australia Post is hedged with restrictions and protection at this stage. All those things in the Act constitute one of the problems that the Opposition has in relation to giving directions to Australia Post, because I do not think that the section we spoke of earlier, section 8, is directed at industrial disputes. In fact it goes to other things such as penalties for theft or destruction of mail and prohibition of unsolicited obscene or offensive mail through the service. All of those restrictions are in various areas of the Act. It does not follow that these sorts of controls which are now in the Act would automatically apply to alternative services. That just has not been addressed. What alternative services might spring up in these circumstances, claimed to be as a result of industrial disputation, with the proposed legislation saying `or for any other reason' or, as I said earlier, for reasons that `will meet the social industrial and commercial needs of the Australian people'? What sorts of services are they going to be? It is about time those opposite sat down and spelt that out and told us what they are about. Will there be provisions and, if so, where for penalties for theft or destruction of mail, for the prohibition of unsolicited obscene or offensive mail through the service, for placing an obligation on recipients of wrongfully delivered articles and for controls on the opening of mail and disclosure of information in or on the articles? It does not follow that those sorts of protections so necessary to our postal service would apply. That matter has not even been addressed by the Opposition. More importantly, this amendment is not a recipe for fast action. The Minister would have to consult with the Postal Commission and then arrange to have a notice published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. In fact very few stoppages involving Australia Post would not have been long over by the time the steps listed here had been taken. Except for isolated instances, it would be very rare for a postal dispute not to be well and truly over by the time this convoluted exercise, claimed to be a method of quick action, had been gone through. The recent Sydney mail sorters strike is one of the things which it is claimed brought this to a head and caused this amendment to be first moved in the Senate. I have grave doubts about that because I think it is part of a far greater program and not related just to that dispute, but let us assume for the moment that it was a piece of legislation attempting to meet the sort of situation that arose recently in Sydney. How appropriate would the application of the powers be to the circumstances which applied in the Sydney dispute? The fact is that in that dispute postal officers, drivers and postmen, rejected a call to support the mail sorters. Bypass arrangements introduced by Australia Post to handle the mail affected by the striking mail sorters worked very well and, except for mail that was locked in the Sydney mail centres when the mail sorters went on strike, most Sydney metropolitan mail was delivered within three days of posting during that industrial dispute. I really think that at this stage to talk about this sort of exercise is really to shoot from the hip. Had the action been taken to suspend the monopoly, the stoppages would have spread to other areas of Australia Post and to other States. Someone who has been as closely involved in industrial relations as the honourable member for Goldstein knows that very well. The fact is that bypass arrangements operated during that strike. The strike was contained to Sydney. The people who were causing the difficulty were ultimately isolated because other postal officers, motor drivers and postmen refused to support them and, apart from that mail which was locked up in Sydney mail centres when the mail sorters went on strike, the mail was delivered. Mail that was posted after that was still delivered within three days of posting. The honourable member for Goldstein cannot be serious when he suggests that there would have been a better mail performance by going through this exercise that he has brought here today. It is absolute nonsense. The suggested amendment just does not reflect industrial reality. One of the most disappointing parts of it, when we talk about bipartisanship coming from someone of the standing of the shadow Minister, is that it fails to recognise the realities of industrial relations. It shows a lack of understanding of the magnitude of the operation of the postal services. This amendment, if implemented, could cut across the dispute settlement process followed by Australia Post. Lifting the monopoly by the exercise of ministerial power could well pre-empt the proposals developed by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to end a particular stoppage or dispute. The Sydney dispute was heard by Commissioner Grimshaw; it ultimately went back to him and goes back to him again on 31 January. If in fact the sort of power in this amendment were exercised, it would pre-empt all those exercises when people can sit down and talk-processes already put in place to end a particular stoppage or dispute. Indeed, the proposal in my view would lead to an extension of the dispute and place in jeopardy the services which were unaffected by the dispute. The amazingly good thing, and the only good thing, that came out of that dispute was that it was isolated to that area and there was no support for it anywhere else. To seriously think that, by lifting the monopoly of Australia Post when people are on strike, the industrial dispute is not going to spread right through Australia nationally and through other unions is just absolute nonsense. This suggestion would just not work. It would lead to cream skimming. We have to understand-it seems to me that some people just throw this out the window-that Australia Post provides a national service. Customers can post a letter in Cairns and know that it will be delivered anywhere in Australia. How would private carriers establish an integrated system at short notice to provide a similar service at affordable rates? It is just absolute nonsense. After the Minister gives a direction and it is gazetted, private couriers might be able to move the mail for a while in a capital city, but to suggest seriously that this would provide some alternative mail service for the whole of Australia is just absolute nonsense. If it is not going to do that, what is the point of it, except, as I say, as part of an overall exercise to attack public enterprise in this country? The truth is that private carriers would concentrate their resources where the money was. They would concentrate their resources on the lucrative business mail in the central business districts and on intercapital customers, as would happen with Telecom. Those opposite look at such mad proposals, move away from them and then come back to them from time to time; they have no idea where they really are. People in business would look at the areas where they could get a buck, and that is where they would concentrate. Would they provide services to people living in rural and remote areas? No, I do not think they would. If they could and did, what would they charge? What would be the quality and the frequency of the services provided? None of that is spelt out in this shabby little exercise of attempting to attack public enterprise. The vagueness of the circumstances in which the proposal could be applied is of particular significance. Is it proposed that the Minister could effectively abolish the monopoly indefinitely, thus achieving a de facto privatisation of the postal service? From reading the amendment, I do not know what it is about, because it does not talk just about industrial disputes. It refers to `or for any other reason'. The Government rejects the amendment for the reasons that I have gone through today and it rejects it also for reasons outlined last night by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) when he spoke at some length and in some detail on the examination of the proposal of removing in part or wholly the monopoly for Australia Post which was undertaken by the Bradley Committee of Inquiry into the Monopolies Position of the Australian Postal Commission. The honourable member for Hughes dealt with that matter in some detail last night and I do not propose to take the time of the House today, but I would suggest to the honourable member for Goldstein that he read the speech of the honourable member for Hughes. He dealt with the issue of the Bradley Inquiry and the investigation of the whole question of the monopoly for Australia Post. For those reasons the Government rejects the amendment. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(11.16) —I will not detain the House long in responding to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). The Minister is highly respected for being decisive. He is well known for his stubbornness and I will not try now to dissuade him from the view that he has taken up. However, I must clarify certain things that he has said. First of all, it is not a shabby exercise and it is not a backdoor method of removing the statutory monopoly indefinitely. Obviously, that could not be done. This regulation, like other regulations, can act only within a narrower ambit. One cannot, in effect, reverse an Act by the use of a regulation. The Minister knows that as a lawyer. That would not have been held to be valid even if that were the intention of this amendment. This amendment is quite clearly aimed at giving the Minister of the day, the management of Australia Post and the moderate elements of the trade unions a little more leverage than they otherwise would have. It is, of course, a matter of judgment by the Minister of the day. The Minister has referred to the breadth of some of the words. The words that he quoted are, indeed, words in the Postal Services Act 1975. The amendment is drawn with the Act in mind. The amendment draws upon words already in the Act about the nature of services which the Australian public is expected to have and which the Postal Commission is obliged to take into account. There is nothing sinister about it. For the Minister's information, no major mail user has submitted to me the view that the statutory monopoly ought to be lifted entirely; nor did Bradley recommend that. It is certainly not my disposition to go down that policy direction. What is important is that every Australian is entitled to get proper, reasonably speedy and reasonably cost efficient mail services. Certainly, major distributors of books and other material through the post all over Australia do not want a situation in which it may be distributed more cheaply in Sydney and Melbourne, for example, but much more expensively elsewhere. Nobody is arguing for the sort of sinister ideological plot that the Minister is describing. What they are saying, however, is that at times of emergency there has to be a way of getting the mails through. I do not have access to Australia Post and therefore I do not have any means of denying the statistics that he used, other than the fact that my phone did not stop when people were ringing to complain to me about the fact that they could not get their mails through, they could not get cheques that were owing to them and so forth. On the basis of that evidence, I dispute the figure that the Minister has presented here today about the mails having got through in three days. That just simply was not the experience that people were having at that time. The Minister talked about the lack of clarity. He made reference to it being a cumbersome procedure. In fact, it is the simplest procedure imaginable. A special issue of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette can be issued. One needs only to pick up the telephone to consult Australia Post to get confirmation and to pick up the telephone to consult with the trade union leaders. Clearly, one has to make a judgment about whether it will help or hinder the processes of conciliation and arbitration. Commissioner Grimshaw was doing a valiant job, but he had no other means of applying pressure. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act did not give him any further authority, nor did any action of the Government with Australia Post encourage that. We are giving an extra means. It is not cumbersome and it is not provocative to have the power of regulation available to the Minister. Whether and when the Minister uses it is a matter of judgment at the time and may well be a Cabinet judgment because, if there were any prospect of it escalating a dispute or aggravating longer term relations or weakening the position of moderates who are trying to bring about a settlement, one would imagine that it would not be used. I do not share the Minister's analysis of the last dispute. That is behind us. I think there can be no argument really that this additional leverage ought to be there. Its use would be a matter of very fine and sensitive judgment when the occasion arose. If people in this country argue for the total removal on all occasions of the statutory monopoly, they do it only in times of great frustration when they cannot get the mails through-and we have been going through those times. I repeat that it is a very simple proposal. The amendment is drawn in the spirit of the Act to give maximum flexibility to the Minister of the day. It is not cumbersome. It is a simple procedure whereby there is consultation with Australia Post, there is a gazettal and when the bans have been lifted and people are prepared to work in accordance with their contracts of service, their award, the law, another gazettal is issued, as well as Press releases and publicity, saying that the statutory monopoly has now been reimposed. It is a very simple procedure. It is not at all cumbersome and it does not in any way weaken the capacity of sensible people to try to resolve the dispute. I would like to say just one more thing and that is about the Minister's reference to section 8. His opening remarks suggested that he was still confused as to the difference between this amendment and my remarks about section 8. His later remarks suggested that he saw it a little differently. The position is quite simple: Section 8 does give him certain authority to direct the management of Australia Post along certain lines. I felt that he should have done that in respect of standing down employees when the stand-down clause was in the Act. Certainly, section 8 does not give the Minister the authority that this amendment is seeking to give to him. This amendment is seeking to be complementary. Mr Duffy —There was a six months stand-down provision. Why didn't you recommend that they stand them down when they had the power? Mr MACPHEE —They were given that power, but in fact-- Mr Duffy —And they used it. Mr MACPHEE —At one stage Australia Post was not using the power that was open to it. I have reason to fear that it thought that if it used that power, in some way it would be against the wishes of the Government. I just felt that the Government ought to be given that power. The point I am making, without rehashing a dispute that has now finished, is that section 8 gives the Minister some power to direct management in certain circumstances. This amendment would give the Minister still further power to act, and that is the importance of it. They are complementary measures which I think a Minister of the day should have. Certainly the most sensitive judgment would have to be made about the use of the power then given. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.24) —I support the amendment. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) was able to say with a straight face-I congratulate him on being able to keep his face straight-that he had two objections to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee). One objection was philosophical, and that was nonsense, and the other objection was technical. The arguments that he advanced on that subject reminded one of the disputes between mediaeval theologians concerning how many angels could stand on the head of a pin. It occupied their minds for several centuries and the Minister seems to have fallen into the same trap. I will go first of all to the philosophical argument that the Minister addressed. He said that this was all part of the program of privatisation and he raised the fear that country people were going to be left without mail, except at vast cost, and that this was part of a far larger campaign. That is absolute nonsense, if one reads what the honourable member for Goldstein put in his amendment. What it does, in very simple English, is to give the Minister a power, after consultation with the Commission, when he is satisfied that by reason of an industrial dispute or for any other reason the Commission is unable to operate its postal services in such a manner as will meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian people for postal services throughout Australia or in any particular part of Australia, to suspend the operation of the monopoly provisions either in part or in whole. It then goes on to provide that the Minister shall-I emphasise `shall'-revoke the suspension of those monopoly provisions when he becomes satisfied that postal services have once again resumed a satisfactory state. It is a direct distortion of the wording of the amendment and what was put by the honourable member for Goldstein to say that this is a privatisation argument. It is not a privatisation argument. It is intended, as the honourable member for Goldstein pointed out, to give an additional power which can be exercised for the good of the average Australian who wants to send or receive a letter. The Minister said that the recent disputes in Sydney had delayed mails for only some few days. I do not know whether he was referring to the dispute that affected my office-I do not know where his office is located-but certainly our mail was delayed by more than a few days. It was delayed by up to weeks in certain instances, and I think that was a common occurrence in other places. Perhaps Ministers get special treatment. Perhaps Ministers for Communications in particular get special treatment to ensure that they are unaware of the deficiencies of the postal system when people go on strike and cause hardship to others. The Minister raised the question of regulation. He wanted to know how we were going to regulate organisations that came into the field when the monopoly was suspended. The answer is very simple. Courier services have been adopted by many people in this country because those people like to get their mail promptly. If they got their mail promptly there would be not much room for many of the courier services. Of course one cannot immediately pass Acts of Parliament to regulate these services. Nobody would say that. But people would say that they would far rather pay for the privilege of sending mail privately, when they cannot send it publicly, so that they can get their mail through. It is as simple as that. If we asked the ordinary person what his choice would be, he would say: `Yes, when I cannot have the benefit of a public monopoly because the public monopoly is not working because there is a strike, I want to have the benefit of being able to get the same service privately in the short term and then, once the public monopoly is operating again, I shall use the services that it provides'. The point that the Minister misses is that some services are better than no services, just as 80 per cent of something is better than 100 per cent of nothing, as some coal miners once tellingly observed. One other matter needs to be taken up. The Minister is resolute to do nothing and the legislation will no doubt pass. I wish to refer to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985, yet to become an Act, of which this Government is so proud. I remind the Government of Article 7 of the Bill of Rights, which provides: Every person has the right to freedom of expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication, and the freedom to seek, receive and impart ideas or information of any kind in any form, without interference and regardless of frontiers. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) recently proposed amendments to make the Trade Practices Act conform to the Bill of Rights in respect of certain matters which were quite different from those we are presently discussing. However, the proposition that I put to this Committee is a very simple one: Where is one's freedom to seek, receive or impart ideas and information if one cannot do it by letter, if there is a public monopoly which is not working and which refuses, therefore, to pass one's letters on while a strike is in existence? The justification for a public monopoly is that it provides services. As soon as it ceases to provide services the justification goes. That is the justification for any licensed monopoly. As the honourable member for Goldstein has pointed out so tellingly, the Government should have the power proposed by the amendment. I referred to the Bill of Rights simply for the purpose of pointing out one thing, namely, that this Government takes a selective view as to who should have rights and who do not have rights. I have said before that the Bill of Rights is a sham. Demonstrably it is, because the freedom to impart information is to be brushed to one side if it is a question of the postal services and any invasion of the monopoly granted to the postal services, regardless of how compelling the public interest is, that, in the short term, there should be a suspension of monopoly rights so that ordinary Australians can get letters through to others from whom they want to hear. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.31) —The Committee is considering a very significant amendment to which I wish to give my support, particularly as I represent such a very large rural electorate. I understand that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) implied that any change in the present arrangements that would result from the amendment would affect rural people. I must reject that claim. I support the view which was just stated by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) that the amendment would not lead to the privatisation of Australia Post. The Minister ignores the very situation that exists in Australia Post. I would say-and I have not actually done a count-that over half of the post offices in my electorate are already privatised. They have been privatised because Australia Post has been unable to sustain paying wages to employees, postmasters and others as a result of a drop in rural population. Australia Post has deliberately gone out and sought agency arrangements, which have been very well received by the community and have led to a substantial reduction in the operating costs of Australia Post. Hopefully there has been some flow-on of that to the people who consume that organisation's services. A year or two ago at Merredin I attended a meeting of many local authorities which were concerned about the future arrangements of their post offices. The Labor representative present was none other than Senator Peter Walsh who, of course, was at one time a resident in my electorate in the town of Doodlakine. He was one of the first to admit that as a rural consumer he got an excellent service from his post office agency-his private enterprise agency-that worked on behalf of Australia Post. As the debate went on that day, considerable concern was expressed by those who still employed staff to run their post offices. Other people got up, as did Senator Walsh, and said: `We have this type of agency and we find that it provides a very good service'. One person said: `In fact, the agency has all sorts of advantages. If I happen to be around the place on a Sunday morning and I see Bill Smith, the agent, on his front lawn, he will go and get my mail for me'. This is a perfect arrangement. Of course, people in the remote areas who provide a postal service have been able to introduce alongside the postal service other services which they otherwise would not have been able to provide. The CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member is debating the merits and demerits of privatisation, which is not pertinent to the part of the Bill immediately before the Committee. I ask the honourable member to be more specific. Mr TUCKEY —All right, I will come back to the Bill. However, I think I should make the point that the Minister argued that the Opposition's amendment would disadvantage rural people. However, rural people, including Senator Walsh, have expressed a different view. I would like to outline some of the things that the amendment would overcome. I think, most importantly, it would overcome a situation in which people are denied the communication of mail because of a decision of a group of workers. People would no longer have to break the law by circumventing the present arrangement. Currently it is absolutely illegal for people to try to get their mail between one place and another because a certain group, who should be classified as essential service employees, as are the police and others, are using industrial muscle which is based not on their great skills and abilities but purely and simply on a government granted monopoly. They are able to obtain wage settlements and other things well beyond their worth to the community. But the Government denies people the right to transfer mail legally at a time when the monopolist refuses to do so. Of course, that is the main reason why the amendment of the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) should be supported. It is totally wrong and improper that the Government should force people to break the law by making such a simple effort. I draw the Government's attention to examples of how this strike or bans situation has been used and how this amendment would reverse it. We had a situation in Western Australia where the Perth City Council, a democratically elected body, was in dispute with its garbage operators. As a result it dismissed the garbage operators and replaced them with some of the 2,000 unemployed applicants who turned up the following morning. Suddenly I discovered that the private and business mail of those democratically elected councillors was banned from delivery by Australia Post. I add that I drew the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who did not seem to think that it had any consequence as an attack on the fabric of Australian democracy. That was what I saw it as. I thought it was a substantial attack that that sort of punishment could be meted out to unpaid, democratically elected office bearers of our democracy who were doing their duty on behalf of the people who had elected them. I can tell honourable members that in that regard they had 100 per cent support because, as with the postal services, people expect their garbage to be removed and they do not expect those people who have the monopoly on that business to be able to have a disproportionate value placed on their work effort. So there is every reason why this amendment should be supported. It says purely that if the monopolist cannot deliver the goods, others may do so, and I presume that that means a private citizen. I guess the Minister thinks that is not appropriate. But if, as happens in transport strikes, a person forms a car pool to get himself to work or somebody in his street or suburb is prepared to become the post office and make some deliveries so that he can overcome this problem, why should that be illegal? Why should such a person commit a crime because the monopolist refuses to provide the services? They are my views. I think it quite foolish to reject the amendment and I think the Minister is overlooking the great part the private sector already plays in supplying mail services by private contractors, as happens in many places. To suggest that the private sector could not do so in these circumstances, as clearly defined by the honourable member for Goldstein-circumstances of when Australia Post is unable to deliver the goods-is ridiculous. It is ridiculous that the Government allows this Australian Council of Trade Unions control over it to overcome the rights of the rest of Australians to have their mail delivered by one means or another in these circumstances. The amendment in no way attacks the monopoly of Australia Post while it is delivering the services. We know that the Government's sympathies do not lie with the rural person who might have additional expense. That is not its concern. The Government's concern is that Simon and Bill would not like it. When Simon and Bill say that the Government has to overcome its natural tendency to help people and give them a fair deal, that is the end of that, and we debated that matter yesterday. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Macphee's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 78 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Conquest, B. J. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Dobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodges, J. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Child, J. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Humphreys, B. C.Coleman, W. P. Punch, G. F. Question so resolved in the negative. Schedule, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.48) —The purposes of the Evidence Amendment Bill are outlined in the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honourable members. May I remind the House briefly of the purposes of the Bill, and I take this statement from the explanatory memorandum itself. The first purpose is: to expand the class of persons who may give ancillary evidence relevant to the admission of business records under Part 111A- That is, of the Commonwealth Evidence Act. The second purpose is: to provide for the taking of evidence abroad for use in civil or criminal proceedings in Commonwealth courts, State courts exercising federal jurisdiction, courts of the Northern Territory exercising jurisdiction conferred or vested by an Act, and in courts of other Territories. These provisions apply principles which superior courts have developed in relation to the taking of evidence overseas for use in proceedings before them. The Bill, however, as the explanatory memorandum states, is not intended as a codification of those principles. The importance of the rules of evidence is great, although probably not well understood. The rules of evidence regulate the conduct of civil and criminal trials. The proof as to the success or failure of a claim can depend on the application of those rules and how well the practitioner understands them. The importance can in practical terms be immense, particularly in the case of a jury trial where the rules are strictly enforced. If one fails to prove an essential fact because one misunderstands or misapplies the rules of evidence, or because one has overlooked something relating to their application, the consequences can be fairly major, if not disastrous, for the case one is putting up or defending. Proof under our system is regulated by rules which have developed in part by common law and in part by statute law. I suppose it can be put on a public policy basis in fairly simple terms. The rules are designed to ensure proof of facts by evidence that is persuasive and may be tested, and the more peripheral the means by which a fact is sought to be proven the less likely it is to satisfy the test of persuasiveness and the more difficult it is to test what has been put up. That is one reason-in fact, the reason-for the origin of the old best evidence rule; that is, if one had an original document one had to tender it, and if one could not tender the original document one had to prove the reasons why. Nothing in the affairs of human beings stands still, nor I suppose should it, and the rules of evidence have to be scrutinised to ensure that they keep up with the times. One of the major changes we have seen over the past 15 or 20 years is the replacement of documentary evidence by record keeping through computers, word processors, and by a variety of electronic means. We have also seen the creation of vast records concerning business transactions which to a very large extent are brought into existence by machines. If one had to prove each particular entry as one did in the old days by calling the person who was the operator of the machine in question, many trials would never end or would be aborted and justice would not be done. Therefore, the Opposition supports the Government's amendments to the Evidence Act as well as an amendment which the Government intends to move in Committee. I remind the House of some criticisms that have been made, and I think these were referred to by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech. I refer to the criticisms by the Special Prosecutor, Mr Robert Redlich, in his 1982-83 and 1983-84 reports, in regard to the present system that applies for proof of certain transactions, and particularly business transactions-that is, business records-with especial reference to their proof in criminal proceedings. In his 1982-83 report he said at paragraph 16.2: In July of 1979, the then Attorney-General referred to the Australian Law Reform Commission, for its consideration, the desirability of a uniform Evidence Act to be applied Australia wide. My office has had the opportunity of examining a number of the Law Reform Commission's research papers and recommendations and would, without commenting on particular issues, support the need for uniform provisions governing the admissibility of evidence. The complexity of obtaining evidence overseas, be it based upon legislative authority or the inherent powers of particular courts, demonstrates the need for such uniform legislation. I think most of us would agree that when we are dealing with Commonwealth laws there should be a uniform means of proof of facts before all tribunals, and we should not need to look in part to the Commonwealth Evidence Act, as we now do, and in part to the rules of the particular State jurisdiction in which a prosecution may be carried out. Mr Redlich also stated in paragraph 16.4 of the same report, in support of that proposition: Commonwealth legislation sets out a code of substantive law that is the same throughout the whole of the Commonwealth. However, the procedural law and rules of evidence to be applied in Commonwealth proceedings varies with the State or Territory in which the action is heard. He went on to say: For these reasons I believe there is an urgent need for the Commonwealth to enact at the very least a comprehensive Evidence Act applicable to all Commonwealth proceedings. Insofar as this could be a model Act, it might act as a spur to the move towards a uniform Evidence Act being applied in all Australian jurisdictions. This seems an eminently sensible proposition and one that one simply cannot controvert. I should be very glad if the Attorney-General, when he replies to round up the debate, would inform the House of his views on the subject allowing for the fact that, if one is to enact a Commonwealth code of evidence or Commonwealth laws of evidence, one is dealing with a difficult and highly technical subject which needs to be considered very carefully. A good deal of time has passed since Mr Redlich made his report for 1982-83, so I would be glad to know what progress the Attorney-General and the Government are making on this question and whether the Government has made a decision. A decision should be made on this question and we should have a Commonwealth code of evidence, a set of rules applicable to the cases to which Mr Redlich referred; that is, all Commonwealth proceedings. Such a statute could be a model code for all of the States and it would generally be very much better if evidence could be proven in each State court by precisely the same means. Mr Duncan —What do you do about the State rules of court in various supreme courts? Mr SPENDER —I would say that the State laws of procedures in court, that is, the practice and procedure to be followed in State courts, are different from the means by which one proves a particular matter. Rules of practice and procedure are regulated, I think the honourable member will invariably find, by a separate statute and by rules of the State courts-the State Supreme Court, County Court or District Court, depending on what the inferior courts are called. So I think that is a quite separate matter. I refer very briefly to what Mr Redlich had to say in his report for 1983-84 concerning difficulties in gaining access to overseas banking records. He starts to deal with that matter on page 125 of his report, where he sets out some of the difficulties that he had experienced. Certainly, what the Attorney-General now proposes to the House should assist, although we are still going to be facing the problems posed by secrecy provisions in certain jurisdictions. In paragraph 8.36 Mr Redlich, after dealing with the problems that he had in various jurisdictions, says: Having gained access to overseas banking records, it is essential that a uniform approach be taken by all States, to enable proof of such records in our courts. His sixth recommendation, in paragraph 8.40, reads: The introduction of a uniform law by all States and the Commonwealth providing for the admissibility in courts of overseas financial records. Of course, the Commonwealth Attorney-General and the Commonwealth Government cannot do anything about the States if the States will not agree to go along. What we can and should do is legislate for matters within our constitutional competence. Therefore, Mr Redlich's recommendations should be adopted. It is a return to the horse and buggy days for us to be seeking to prove the same facts but having to look to different statutes and perhaps to different rules of evidence, depending on the State or Territory in which proceedings are heard. As I have said, I would be very glad to have the Attorney-General's reply and his indication of what the Government will do, because quite some time has now passed, even allowing for the fact that we are dealing with a difficult and technical area. Lastly, I do not propose at this stage to say anything about the authorised class of persons, that is, the persons who may give ancillary evidence relating to the proof of business records, as I understand that the Attorney-General is to move an amendment in the Committee debate. Mr Lionel Bowen —It is your amendment. Mr SPENDER —Yes; we have had some talks about the matter. The Attorney-General is always a very easy and, if I may say so, a most open and sensible man to deal with, save when there are occasional differences of a political or policy nature between us, when we do not always agree upon things. Dealing just briefly with the Act itself, and the proposal now before the House, I say this: What is intended is that the powers of the courts to make orders which will enable the taking of evidence are to be expanded in particular by proposed new section 7V of the Evidence Act, which provides: In any civil or criminal proceeding before a superior court, the court may, in its discretion and where it appears in the interests of justice to do so, on the application of a party to the proceeding, make, in relation to a person outside Australia-- that is important, and a part that needs to be emphasised- an order- (a) for the examination of the person on oath or affirmation . . . before a judge of the court-- that is, the court making an order- an officer of the court or such other person as the court may appoint; (b) for the issue of a commission for the examination of the person on oath or affirmation at any place outside Australia-- which is somewhat different- or (c) for the issue of a letter of request to the judicial authorities of a foreign country to take . . . evidence of the person. That is again outside Australia. In determining whether the interests of justice make an order under proposed new section 7V justifiable, the matters to which the court shall have regard will include the following: First, the willingness or ability of the person concerned to come to Australia to give evidence; secondly, whether he will be able to give evidence material to any issue to be tried in the civil or criminal proceeding; and, thirdly, whether, having regard to the interest of the parties to the proceeding, justice will be better served by granting or refusing the order. Certain provisions are included for the purposes of safeguarding rights. For example, evidence which is taken is not thereby necessarily admissible. It is admissible only subject to the usual rules of evidence. There are also powers to permit, where it is thought necessary, the cross-examination of a witness who is to give evidence overseas. We can all understand the reasons why such a power should be there. There are also provisions which empower orders to be made in relation to proceedings in inferior courts. The necessity for those provisions has been highlighted by some recent problems but, overall, this is certainly an advance and I hope-I am sure we all hope-that it will assist the Commonwealth in the prosecution of not only civil claims which, I think, in some ways are a little less important but also major criminal actions, in particular those dealing with organised crime and some of the ills which now manifestly afflict this society. I therefore commend the Bill to the House. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(12.06) —I want to deal fairly briefly this afternoon with the matters contained in the Evidence Amendment Bill. Before doing so, I compliment the Attorney- General (Mr Lionel Bowen) on bringing this Bill before the House. Whilst it has taken some time since the recommendations made by Special Prosecutor Redlich to bring the Bill before the House, the Commonwealth certainly is leading the States by light years in the action it has taken in addressing these two particularly important matters. I also compliment the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) on the contribution he made, which I think was very constructive. It dealt adequately and appropriately with the matters contained in this legislation. There is no doubt that the legislation that we are dealing with is what most people in the community would consider to be lawyers' law. I have no doubt that any lay person listening to this debate today would be in some confusion about what these measures are dealing with and the wrongs they are designed to right. However, I assure the community that in the particular cases in which this legislation will prove beneficial it will be as important as any other element which arises. The procedural laws, including the laws of evidence, are certainly as important as the substantive law in the upholding of the law at large and in the successful prosecution of particular criminal cases. These two measures will ensure that those oft referred to legal loop- holes, at least in relation to these two matters, will no longer be available, one hopes. I take up one point with the honourable member for North Sydney. It is only a minor point. He quoted from the 1982-83 report of the Special Prosecutor. I point out that in paragraph 16.4 of the recommendations the report states: However, the procedural law and rules of evidence to be applied in Commonwealth proceedings varies with the State or Territory in which the action is heard. I was making the point in my interjection that although a uniform evidence Act will, hopefully, be before the Parliament before too long and will overcome many of the difficulties, it will not overcome the procedural differences which can exist as a result of different rules of court in the various supreme courts of the States vis-a-vis not only each other but also the Federal Court of Australia. This is a problem which we will need to grapple with at some time in the future. Some people have suggested that eventually we will end up with most Commonwealth criminal matters being dealt with in the Federal Court. I think that is certainly some way down the track, if it occurs at all, but that point has been made in the report of the Special Prosecutor and I cannot see a solution to it. It needs a considerable amount of work. I particularly want to refer this afternoon to the need for a new Bill deaing with Commonwealth evidence at the earliest possible time. I have had the benefit of reading both volumes of the Law Reform Commission's interim report on evidence. No doubt, in the relatively near future, it will produce its final report. It is my hope that when that report is to hand the Government will move very quickly to introduce a new Commonwealth evidence Bill. It is long overdue. When one reads through the interim report on evidence from the Commission one finds it remarkable how many inconsistencies and uncertainties exist in the law at the moment and how many loopholes are available to those who seek to evade their responsibilities. That report, having been published, of course is in danger of underscoring so many of the loopholes that exist. I have no doubt that because the report has done that we will see examples in the courts of persons seeking to exercise those loopholes to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of the community. I simply make the point that the quicker we can have a new Commonwealth or Federal evidence Act dealing with many of the matters that have been referred to not only in the Special Prosecutor's report but also in reports from Mr Temby and others-now summarised and brought together in the report of the Law Reform Commission-the better off we will all be. I place on record in this House my congratulations to the Law Reform Commission on the excellent work it has done in putting that report together. It is a very lengthy and extensive document and is an exceptionally good review of the law. In my view the Commission is to be complimented on the report it has put together. It is only an interim report and its contents will be honed and fine tuned in the final report which, I am told, will be available early next year, if not late this year. The new Federal legislation, once it comes before this House and passes into law, as has been said by others, should act as a spur to the States to pass new complementary and, hopefully, largely uniform evidence Acts in their individual jurisdictions. I had the opportunity of being associated with some of the work that was done in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to endeavour to reach agreement on a uniform evidence Act during the 1970s. That endeavour was not successful, partly, I think, because of some of the complexities involved in the law of evidence and partly because of the inevitable difficulties in dealing with anything in the Standing Committee due to the application of the principle of lowest common denominator which always seems to pervade its considerations. It is time for the Commonwealth to move unilaterally and, hopefully, on the basis of our Bill, when it comes before the House, we will be able to, as I said, prod or encourage the States into taking similar measures. I will make a couple of final points. I bring to the attention of the House what I see to be a glaring gap in the way in which many fraud cases and so-called paper chase cases are dealt with in the courts at present. The Bill is certainly designed to assist in the prosecution of so-called paper-chase cases. My comments relate to the concern that many people have about the difficulty of successfully prosecuting these cases before juries. I am sure that many honourable members have often heard criticism of the jury system at large because of the difficulty juries have in understanding the extreme complexities of much of the documentation in major fraud or conspiracy cases involving corporate and white collar crime that is put before them. In those cases it is often said that juries cannot cope, that what we need is a system of assessors and that we should abolish the jury system in those cases. I totally reject that view. In many instances those comments are part of a fairly orchestrated campaign against the jury system that occurs from time to time. There are other options for ensuring that the jury system can be fine tuned to be able to deal with these matters. I refer specifically to the possibility of calling expert accountants or computer programmers to give expert evidence as to the nature and intention of particular transactions as proved or demonstrated by a series of documents, or proof of the pattern of transactions demonstrated, or shown up, by a set of books or documents. There is no reason why such a course could not be more widely used. It often surprises me that this has not occurred. The idea of proving each document, its nature and intention, seems a very cumbersome way of going about such prosecutions when, in many cases, it is possible to produce an expert-either a computer expert or an accountancy expert-and attract evidence from that person as to the nature and intention of a particular set of books, documents, and the like. This method of obtaining expert evidence was approved by the High Court of Australia in Potts v. Miller as reported in the 1963 Commonwealth Law Reports. In a case where a person has been run down or involved in an industrial accident, to prove the damage to an individual one asks a medical expert to give evidence as to the damage that has been suffered by the person injured. One does not produce the person in court and ask the jury to observe the way the person walks, his x-rays or anything else. One produces the medical expert. If, in a simlar vein, much more use were made of experts in complicated fraud cases we would be far better off. The jury system would be shown to work quite adequately in these matters and the system would not be as clogged as many people claim it is. Basically that is all I wanted to say. I again say to the Attorney-General: I appreciate the fact that this Bill has been brought forward. It is probably not widely understood by the community at large but it is certainly a measure which will have important consequences in the fight against organised crime and white collar crime in this country. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.19) —I am proud to follow the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan) in this debate. I take issue with the honourable member for Makin on only one matter. It is not really a `lawyers' law' debate although it might appear to be one. It goes to the fundamental rights of each and every Australian citizen and whether he or she comes before a court in this land in relation to either a civil matter or a criminal prosecution in which in a subsequent conviction the liberty of the subject might well be at stake. Sometimes members of the legal profession are a little inclined to say `this is really a lawyers' matter' whereas it is a matter affecting all Australians. I support the Evidence Amendment Bill and I congratulate both the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the honourable member for North Sydney on the excellent amendment, which ought to be known as the Spender amendment, which will be moved by the Government at the Committee stage. It is a very good example of the co-operation of the Government in the House with an excellent proposal put forward by the Opposition, for which the honourable member for North Sydney should be commended. Whilst supporting the Bill I must confess to having a different point of view in relation to two matters which are dealt with in the Bill, namely, the question of obtaining evidence abroad and the giving of evidence as to business records by what is known as the procedure of ancillary evidence. I will deal firstly with the obtaining evidence abroad provisions which I support without reservation. It is interesting to note that these arose out of what has become known as the Hammerdam prosecution which is reported as Parsons and others v. Martin and others at page 395 in 58 Australian Law Reports. That prosecution involved alleged breaches of banking and foreign exchange regulations in which it was said that the evidence required could be obtained only from witnesses residing in Hong Kong and Singapore. An information was laid in respect of the alleged breaches and a magistrate heard the ex parte-I emphasise the words `ex parte'-application of the prosecution made before the defendant was served with the summons. I emphasise the point that the application was ex parte and was made even before the defendant had received his summons. The magistrate issued letters of request to obtain evidence of witnesses in Hong Kong and Singapore. As a result, certain testimony was taken and documents obtained for use as evidence in committal proceedings. This occurred before the defendant had been served with a summons and as a result of an ex parte application at the hearing of which, obviously, he was not present because he had been given no notice at all. But the magistrate hearing the committal proceedings refused to admit the evidence obtained under the letters of request and revoked them. That was a very proper decision because I think, apart from the legal argument of whether an inferior court has jurisdiction to issue letters of request, there were two fundamental breaches of natural justice. Firstly, the original application was ex parte and, secondly, it occurred before the defendant had even been served with the summons. The information supplied to me by the Attorney-General indicates that the magistrate criticised the issue of the letters of request and I think, with respect, he was on solid ground. The decision to revoke the letters of request and not to omit the evidence and the documents obtained thereunder was reviewed under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 at first instance by Mr Justice Spender and subsequently, on appeal, before the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia comprising Chief Justice Bowen, and Justices Northrop and Toohey. In short, on appeal, the order made by Mr Justice Spender, and the action taken by the magistrate in the committal proceedings in Western Australia, was upheld. I feel a lot easier about the part of the legislation where the effect of issuing letters of request means that an overseas court would receive the evidence and take it in proceedings which, hopefully, would be fairly close, if not identical, to the procedures which would apply in Australia if the evidence were received in this country. Where there is a choice between the taking of evidence abroad, what used to be called, in broad terms, taking evidence on commission on the one hand or on the other the use of an authorised person to obtain evidence of business records and to give that as ancillary evidence, I lean very heavily in favour of the procedure which facilitates a judicial involvement in obtaining the evidence. Perhaps the Attorney will be kind enough to respond to this. After looking at the Bill I note the right of all parties to make applications so it will not always just be a case where prosecutions are using this means of obtaining evidence. I can imagine cases in which exculpatory evidence will be made available to a defendant in circumstances where, today, that evidence simply could not be produced. So we should not always look at it simply as facilitating prosecution, because clearly there will be cases where these new provisions will enable justice to be done because a defendant will be able to produce evidence. A few months ago I was involved, as counsel, in a criminal trial in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The circumstances of the case involved an alleged insurance fraud in respect of which the accused was subsequently acquitted. Part of the material evidence in the matter related to the alleged loss of jewellery in Hong Kong. Had it not been for the co-operation of the Crown in permitting certain business records, namely copies of American Express card vouchers, relating to purchases in Bangkok and Hong Kong to be tendered, the accused lady in that case would have been faced with the impossible situation of having to bring from either Bangkok or Hong Kong, or both, witnesses to give viva voce evidence of the business records, a copy of which she had in her possession. In that case, the Crown properly accepted the evidence-the Crown agreed to it being tendered-and furthermore, I should add, very fairly did not take away the right of last address of counsel for the accused, because that right normally goes if evidence is adduced. In Tasmania-I hope it is the case in other parts of Australia-that right is not taken away where the only evidence adduced is documentary evidence. I stray a little from the point, but I emphasise that whilst the parties can argue as to whether or not it is appropriate to take evidence abroad by virtue of judicial proceedings, it does not seem to me that the Evidence Act gives the defence the right to argue that where the prosecution is seeking, or indicating its intention, to obtain ancillary evidence of business records the defence has the right to say: `That is just not fair. It ought to be done under the alternative procedure of taking evidence abroad'. I will be grateful if the Attorney can correct me if I am wrong, because I have a real reservation in relation to the ancillary evidence aspect of the Bill. While I support the Bill and note the protections to which the honourable member for North Sydney has adverted, in particular the statutory enactment of the overriding rule of fairness, namely, the power to exclude evidence proposed new section 7X of the Act states: This Part does not affect the power of a court in a criminal proceeding to exclude evidence that has been obtained illegally or would, if admitted, operate unfairly against the defendant. The question I therefore ask is this: If the prosecution seeks to send away an authorised person to look at the business records who would then come back and give ancillary evidence about them, does the defendant have the right to say: `That is not fair. This matter is so important that you ought to be operating under letters of request'? In that event at least we would know that a judicial person would preside over the giving of that evidence. At least we would know that the right to cross-examine would be there. Furthermore-I commend the Government on this, contrary to what the Attorney-General said the other day when he took away the legal aid powers, if I can use that expression, in the Judiciary Act-in this legislation there is a specific power for the Commonwealth, in appropriate cases, to grant legal aid to the person to enable him or her to be represented at the proceedings outside Australia. I would have thought it was an absolute bare minimum that if evidence was being taken pursuant to a letter of request the other party, be it the defence or the prosecution, should have the right to be represented and the right to be assisted in relation to the costs of that legal representation. That is the one area in which I have a concern. It involves what is loosely called the translation of either computer records or business records. Whether the reading of business records is an art or a science would be open to considerable debate. In most States-I think it is the case in the Territories-provisions are inserted in the criminal law to allow for the empanelling of what are called special juries in cases where- Mr Jacobi —Long overdue. Mr HODGMAN —I acknowledge the comment by the honourable member for Hawker. It is certainly the case in Tasmania and I think it should apply nationally, but I do not think that it does as yet. Where the case is one of extreme complexity, involving business records and documentation of a voluminous nature, what is known as a special jury can be empanelled-that is, a jury which is chosen from a list of persons whose names are held in the registry of the court and who are qualifed accountants, businessmen or whatever. This is rarely resorted to, but I think it has been demonstrably proved that when there is a special jury the whole conduct of the trial is quite different from what it would be before an ordinary jury. Without in any way denigrating the fact I would simply say that in some cases in which I have been involved and others which I have witnessed there was no doubt at all that counsel for the defence would not only endeavour to knock the Crown case to pieces but also would not be unhappy if he left a trail of confusion behind both his cross-examination of the witnesses and indeed his closing address, for the simple reason that if there be confusion, in relying on the fundamental maxim that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, one's chances of obtaining that reasonable doubt are greatly enhanced and an acquittal therefore ensues. If it is sufficiently significant to have provisions for special juries on matters involving documents, computer records and the like, what a great weight is placed on the authorised person who goes overseas and then comes back and says what he saw. Counsel for the defence cannot cross-examine him as to matters he asserts in evidence because counsel for the defence has not seen the documents and, more importantly, does not have them in front of him. Counsel for the defence may, in fact, be prohibited by law from gaining access to the documents. There could well be cases where, by virtue of special warrant, a prosecutor or an authorised person can get access to documents which an ordinary person, even under the freedom of information legislation, might not be able to gain access to. I give the obvious example of documents involving the national security. It is not to be assumed that business records and the like may well come within the area of national security. In that case the accused is placed in the position that he and his advisers cannot see the documents. An authorised person has gone overseas, looked at the documents and come back and said `This is what I saw' and that becomes evidence against him. I do not suggest mala fides-that is, bad faith-on the part of the authorised person. On the contrary, one would believe that a person would go overseas with an absolutely open mind, with a desire to come back and faithfully record in his evidence to the court what he saw. My worry is this: What if that person genuinely misinterprets the documents, if he draws an incorrect conclusion? I want to test this proposition in the remaining moments available to me by giving a very simple example of how a very distinguished judge on a very important occasion completely misunderstood an answer translated to him by an interpreter in proceedings in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The case involved an Italian workman who had been severely injured in a mining explosion. He suffered atrocious injuries. One of the tragic consequences was that he was deprived of all sexual capacity. That was a major part of his claim for damages and evidence had been given in relation to it. The evidence was translated through an interpreter. When the plaintiff was cross-examined, counsel for the defendant company asked a question and part of the answer given by the plaintiff, in Italian, included the word `romanza'. The answer was translated and nothing was said about romance. The learned judge and everybody in court thought that the plaintiff was adverting to matters relating to his sexual capacity. In fact, the learned judge said: `I want that answer translated again'. It was identically retranslated. It then transpired that the word `romanza' in Italian does not mean romance. It is the Italian word for a novel. What he was saying was: `Because of what has happened to me all I can do is read novels'. It is a small but interesting example of how there was nearly a serious misunderstanding about what the evidence was. What is the situation, for example, if the person who goes overseas as the authorised person, for one reason or another, sees only half of the documents? He or she comes back in good faith and says: `This is what I saw'. Unless one had a compendious list against which one could check, it is quite possible the person could have made a mistake, a genuine mistake, which could lead in turn to an erroneous conviction. These are the reasons why I urge-and I believe that Special Prosecutor Redlich and others concerned with the administration of the law would accept it-that where the option is available, the preference must be for letters of request and the taking of evidence. I say in passing that the differences between the judicial system of some countries and ours would be so great that one would not seek to utilise that provision. But in the majority of cases I would like the assurance of the Attorney that, where an overseas court can be involved, that is to be the preferred course, bearing in mind that the transcript of the proceedings would be then available in full; the cross-examination would be available, even where the original evidence was only by affidavit. In regard to the right of legal representation, the Attorney- General in his second reading speech stated that the Commonwealth would provide assistance in cases where hardship would otherwise occur to enable the party to be represented at the procedural hearing outside Australia. I think that that is a bare minimum. If the defendant is in custody or for any other reason cannot be present at the proceedings in the overseas court, I suggest it is basic and fundamental fairness that the defendant be represented and that the costs of that representation be picked up by the Commonwealth. It is good legislation. I am surprised to note that until this amendment a State or Territory court has not had the power to enable evidence to be obtained in relation to criminal matters in inferior courts. I say in conclusion that if that be so, and I have no reason to doubt it, it shows what monstrous injustices must have occurred in the past when a defendant who was unable to produce exculpatory evidence from overseas in committal proceedings had to endure not only a committal for trial, but a hearing in a higher court before he or she could produce the evidence to clear his or her name. To that extent I strongly urge that the appropriate time for it to be produced is at the committal proceedings; in other words, I think it is unfair if the prosecution has the option of trying to obtain its committal order by producing only part of the evidence, and hearing out the overseas evidence. In cases where the prosecution knows that it will at some stage wish to bring in evidence from overseas, that evidence should be produced at the committal proceedings. I think that that is basic fairness. I support the legislation and trust that it will be put to good use, both in bringing to justice those who breach the laws of this country and in affording for the very first time to defendants and accused persons the right of exculpating themselves without being involved in enormous and horrendous costs. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(12.39) —in reply-I thank honourable members for their contributions. They have been very technical and accurate in what they have said because the legislation that we are debating is technical. In answer to the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), of course, what we are dealing with is that section of the Evidence Act which deals with the admissibility of business records. There are a number of provisions in that Act which relate to restrictions and we are not altering them at all. In fact, they have been in place since 1978. The court would have a discretion, of course, as to what might be the better type of evidence to get. The court may well decide, because of the submissions made, that it would be more appropriate to get evidence taken overseas rather than, as the honourable member was saying, ancillary evidence, which might not be the best evidence. But the ancillary evidence provision is already contained in the Act at the moment. It is a question of our improving it by way of these amendments on the basis of who may be authorised to give ancillary evidence. I say that at the outset. I do not think it in any way weakens what the honourable member has said. But the issue at the moment is that the best evidence should always be obtained. I think that is the gravamen of what is contained in the legislation. But the section we are dealing with concerns the admissibility of business records and goes no wider than that. The matters that the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) raised were very important. I say to him that I very much appreciate his interest in the matter. The Law Reform Commission has produced a two-volume report. It has prepared a draft Bill, but it has suggested that that be circulated to interested persons so that they can make submissions. That Bill has been circulated to the State Attorneys. I would be very anxious to get, if we could, some sort of consensus so that we could have a model Bill. I assure the honourable member that I would be very anxious to implement such a Bill. At present I am doubtful whether I would be able to do so in the next autumn session. But there would be a very good chance of implementing it later in the year. I am very anxious to get the co-operation of the States. As a matter of fact, the Bill was circulated at the meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, so the Attorneys are well aware of it. I thank the honourable gentleman for his remarks. His remarks in relation to overseas business records could not have been more accurate. It is very important that we have access to these records. The mutual assistance treaties that we are now negotiating would facilitate that process for not only the Commonwealth but the States. At the same time there is some resistance within our bureaucracy as to what might be termed the secrecy of banking and also the question of tax records. These are matters that I think must still be overcome. Nations are beginning to realise that they cannot shelter organised crime behind such a secrecy provision. At a meeting in Paris in March or April the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development dealt with these matters. There was general agreement that the restrictions on secrecy should be removed in the interests of attacking the criminal because of the damage being done to society, particularly by narcotics. I am in complete agreement with what the honourable gentleman said. The extent to which I can deliver what he has suggested is another matter, but we ought to be able to make a fair bit of progress. I do not want to delay the House. We have for consideration in the Committee stage amendments which were suggested by the honourable member for North Sydney. I fully agree with his sentiments in that respect and I think he might agree with the amendments which have been drafted as a result of his submissions. I thank honourable members for their contributions. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(12.43) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 3, page 1, line 14, omit ``sub-section'', insert``sub-sections''. (2) Clause 3, page 2, lines 1-21, omit proposed sub-section (3), insert the following sub-sections: `` `(3) Evidence relevant to a matter mentioned in section 7B, 7D or 7E shall not be given under sub-section (1) by an authorised person unless it appears to the court that- (a) it is not reasonably practicable for a person who had, at the relevant time or afterwards, a responsible position in relation to the making or keeping of the records concerned to give that evidence; or (b) having regard to all the circumstances of the case, undue expense would be caused by calling a person referred to in paragraph (a) as a witness. `(4) In this section, ``authorised person'' means- (a) in a case where the evidence is given at a place outside Australia-an Australian Diplomatic Officer or an Australian Consular Officer, as defined by the Consular Fees Act 1955, exercising functions in that place; or (b) in any case-a member of the Australian Federal Police of or above the rank of sergeant or a person authorised by the Attorney-General for the purpose of this section.'.''. The amendments are designed to ensure that where there is an available person in a responsible position who is the maker or keeper of the records concerned it is that person who is called upon to give the necessary ancillary evidence to prove the documents. An authorised person may, however, give that evidence where it is not reasonably practicable to call the maker or keeper-for example, an overseas person who is unwilling to come to Australia-or where undue expense would be involved. They will tighten up the categories of persons who may be `authorised persons', by removing references to justices of the peace, persons authorised to administer oaths, and public notaries. The remaining categories are considered more appropriate and should be adequate. I thank the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) for his submissions in that respect. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(12.44) —I, of course, agree with the amendments. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has been kind enough to point out that they came about as a result of some submissions that I made to him through his Department. I spoke to the person who I believe had the carriage of the drafting of the matter, who was most helpful, as I find people in his Department characteristically are. I pointed out that there was a problem and that the problem to my mind arose because when it came to determining whether a person was in a position to give evidence which would ground the admissibility of business records, no distinction in the original draft was drawn between a person who had a responsible position in relation to the making or keeping of the records concerned and what it described, I think in the Bill as- The CHAIRMAN —It being 12.45 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 101A, I shall report progress. Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr RUDDOCK —I refer the Treasurer to his answers to questions on notice concerning investigations into allegations of sales tax evasion on motor vehicles sold using exemptions to charities, in particular the Parramatta Police Citizens Boys Club. As proceedings are now complete in the courts of New South Wales and the principal involved in those proceedings was released from gaol on 23 November, are there any other circumstances which would prevent the Treasurer answering questions on notice No. 1879 of 18 September and Nos 2227 and 2283? What action will be taken to ensure the availability within Australia of all parties against whom charges may be brought arising from these matters? Mr KEATING —I would have to freshen up on the detail of the matters involved. I will take the honourable gentleman's question on board and make sure I get a reply to him, and I will look at the questions on notice. Mr JACOBI —Can the Minister for Defence comment on reports on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio that the South Australian Opposition Leader, Mr Olsen, has claimed that South Australia has just as much chance of winning the submarine contract under a Liberal government as under a Labor government? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. The first point I make is that it refers to entirely hypothetical circumstances since Mr Olsen will not be Premier of South Australia in two weeks time; the Premier will continue to be John Bannon. I think some of these misunderstandings arise out of an insufficient appreciation of what exactly is involved in arriving at a commercial decision in relation to the location of the construction of the submarine and of decisions about Australian industry participation in the program for the additional work that may be done with the combat systems, in electronics or in heavy engineering, for various parts of the submarine. The point is that all the participants in the project definition study, including those who are unsuccessful tenderers, started out, naturally enough, given the nature of the location of those companies, with a very inadequate appreciation of the possibilities of Australian industry contributing to what they were doing. They are in the home stretch of a process of education. At the moment those with an interest in it are putting to those companies their various capabilities and how those various capabilities could add to the performance of a submarine constructed at a particular site. The simple fact is that John Bannon started that process much earlier than anyone else. He unquestionably at this stage has the most coherent picture about the possibilities of South Australian industry, which is rich in heavy engineering capability and in the electronics field. He is in the process of putting together some truly excellent packages and of educating the various project definition study people in that process. As I said at the outset, we are in the home stretch of this process. To change horses in the middle of the home stretch of this process would be an act which common sense would determine as a perfectly ludicrous course to follow. This has absolutely nothing to do with the party concern; it has everything to do with the man. Nobody in his right mind or with any knowledge who has viewed this process as it has evolved over the last couple of years could possibly come to the conclusion that John Olsen would start out on an equal basis with John Bannon in being able to put together a commercial package which would attract the attention of this Government and of the project definition study people. Mr KATTER —Will the Minister for Primary Industry acknowledge that the sugar industry is in a state of extreme crisis, threatening the livelihoods of many hundreds of cane farmers and thousands of Australian workers and the small business people dependent on them? If so, will he clearly indicate whether his Government will or will not provide immediate financial assistance at least somewhat commensurate with the high subsidies provided to sugar industries in competing countries? I point out that I refer to the Federal Government, not to any particular State government. Mr KERIN —First of all, I assure honourable members that I did not write the question for the honourable member for Kennedy. I accept that the honourable member is concerned about the sugar industry because he has the Herbert River Valley part of the Queensland sugar industry in his electorate. It was previously, before the redistribution, in the electorate of one of my colleagues. It should be pretty obvious to everyone that assistance is not flowing from this Government to the Queensland sugar industry due to the recalcitrant attitude of the minority National Party Government in Queensland. It is an absolute nonsense. The New South Wales sugar industry leader, Mr Ellis, was in my office and met with Mr Hallam yesterday. We are advancing the situation in New South Wales because the New South Wales Labor Government is prepared to come in with the three inter-connected packages of price support, on-farm adjustment assistance and restructuring. The New South Wales Labor Government is coming in with us and we will be able to get assistance to the New South Wales part of the Australian sugar industry. In Queensland there is a different situation altogether. When I met with the industry and with Mr Turner of the Queensland Government recently in Brisbane the Queensland Government made out that all it was prepared to put up, with a lot of attendant publicity, was help to the extent of $170m. Of course, that was a truck load of hollow logs. The honourable member for Ryan and the Liberal Party in Queensland have a bit more sense; they know what is going on and they appreciate the need to have a package of assistance for the industry. But all the Queensland Government put up was a truck load of hollow logs with tissue paper bark on the logs nonsense. The $170m was all about loans to the industry, whereas this Government is offering $150m in grants because the industry does not have the capacity to repay loans. It is absolute nonsense. The Queensland Government was proposing to us that, in addition to the $150m in grants, we put up an extra $24m when all it was going to put up over three years was perhaps $26m-if all the loans were taken up. It is absolute nonsense for the Queensland Government to continue to stifle this industry because it has not got the political will to do anything for its own industry. It is an absolute nonsense. The National Party, as it did in the Victorian Parliament last night when it knocked over a Bill to get a single meat inspection service in this country by facilitating a take-over in Victoria, is once again letting the farmers down. In the one State in this country where the supposedly specialist rural party, the National Party, governs on its own-basically because the Liberal Party and the National Party hate each other; there are hardly any proper Cabinet meetings because the Liberals are out of the coalition-it has not got the guts, the leadership, the will or the wherewithal to help its own sugar industry. It is anti-farmer. Mr Braithwaite —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: In respect of that question I was wondering whether the Minister was aware- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Dawson will resume hs seat. Mr Braithwaite —That the New South Wales Government- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Dawson. There seems to be some misunderstanding about points of order. When a member calls a point of order, he is expected to take a point of order, not make a statement. Mr MOUNTFORD —Can the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House of the current state of industrial relations in the building industry? Mr WILLIS —There have been some quite significant developments in industrial relations in the building industry recently. Honourable members would be aware that the industry reached a somewhat critical stage recently due to the activities of the Builders Labourers Federation, which has imposed wide-ranging bans on three issues. They are a claim for a 35-hour week, pressure on employers not to support deregistration proceedings by demanding that employers sign a letter indicating that they oppose the deregistration proceedings, and payment of the 3.8 per cent national wage increase, which is yet to be said by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to be incorporated in its award. The information I have received is that well over 100 sites, mostly in Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, have been banned by the BLF in relation to these claims. I understand that employers in Victoria met on Monday and resolved to fully test those BLF bans as of today and that where builders labourers refused to obey a lawful instruction to carry out work they should be stood down or sacked. Builders also resolved to ban all overtime and the new employment of builders labourers prior to Christmas. Contractors in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory have said that they will take a similar position. The Government welcomes this attitude of the builders because it indicates on their part a determination to take a strong stand in relation to tactics by the BLF which have been employed so successfully against them in the past by picking them off one by one. I note also that yesterday the Australian Council of Trade Unions executive passed a unanimous resolution which declared that it would not intervene in the deregistration proceedings against the BLF and which authorised unionists employed on building sites to take all necessary steps to protect their jobs, including doing the work of builders labourers. That was a very, very important resolution passed by the ACTU yesterday. It indicates that the BLF has finally taken itself to the point where it is totally offside with the trade union movement and that it cannot expect, any longer, support from the trade union movement. This puts it in a quite different category from the situation which applied when the BLF was last deregistered in 1974 when it had the unanimous support of the trade union movement. The situation now is that deregistration or its effective equivalent in respect of the BLF is infinitely more likely to succeed than would have been the case without that trade union support. I understand that builders in Victoria have today tested the bans in line with their commitment of last Monday and that up to 100 builders labourers have been sacked or stood down in the course of today. At a number of sites builders labourers, when they have been threatened with stand down or dismissal, have lifted their bans. Similar action will be taken in New South Wales tomorrow. I would like to refer to two other matters. Firstly, employers have sought to have the deregistration proceedings ended. Mr Sinclair —Come on; make a statement. Wind up. Mr WILLIS —I am quite happy to go on until a quarter to three. Mr Sinclair —Make a statement, if you want to. Mr WILLIS —If you shut up, I will. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Minister remain quiet, we let the House come to a decent level and then the Minister can conclude his answer without interruption Mr WILLIS —As I was saying, the employers have called on the Government to abandon the current deregistration proceedings and to introduce legislation to immediately deregister the BLF. The Government does not agree with that course of action and it does not intend to take that course of action because it believes that it is proper and appropriate that the Commission has a role in the course of this operation. We are concerned to ensure that that deregistration case is no longer than is necessary and I have already taken action to reduce the length of the Government's case. In light of current action, I will be looking at further reducing the size of that case. Finally, the national wage increase of 3.8 per cent will come before the Commission next Monday in respect of the Builders Labourers Federation. The Government will be strongly opposing the 3.8 per cent flow-on to the builders labourers. It expects the unanimous support of employers and State governments in that respect. Mr HAWKER —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. One of my constituents, who would be a typical example of the many young people trying to get ahead, is at present earning more than $20,000 per year through shearing. My constituent is also in the process of purchasing a small farm financed with his shearing income. Can the Minister explain how quarantining of farm losses is a fair tax reform for such a person, when someone in a similar situation investing in a small business other than a farm could claim a full write-off against losses? Mr KERIN —The individual the honourable member is referring to, of course, would have to have on-farm losses of $20,000 to put the $20,000 off-farm income against before he can make any claim. I suggest to the honourable member that his constituent would require some of the $20,000 to live on; therefore, he could not be putting all of his $20,000 into the farm under concern. He has to have off-farm losses before the quarantining measures are generally applied. I point out that there has been quite a lot of discussion about this and we are dealing with populations of three factors: We are dealing with taxpayers, some of whom have farm income and many of whom are farmers, the number of farmers and then the number of farms. If we look at all the people who are likely to be affected by this quarantining measure and if one goes through the figures and puts that against the five-year aggregation, provision for full time or near-full time farmers-farmers sometimes expressed as genuine farmers-one finds that very few full time or near-full time farmers will be affected by this measure at all. I am talking about the quarantining measures that are proposed by the Government. I am pointing out that everyone is focusing on the $15,000 shading out to $30,000. What full time or near full time farmers should be focusing on, of course, is the five-year aggregation of income. If one looks at all the measures-and I am using official figures-one will see that the base that the farm sector will be using in respect of the farm cash operating surplus will be $126,000. If one looks at the average of income right across the sector for the last five years the base will be $69,000. If one is looking at farm income per unit of family labour one will be looking at nearly $38,000. If one is looking at taxable income for the last five years for which we have figures one is looking at a base of $74,000. That is why I say that the quarantining measure as proposed by the Government will affect very few full time or near full time farmers. Mr BLANCHARD —Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of the concerns expressed by educationalists and Aboriginal leaders in the Northern Territory about the downgrading of Aboriginal education in the Northern Territory? Is it true that a high proportion of Aboriginal staff will lose their jobs? Is this not a case of racial discrimination against Aboriginals? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. Yes, I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed particularly in relation to Aboriginal education programs in the Northern Territory. I have received representations from educationalists and Aboriginal people and I share their concern. I have taken up the matter with my colleague the Minister for Education. Mr Sinclair —Come on! Make a statement. Mr HOLDING —If the honourable member does not stop it, he will go mad. I have told him dozens of times. Mr Howard —It is a pretty arresting tie you have there, Clyde. Mr HOLDING —I will lend it to the honourable gentleman. It might improve his popularity. I understand that the Northern Territory Minister for Education is acting on the recommendations of a review from his Department. While the whole Department is affected as a result of that review, the Aboriginal bilingual program and Aboriginal staffing are much more severely affected. On 6 August 1985, the Northern Territory Minister for Education claimed: The Territory Government's bilingual education program had grown in recent years. He also claimed that the program now covered 12 Aboriginal languages in 16 schools. These are the same figures that were provided to my Department two years ago and now the program appears to be threatened. I also understand that the staffing formula for schools in the Northern Territory is based on average attendance instead of enrolments and there is, of course, a big gap between enrolments and average attendance at school. I think all honourable members ought to be concerned about a situation where a Territory administration says: `We will use Commonwealth funds that are provided for education, not on the basis of enrolment, because in every other part of Australia enrolment is compulsory, but on the basis of the number of children who actually attend school'. The effect of that, of course, is to prejudice gravely the situation in respect of Aboriginal children. That can only be construed as a policy which is directly affecting the rights of Aboriginal children to a fair and effective education. I find it quite extraordinary that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory can parade himself around Australia talking about the need for the Northern Territory to have a university when in Aboriginal community after community Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory are not even given the basic educational skills to service the needs in their own community. This ought to be a matter of serious concern to all members in this House-not just Government members, but even the Leader of the National Party of Australia. It ought to be a matter of concern to members on both sides of the House because if equality means anything in Australian society it means the basic right of every Australian child to an education. That right is being denied at present in the Northern Territory. I say to the Chief Minister that, unless he addresses this matter as one of urgency and concern, it will have to be very seriously addressed as a matter of urgency by this Government. Mr COWAN —My question, which I address to the Attorney-General, relates to the legal proceedings involving Mrs Sylvia Faulkner v. the Department of Defence. Is it a fact that these proceedings are now recognised as one of the longest actions that have ever been before the courts extending, I believe, over 11 years? In view of the frustration caused to Mrs Faulkner and her family as well as the use of taxpayers' funds, can the Attorney inform the House when these proceedings are likely to be concluded? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —This is normally a question that would be placed on notice. However, the honourable gentleman was kind enough to leave some word at my office that he intended to raise the matter. It is a matter of concern to the honourable member and his constituent. However, I must say that the advice I have is not going to help him very much. As the honourable member said, the action has been current for 11 years. The honourable member's constituent is the plaintiff. I understand that the Official Receiver has now taken over the proceedings-in other words, something has happened from the point of view of bankruptcy. Further, interrogatories, which the plaintiff has failed to answer, have been outstanding for a long period. Accordingly, the case has not been set down. I do not know whether at the moment that advice is accurate, but I think it is. The honourable gentleman may not have been given the full information on the basis that there is a responsibility with the defendant which happens to be the Department of Defence. In other words, as anybody would know, it is normal in litigation that the plaintiff has the carriage of the suit and could set the matter down. It has not been set down. Certainly 11 years is an extraordinarily long time. I will have further inquiries made. However, in view of what I have been told, the initiative is with the plaintiff and not with the Department of Defence. Mrs CHILD —I address my question to the Minister for Trade in his capacity as the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs. Can the Minister inform the House of the implications in the Government's reform of youth income support arrangements for the income testing of unemployment benefit for recipients 18 years of age or older? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for Henty for her question. As with most income support arrangements, a personal income test applies to the unemployment benefit for those over 18 years of age. However, for that category, of course, there is no means test applying to parental income. We take the view that people of 18 years of age, having entered the work force, are considered to be economically independent and therefore their entitlement to benefits ought to be on the basis of their circumstances and not those of their families. I contrast this approach that the Government has taken with that of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition went to a National Farmers Federation meeting and said that he was going to cut welfare benefits and slash into the social security budget. As often happens, the Leader of the Opposition quickly has to qualify his brave, if silly, ideas when they are exposed to a little bit of electoral heat. His principles evaporate like the morning dew. He said he was not going to cut the rate of unemployment benefit. To find out what the Opposition really has in mind we have to look at what was said by the honourable member for Tangney, the Opposition spokesman for youth affairs. I understand that the honourable member is unwell and unable to be here and he has my condolences in that regard. But what he said in the House last week- Mr Howard —Condolences? He is not dead. Mr DAWKINS —I am sure that what I have to say will improve his recovery. Mr SPEAKER —We thought that the use of the word `condolences' might be a bit macabre. Mr DAWKINS —He has my sympathy and encouragement for a speedy recovery. What the honourable member for Tangney said- Mr Howard —Hurry up his recovery; just don't talk about it. Mr DAWKINS —The Leader of the Opposition used to be known as honest John. He has now become a sort of all-purpose John and he is looking increasingly like a temporary John. What the Leader of the Opposition may not know is that his spokesman on youth affairs last week said: Unemployed youth still receive the unemployment benefit without any parental means test, even if they are living in the lap of luxury in their family home . . . So the Opposition has in mind denying the unemployment benefit to those unemployed people over the age of 18 years who are living at home. This means that 80 per cent of unemployed people between the ages of 18 and 21 years- that is, the 80 per cent who live at home-run the risk of losing their unemployment benefit if there is ever an opportunity for the Opposition to introduce its policy. Of course this policy does defy logic because it means that a young person might enter the work force, be economically independent and then, because he had the misfortune to become unemployed, have to be thrown back onto the economic support of his parents. This is not only monstrously iniquitous; it is administratively impossible. It would also lead to the destruction of Australian families, as young people would be encouraged to leave home earlier than they otherwise would. Mr MacKELLAR —Did the Treasurer say yesterday that a continuation of the present high interest rates throughout the 1980s would probably stop Halleys Comet? Does he therefore agree that the recent speech by the Secretary to the Treasury indicates that the Government's economic strategy could collapse if the Government were forced to maintain its high interest rate policy to strengthen the dollar? Will he indicate for just how long the present dangerous situation can continue before remedial steps must be taken? Mr KEATING —I can see why the honour- able member never got an economic portfolio. The very essence of the message of the Secretary to the Treasury was that the policy mix in Australia at the moment is right, that policy settings are right and that the tightening of monetary policy represents, to use his words, an appropriate response to the sharp fall in the value of the Australian dollar. He went on to make the other obvious point that if interest rates and monetary policy were to stay tight forever rather than simply being applied to the task at hand, that would obviously have long term debilitating effects upon the economy. This is an interesting question from a member of a government which believed that monetary policy was the only instrument to use in flattening an economy. The former Government used it for years, took all of the growth out of the economy and gave us high unemployment, high inflation and high interest rates, without any success. For people who have been out of office now for nearly three years to look at an economic policy and say that the only thing they would use again would be monetary policy is a very curious line of argument indeed. The simple point is that we are at the interesting stage in Australia's economic history where the Australian Financial Review is asking me today to show where the economy is overheating to justify the tightness of the Labor Government's monetary policy. That is a bit of a switch of events, given the fact that most journals of record in the past would believe, on an historical basis, that the Australian Labor Party, certainly before this Government came to office, would not have monetary policy at the top of its list in terms of an instrument to be used. I find it interesting for the markets to ponder that our national financial daily is now saying that it is up to the Treasurer to show where the economy is overheating so that he can justify this tight monetary policy. I am sure that that is a luxury which the markets are quite happy to carry. I am quite certain that most people who are interested in the economy understand that the appropriate instrument to use for short term changes in sentiment is monetary policy. Monetary policy is playing a very useful role. In that sense it is playing a much more pointed role than the blunt role it played under the coalition's policy when it was the only instrument. There was no wages policy or accord. All the former Government had was an overvalued exchange rate which cut our manufacturing industries to pieces and ruined our export markets, and a monetary policy which ground the economy into the ground, never fixed inflation and gave us double digit unemployment. Talk about desperados! In fact, one of the interesting comments I read today was a record of a conversation which the Leader of the Opposition had on a radio station today. Talking about unemployment, he said: . . . despite the welcome creation of some tens of thousands of jobs some three or four hundred thousand over the past couple of years, it may surprise many of your listeners to know that the unemployment level in Australia now is still higher than it was for 6 of the 7 years that the last government was in office. In other words, what a commentary on what the former Government left us! Mr MARTIN —Can the Minister for Aviation advise the House when the supplementary report to the draft environmental impact statement on the second Sydney Airport site selection process will be available? What additional information, if any, was made available in the public submissions on that document? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. The House will recall that the draft environmental impact statement on the site for the second Sydney Airport selection process was made available on 12 June and the response period in respect of that ended on 26 August. The nature of the response has been such that, I understand, no new matters of major significance have been raised. But I put it to the honourable member that what has come through very clearly is that, overwhelmingly, people want a decision on the second site. They want an end to the uncertainty on whether it will be Badgerys Creek or Wilton and what will be done about the matter. That is the very important decision which the Government has to make in the next few weeks. What also came across was the competition for selection between the two sites. Again, the community has recognised the substantial economic benefits that will derive from the establishment of a new airport and the associated activities of that airport. I have to say that the honourable member has been alert to those benefits for some considerable time. As a former planner he readily recognises, firstly, the need to make a decision so that other planning processes can proceed and, secondly, the benefits that will flow from the airport development at whichever site is chosen. In those circumstances he has been very strong in his support for Wilton as the site. I daresay that he would suggest that he feels that his case would have been advanced more had there been greater support. But the Government will have to consider in the weeks ahead whether it will select Wilton or Badgerys Creek. I can say to the honourable member that the supplementary report has been completed. I propose to release it in the next few days. At this stage the Government's procedures for consideration of the two sites and the decision-making process are all on course. I expect that the Government will be making a decision on the selection before Christmas. Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Denison. Government members-Oh! Mr HODGMAN —Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will ginger up honourable members opposite a little bit now. Will the Prime Minister now come clean and admit to the House that he privately agrees with statements by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, that, firstly, the Government intends to seek a further deferral of the proposed productivity case and, secondly, this is the initial action the Government will take to help bring the labour cost structure into line by renegotiating the accord? As he and his Government are secretly plotting to renegotiate the accord, will he now direct the Treasurer and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to stop misleading the Parliament and the Australian public and will he as Prime Minister now abandon his mendacious Boulevard Hotel cover up tactics? Mr HAWKE —I suggest that the honourable member for Denison go back to his engrossing task of keeping a score card on his beloved Leader of the Opposition. That would be more productive than proceeding on this farrago of misrepresentations and misassumptions. Therefore, the answer to all his questions is no. Mr Hodgman —I rise to order. I seek under the Standing Orders the right to put a supplementary question. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr BALDWIN —Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs give an account of progress of the Contadora peace initiative in Central America? Does the Government continue to regard this process as providing the best hope for peace in the region? Mr HAYDEN —Mr Speaker, the Contadora process-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr HAYDEN —I expected a bit of maturity in this place! Mr SPEAKER —Order! I should say to the Minister that I think honourable members think that suit is mature. Mr HAYDEN —I have to say that it never caused this fascination when I first wore it to the House in 1974. The Contadora process in respect of the situation in Central America is the only process offering any hope that there may be a peaceful resolution to the differences between the five small states there. I have to admit, however, that the progress of that process is rather unsteady and gives cause for concern. It involves the efforts of Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela to try to resolve the problems of the five Central American countries. A group had been set up by the Contadora countries a little earlier to try to reconcile differences on outstanding issues. The purpose was that, if possible, they should work towards some sort of agreement on a final text of a Contadora treaty. A communique arising from the recent round of negotiations in Panama indicated some progress, but further negotiations were necessary. Latest reports, however, suggest a breakdown in the discussions. The situation becomes more complex by a change of government expected in Guatemala and Honduras in the wake of elections there and by general elections in Costa Rica in February. That means essentially that any further move in the Contadora process will be deferred for several months. The factors Contadora has to confront are made even more difficult by the fact that the proposition that countries of the region should be free to determine their own affairs, with an absence of outside interference, is a principle that has not always been recognised, and on the other hand by the fact that the Government of Nicaragua has been responsible for the reimposition of a state of emergency on 15 October. That has been unhelpful. We continue to be disappointed in the tendency for bilateral disputes to be given prominence over primary concerns in establishing a basis for regional harmony and co-operation. Where we can, we give encouragement to the Contadora process to continue. It is, I repeat, the only prospect, if there is any prospect, for a peaceful settlement to the differences there. Mr HALVERSON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. When will the Army School of Health be relocated from Healesville to Portsea? What future use, if any, is planned for the existing site and buildings at Healesville? How many civilians presently employed by the Army at Healesville will be affected by the move, and what provisions have been made for their local re-employment? Finally, what investigations have been undertaken to determine the effect of the relocation on the local Healesville community, already wracked by high levels of unemployment, and what is the outcome of these investigations? Mr BEAZLEY —Some of the matters raised by the honourable gentleman I will take on notice and give him a response. I announced earlier this month the decision, which was long expected, to shift the Army School of Health from Healesville to Portsea. The result will be considerably greater efficient use of our resources. The Healesville building was clearly inadequate for the Army School of Health and it is a perfectly appropriate use for Portsea. From the point of view of being able to get effective defence expenditure, the shift has been particularly useful for us. The future of the property at Healesville is now no longer a matter for defence concern. The question of disposal of that property is now in the hands of my colleague the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. I suggest that the honourable member direct that part of his question to him. I will certainly pass on the question to that Minister. The remainder of the question I will take on notice and give a response later. Mr O'KEEFE —My question is addressed to the Treasurer and concerns the tax deduction for business lunches. I ask the world's best Treasurer whether he is aware of an article published in the Australian Financial Review last week setting out a lunch voucher scheme aimed at keeping business lunch expenses as a tax deduction. Does he condone these efforts to find and exploit loopholes in his tax reform proposals and, if not, is he planning steps to ensure that they do not succeed? Mr KEATING —I had nearly forgotten this one. This is not the first such claim that luncheon vouchers somehow have some magical quality that credit cards or cheque books or cash do not have to make an otherwise non-allowable expense become a tax deduction. There is no truth in the claim that it makes a non-allowable expense a deduction. An expense claim is treated under the tax law on its merits. The method of payment is totally irrelevant. If a meal is not deductible, it makes no difference whether it is paid for by a voucher or by any other means. There are no meals or other expenses that become deductible simply because they are paid for by a voucher. I suspect that the promoters of the scheme are trying to gain some free publicity by linking their product to the tax reform package, and obviously they are seeking to deceive anybody who may believe that the use of a voucher system will allow some deductibility, when in fact the form and method of payment are immaterial to the purpose. It is the purpose, of course, which has been at issue in the tax reform package and which is why the Government has decided to disallow entertainment as a deduction. Mr SPEAKER —For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule showing Government responses to House of Representatives and joint committee reports for the period 24 April 1985 to 21 November 1985. Copies of the schedule are being made available to honourable members and it will be incorporated in Hansard. The schedule read as follows- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND JOINT COMMITTEE REPORTS-GOVERNMENT RESPONSES FOR THE PERIOD 24 APRIL 1985 TO 21 NOVEMBER 1985 AND OUTSTANDING RESPONSES TO REPORTS PRESENTED FROM 1980 Title of report Date Presented Date of Response Response within time specified(a) Aboriginal Affairs (House Standing) Asbestos Mining Effects on the Baryugil Community... 9.10.84 nrtd No Australian Capital Territory (Joint Standing) Retail Trading Hours in the A.C.T.... 21.10.82 21.11.85 (b) Parliamentary Zone Draft Development Plan... 1.3.84 nrtd No The Murrumbidgee River in the A.C.T. Region... 11.9.84 nrtd No Environment and Conservation (House Standing) Environmental Protection-Adequacy of Legislative and Administrative Arrangements-Second Report... 27.10.81 nrtd No(b) Hazardous Chemicals First Report... 29.4.82 nrtd No(b) Second Report... 9.12.82 nrtd (b) Bushfires and the Australian Environment... 4.10.84 nrtd No Protection of the Greater Daintree... 24.8.84 nrtd No Protection of Bungle Bungle... 28.3.85 nrtd No The Administration of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974... 24.5.85 nrtd No Protection of the Great Barrier Reef... 12.11.85 (d) (d) Expenditure (House Standing) Accommodation and Home Care for the Aged... 28.10.82 nrtd (b) Review of the Auditor-General's Efficiency Audit Report on Nursing Homes... 25.2.82 nrtd No(b) Telecom's Zonal Charging Policies... 4.10.84 15.11.85 No Aboriginal Development Commission (Interim Report)... 5.10.84 9.10.85 No Final Report... 22.5.85 9.10.85 No Control of Prohibited Immigration by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs... 13.11.85 (d) (d) Foreign Affairs and Defence (Joint Standing) Disarmament and Arms Control-Unfinished Inquiry Report... 11.10.84 nrn . . Overseas Aid (Jackson Report)-Unfinished Inquiry Report... 11.10.84 nrn . . The Jackson Report on Australia's Overseas Aid Program... 24.5.85 nrtd No New Parliament House (Joint Standing) Future Use of the Provisional Parliament House... 7.6.84 nrtd(c) No Parliamentary Privilege (Joint Select)... 3.10.84 nrtd No Procedure (House Standing) Alternative Opportunities of Members to Concisely Address the House... 13.5.85 nrtd No Transport Safety (House Standing) Education, Training and Licensing of Drivers... 6.5.82 nrtd No(b) Road Safety Generally... 8.10.84 nrtd No Notes: nrtd-no response to date nrn-no response necessary (a) The time specified by Government is 3 months from the presentation of the report-S.Deb. (24.8.83) p. 141. (b) The Government said its commitment to more prompt responses does not apply to reports presented in previous Parliaments-S.Deb. (15.12.83) p. 3853 (c) Interim response on 21.3.85 (d) The 3 month period for response has not expired. Sources: Unless otherwise indicated, Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 47 of the High Court of Australia Act 1979, I present the High Court of Australia annual report for 1984-85. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to sub-section 10(2) of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977, I present the report on the operation of Part II of the Act from 25 October 1984 to 28 November 1985. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Sports Commission annual report for 1984-85. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —Pursuant to section 29 of the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967, I present the Australian Tourist Commission annual report for 1984-85. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —Pursuant to sub-section 40(3) of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976, I present the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board annual report for 1984-85. 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 fertilisers. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members I present the Department of Resources and Energy annual report for 1984-85. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members I present the Christmas Island annual report for 1984-85. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members I present the Canberra Development Board annual report for 1984-85. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 28 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, I present the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal annual report for 1984-85. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 38 of the Australia Council Act 1975, I present the Australia Council annual report for 1984-85. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —For the information of honourable members I present the report on the future development of the National Film and Sound Archive. Mr MAHER(Lowe) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MAHER —I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr MAHER —Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday in the Senate, Senator Peter Baume, speaking on an appropriation Bill dealing with education, inferred that a school in my electorate, Domremy College at Five Dock, run by the Presentation Sisters, received funding for years 11 and 12 when it should not have received this funding. He said that the area has a declining population. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Lowe must realise that when he gets indulgence to make a personal explanation it is to correct where he has been personally misrepresented. So far he has not come to such a point. If indeed he has not been personally misrepresented, he should resume his seat. Mr MAHER —Mr Speaker, the honourable senator asked the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) whether the allocation of funds was changed as a result of my representations. He actually mentioned my name in the Senate. That is why I have sought your indulgence to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —The only explanation that you can make is to deny his statement. Mr MAHER —I am denying his statement. The item that quite offended me was the misstatement that the area has a declining school population, which it does not have. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —I present the final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises publication of the final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group. Mr YOUNG —by leave-On 28 March 1983 the terms of reference of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking were extended to allow the Royal Commissioner, Mr Justice Stewart, to inquire into activities of the Nugan Hand group of companies and related matters. Interim Reports The Royal Commissioner has since submitted two interim reports. Interim report No. 1 was presented to the Government on 13 October 1983 and was tabled in the Commonwealth Parliament on 6 December 1983. This report dealt with allegations of improper interference with the investigations of the former Federal Narcotics Bureau; that is, terms of reference (e) (f) and (g) of the Letters Patent issued by the Governor-General. The Commission found no evidence to support allegations of improper interference with the investigations of the Federal Narcotics Bureau or of dishonest or improper behaviour on the part of any member of the Bureau. The second interim report was presented to both the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments on 13 December 1984 and tabled in the Commonwealth and New South Wales parliaments on 20 March 1985. This report concentrated on terms (b), (c) and (d) contained in both the Commonwealth and New South Wales terms of reference and considered whether there had been any contravention of New South Wales or Commonwealth laws by the Nugan Hand group in its relations with local government authorities in New South Wales. The Royal Commissioner found that Nugan Hand Ltd had published false accounts to the councils and did not have the requisite dealer's licence, but that apart from these matters there was no evidence to support any further allegations. Final Report The report I am tabling today, which is also being tabled in the New South Wales Parliament, is the final report of the Royal Commission dealing with the terms of reference not covered by the earlier reports-term of reference (a) of both Letters Patent-namely: . . . whether the Nugan Hand Group engaged in activities involving contravention of laws of the Commonwealth [or New South Wales] (in particular, laws relating to the importation, exportation or possession of drugs or armaments or laws relating to exchange control. In the report the Commission makes a number of positive findings, but indicates that its work was hampered by: (a) The concealment or destruction of a number of relevant documents immediately following the death of Nugan; (b) the impossibility of hearing evidence from Mr Nugan; and (c) the fact that evidence could not be obtained from Mr Hand. The Royal Commissioner believes that, despite these difficulties, he was able to piece the story together. The Royal Commissioner shows that the Nugan Hand group operated behind a facade of big spending and public relations hype which provided the appearance of a vital and growing concern. In reality, however, it was a structure of companies relying heavily on false balance sheets and round robin transactions to attract investment funds. It was badly managed and suffered from the ineptitude and lack of commercial skills of its principals. Despite this, it flourished for six years until the suicide of Mr Nugan precipitated investigation of its activities. Drug Trafficking Allegations Honourable members will recall that from 1977 onwards allegations were made that the Nugan Hand group was involved in drug trafficking. The Royal Commissioner inquired into these allegations and concluded that there was no evidence to support assertions that the Nugan Hand group was knowingly involved in the importation, distribution or financing of the drug trade. In addition, with respect to the Nugan Hand office opened in Chiang Mai, Thailand, the Commission found that there was `no evidence to support the allegation that the office in Chiang Mai was established to attract deposits from drug producers of the so-called `Golden Triangle' '. This is not to say that Messrs Nugan and Hand did not provide financial services to persons associated with the drug trade. At least some officers of the Nugan Hand group were prepared to accept cash deposits through their companies regardless of their source and with the assurance that no questions would be asked concerning their source. The Royal Commissioner has concluded that on at least one occasion the Nugan Hand group transferred money overseas for collection by a member of the Mr Asia drug syndicate, but there was no evidence that any person associated with the group knew the money was to be used to purchase narcotics. Arms Dealings Several previous inquiries, including those conducted by the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission, the Commonwealth-New South Wales Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking and the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, referred to the Nugan Hand group's possible involvement in arms dealings and recommended further investigations. This Royal Commission was able to look more closely into possible arms dealing. Several attempts to initiate arms deals are instanced but on each occasion the Royal Commissioner concludes that the attempt came to nothing. Central Intelligence Agency Involvement The Royal Commission inquired into allegations that the Nugan Hand group was used by and/or used the Central Intelligence Agency. The Commission found that these allegations lacked substance, being based on the fact that the Nugan Hand group employed several former senior United States army personnel, some of whom had had CIA connections at some stage. The Royal Commissioner found it inherently implausible that the CIA would have used a group with the shortcomings of Nugan Hand. He found further that `there was simply no objective evidence that the CIA used or was used by the Nugan Hand group in, or in connection with, any of the group's activities'. The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reached a similar conclusion in its inquiry. In the past some publicity was given to the fact that Federal Bureau of Investigation documents on Nugan Hand provided to journalists had pages blacked out. The report notes that the Royal Commissioner examined these files at Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters and that there was nothing in them which would lend credence to the CIA allegation in any of its various forms. Other Illegal Activities The Royal Commission did find that there had been breaches by companies in the Nugan Hand group, its principals and a number of its officers, mainly of New South Wales laws and also of some Commonwealth laws. All of the criminal breaches identified under New South Wales law are related to the fraudulent conduct of company business with respect to one or more companies in the Nugan Hand group. The Commonwealth laws breached were tax laws and the then existing foreign exchange regulations. The Commission made its assessment of the involvement in criminal behaviour of particular individuals on the basis of the civil standard of proof and therefore made no recommendations with respect to prosecutions. However, the conclusions as to criminality need to be followed up and the Commission has passed information, which may lead to prosecutions, to the relevant law enforcement bodies. Deletions The Government is aware that a significant amount of the information contained in this report has been published previously. The Royal Commissioner has suggested for deletion some parts of the report containing his assessment in relation to persons who appear to have committed criminal offences and this has been agreed. On the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General's Department, and following consultation with the New South Wales Government, the Government has decided to delete some further sections of the public version of the report that might otherwise prejudice prosecutions or fair trial. Mr Justice Stewart has been informed of the Government's decision. A full copy of the report has been passed to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) for his information. Recommendations The Royal Commission has made a number of policy recommendations which are currently under active consideration by the Government: Firstly, the Commission has recommended amendments to the Royal Commissions Act to provide for the application of the rules of natural justice to the proceedings of royal commissions and to provide for royal commission powers to remain in force following the delivery of reports to enable the transfer, to relevant authorities, of material gathered by royal commissions. A review of the Commonwealth Royal Commissions Act has been under way for some time and both of these issues will be considered before amendments are finalised. It is expected that this will be completed shortly. Secondly, the Royal Commission has also recommended that access to Cayman Island banking documentation be arranged through an agreement with the United Kingdom and that modern judicial assistance treaties be established between Australia and other appropriate countries. The Commonwealth Secretariat is preparing a proposed scheme relating to mutual assistance in criminal matters between member nations of the Commonwealth. Australia has specifically raised the question of access to Cayman Island documentation in this regard. It is hoped that the scheme will be settled at the Commonwealth Law Ministers' meeting in July 1986. The Government has already commenced negotiating bilateral mutual assistance treaties with non-Commonwealth countries. Thirdly, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is considering the Royal Commissioner's recommendations for legislation to provide for the specification of the duties of auditors and for the review, by the National Companies and Securities Commission, of the Companies Code. State governments have important responsibilities in this area and it is proposed to hold discussions with them with a view to formulating an appropriate response. Finally, the Royal Commissioner recommended that a committee be set up to liaise with appropriate professional bodies, such as the Australian Bankers Association, with a view to establishing criteria to be followed by banks in respect of the issuing of opinions concerning their clients' financial standing and worth. A working group has been established for this purpose. Conclusion In summary the Royal Commissioner found that the Nugan Hand group had operated for six years with total disregard for company law. Although it had prospered for a time its collapse was inevitable because of the inherent instability of financial operations based on the round-robin transactions and the lack of merchant banking expertise of its principals. The Royal Commissioner's final report, together with his two interim reports, concludes that the wilder allegations made after the group's collapse and concerning its activities could not be substantiated. The group's misdeeds were exaggerated, in particular with regard to the allegations relating to drug trafficking and arms dealing. Furthermore the Commission found that there was no connection between the group and the CIA. I am confident that public revelation of this sorry tale, together with the legislative and other measures the Government has taken against white-collar crime, and the increased vigilance that has resulted, will greatly reduce the likelihood of activities of this kind. Mr Justice Stewart and his staff are to be congratulated for the valuable reports they have produced under the Nugan Hand terms of reference. Motion (by Dr Blewett) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(3.06) — I would like to put this bland and brief statement into some sort of perspective. I go back to 20 April 1982 when the then Minister for Administrative Services proposed certain enlargement of the terms of reference of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand group. He also tabled an opinion. That opinion was a joint opinion of the then Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. It was said in that opinion that there was no justification for extending the terms of reference to consider the allegations which had then been made against the Central Intelligence Agency, the so-called CIA involvement. Let me quote what was said by the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), whose actions stand condemned by this report and by the contemptuous dismissal that Mr Justice Stewart, the head of the National Crime Authority and the choice of the Government for that job, has given to the allegations which, in effect, provoked a great waste of public money. On 20 April 1982 the Foreign Minister stated: There can be no doubt that Nugan Hand was involved with the CIA and in arms dealing. A good straightforward assertion, was it not? Mr N. A. Brown —Who said that? Mr SPENDER —The Foreign Minister said that. He also stated: Quite frankly, on its record, the only people who would accept that sort of guarantee from the CIA-- that is, that the CIA was not involved-- would be the sort of people who would believe Ronald Biggs when he said that he had never travelled by train. The CIA had a deplorable record. The Foreign Minister of this country-honourable members must not think that this has been forgotten-was equating the CIA with a bank robber. The Central Intelligence Agency is a most important agency to the United States Government. It is most important to the security of that Government, to the free world and to this country. It should not be thought that recollections are so short overseas that people will not think that these statements portray the true views of the Foreign Minister. Time does not give me the opportunity to go in greater detail into what the Foreign Minister said on those occasions but it is perfectly plain that he was willing to quote any book or any newspaper article and to make any statement, in the most categorical of terms, against the CIA. So what did we have? When this Government got into power we had an enlargement of the terms of reference. We now have the result of that inquiry. Instead of dealing with it in short terms, let me quote from what Mr Justice Stewart said in his contemptuous and painstaking dismissal of the charges against the CIA, because charges they were. At paragraph 4.3.9 on page 741, when dealing with the looseness of the assertions that had been made, he referred to the terms under which certain senior former members of the United States military had been recruited into Nugan Hand and the reasons for this. He stated: His reasons-- that is Mr Hand's reasons-- for this course of action-- that is the recruitment of senior personnel or former personnel of the United States military forces, including Admiral Yates as the Chairman of the Nugan Hand Bank-- were twofold; first, the impression imparted as a result of the presence of such men with distinguished careers behind them did much to instil confidence in potential depositors with the Bank and, second, their knowledge of particular areas of South East Asia was of practical significance because it was in these areas that the Bank concentrated its efforts. The Commissioner reviewed the actions of the seven persons, including Admiral Yates and former generals, all of whom gave evidence voluntarily to the Commission. The former chairman, Admiral Yates, travelled to Sydney. He was the man named in this House by the present Foreign Minister in the context of his allegations against the CIA, Nugan Hand, gun-running and the whole lot of that left wing farrago of nonsense which was being thrown around at the time, as he will remember. I am glad that the Minister is present in the chamber. I hope that he has a copy of the Hansard. What did Mr Justice Stewart say? At page 743 of the report he stated: Before reviewing the evidence of these seven persons, each of whom came forward voluntarily and gave evidence to the Commission in the United States during January 1985, something should be said concerning what other evidence has established about the Group generally. The CIA allegation should not be looked at in isolation. On the contrary, it should be examined in the light of the Commission's general conclusions concerning the activities of the Group and the principals who controlled it. Such an exercise will provide a proper basis on which to consider a question that must arise: why, for what conceivable reason, would a powerful agency of the United States Government use or allow itself to be used by the Nugan Hand Group or any of its principals? He continued: The Commission has attempted to make clear in this report that despite all the trumpeting on the part of Messrs Nugan and Hand, despite the claims of massive turnover in securities trading by Mr Nugan, despite the range of financial services offered in the glossy brochures, the reality was always that of inept individuals, lacking in capital, devoid of commercial skills and, in the case of Messrs Nugan and Hand persons capable of the grossest forms of dishonesty-- Persons who, at page 744, he characterised as being `neither men of learning nor articulate'. He went on to ask a further question about the CIA-a question which this Government should have answered before it extended the terms of reference to include that matter and the expenditure involved. He said: Next to be considered is the question of what, if any, objective evidence exists to support the CIA allegation in any of its forms which fall within the terms of reference. The answer is that there is simply no objective evidence that the CIA used or was used by the Nugan Hand Group in or in connection with any of the Group's activities and, in particular, in circumstances where any criminal law of the Commonwealth or the State of New South Wales was contravened. At page 745 the Commission was at pains to point out that apart from taking evidence in the United States, it took a number of other steps to ensure that no reasonable avenue of inquiry was overlooked. It sought assurances from the CIA, assurances which the present Foreign Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition, dealt with with such contempt when they were referred to in this Parliament-that is, the Ronald Biggs assurances. The Commission also noted that there had been an inquiry by the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence as a result of allegations appearing in the Wall Street Journal. As a result of the inquiry, the United States Senate Select Committee concluded that the allegations were false and unfounded. Mr Young —They were American allegations though, weren't they? Mr SPENDER —Yes. They were allegations made in the Wall Street Journal concerning Nugan Hand. If the Minister has looked at page 746 of the report, and if he has read it, he will see reference to that. What did the Commission do? The Commission invited Admiral Yates to come and give evidence. I quote from page 746 which states: . . . the Commission first invited Admiral Yates to come to Sydney to give sworn evidence in confidential session. Admiral Yates accepted the invitation and gave evidence in Sydney to the Commission on 10 and 11 December 1984. As the Commission pointed out, the other six former military men, or men associated with the United States Government in a senior position, also gave evidence voluntarily-one in Los Angeles and five in the Australian Embassy in Washington, DC. So much for that absurd left wing view of the world which the former Leader of the Opposition was then perpetrating. What did Mr Justice Stewart say about the evidence that had been given? He said at page 751 of the report: The Commission accepts the evidence of these witnesses. Indeed, except for Admiral Yates and General Black, it is difficult to see how any of the others could under any circumstances be seen to have played a significant role in the activities of the Nugan Hand Group given the fact that their employment on behalf of the Group did not commence until a very late stage in the life of the Group. Furthermore, the evidence of these witnesses is consistent with the objective evidence summarised by the Commission above [see 4.3.15-4.3.18]. None of these witnesses is contradicted by any credible evidence. Some of those witnesses had been named by the then Leader of the Opposition. Page 1573 of Hansard of 20 April 1982 records that after reference to what had been written in a book-he quoted from a book-he said: That is more than enough substantial evidence to justify an investigation of CIA activity in association with Nugan-Hand. The people who have been associated are: Admiral Yates- he was the former chairman, who came to Australia and gave evidence- William Colby- he was certainly a former and very high-ranking member of the CIA and gave evidence- General Ed Black- yes, he gave evidence- Guy Pauker- Yes, he gave evidence. The evidence was accepted in all respects. As Mr Justice Stewart pointed out, it was supported by the objective evidence. That is another quote of which we should remind ourselves because this illustrates the thinking of the Foreign Minister when it comes to the United States intelligence agencies and indeed the United States Government. Has his opinion really changed so much over the past two or three years? On that occasion he said: It seems to be an extraordinary coincidence that they all found in a short time that Nugan Hand was a favourite parking station for retired CIA and military officers of United States forces. One has substantial grounds for believing that the CIA operatives were not retired, if indeed CIA operatives ever retire. I invite honourable members to read the report and to see who the CIA operatives were. In fact, most of those people had no direct association with the CIA. As I have said, Colby, of course, did. Colby is a lawyer. The famous card that was found in the pocket of the dead Mr Nugan was a card given by Colby of dates that he would be available for consultation by Nugan. If honourable members want to check on whether Colby is a lawyer they should go to his offices in Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC. I have been there. He is carrying on practice as a lawyer. That was the explanation that was given and accepted by the head of the National Crime Authority who saw all those witnesses. Let us not think that the kinds of views that had been expressed by the person who is now the Foreign Minister have been forgotten by the United States Government. What is the truth of the matter in relation to the parts of the terms of reference which caused, among other things, the Commission to spend a great deal of time and trouble in investigating the CIA allegations and which caused it to go to the United States? First, as I have said, we have had a vast expenditure of public money. Second, we have a complete vindication of the opinion given by the then Attorney-General, Senator Durack, and the then Solicitor-General, Sir Maurice Byers, who said in effect that there was no justification for extending the terms of reference to inquire into the CIA allegations. Third, after this exhaustive investigation, we have had what amounts to a condemnation of the allegations so easily made by the Leader of the Opposition, as he then was, which were accepted by this Government-one can only assume they were accepted by the Government, because the Government initiated the terms of reference-as the basis for this inquiry, an inquiry which was into allegations based on gossip, hearsay and sensationalism. The report, as I have said, accepted entirely the view which was being put by the then Government in relation to the CIA. By what the report says and by what it finds, it condemns the then Leader of the Opposition for what he said about the CIA. Remember this: How would we feel if another government sought to investigate allegations made in, let us say, the United States Congress concerning the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation? Might we not think that that was an outrageous intrusion into our affairs? Might we not think that the person making the allegation was not well disposed to us basically or in any way? Is that not the truth of the matter? Do we really think that the Foreign Minister has changed his views about the United States? We do not. Mr Hand —They are discredited all round the world. You are not defending them, are you? Mr SPENDER —What better vindication do we have than that lone voice from the limping Left? Lastly, let me say this: Too many people have been injured who have had it said of them that they were involved in Nugan Hand because they knew somebody in the Nugan Hand organisation, because they once worked there or because they invested with it. Let the whole report be a reminder that guilt by association is something that should be flung out of this Parliament and with it should go the members of the Australian Labor Party who are so prone to exercise that luxury of traducing reputations of people outside the House who have no effective right to answer. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Mr Chynoweth) adjourned. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —by leave-I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to a report to the Parliament by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety on `Road Safety Generally'. Road safety remains our most horrific social problem, and despite the publicity and alarm created by other causes of death such as drug overdoses or violent crime, nothing anywhere near approaches the trauma and suffering of death on our roads. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in his opening speech to the National Road Safety Symposium last year, more Australians have been killed on our roads in the last 12 years than died on active service in World War II. There is a high degree of complacency within the community and it is significant that we have within this Parliament a committee with the specific charter of inquiring into the ways and means by which this senseless slaughter on our roads might be lessened. Consistent with the Government's high priority for road safety, the Road Safety Committee-and the Transport Safety Committee of the House of Representatives, as it is now known-has the full support of this Government. Before attending to the detail of the Committee's report I think it might be useful to provide some perspective to the issue and to reflect on the progress which has been made nationally in recent years. Current figures for road fatalities are slightly lower than the equivalent figures of 20 years ago-despite an increase of some 1.5 million in the population and an extra three million vehicles on the roads. It is not suggested that we are winning the road safety battle but we are not losing it either. A road crash can involve failure of either one or a combination of three elements-the vehicle, the road or the driver. More often than not it is the driver. The Federal Government supports a comprehensive approach to road safety which addresses these three factors. Let me give some examples of what has been done or is being done to further improve road safety. Vehicle safety design standards have been significantly upgraded and we will be moving towards international standards where further improvements can be made; a new certification system was introduced this year, giving greater assurance that vehicles comply with the Australian Design Rules; and we are reviewing vehicle recall arrangements to ensure their full effectiveness. Better roads mean safer roads. We have already provided a major boost to Federal road funding-in fact, an 82 per cent increase over 1981-82, the last full year of the previous Government. The recently announced Australian land transport program will be the greatest road building and maintenance project in Australia's history. It will guarantee a set share of fuel excise indexed to the consumer price index. In 1985-86 a record $1,245m will be provided by this Government for road improvements. We are already on the way towards encouraging more responsible attitudes and skills in those who drive upon the nation's roads. Perhaps the most important initiative taken to date is in the driver licensing area. Our graduated licensing concept-extending the on-road experience of novice drivers-has been agreed with by the States and key elements are now being picked up in State licensing arrangements. Road safety research and promotion efforts have been considerably augmented. Underpinning the Federal Government's road safety program is the support and co-operation of State and Territory road safety agencies, the media and community leaders-including the members of this House. Let me turn now to the report on `Road Safety Generally'. The basis of the final report of the former Road Safety Committee was a survey of community attitudes on road safety. It provided members of the general public with an opportunity to contribute their ideas and opinions to a national parliamentary committee. The survey, and the report, also served to heighten community awareness of road safety. As honourable members will recall, the survey questionnaire was distributed through the electoral offices of Federal members and senators and the media played a key role in publicising the exercise. I thank all those who assisted. The four major issues identified as being of major current concern to the community were drink driving, driver attitudes and behaviour, speed and disregard of road rules. The Standing Committee's report is important in several respects. It reflects community concerns, it emphasises the benefits of road safety programs and priorities from a national perspective; and it makes a number of specific recommendations directed in particular at encouraging more responsible road use. The general thrust of the Standing Committee's report and the outcome of the National Road Safety Symposium confirm that the Federal Government's road safety strategies are appropriate and have widespread community support. As I have indicated already, safer vehicles and a higher priority to upgrading roads are assisting in reducing the road toll. In co-operation with the States, we are now also tackling in a more effective way the very difficult task of improving road user attitudes and behaviour. The Government endorses the recommendations made by the Standing Committee. The recommendations are supportive of Federal efforts in road safety and are indicative of the bipartisan approach to this most important national social issue. Indeed, the recommendations are already being implemented or are under active consideration. Let me comment briefly on these. Regrettably, alcohol remains the single most important factor in fatal road crashes in Australia. Prior to the introduction of random breath testing, alcohol was a factor in about 50 per cent of fatal crashes. This figure has now fallen to around 36 per cent, which is indicative of the success of this countermeasure. Currently, only two States, Queensland and Western Australia, do not have random breath testing. The Government will continue to encourage all the States to adopt uniform random breath testing legislation and practices. The Federal Office of Road Safety is already researching rehabilitation programs for convicted drink drivers. The effect of other drugs on driving is also subject to research by the Federal Office of Road Safety. A public education program is to be launched next year informing drivers of the possible impairment to driving skills caused by drugs. This program will address in particular the effects of such drugs in combination with alcohol. The National Therapeutic Goods Committee is currently examining the most effective way of labelling commonly prescribed drugs to warn consumers of any adverse effects on driving ability. These Federal initiatives will provide a useful complement to the broader based National Campaign Against Drug Abuse. Discussions are also under way with State and Territory authorities, through the Australian Transport Advisory Council, on measures to ensure applicants for driver licences are aware of, and understand, the dangers of alcohol and other drugs on driving. Excessive speed kills, but the greatest problem in Australia is speed dispersion, or differences of vehicle speeds in a traffic stream. This can lead to dangerous overtaking with often disastrous results. This is particularly evident when there are heavy vehicles in the traffic stream and, for that reason, I have supported for some time the removal of the speed limit differential for heavy vehicles in the interests of safety. The fast track package of reforms for the road freight industry arising from the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry includes a provision for the removal of the speed differential between trucks and other vehicles outside built-up areas. The fast track package has a target implementation date of 1 July 1986. Honourable members will recall that the interstate road transport legislation recently passed by the Parliament also forms part of this package. National, uniform road safety data bases are critically important to the future development of cost-effective road safety countermeasures. The Federal Office of Road Safety is now spending about $500,000 each year on a national mass data system for road crashes. The data system will be one of the most up to date and refined in the world and will be available to all authorities and interested organisations and persons. Information on driver licences, driving offences, disqualifications and car registrations on a national basis effectively will be available through the development of compatible State and Territory record systems, reciprocal recognition of interstate licences and implementing arrangements for the exchange of information. One of the major priorities of the road safety research program administered by the Federal Office of Road Safety is driver attitude and behaviour. The objective of this part of the program is to investigate those aspects of driver attitude and behaviour that lead to road crashes and come up with potential countermeasures. This is not an easy task, but must be tackled if we are to see further and significant reductions in the road toll. Co-ordination of road safety research in Australia is also being addressed within the ATAC framework. An advisory committee has been given this specific task and regular conferences of researchers are now being held. Road safety publicity campaigns are an important part of increasing community awareness of road safety and encouraging more responsible use of our roads. At various times all relevant media are utilised, including the ethnic media. Television campaigns are effective but costly and must be subject to available resources. Television and other publicity campaigns have been, or are being, developed by Federal and State governments to improve car driver awareness of other vehicles, including trucks and two-wheelers. A major research project is also under way to address the causes of rural crashes and possible countermeasures. This will be of particular value to those States and Territories with outback communities. In the meantime, I support the efforts of the States and Territories in developing road safety educational programs specifically for Aboriginal and other outback communities. A national program of road safety objectives has in fact been developed and is being implemented. The National Road Safety Symposium in October last year provided for us a blueprint for future action. Consultative and co-operative arrangements with the States and Territories on road safety have never been better. These developments are consistent with Federal policy and are indicative that it is working. On behalf of honourable members and the Government, I thank the Standing Committee for this authoritative report. Through the chairperson, the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), I express my personal appreciation to each of the members of the Committee for the long hours of work which they have undertaken in respect of the activities of the Committee and the personal dedication that each of the members has to the objectives of the Committee and the issues at hand. In thanking the Committee chairperson, the honourable member for Lilley, I want also to thank the staff who assisted the Committee for their personal commitment and, overall, their collective commitment to improving road safety in Australia. Transport safety, in all its forms, is of great concern to the Government. It is for this reason that a Standing Committee on Transport Safety has been established. I am confident that the new Committee will continue with the effort and vigour of the previous committees. I present the following paper: Standing Committee on Road Safety-Ministerial Statement, 27 November 1985. Motion (by Mr Hayden) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Hon. 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. by Mrs Fatin,Mr Hand,Mr Hollis,Mr Kent,Ms Mayer and Mr Snow. 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; (a) 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 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 Halverson,Mr Hawker and Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Flag reflects Australia's membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, her position in the southern hemisphere, and her federation of original colonies. Recognises that the flag as a symbol of pride for most Australians, such that several organisations, including the ALP, incorporated the flag in their motifs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will resist moves to change the Australian flag, or if change is contemplated that the question be put to the Australian people by referendum to seek their views. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tryanny and oppression; Nonetheless recongnises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. 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 the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That wheras 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 enclurages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention of 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 Halverson,Mr McArthur and Mr Willis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie and Mr Ruddock. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance, and reject the Remuneration Tribunal's travel entitlement to de facto wives of Parliamentarians and the ABC's Commissioners decision to allow the de facto and homosexual partners of ABC staff to travel at public expense, and that the Government should introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications, (2) Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes, (3) Protect Australians and those who enter into de jure (legal) marriages and their families, from exploitation and the encroachment of immoral regulations and Acts into the traditional and Christian forms of life. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not `windfall gains' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement; Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Reprersentatives, the Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the recent cuts announced in the Mini-Budget to Preschools and Day Care Services are a reversal of A.L.P. policy to make child care services available to all at an afffordable 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 Cadman. 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 disatisfied 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 esssential 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 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 iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. 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 assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that reference to God should be made in the National Anthem as Australia is considered to be a Christian nation and therefore we believe the inclusion of His name is appropriate and desirable. The suggested request being to alter the last line in each verse to ``In Joyful Strains Then We Sing God Bless Australia Fair'' by Mr Hawker. 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 the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; And, to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards: inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destablizing nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government- (A) Take new initiatives to encourage all member States of the United Nations-especially the governments of nuclear weapon states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time, (B) Call on all nuclear weapon states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All Federal members of Parliament and senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners as is duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Maher. 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 Maher. 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 the 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 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 intiating 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 to assist the greening of Australia. 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 Tickner. 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: Your petitioners pray that Your Honourable House will reject the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 for the following reasons: 1. We believe as a matter of faith and judgment that the proposed legislation is anti-God and its implementation will result in attacks on the Christian church and the promotion of a State religion based on secular humanism; 2. That there is no need for legislation of this kind since the principles of freedom are already enshrined in Common Law and that it will cause more problems than it seeks to solve; 3. That there is a potential threat to our national security through making treaties of this kind with foreign nations, many of which do not share a common heritage and do not practice many of the principles that they have covenanted to uphold; 4. The methods being used to introduce this legislation are secretive and a blatant misuse of the external affairs powers under Section 51 of the Australian Constitution and that further more are contrary to the spirit of the Constitution; 5. That the implementation of the legislation through a process of new educational intitiatives will result in the centralised control of education and this will inevitably lead to the destruction of States' rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Downer and Mr Hurford. 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 in 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 the Federal Division of Fisher in 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 to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamenta 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Fisher respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains tax Hidden Death tax described as ``Capital Gains tax after death'' Gift Tax Increased Company tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal 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 (i.e., 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 reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages 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 ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Right Honorable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Sutherland Shire respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy establishment at Lucas Heights, N.S.W. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional Nuclear Reactor at Lucas Heights. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. Petitions received. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —by leave-In my statement to the House on 23 May this year about the disease acquired immune deficiency syndrome, I said that AIDS is potentially one of the most serious and expensive public health problems to face Australia since Federation. I regret to inform the House that since I made that statement in May there have been no significant developments in the medical and scientific assessment of AIDS which would lead me to a different conclusion. There is as yet no effective treatment for those infected by the AIDS virus and no expectation that a suitable vaccine will become available in the near future. In the face of this serious challenge to public health, the Commonwealth and States have, in the past 12 months, endeavoured to build a co-ordinated national education and preventive strategy in order to contain the spread of the disease. I believe this strategy has been generally humane, basically commonsensical and, given the present limits of our scientific knowledge, relatively effective. As generally agreed with my State ministerial colleagues, that strategy has three major elements: The first has been the dissemination of common sense, realistic information to high risk groups and the general community. This is an important corrective to the sometimes sensationalist treatment of AIDS in the media. Secondly, we have taken all possible steps to ensure the integrity of our blood supplies. Thirdly, practical efforts, free of prejudice, have been made to modify sexual and other behaviour which may transmit the disease. Of these three elements, we can be confident that our blood transfusion services are now as secure as they can possibly be. Heat treatment of blood, and universal use of blood testing kits by the Red Cross, have greatly reduced the threat of AIDS transmission through transfused blood. Unhappily, I expect that there will continue to be a small number of transfusion-related AIDS cases, dating from transfusions received prior to the introduction of universal screening. The long incubation period of the virus virtually ensures these residual cases coming to notice over the next few years. Nevertheless, the protection of blood supplies has been a considerable achievement, requiring a great deal of co-ordinated and co-operative national scientific and administrative effort. Indeed, we in Australia can take pride in the fact that Australia was the first country in the world to put in place comprehensive and nationwide blood screening tests. There is, of course, no room for complacency about the integrity of the blood transfusion service. Quality control standards must be rigorously maintained, and further work and development is vital to seek to eliminate the small window that remains in the present anti-body screening test. When I spoke to the House on 23 May there had been 79 cases of AIDS in Australia, of which 32 had died. As of today, 27 November 1985, there have been 138 cases in Australia, of whom 60 have died. In very general terms, therefore, the numbers of cases reported to authorities are nearly doubling every six months. There are some small indications that the rate of increase in Australia is not as great as has been the case in the United States. Six months ago our best estimate of the number of AIDS cases likely in Australia by the end of this year was 200, and 600 by the end of l986. Our most recent advice reduces these estimates to 150 by the end of 1985 and 450 by the end of 1986. Perhaps our educational and preventive efforts have been effectively in place earlier in the history of the epidemic than was the case in the United States. Less optimistically, the slowdown may be little more than a statistical or environmental fluke reflecting local factors of which we are as yet unaware. Whatever the reasons, as a Government Minister charged with a responsibility for public health, I can take only one prudent and responsible course of action; that is, as I said to Parliament earlier this year, to plan for the worst possible eventuality in the hope that we have been pessimistic in our assessments. The emotional and physical suffering of those who have contracted AIDS, or those who have family members or friends who have contracted AIDS, is great, as is the cost to the community in dealing with the disease. Since November last year the Commonwealth Government alone has allocated over $13m specifically to AIDS-related programs. The State and Territory governments have responded promptly and generously by matching Commonwealth grants in many areas, particularly in education, counselling and support services. The positive impact of this Commonwealth, State and Territory funding has been stretched further by countless unpaid hours of voluntary service within community and professional organisations. At the Federal level we have been particularly well served by the chairpersons and members of the National Advisory Committee on AIDS and the AIDS Task Force. I take this opportunity to thank the members of these two committees and in particular Miss Ita Buttrose and Professor David Penington for their unstinting and dedicated service. The rise in community concern about AIDS has naturally been reflected by members on both sides of the Federal Parliament. In the past 12 months many members and senators have had personal contacts with scientists, researchers and community workers involved in the fight against AIDS. On several occasions, Australian and overseas experts on the disease have met with groups of interested parliamentarians both in Canberra and in other capitals. The Government therefore believes that in developing national AIDS strategies there is a clear need to formalise the channels of communication between the Federal Parliament and our medical and scientific experts and those in wider community groups. Australian Health Ministers need the active and co-operative support of their parliaments. I am pleased that these sentiments are shared by the Opposition health spokesman, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), and Senator Haines, the Australian Democrats spokesperson. Following discussions with my counterparts and with the agreement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair), the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) and the two independent senators, I am pleased to announce the establishment of a parliamentary liaison group on AIDS. The principal functions of the group will be to receive regular briefings on developments related to AIDS by officials of my Department, the National Advisory Committee on AIDS, the AIDS Task Force, and other medical, community and research groups or individuals as appropriate. The liaison group, which will be serviced by my Department, will have access to reports of proceedings of both the National Advisory Committee and the Task Force, and all material provided to those bodies. Of course the parliamentary group will be most useful for informing the National Advisory Committee and the Task Force of the present state of community opinion and concerns related to AIDS. The establishment of such a group at the Federal level might also provide a useful model for similar committees at the State and Territory parliamentary level. I will chair the parliamentary group; and its members from the Government are: the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb); the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin); the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh); the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth); and Senator Olive Zakharov, senator for Victoria. The Leader of the Opposition has advised that the Opposition's nominees will be: Senator Peter Baume; the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter); the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges); Senator Glen Sheil; and Senator Chris Puplick. Senator Haines and Senator Macklin have been nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats. Senator Harradine has indicated his willingness to participate in the group. Senator Vallentine, while expressing her support for the establishment of the committee, has unfortunately been unable to join the group because of her substantial parliamentary workload. I do not believe that AIDS is a proper issue for partisan political debate. There will of course continue to be genuine differences of opinion about specific measures which may be considered from time to time. But in developing a national AIDS strategy it will be of great importance for debate in this Parliament to be based on the widest possible range of knowledge and opinion gained from those with daily experience of the treatment and care of those with the disease. Co-operation and co-ordination on a non-partisan basis between all members of the House, and the Parliament, is essential to the success of the group. I look forward to participating in the work of the parliamentary liaison group on AIDS. Mr PORTER(Barker) —by leave-The Opposition welcomes the establishment of the parliamentary liaison group on the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, coming as it does in response to my initiative last April when I requested bipartisan parliamentary representation on the National Advisory Committee on AIDS. While the committee proposed by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) falls somewhat short of our request for representation on NACAIDS, it should provide the opportunity for bipartisan involvement and should increase the flow of information to the Parliament regarding policy development on this sensitive and complex issue. In light of the response by parliamentary members from all parties, staff members and the Press to the briefing which I arranged with Professor Penington in August this year, I have no doubt that both the interest in and the need for information are felt strongly by members of all parties and the Press. I think it is widely agreed that Australia's track record in dealing with AIDS has been exemplary in the area of research and medical and epidemiological methodology. I am confident that our experts are among the world leaders in responding to the AIDS crisis and Australia can be very grateful for the excellent work which they have done. While their work goes on, however, we as policy makers and community leaders have an equally challenging role-that of ensuring that the Australian community is well-informed so that the public response to the problems will be based on sound information and will contribute to the management and control of the disease. It is our responsibility not only to provide resources and support to our researchers and to those who are working directly with the AIDS sufferers and their families, but also to provide the appropriate leadership and guidance to the wider community in the development of policies which will complement the efforts of the scientists and the entire support team. There is a very great risk that measures which may be adopted with the best of intention by ill-informed policy makers could actually obstruct the efforts of those working to control the spread of the disease. Likewise, a failure adequately to understand the disease and how it is spread can lead to needless and hurtful discrimination. Therefore, the formation of this parliamentary liaison group should play a vital role in improving the flow of information to honourable members so that each honourable member can in turn make sure that his or her electorate is properly informed. I am concerned that the flow of information has been inadequate to date and the result has been tension, bordering in some cases on panic. We have seen a number of examples of overreaction and inappropriate steps being taken due to unfounded fears and speculation. The banning of passengers with AIDS antibodies from travelling on airlines is a case in point. I have been particularly concerned about the seriousness of the AIDS threat to the Australian community and I have therefore sought to inform myself as thoroughly as possible by visiting those in charge of programs in Sydney, Melbourne and, during a trip to the United States of America, San Francisco and New York. I congratulate the Committee and the Chairman of the National Advisory Committee on AIDS, Ita Buttrose, for the excellent work that she has done. There is still a great deal of work, indeed, to be done by that Committee and I am confident that under her skilled leadership that work will proceed effectively. I also commend the AIDS task force and in particular Professor David Penington, the Chairman of that task force, for the tireless effort and great wisdom which I believe he has brought to the fight against AIDS. He has played a major role, not only in the clinical and epidemiological side of the battle but he has also played a key role in the public education effort. For that I congratulate him and I hope that he will keep up the good work. Despite all the great work which has been done, AIDS still poses a very serious threat to the public health of this nation. While researchers continue to look for means of preventing and curing the disease, we must continue to emphasise the need for people to adopt safe sexual practices. Getting people to change their behaviour in this sensitive area is not easy, but we must make every effort to inform the community of the importance of so doing. I very much regret that it has taken the Minister over six months to respond to my initial suggestion for a committee and for parliamentary representation. I also regret that the information provided to date by the Government to the Opposition has been minimal. I trust all of that will change with the setting up of this committee. I hope that this parliamentary lisison group on AIDS will help improve the information available to the public. From the coalition's point of view, we have taken this matter very seriously, as I think is indicated by the appointments we have made to the committee. We have appointed two medical practitioners, Senator Glen Sheil and Senator Peter Baume. The latter, of course, has also had experience in the administration of public health issues as a previous Minister for Health. The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) is a pharmacist and he will bring to the committee specialised knowledge which will be of great assistance. I am on the committee as the coalition's health spokesman and Senator Chris Puplick is also a member, as he has taken a particular interest in the issue and he is highly regarded by researchers and others involved in the AIDS program. We will make every effort to ensure that this liaison committee meets the goals that we have set. I thank the House. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members I present two reports prepared for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) by the Australian Science and Technology Council-`ASTEC: Public Investment in Research and Development in Australia' and `Future Directions for the CSIRO'. I seek leave to make a statement in respect of these reports. Leave granted. Mr BARRY JONES —In May of this year the Government decided to commission a review of the role and objectives of the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation. For some time now the Government has been aware of suggestions that CSIRO should contribute more directly and effectively to national economic and social objectives. It is eight years since the last major review of CSIRO was undertaken-the Birch Independent Inquiry into the CSIRO. Australia's economic circumstances have changed in that time. Reassessment of growth strategies, together with the uncertain prospects for international trade in our traditional agricultural and mining exports, have led to a re-examination of the role that manufacturing industry can play in maintaining economic growth and ensuring Australia's continued prosperity. It was considered timely, therefore, to review CSIRO's capacity to adapt to the country's changing needs and ask whether new directions are needed to enable it to carry out strategic and applied research which could transform our manufacturing and service industries in the same way as CSIRO's past work revolutionised agriculture and mining. In framing terms of reference for a review, it was immediately clear that the role of CSIRO should not be seen in isolation but as part of the overall policy of government development. Government policy in this area has evolved in response to the needs of industry and the community generally and has taken advantage of scientific and technological opportunities. The Government decided, therefore, to make the review of CSIRO part of a wider study. The Government asked ASTEC to address the general question of the rationale for government involvement in research and development and to apply its findings, first to CSIRO and then to other publicly-funded research organisations. We also asked ASTEC to examine the reasons for the disappointingly low level of research and development in the private sector and to suggest ways by which it could be increased. ASTEC has now produced the first two of a series of reports on these matters. The first deals with the rationale for public investment in research and development and then gives an overview of research and development in Australia and the roles and objectives of research-conducting organisations. The second deals specifically with CSIRO. The first report provides a description of the structure of research and development in Australia. Comparisons with other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development show that the level of public investment in research and development in Australia is, broadly speaking, what might be expected from a country of our size and economic structure. However, the level of private sector investment is remarkably low. As a result Australia spends a smaller proportion of its gross domestic product on research and development than most OECD countries. This is seen as a matter of serious concern and a factor which has limited Australia's economic performance and restricted the development of internationally competitive industries. The report goes on to consider the reasons why Australia needs to perform research and development and presents a set of objectives for government policies in support of this performance. These objectives are: Increased industrial competitiveness, the competent and efficient performance of government functions, awareness of and involvement in international developments in science and technology and the maintenance of a higher-education infrastructure adequate to ensure sufficient supply of research workers. An economic rationale is presented in support of government intervention in support of research and development. The issue is addressed in terms of the types of research and development that it is most appropriate for government to fund, the work which government is best able to perform, the context for research and development in Australia and the constraints and limitations which affect government involvement in decisions which have commercial implications. The rest of the report deals with the mechanisms which can be used by governments to support research and development and with the organisations and people required to perform the work. Appropriate roles are recommended for universities and institutes of technology, government departments, statutory authorities and the private sector. ASTEC stresses the advantages of strong links between performers of research and development and the end users of the results. Mechanisms proposed for government research organisations to achieve this include research partnerships and joint ventures and a much increased level of contract funding by end users. ASTEC commends the recently introduced tax concession as the most important measure yet taken by government in Australia to stimulate private sector research and development. The second task of the review was to consider and make recommendations on future directions for CSIRO. This institution, the nation's largest research organisation, has earned an enviable reputation both in Australia and overseas over the years for its many contributions to our agricultural industries and in other areas, notably to the mineral industries and to knowledge of our natural environment. ASTEC has acknowledged the continuing need for an organisation with CSIRO's capabilities. However, the inquiry has concluded that CSIRO's contribution to national objectives and particularly to fostering the technological development of both the traditional resource based industries and the emerging technology based industries should be strengthened. ASTEC proposes that CSIRO be retained as a single organisation, but concludes that what it calls a change of ethos is required if CSIRO is to play its most effective role in the future. It is suggested that the Organisation's ethos must change from one which has become largely science oriented to a future role which is applications oriented combined with a commitment to the effective transfer of its results to users and funded substantially by them. This marks a shift from the report of the Birch Independent Inquiry into the CSIRO which saw CSIRO's main role as `strategic' research. The recommendations in the ASTEC report are directed towards promoting this change in ethos, while preserving the acknowledged strengths of CSIRO. The report suggests that while major emphasis should be given to fostering the technological development of Australian industries, there is significant interdependence between economic activity, public health and the natural environment. ASTEC concludes that it is appropriate for CSIRO to conduct research into these areas, especially where such studies are linked to industry related research. The report recognises the contribution of pure basic research in the overall CSIRO effort, but considers that such research should be linked to the Organisation's major programs of applications oriented research and not conducted in isolation. ASTEC recommends that consideration be given by CSIRO's future management to transferring any such programs into a more appropriate environment such as a university or a facility operated by a consortium of universities. Significant changes are proposed for CSIRO's management structure and staffing policies. Increased interaction with end users is required at all levels throughout the Organisation to ensure the effective input of ideas and to facilitate the adoption of the practical results of the Organisation's work. After careful examination of the existing structure for deciding policy and managing CSIRO, the inquiry concluded that changes to CSIRO's organisational structure are needed to improve external inputs, to separate policy from management responsibility, and to clarify lines of responsibility within CSIRO. The Government will give early consideration to both ASTEC recommendations. As decisions are made and actions to implement the recommendations are taken, appropriate Ministers will advise the Parliament. The relevant Ministers covered in the general report on public investment and research and development could include the Prime Minister and the Ministers for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Education, Resources and Energy, Primary Industry, Defence, Health and Science. The Government thanks Professor Slatyer, the members of the inquiry and ASTEC staff for the considerable effort that has gone into the preparation of those reports. I should also like to thank those who made submissions to the inquiry and in so doing contributed their time and effort constructively. Mr BEALE(Deakin) —by leave-I thank the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) for his courtesy and co-operation in making the reports of the Australian Science and Technology Council available to the Opposition. The Opposition has not had much opportunity to peruse the reports in detail but, from a short look at them and from the Minister's speech, the Opposition feels generally comfortable with the trends of the reports. In particular we welcome those aspects of the reports which relate to freeing up staffing conditions; greater emphasis on commercial aspects, particularly the proposal that the benefits that arise as a result of Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation research should be paid for by the beneficiaries; the use of joint venture companies as a means of promoting the Organisation's skills and technology; the adoption of full cost charging; greater emphasis on co-operation with industry and other scientific enterprises; and focusing attention on specific objectives of the Organisation. The Opposition notes the recommendation to endorse public investment in scientific and development areas in order, amongst other things, to increase Australia's international competitiveness. It is not inappropriate to remind the Government that although that is a worthy objective there are other factors that could make a much more significant contribution to that end. Specifically I refer to relaxing the rigidities in our labour market to make it more responsive to competition and curtailing growth in government expenditure to leave private sector entrepreneurs enough room to compete internationally and create prosperity for us all. The Opposition needs more information on the proposed changes in the administrative structure. The CSIRO is an important organisation in Australia and internationally. The Organisation's budget this year will be $560m. Great Australians have served the Organisation. I join the Minister in paying tribute to and thanking those distinguished citizens who have assisted in the preparation of the reports. Due to the need to consider the reports further, we ask the Minister to bring this matter back to the House for further discussion in the new year. I thank the House. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —by leave-On behalf of the Government, I welcome this opportunity to outline our policy in relation to Aboriginal and Islander broadcasting and communications. On 10 October 1984, I tabled for the information of the Parliament the report of the Task Force on Aboriginal and Islander Broadcasting and Communications entitled `Out of the Silent Land'. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and I commissioned the report in March 1984 to advise the Government on the future development of Aboriginal broadcasting and communications. The decision to set up the task force under the Chairmanship of Mr Eric Willmot, AM, a former Principal of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies and currently Deputy Secretary of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, reflected our determination to ensure that appropriate broadcasting and communications services should be available to Aborigines and particularly the very substantial Aboriginal population living in remote Australia. It was also our view that, if positive attitudes about Aboriginal life and culture are to develop, Aboriginal involvement in media development is essential. The launch of the first Aussat satellite this year, which will bring direct satellite broadcasting to remote Australia, and Aboriginal concern about further erosion of their culture as a result, make the report particularly timely. The Government has now examined the recommendations of the report. It has endorsed the majority of them, subject where appropriate to further detailed examination or consideration of specific proposals in the Budget context or as part of the bicentenary program. The Government's decisions on the 55 recommendations of the report are tabled with this statement. The Government has decided to adopt an Aboriginal broadcasting and communications strategy in line with the recommendations of the task force. This involves the accelerated expansion of telephone services to major Aboriginal communities; the development of appropriate measures for Aborigines to manage programming broadcast to their own communities; the maintenance and expansion of existing radio services; the encouragement of Aboriginal program production for both radio and television; and a study into the possible introduction of satellite television reception facilities to Aboriginal communities on a planned basis. These elements have been endorsed in principle to provide a framework for the development of Aboriginal broadcasting. In at least three major areas-the acceleration of Telecom's rural and remote area program, the co-ordinated introduction of satellite reception and retransmission facilities in Aboriginal communities and the possible modification and extension of the Northern Territory High Frequency Radio Service-specific proposals will be subject to further detailed study. These studies will provide the basis on which the Government can make further decisions on the implementation of the strategy. Such decisions will be subject to assessment against other priorities in the economic and Budget circumstances prevailing at the time. With respect to broadcasting services, the Government has endorsed a four-level approach which, we believe, will achieve a balance between the encouragement of Aboriginal programming within the general programming of existing broadcasting organisations, continued access to radio broadcasting through public broadcasting stations, the possible development of a remote area radio service and the potential for local Aboriginal community broadcasting associated with the satellite delivered services. A specific allocation of $1m has been provided in the 1985-86 Budget in support of Aboriginal broadcasting. This is in addition to the ongoing activities of the Public Broadcasting Foundation. The Government recognises that the best immediate prospects for Aboriginal broadcasting in remote Australia is in substantial utilisation of the resources and expertise of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation through co-operative and flexible arrangements with Aboriginal broadcasters. The ABC has already taken steps to increase Aboriginal involvement in all phases of its operations and is opening up new opportunities for Aboriginal broadcasters and expanding Aboriginal programming. This is being done in association with Aboriginal broadcasting groups funded by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I am pleased that the ABC has agreed to identify 60 positions within its organisation specifically for Aboriginals and will be initiating a special three-year training program for Aboriginal broadcasters for this purpose. The Government now looks to the ABC to implement this employment strategy, thereby further increasing its involvement in Aboriginal broadcasting. The Government has endorsed the further development of Aboriginal broadcasting associations at Alice Springs, Townsville, Thursday Island, Darwin and in the Kimberley. Three of these are already operating. The associations could become small scale production centres for Aboriginal radio and community video and provide the basis of an Aboriginal broadcasting network associated with a proposed remote area radio service. The Government has provided assistance to the Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association-CAAMA-to enable it to develop a video and television production capacity in Alice Springs. Grants are also being provided to the Townsville Aboriginal and Islander Media Association and the Torres Strait Islander Media Association for the development of these broadcasting groups. All have established working arrangements with the ABC to broadcast regular programs reflecting Aboriginal and Islander culture and contemporary life. CAAMA, in addition, operates a public radio service, 8KIN-FM, the first Aboriginal radio station. In remote Australia, a High Frequency Radio Service will commence operations in the Northern Territory this year, utilising transmitters in Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek. The Government has decided to undertake a study into the possible extension of this system to Cape York, the Kimberley and the Pilbara. Aboriginal access to this system through Aboriginal regional resource broadcasters is recommended in the Task Force report and could provide the basis of an Aboriginal radio broadcasting network, sharing the system with other users. The ABC has negotiated with CAAMA the necessary arrangements for it to have access to the Northern Territory service. A study group will be examining the possibilities for further development of this service and appropriate management arrangements along the lines suggested by the Task Force. The study group will also assess alternative proposals. The Task Force concluded that, in common with other Australians living in urban and rural areas, Aborigines already have access to basic telecommunications and broadcasting services. However, Aboriginal involvement needs to be increased and more appropriate programming developed. The Task Force has not recommended major policy changes in this area, but recommends that Aboriginal broadcasting in urban and rural areas should continue to be associated with the public broadcasting sector and the ABC. The Government, through funding from the Department of Communications, is continuing to support Aboriginal programming through Public Broadcasting Foundation grants to Aboriginal groups in 1985-86. In addition to these program related grants, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is providing developmental funding to get Aboriginal broadcasting groups started. In association with the Foundation, the Department will be examining the needs of Aboriginal public broadcasters in urban and rural areas. A study is to commence almost immediately into the feasibility of providing satellite reception facilities to Aboriginal communities with populations greater than 200 which do not already receive television. The provision of such facilities will of course be subject to budgetary considerations. As community reception and retransmission provide scope for local program substitution, the Government has endorsed the need for experimental community broadcasting projects. The purpose of these projects is to develop appropriate models for community broadcasting which would enable video access to retransmission equipment. This would allow locally produced programs of relevance to Aboriginal communities to be broadcast. If feasible, such developments could be important in the maintenance, reinforcement and promotion of Aboriginal cultural identity. The Government has provided funds for two such projects at Yuendumu in the Northern Territory and Ernabella in South Australia. Telecom Australia has the responsibility for telecommunications in Aboriginal communities, along with the rest of Australia. Prior to the establishment of the Task Force, Telecom announced its rural and remote area program, which is targeted for completion in 1990. One of the main recommendations of the Task Force report was that the RRAP should be accelerated so that basic telecommunications facilities can be extended to most major Aboriginal communities by 1988. Telecom has now redimensioned its work program so that all but three of 33 Aboriginal communities with populations over 400 will have adequate services by 1988. Telecom has indicated that because of extreme remoteness it would not be possible to speed up the provision of services to these three communities without severe disruptions to the program. The total program involves some 100 Aboriginal communities. The completion of the RRAP will meet the telecommunications needs of most Aboriginal communities, which currently are the worst serviced of any group in Australia. The Government has taken positive action with respect to the development of an Aboriginal and Islander broadcasting and communications strategy which recognises the contribution the Task Force report has already made to the development of Aboriginal broadcasting. Implementation of the recommendations of the report will be an ongoing activity. An implementation group involving senior officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, which will assume policy co-ordination responsibility for Aboriginal broadcasting, and the Department of Communications will continue to ensure the further development of the strategy endorsed by the Government. This will be carried out in consultation with Aboriginal broadcasters. In the words of the Chairman of the Task Force on Aboriginal and Islander Broadcasting and Communications, Mr Eric Willmot, in presenting the report to the Government: The approach outlined offers . . . a practical and realistic opportunity to establish an electronic media communication system which will reflect and enhance the unique cultural nature and heritage of Aboriginal and Australian society. I commend to the House the Government's response to the recommendation of the report of the Task Force on Aboriginal and Islander Broadcasting and Communications. I table the recommendations and the Government's detailed response to each of them. I present the following paper: Report of the Task Force on Aboriginal and Islander Broadcasting and Communications-Ministerial Statement, 27 November 1985. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —by leave-The Opposition supports the general thrust of the report of the Task Force on Aboriginal and Islander Broadcasting and Communications which has been referred to by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). In many respects, however, I suppose that one could make the observation-I do so not with any intention of being unfair-that it is really a case of being too little too late. I think perhaps over the last three years the Minister and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs have been so obsessed with aspects of the Aboriginal land rights issue that many of the key elements relating to education and the general welfare of the Aboriginal communities, especially in the outstation areas, which are obviously the areas most related to this report, have in many respects received less attention than perhaps was their due. I note one of the observations in the report which I have some difficulty agreeing with and that is the proposition: The task force concluded that in common with other Australians living in urban and rural areas Aborigines already have access to basic telecommunications and broadcasting services. In terms of the outlying communities, especially in northern Australia-in the Northern Territory and in Western Australia, and to a lesser extent in Queensland-I would dispute that observation. The Minister may like to consider that at some future date. Many Aboriginal communities do not have effective or basic telecommunications facilities, although to some degree they have no more nor less broadcasting access than any other community in Australia, especially in terms of northern Australia, which for many years has had limitations, except perhaps in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The other element that needs to be considered closely is whether we should be using the ABC more in terms of local broadcasting facilities for Aboriginal communities in their own dialects and so forth, because the ultimate result of using Intelsat 1 and 2 on these communities undoubtedly will be a gradual breakdown of their traditional values, and certainly the real risk of a breakdown of their capacity to utilise their own language in terms of modern Australia. These are very important issues which have to be considered, but that in itself should not be seen as a reason for not doing it. The Opposition generally supports the propositions contained in the report. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The implications for the Australian economy and the arbitration system of last night's agreement concerning the Storemen and Packers' superannuation fund. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(4.22) —The agreement, if one could dignify it with such a title as that, or rather the sell-out last night involving the capitulation under enormous pressure and duress of a number of companies in the paint industry, shows in essence what is rotten about industrial relations in Australia. Two significant lessons are to be learned from last night's capitulation. The first is that if one goes on strike, bashes one's way round, puts one's fellow workers out of a job, forces companies by intimidation and boycotts to stand down their employees and gets the Minister to the negotiating table, one gets one's own way. That is exactly what the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia did. It set out on a mission to get what it wanted, and willing Willis came to the negotiating table. He danced to the tune of the Australian Council of Trade Unions; he did what Simon said. One ends up with the situation in which the Storemen and Packers Union, having broken every industrial rule in the book, having exerted enormous pressure on these companies and having forced them to stand workers down, got exactly what it wanted. Another lesson was demonstrated last night so far as employers are concerned. If the employer does the right thing by its work force, if it gives it a decent superannuation scheme, if it makes a decent provision, does it get any thanks from the trade union movement or from this Government? The answer is no. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) made the position perfectly clear this morning-and it was the most revealing aspect of his interview on AM-when the question was put squarely to him: `Does this mean, Mr Minister, that if a company already has a scheme it has to pay 3 per cent more?'. What was his answer? Yes. In other words, if a company has done the right thing, there are no thanks at all from the Government or from the militants and the thugs in the trade union movement. The only thanks the company gets for having done the right thing for its work force is to have the Storemen and Packers Union grab a 3 per cent additional pay rise and put it into its potential slush fund. That is the only interpretation one can possibly place on it. That agreement last night, which in industrial relations terms is a Munich of an agreement because it was a terrible capitulation under great industrial pressure, demonstrated those two things very clearly. If one throws one's weight around and exerts industrial muscle, one gets what one wants under this Government. That is the only rule: If one throws one's weight around one gets what one wants. What was delivered last night under the duress of the presence of the Minister-and it reflects no credit on any of the people who participated in that agreement last night, because that agreement will spread throughout industry-fulfils the prediction that was made at the beginning of this year at the Socialist Forum by Simon Crean. As I said earlier this week, we might as well not have had a Parliament this year, or a Tax Summit or a Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, because at the beginning of this year Bill Kelty spelt it all out. He said: `It is going to be a bumper year for the trade union movement. We are going to have two national wage case decisions. We are going to have a tax package which gets into all those perks and we are going to have a superannuation scheme'. He said that on 5 February. All this nonsense about having a Taxation Summit, a Parliament, an Arbitration Commission and all these round table discussions does not amount to a row of beans. Bill Kelty and Simon Crean delivered their marching orders to this Government at the beginning of this year. That superannuation deal, which represents all that is rotten with industrial relations in Australia, shows the Government and the trade union movement in Australia not only playing the employers of Australia for mugs-I am sorry to say it but that is what they did-it is also playing the Arbitration Commission for mugs. I never thought that I, as opposed to the Minister, would come into this Parliament and say that one should treat the Arbitration Commission with a bit more respect. This Government is supposed to believe in the solemnity and sanctity of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Yet since the beginning of September it has participated in a course of conduct which can result only in the Arbitration Commission being treated as a complete rubber stamp on the issue of superannuation. Any suggestion that the Arbitration Commission has any residual authority or capacity to do other than rubber stamp the arrangements worked out between the Government and the trade union movement is whistling in the dark. Does anybody really imagine that the Arbitration Commission has any real industrial flexibility to turn around next year and say: `We are not going to grant a productivity rise of 3 per cent'? Does anybody seriously imagine that it will do other than be forced to go through the motions? Yet the Minister and all those who share his industrial relations philosophy will solemnly go to the Arbitration Commission, stand up and go through the hocus-pocus of a productivity case. At the end of it, surprise, surprise, the Arbitration Commission will put on a rubber stamp. It will say: `After very careful consideration we are finally convinced that a case for a productivity claim of 3 per cent exists'. It is an absolute joke; it makes a mockery of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Frankly, the people who are really guilty on this and who should be indicted for making a mockery of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission are the Government and their mates and bosses in the ACTU. I spoke this morning to the national director of one of the largest employer organisations in Australia. He said: `I have got a productivity argument that I want to put to the Arbitration Commission. We do not believe that in our industry a claim for productivity has been established. We believe that we have a case, that if only the Arbitration Commission were allowed to deal with it on all the available evidence and criteria, it would turn down the 3 per cent productivity claim'. But he went on to say: `It is a fait accompli. We will have to go along. We will go through the ropes. We will try to argue, but the Arbitration Commission has no room for manoeuvre and no grounds to move'. The people who are responsible for that and the people who created this farce of an arbitration system, those who have connived at what represents nothing other than a giant bust out of their own pay indexation guidelines, have turned the whole process into a mockery. Superannuation Superannuation Superannuation Superannuation Superannuation Superannuation Superannuation Superannuation Superannuation Superannuation Last night's agreement represents not only a capitulation under pressure to the strike tactics of the Storemen and Packers Union and a kick in the face to those employers who have done the right thing and provided some superannuation but also an absolute mockery of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Government and the trade union movement, more than anybody else in Australia, are responsible for that. But the concern about this superannuation deal goes further than those matters that I have raised. There is also the prospect-it has been raised by one of the industrial relations writers in this morning's Australian Financial Review-that some unions may regard that 3 per cent as being their contribution to the superannuation fund and want a matching contribution from employers, so that what the Government is really talking about is not a 3 per cent contribution from employers, but 6 per cent. I will be fascinated to know whether the guidelines brought down by the Minister- Mr Willis —You really are mistaken. Mr HOWARD —I will be fascinated to hear what the Minister has to say on the matter. We on this side of the Parliament will wait with bated breath for the Minister to deny that, in the same way as we waited with bated breath for him to deny that this superannuation deal is to apply to the public sector. The fact that it is to apply to the public sector will stick in the necks of all those people in the private sector who now regard superannuation provisions in the Public Service as being, to say the least, extremely generous. We in this Parliament, who are participants, ought to be honest enough to understand that the public sector superannuation arrangements in Australia are extraordinarily generous. Any government that believes it can sell to the private sector in this country, the self-employed sector, the people struggling in suburban small businesses, the idea that Public Service superannuation in Australia ought to be made more generous really has a job in front of it if it wants to preserve its credibility. The fact is-even though it may not be a popular thing to say to public sector employees, it still has to be said-that Public Service superannuation in Australia now is very generous. The idea that it should be more generous will stick in the necks of farmers, small businessmen and struggling private sector people all around the country. But that will not worry the people who sit opposite, because they have bought this as part of their price for doing a deal with the trade union movement on this subject. The Opposition has seven basic concerns about the superannuation deal. The first and most obvious we make is that it is not genuine superannuation; it is a disguised deferred pay rise, no matter what those opposite call it and no matter how they dress it up. Secondly, the whole deal has been reached without any sense of participation by the employers. They were not invited to renegotiate the accord; they were just told the outcome. They were the people left standing outside the conference hotel who were simply handed a scrap of paper. They were treated like mugs by this Government and by the ACTU. They were just told the outcome. Thirdly, I believe that the processes indulged in last night have treated the Arbitration Commission as a rubber stamp. I do not resile from the fact that major changes in industrial relations are needed, and I certainly envisage a different role for the Arbitration Commission under a coalition government but, after all, it is this Minister and this Government who are always ramming the Arbitration Commission down everybody else's throats, but when it suits their political and industrial relations convenience they treat the Arbitration Commission with absolute contempt and ask it to behave like a rubber stamp. The fourth objection that we have is the very fundamental one that this whole superannuation arrangement represents a major transfer of economic and political power to the trade union movement in Australia. What will happen is that there will be created around Australia a significant number of trade union slush funds that will simply parade as superannuation arrangements. They will be built up not by the proper processes of superannuation but by the sorts of processes that were engaged in last night. As I said earlier this week, the tactics that have been employed to bring about these superannuation arrangements owe more to a Chicago-style extortion racket than they do to proper processes of negotiation. Our fifth objection is that under this arrangement there will be a liability on some employers to pay a double amount in relation to particular employees. The Minister confirmed this on AM this morning. He said that if a company is already paying, say, 6 per cent into a fund it will be forced to pay another 3 per cent into the union's funds in relation to the same employees. Mr Carlton —That is unbelievable. Mr HOWARD —As my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar said, it is unbelievable. That will be the case irrespective of whether any attempt has been made by the individual company to provide genuinely and in a bona fide manner for superannuation. Our sixth complaint is the old complaint that under the industrial relations system as run by the Hawke Government, if people bully, bash and bludgeon long enough and loudly enough they get their own way. It is a very simple rule: The more people are prepared to bully and bash and bludgeon, the more they will get their own way. If a company tries to do the right thing by its employees it will get it in the neck, and the deal that was done last night demonstrates that very clearly. Our seventh complaint is that this arrangement represents an extension of generosity in the area of public sector superannuation arrangements, which are already amongst the most generous superannuation arrangements in Australia-an extension that the rest of the community will find very hard to swallow. Those, in summary, represent the major complaints of the Opposition. Last night's deal was a classic industrial relations sell-out of the long term national interest and was presided over by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It represents the final culmination of the plans for 1985 that were laid out at the beginning of this year not by the elected Government of Australia but by the unelected ACTU. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Before calling the Minister, I draw the attention of the honourable member for McEwen to the fact that he interjected incessantly during the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. The Chair was of the opinion that the Leader of the Opposition was not inordinately distracted and therefore I did not interrupt the proceedings, but I warn the honourable member that if he continues the practice he will place himself at risk. Mr Howard —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the Chair to indicate to the Minister that, in order to catch an aircraft, I will have to depart before listening to his speech. I am not doing so out of discourtesy to the Minister or the House. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand) —(Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) (4.38)-The Government welcomes this further attempt by the Opposition to make some mileage out of the superannuation issue. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), faced with flagging fortunes and flagging public support, is obviously desperate to grab on to some kind of a life raft in order to save his political neck. He seems to think that the age old saviour of the conservatives, union bashing and grabbing hold of something in this area of industrial relations, will provide that life raft. Let me say to him and to the Opposition that this kind of irresponsible behaviour on their part, in making outrageous statements all the time which go far beyond credibility, will only accentuate the decline of the Leader of the Opposition. He came to the leadership with credibility in the sense of being honest John and having some reputation for saying things which were credible and real, but he has diminished that credibility enormously since then, and today's speech epitomises that point. Just two days ago the Opposition was asking the Government: `Why do you not do something about this damaging paint industry dispute? Why are you not doing something about all these lay-offs? Why do you not do something about the ten thousand people who have been laid off and the others who will be laid off if this dispute does not come to an end?'. When we had spent many hours with the parties and reached a negotiated agreement which brings the dispute to an end, the Opposition puts forward a matter of public importance. The Leader of the Opposition, in a quarter-hour speech, said not one word about the fact that all those jobs that were lost in the course of the last couple of days have been restored. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The House is debating a matter which the Opposition considered to be of public importance. It invited a response from the Government in respect of that matter. The Standing Orders insist that the member speaking has a right to be heard in silence but in terms of common logic, the Opposition having proposed that a matter of public importance be debated, it seems reasonable that the Minister responding be given the courtesy of making such a response. Mr WILLIS —Not one word has been said about the fact that there has been an end to a dispute and that all those 10,000 people and others whose jobs were threatened will now not lose their employment. That is an important development which received no mention. Not only is that fact worth noting in this debate but also I assert very strongly that the conclusion of that dispute was reached very much within the bounds of economic responsibility and very much within the concerns of the employers who were involved in those negotiations. They included not only private employers but also a major employer organisation. Let me come to the details of that and the responsibility of the agreement yesterday in regard to the wage-fixing principles. The agreement yesterday was one which provided for the introduction of an industry superannuation scheme and was subject to decisions of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, including a decision on the national productivity case. Those points are absolutely basic; they are in the preamble to the agreement made by the parties, which states that the parties: Agree to the establishment of an industry superannuation scheme in the context of the Accord Mark II and subject to decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, including the decision in the National Productivity Case. When the Opposition submitted this matter, it did not know that that was the case because it was not in the papers this morning. Mr Carlton —We have got it. Mr WILLIS —The Opposition got it at one o'clock, but it submitted this matter of public importance at 12 o'clock. So when it submitted this matter of public importance it had no idea what was in the agreement. The Opposition thought that it would latch hold of something which it thought was some evidence of economic irresponsibility and that it would bash the Government with that. When faced with the facts members of the Opposition asked not one question about this matter at Question Time because they knew that I could clobber them with what is in the agreement. What we see now is a pathetic attempt to raise this matter as a matter of public importance. It was not raised at Question Time when focus on the issue would be much higher. Not only is the agreement subject to the Commission's decisions and the national productivity case; it is also within the accord mark 2. In other words, the industry scheme will not start before 1 July 1986 and that is very much in accord with the renegotiated prices and incomes accord and is based on the outcome of the national productivity case. Time and time again the Leader of the Opposition in his contribution-if I can call it that-said that the Arbitration Commission was being treated as a rubber stamp and therefore the Government was guilty of some impropriety and was treating the matter with contempt. That is an absolute nonsense! I totally repudiate the charge; there is no treatment of the Arbitration Commission as a rubber stamp and no contempt of the Arbitration Commission in the agreement reached last night. The whole agreement is based on the approval of the Arbitration Commission. It finished by stating that any agreement reached will be reported to the Commission; having said previously that the whole thing is subject to decisions of the Commission and the national productivity case. So let us not have any of this nonsense about contempt for the Arbitration Commission. While I am on that point let me deal with an absurd Press statement by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), which he released today-it is one of his usual Press statement rantings-which states: . . . the Government abandoned all of its national responsibility as a Government and virtually guaranteed that the Arbitration Commission will award a 3 per cent productivity rise . . . This is plainly the case because in a Press statement on 4 September the Government stated that the productivity case would result in an increase of 3 per cent. That is what the honourable member for Menzies said was in the Press statement. Let me read to the House what was in the Press statement issued by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and me on 4 September. It stated: The two parties will also propose- that is, to the Arbitration Commission- that the 4 per cent productivity case brought by the ACTU and currently before the Commission result in an increase of 3 per cent to be paid in the form of new or improved occupational superannuation, with implementation to commence in July 1986. That is what we would propose to the Arbitration Commission. Yet we have this lying Press statement that the Government said that the productivity case would result in 3 per cent- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister might give thought to parliamentary language. Mr WILLIS —I withdraw. It was a total misrepresentation, something to which honourable members on this side have become very accustomed. We find it hard to believe that all of the misrepresentations are the result of some continuing accident on the other side. We have seen a desperate attempt by the Opposition totally to misrepresent the facts of the situation. The agreement made last night was thoroughly responsible. It is a tremendous insult to the employers who were involved in the negotiations, including the Employers Federation of New South Wales which represented the paint manufacturers. Those employers and the Employers Federation of New South Wales were greatly concerned in the course of those negotiations to make sure that whatever was in the agreement was something that they could honourably live with, something which would not be outside the wage-fixing principles and would in no way derogate from the position of the Commission. That is something about which the Federation stated several times in the course of the negotiations was its position. Yet today the Leader of the Opposition said that the agreement totally denigrates the Arbitration Commission and that it was a disgrace for all those involved in it. So the Opposition is saying to the Employers Federation of New South Wales that it is totally irresponsible and disgraceful. I am very interested to hear the Opposition saying that and I will be very interested to hear what the Employers Federation of New South Wales has to say about an Opposition which says that it is totally irresponsible, a disgrace and whatever other epithets were used against it. I would be very interested to hear what the Federation thinks about that. Other employer organisations would be interested to know what this irresponsible Opposition says about employers who reach agreements such as the one reached last night. In the course of those negotiations the employers were very concerned to ensure that some of their direct concerns were met. Firstly they were, as I have mentioned, the wage-fixing principles. They also wanted to be sure that what was done did not have an impact on existing company schemes. They were concerned that in the so-called argument about the right to choose between various schemes which the storemen and packers had been putting forward some action could result which would impact on the viability of existing company schemes. The employers did not want that to happen; so they agreed to the establishment of an industry scheme, subject to the national productivity case, which would apply across the board, including employees covered by current company superannuation schemes. This would mean that current company superannuation schemes would remain untouched by any of these events. That is what they wanted. They did not want a scheme developed which had some impact on existing company schemes. This was their preference as to the way the scheme should operate compared with some other way whereby employees could choose between an industry scheme and a company scheme. Furthermore, employers were concerned to achieve a commonality aspect, that is, that there be an industry scheme rather than a set of individual union schemes. That is what they achieved out of this agreement. They achieved an agreement that an industry scheme would be applied to all employees in the paint industry and that scheme would involve payments into the storemen and packers fund. However, in respect of all possible aspects the scheme would be the same as that for the rest of the employees in the industry. So they agreed to apply a common scheme to all employees in the industry and that is very much what the employers wanted. When that agreement was finalised and when I met the Press, Mr Brack, Executive Director of the Employers Federation of New South Wales-a very responsible and very capable official of that Federation-said in regard to the agreement: `It was a good outcome'. He said: `We have come out with something that both sides are prepared to live with'. That statement was made by him at the end of that proceeding and he obviously did not regard it as economically irresponsible or something which would greatly impact adversely on the employers generally or the employers in the paint industry. It is a totally absurd fabrication to suggest that something has been done which is disastrous either for that industry or for the nation as a whole. Let me say that there is running through the Opposition's statements a continued inference that union involvement in superannuation schemes is some sort of scurrilous thing, that unions will get control of vast amounts of money and somehow change the whole economy and that there will be a total disaster awaiting us. This is the greatest beat-up of all time. Let me refer to the storemen and packers fund which is known as LUCRF; that is, the Labour Unions Contributory Retirement Fund. Let me provide a few details of the fund, which is probably the most prominent union fund which exists. Control of the fund is shared on an equal basis by union and company representatives. Participating companies are asked to nominate trustee members. These currently include the managing directors of several large companies. The fund is audited by a very reputable company-in fact, the auditor of the fund is also the auditor for the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. Its investment portfolio exceeds $12m and includes equity shares, bonds and property. Its investment advisers are well known in the area. Perhaps I should not name them. Last year the rate of return on the fund was some 30 per cent, which shows that it was extremely well invested. An independent survey taken by Roach Tilley Grice and Co. last year placed the storemen and packers fund in the top 10 superannuation performers. I think that is some indication of the situation in which we find ourselves. The suggestion that because unions are involved in superannuation funds some economic disaster awaits us is a nonsense. There is no reason why an industry scheme which involves unions should be in any way adverse. Union members have a right, through their union, to be involved in control of funds invested in their name. The evidence shows that the investment of those funds in schemes such as LUCRF has been absolutely properly done. The control of those funds should be shared equally between employers and employees. When we announce the criteria we will make reference to control which will demonstrate our concern to see that that kind of approach exists. We totally reject the absurd statements by the Opposition. This matter is a total beat-up. The Opposition is desperate to try to restore its declining fortunes. I must say that nothing that has been said by the Opposition in this debate or in many others in the last couple of weeks makes much sense at all. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(4.53) —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) told us, among other things, what a grand scheme LUCRF-the Labour Unions Contributory Retirement Fund-is. It is run by the Storemen and Packers Union. This is held out as a shining example of trade union control of superannuation funds. If that is the test, let us look at some of its proven activites-some of the detailed cases for which it has been responsible. The Minister seems to be completely ignorant of the fact that there have been two inquiries in Victoria not only into this union but also into the very superannuation fund which he is now holding up as an example of the new dawn that is about to break on the country of union run and union controlled superannuation funds. One of them was the Balmford inquiry. The Balmford inquiry looked at a transaction run by Mr Landeryou, who was the Federal Secretary of the same union that the Minister lauded here today. What do we find about this? Mr Balmford, who conducted the inquiry, found: Landeryou, using a personal cheque for $19,000, had initially bought a large house in Sunbury for a union training centre but that afterwards he had thought better of the purchase as a union investment and decided to buy it himself. That is the way it is proposed that union funds-the workers' funds-should be used. The union superannuation fund, LUCRF, this doyen of financial responsibility about which the Minister has told us, lent Landeryou the $19,000, which he was to pay back to the union's liquor company, if you please, at reduced rates of interest. How did this peculiar transaction come about? It came about because Mr Landeryou went out to buy the house at an auction. Who did he take with him as a financial adviser and assistant? Mr Donald Cameron —John Cain. Mr N. A. BROWN —No, he took Mr Sword, the same Mr Sword who is now being held up as one of the great responsible union officials who are responsible and able enough to run a superannuation fund, a scheme which will bring in millions of dollars a year. What happened? Mr Landeryou went out with Mr Sword. We are told that Mr Sword, who made the successful bid for the Sunbury home, was asked how it could be possible for him and Mr Landeryou to make such a huge purchase without telling Crean who worked in the same office. He said: `Well, we went off in our LUCRF hats'. Then what happened? Mary, Mr Landeryou's wife, came onto the scene. She fell in love with the house and wanted to buy it. Mr Sword explained how this could have happened. He said: `Well, it was a complex decision. Landeryou also had second thoughts about it as an investment. It was his idea to buy it. If he wants to change his mind that is his decision. Bill never acted through committees'. We know that between 1975 and 1983 the same branch of the union did not even file accounts which distinguished between payments to employees and money paid to office bearers. This is the shining example of one of the unions that will have control of funds which amount, we are told, to $3 billion. It is not surprising that this is where we should have ended up. Nor is it very surprising that when the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) went along to the 1984 conference of the Storemen and Packers Union he started his speech by saying: `It's good to be back amongst friends'. So say we all: `It's good to be back amongst friends'. What we have seen in the whole history of this superannuation matter which culminated in last night's deal is simply this: A succession of abrogations of responsibility by this Government-a succession of cave-ins to the trade union movement, and particularly those trade unions in that movement which are friends of the Government. What did the Government do in the mark 2 agreement? It gave away all of the national wage case for September 1985. It gave away virtually the whole of the national wage case for April 1986. It gave away 3 per cent of the 4 per cent productivity claim by the Australian Council of Trade Unions to come before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission next year. The Government started off by abrogating its responsibility as a national government-all of the arguments that it could have used to bring about more responsible and more economically sensible wage decisions. It gave it all away and gave in to the ACTU. The Government virtually said to the ACTU: `You can have what you want'. In the course of that, the Government and the unions agreed upon this superannuation deal. The Minister is completely wrong when he says that I misled anyone by saying today, as I did in my Press statement, that the whole thing had been fixed, that there was already a deal. The Minister was quite happy to read out the Press release I made in September 1985; he does not seem very keen to look at the prices and incomes accord itself. It is made perfectly plain in the Press statement and in the accord that the Government has given away the productivity case to be held next year and that the Government has given away any prospect of putting up any fight against the excessive economic burdens that will be placed on this country as a result of the superannuation deals. I refer to what is said in the accord. It does not leave the matter up in the air, it is not on any speculative basis and it is not said to be subject to any decisions of the Arbitration Commission. This is what the accord, the actual document, says: It is agreed that superannuation should be extended and improved on an industry by industry, occupation by occupation or, in limited circumstances, company by company basis. It goes on to say: The improvement should be offset against national productivity and be based on a three per cent wage equivalent. That was the same capitulation which the Government made to the trade union movement with respect to the September national wage case and the wage case for April next year. There is no doubt that there has been a succession of cave-ins, a succession of capitulations. It is not in the least surprising that the Government's enforcer, this Minister, should have gone along last night to the unions and representatives of the employers. We all know that in the course of the conferences last night he said: `Look, the thing has been fixed. The deal has been arranged. The Arbitration Commission would not dare reject the 3 per cent productivity claim which will go before it next year'. Everyone knows, despite what the Minister says, that that is the substance of what was talked about last night. It was made perfectly plain to everyone that the deal had been done and the Arbitration Commission would put its rubber stamp on it. It was a shameless deal from the beginning; it is a shameless deal now. This country will pay dearly for the economic consequences of that decision. There are a number of things which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has already listed. It should be perfectly plain by now what are our objections to this scheme. We say that it will add to our costs, and it seems it will add about $3 billion a year. How will this country survive with the burden of economic costs of this sort of industry and commerce? We already have a most expensive wage fixing system. We already have burdens which are pricing us out of overseas markets. Here we are, at the mere whim of this Government at a sinister midnight meeting, giving away in effect-because this will be a precedent-costs of some $3 billion a year. We ask the Australian people: Firstly, how will this country survive if we keep pricing ourselves out of overseas markets and our people out of jobs? We will not survive if we go on in this way. Secondly, we say that this represents a move for substantial union control of the employees' money and the employees' funds. It will be treated in the same way in which so many areas of the trade union movement exercise their responsibilities these days; that is, as a responsibility to the union and to nobody else, not even the members of the union, let alone the community as a whole. It is bad for that reason also. Thirdly, it seems now that we are told that in regard to the payment of the 3 per cent, as if that were not bad enough, the unions apparently regard that 3 per cent which they will receive under the superannuation deal as the employees' money. It is paid by the employer, but it is to be regarded as the employees' and the unions' funds. What will result from that? They say that a further 3 per cent, a double payment, should be made, that the employers should match it, so the employer will have to pay twice. We say that that is indefensible. Finally, we say that the Government stands condemned for allowing its guidelines on superannuation to be caught in some sort of time warp, in some interdepartmental committee somewhere. It cannot even get those guidelines out, and it is leaving the country in great uncertainty about this matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(5.03) —We have heard some truly extraordinary speeches this afternoon and some truly extraordinary rhetoric. We have heard references to a Munich agreement. We have heard about sinister midnight meetings. We have heard about government irresponsibility. We have heard about a bumper year for the trade union movement. All sorts of assertions have been made. We have heard about the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission being reduced to a rubber stamp. I begin by posing this question: What is the Opposition saying about the Arbitration Commission? What it seems to be affirming is that because the Arbitration Commission has seen fit to go along with some substantial elements of what is contained in the accord, and what happens to be the position of the Government and the trade union movement, that that somehow establishes conclusively that the Arbitration Commission has ceased to function as an independent organisation. What exactly are Opposition speakers saying? Are they asserting that the Government has succeeded in somehow suborning the Arbitration Commission so that its individual members are no longer of integrity, able to make decisions on the basis of the best evidence placed before them? Is that what they are saying? It is not made very clear, but I believe that those imputations against the members of the Arbitration Commission ought to be rejected with the contempt that they observe. The fact is that the Government, unlike the Opposition, has been able to come up with a framework for determining our industrial relations decisions. It has been able to come up with some form of incomes policy. It has been able to come up with a coherent approach to dealing with problems such as the recent devaluation of the dollar. Because it has been able to come up with such a coherent approach, naturally there will be some success in persuading reasonable, objective members of the Arbitration Commission that those decisions have some merit. The Opposition seems to assert that the Government's ability to do that sort of thing is a vice while the putting forward of propositions by it, which cannot be accepted by the Commission, somehow represents a virtue. I believe that that is a preposterous suggestion and ought to be rejected as such. We have heard a lot of talk about the bumper year that has been enjoyed by the trade union movement. It is certainly the case that the trade union movement has made certain gains. There has been very substantial growth in employment. There has been reform of the tax system and reforms have been put in train in regard to occupational health and safety. We are now seeing a proposition for an extension of superannuation coverage linked with the productivity decision. These things have been put forward and they represent real gains. But one would think from the tone of the Opposition speakers that the trade union movement and its members are the only elements in society that have secured some gains in recent times. I think it is worth making a few points by way of refutation. The fact is that, in regard to the profits share of gross domestic product, the national accounts figures that are now available show a leap in the profit share from 14.7 per cent to 16.2 per cent in the September quarter. The profits share is now at a higher level than it has been since the late 1960s. Likewise, the same national accounts information shows a figure of 97.5 on the index for real unit labour costs compared with a figure of 108, which was the position at the end of the period of the Fraser Government. While the trade union movement has made gains in certain key areas-and I do not believe the Government should make any apology for that-the fact is that it is by no means the case that the trade union movement is the only group in society that has secured some benefits. There has been a very major recovery in the profits share and a very substantial improvement in the competitive position of Australian firms. The Opposition is saying that it is illegitimate and inappropriate for the trade union movement to aspire to share in the benefits of that productivity gain. I absolutely reject that proposition. I believe that within the framework of the accord it is entirely appropriate that some wage increase corresponding to the productivity gain be passed on in the form of an extension and improvement of superannuation benefits. It is simply absurd to suggest that there is anything illegitimate about that. Since this Government came to office we have seen a major and substantial turnaround in the economic performance of this country. It is absolutely absurd for the Opposition to talk about the implications for the Australian economy of this decision that was made last night on superannuation. As if it has any right to talk about the future of the Australian economy! It is remarkable, if one looks at a whole range of economic indices, to see the turnaround that corresponds with the adoption of the accord framework by this Government in 1983. In regard to a range of criteria the economic performance of this country has turned around remarkably. It is quite absurd for the Opposition to profess concern about the future of the economy. It is also quite absurd, of course, for the Opposition to express concern about the future of the arbitration system. As we all know, there is a pretty fundamental ideological split within the ranks of the Opposition on this issue. Some so-called dries favour going down the path of a deregulated labour market, while others apparently are somewhat less sanguine about the benefits that would flow from such a move. The fact is that the Opposition has been unable to come up with a coherent approach to industrial relations. Only the Government has a framework within which the sort of problems and the sort of stresses that have emerged in recent times can be dealt with. The agreement that was reached last night relating to superannuation in fact makes specific reference to accord mark 2. The implementation of that decision is made subject to the decisions of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, including the decision in the national productivity case. I believe that the mark 2 accord as it has now been negotiated has been shown to be a rather flexible instrument. I believe it is a very good thing that we have now had a shift from the preservation of real wages through the indexation system to the preservation of after-tax real wages. I believe that the introduction of that additional element of flexibility is very desirable. Certainly the Opposition is quite incapable of putting forward a comparably coherent approach to these problems. I would like to make a number of comments about the fears expressed by Opposition speakers concerning the prospect of the trade union movement gaining a greater degree of economic power. That is put forward as a terrible social calamity for this country. The hidden assumption in that belief of course is that at the moment investment funds-funds arising from superannuation and so forth-are allocated in some kind of optimal way. Of course, the reality is that we in this country have a great range of social priorities, in areas such as industry policy and housing, which need to be addressed. These very substantial funds which in due course will flow through the proposed superannuation schemes potentially could have a very major role in addressing those problems. I believe it is not simply a matter of maximising the return on those funds. I believe that there ought to be-it is entirely appropriate that there should be-some consideration of the long term social consequences of investment patterns. I think that in that area the trade union movement has legitimate things to say. I think the trade union movement has a legitimate voice. I make no bones about putting forward that assertion. It was interesting to hear the former speaker, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), refer to some deficiencies in the operation of the trade union controlled superannuation funds. We would think from those statements that employer controlled superannuation funds were entirely devoid of any malpractice at all. Of course, we have heard of little things such as cherry-picker schemes which this Government has from time to time attempted to legislate to eliminate. I mention also tax minimisation and tax rorts. The fact is that very substantial funds flow to the superannuation funds and substantial taxation concessions are made available to them. Certainly, there have been some abuses but in no way have these been confined to funds under the control of the trade union movement. For the honourable member to cite a couple of instances of such abuses as the basis for rejecting the sort of new approach the Government is attempting to develop is quite contemptible. I believe that this House ought not to have a bar of that sort of argument. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Consideration resumed. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.14) —When the debate on the Evidence Amendment Bill 1985 was adjourned I think I had expressed my thanks to the Attorney- General's Department for the co-operation that I have received from it. Of course, as well, I thanked the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) himself for his help. The point I wanted to explain was the reasons why I thought it necessary to amend the Attorney-General's proposal. This may be a repetition of what I have already said but the Bill, in its original form, made provision for what is known as an `authorised person'. That authorised person was to have a particular function which was to become acquainted with the records of a business nature for the purposes of proving those records. On the face of it that sounds sensible enough. However, I saw a problem in that the amendment was to be made to section 7J of the Evidence Act. That section states: Evidence relevant to the matters mentioned in section 7B, 7D or 7E-- those sections relate to records ordinarily called business records-- may, if given by a person who had, at the relevant time or afterwards, a responsible position in relation to the making or keeping of the records concerned, be given on information and belief. The effect of the original amendment would have been to put an authorised person in the same position as a person with a responsible position. Thus the authorised person could have been a police officer coming late to the scene who would give evidence as to what he learned on an examination of the records. It follows of course that he would not have the same kind of knowledge as a person who had a responsible position in relation to the keeping of the records would have. Therefore, to that extent his knowledge of the way in which records were kept, which would be used for the purpose of getting records tendered into evidence, would be very much less close. Therefore, it would be far less desirable. As well as raising that point I raised the general definition of `authorised persons' with the Attorney-General's Department, and by that means, with the Attorney-General himself. As a consequence the relevant amendment is now in a different form. The proposed new section reads: Evidence relevant to a matter mentioned in 7B, 7D or 7E shall not be given-- I emphasise the word not-- under sub-section (1)-- of the relevant section-- by an authorised person unless it appears to the court that- (a) it is not reasonably practicable for a person who had, at the relevant time or afterwards, a responsible position in relation to the making or keeping of the records concerned to give that evidence; or (b) having regard to all the circumstances of the case, undue expense would be caused by calling a person- The person referred to is a person who had a responsible position in relation to the making or keeping of the records. That sounds somewhat convoluted but the purpose of the amendment simply is that in the first instance one looks to the person who has a responsible position in relation to the keeping of the records. If it is not reasonably practicable to get evidence from that person or, if having regard to all the circumstances of the case undue expense would be caused by calling that person, then one looks to the authorised person as the person who can then give evidence which will ground the admissibility of the business records. I again commend the Attorney-General and his Department for agreeing to that alteration, as well as the charge which has been made to the definition of `authorised person'. As a practitioner at the Bar for 19 or 20 years evidence was a very dear subject to me-as it is to all practitioners. If one cannot get one's evidence in, as I said earlier, then not only is oneself in dire straits but one's client is in dire straits. One tends to look at the way in which evidence provisions will operate from the point of view of what will happen if one is there in court. Perhaps it was for that reason that my eye lit on the difficulty which the original drafting would have occasioned. I point out, perhaps in answer to what was said by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), that we are not here faced with any prospect of someone going overseas to look at records and then coming back to give oral evidence as to what those records say. What this provision is concerned with is putting a person in a position to give sufficient proof of the way in which records are kept to allow the records themselves to be admitted into evidence. I think the honourable member's fears in that respect are groundless. Amendments agreed to. 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. Consideration resumed from 15 October. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 1, sub-clause 2(2), line 9, leave out `3', insert `2A'. No. 2-Page 1, after clause 2, insert the following new clause: Persons having dealings with companies, et cetera. `2A. Section 68A of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (3) (b) ``or with the Registrar of Companies under the'' and substituting ``or 263 or with the Registrar of Companies under a''. No. 3-Page 5, clause 9, proposed new sub-section 275A (1), line 25, after `company' (first occurring), insert `(not being an exempt proprietary company that is an unlimited company)'. No. 4-Pages 5 and 6, clause 9, proposed new sub-section 275A (4), line 37 (page 5) to line 6 (page 6), leave out the proposed sub-section, insert the following new sub-section: `` `(4) A company is not required to lodge a copy of a particular document with the Commission pursuant to a notice under sub-section (1) if, as at the time when the notice is served, the document has not been made out, but, if the document is made out after that time, the company shall lodge a copy of the document with the Commission within 14 days after the document is made out' ''. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.21) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. This matter has come back from the Senate. I might explain that the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities is the appropriate group that masterminds the Companies Act. This proposal was a suggestion by the Ministerial Council following the second reading speech. The Council asked the Government to endeavour to have some minor amendments made to the Bill before its passage through the Senate. These amendments were made in the Senate. Accordingly, the Bill has been returned with those amendments. The most significant of the amendments is an amendment to proposed new sub-section 275A of the Companies Act to ensure that the National Companies and Securities Commission does not have power under that sub-section to obtain accounts from unlimited exempt proprietary companies. This will maintain the present situation whereby unlimited exempt proprietary companies are not required to disclose any financial information. The other amendments are drafting points designed to ensure that the provisions operate as originally intended. None of the amendments involves the imposition of new obligations on companies. I think that was the whole point behind this. There was in the Ministerial Council quite a discussion as to whether dealing with exempt proprietary companies was becoming too regulatory. At this stage I need say no more. The matter has been introduced in the Senate and passed in the Senate, and it is a machinery matter as far as we are concerned. Amendments agreed to. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Mr Young: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.24) —The Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Amendment Bill 1985 has been explained to the House by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) in a brief statement which I do not propose to traverse. The purpose of the Bill, as the Special Minister of State has said, is to implement the Remuneration Tribunal's re- commendations in respect of holders of judicial office and the President and the members of the Inter-State Commission. The Constitution provides that the remuneration of those officers shall be such as the Parliament may fix. I trust that what we are doing is within the Constitution and what we are now doing is fixing matters within the Constitution. A question has been raised with me but I do not propose to pursue it today. The Special Minister of State in his second reading speech also said: Honourable members will be aware that the Tribunal has again had regard to the wage fixing principles and has concluded that, apart from individual work value changes, it should continue to apply only the national wage case increases to the offices within its jurisdiction. The thought that crossed my mind is whether or not we could put the judges on productivity bonuses. If we are to apply those principles, perhaps one could put them on an individual work value assessment and those who get through the most work could be paid the highest salary, starting from a base salary and ensuring that they did not work more than 35 or 40 hours a week, or, if they worked more than, say, 36 hours a week, they got time and a half over weekends. Mr Young —Like Ministers! Mr SPENDER —Like Ministers, indeed! But that is probably not feasible, so I do not think I shall pursue it today by amendment. I will say just one or two words in support of the Bill. The pay of the justices of the High Court of Australia, for example, is now going to go up to a base rate of $109,142. Many would say that that is a high salary, but the truth of the matter is that they earn every penny and more of their salary. The work is extremely demanding, and many lawyers would earn far more in private practice. Whilst the High Court has a lustre all its own, when one looks to other courts one must remember that if we are to get good judges, that is, people of quality, and good lawyers and people with the right temperament to be good judges, remembering that a good lawyer is not necessarily a good judge, we are going to have to pay them properly. By way of anecdotal evidence, I am aware of occasions over the past few years when members of the Bar have refused appointment because they thought that it really was not worth their while to go onto the Bench, and difficulties have been experienced in certain jurisdictions in filling some appointments. So to those who would say that our judges are overpaid I would say that my judgment would be that they most certainly are not and that we need to keep in mind always that if we are to get the right people it is only fair that they should be well paid because the right people can earn a great deal more money off the Bench as practitioners than they can on the Bench. Despite the superannuation benefits that they get on the Bench, I would say that that general comment applies because these days leading lawyers are really paid a very great amount of money; so much so that one sometimes thinks that one has got out of practice at the Bar and gone into politics at the wrong time. I do not take that proposition any further. My colleagues at the Bar are entitled to what they earn and the judges are entitled to be well paid. I support what the Special Minister of State proposes. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(5.30) —in reply-I thank the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) for his comments. Whilst the Remuneration Tribunal has acted within the guidelines of the national wage fixing principles as they apply to everybody, I admit that it does cause the Government problems, not just in the area of the law and judges. Because of the ceilings that are put on some of the posts within my own portfolio, it is felt from time to time that perhaps we do not attract all the applications we would if the salaries were fixed within the authorities themselves rather than by the Government. That is a problem we have been facing in Australia over the last few years as far as wages are concerned. Some people face greater sacrifices than others. The honourable member for North Sydney fleetingly referred to his own predicament, coming from- Mr Spender —We are all volunteers. Mr YOUNG —I realise that. My own colleague here, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), made sacrifices. He was out there in the Dandenongs living the good life and serving this great population in the suburbs of Melbourne and he had to make a sacrifice to come here. In the years ahead as we get the economy shipshape again, perhaps we can overcome some of these problems. I thank the honourable member for his remarks. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Young) read a third time. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, I present the report of the Committee entitled `No Port in a Storm: Report on the Darling Harbour Fiasco', together with the minutes of the proceedings and submissions authorised for publication. Ordered that the report be printed. Motion (by Mr Leo McLeay)-by leave-agreed to: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled `No Port in a Storm: Report on the Darling Harbour Fiasco'. I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Mr LEO McLEAY —I have pleasure in presenting this report to the House. It is the work of a number of honourable members of the Expenditure Committee. The Sub-committee was chaired by the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), and the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) played a big role in the work of the Committee and no doubt he will supplement my remarks when I sit down. The report was an interesting one in that it arose out of allegations made by Dick Smith in his book Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom, a book which had some substance in it but which also drew a long bow in some areas. The Committee has decided to do a preliminary report on the Darling Harbour heliport fiasco and it will then consider some other allegations made by Mr Smith in that book. I might say in this brief statement that the work of the Committee staff went a great way to helping the Committee with its deliberations. Mr Scott, who was the adviser to the Committee, and Mrs Harlow, who was the Committee secretary, waded through some hundreds of submissions. Indeed, the House would have seen that when I presented the report I did not table the submissions physically at the time because they are too voluminous. The Committee received over 800 submissions from individuals in the aviation industry and in the community. For the honourable member for Canberra and the Committee to go through that work and come up with a report was indeed a great labour. The staff of the Committee-Mrs Harlow and Mr Scott-also spent many hours in editing time and ensuring that the report made some sense of a number of varying accusations that were made about the operation of the Department of Aviation. I put on record that the honourable member for Canberra was most keen to make a statement here this afternoon but she has been detained and the honourable member for Wannon and I are filling in for her. I commend the report to the House and as the Chairman of the Committee I most particularly thank the sub-committee members and the Committee staff for the work they put in on the Committee. I suppose I should also thank Mr Smith for prompting us to do it. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —by leave-In supporting the motion of the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) in tabling this report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, I would like to comment on three areas. The first is the tenacity of Mr Dick Smith. Without doubt, Mr Smith has been the catalyst for this inquiry. Secondly, I would like to go through a few points on the Darling Harbour saga. Although this report confines itself to an episode which the Department of Aviation no doubt would like to forget, the fact is that it probably is illustrative of some of the more deep-seated problems the Department has had and may still have. Thirdly, this leads on to some more general comments about the administration of the Department of Aviation and its approach to the aviation industry. Before touching on these points I too would like to record my appreciation of the staff of the Expenditure Committee. The support and expertise provided by the staff were outstanding and made the Committee's task so much easier. In particular, Mrs Sue Harlow, the Committee secretary, and Mr Adrian Scott have done a fantastic job in assisting in what has been a time consuming and very demanding project. Their professionalism is an example of the high standards that we would all hope to see emulated more often in Canberra. I would also like to mention how well the members of the Expenditure Committee have worked together on this and other current inquiries. In particular I make special mention of the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), who chaired the sub-committee. This report reinforces the value of the parliamentary committee system. It is something that should be given more prominence. The fact that members of both sides of the Parliament can work together, and work effectively, away from the glare of the chamber, is a side of the parliamentary system that it unfortunately often overlooked. It is with a report like this that the co-operation that is happening can be given the credence that it deserves. In his book Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom Dick Smith has catalogued what must be some of the most serious allegations ever made about the overall administration of a Government department. He has supported these allegations with numerous examples of a bureaucracy that appears unable to respond to the needs of the industry it is supposed to serve. Worse still, he has accused the Department of assuming its role in some areas of aviation administration to be more akin to big brother than a Public Service department supporting democratically elected governments. These allegations are indeed serious. Equally serious is the theme running through his book that many pilots and others working in the aviation industry appear reluctant to express any criticism in public of the Department. Nonetheless, the enormous number of submissions-over 800-indicates how seriously the allegations made by Dick Smith should be taken. As the report states in the introduction: The submissions were a clear indication that all was not well in the Australian aviation industry, and in the industry's relationship with the Department of Aviation. As the Chairman has already stated, this first report on the Department of Aviation by the Expenditure Committee, covers only one aspect covered by the submissions, namely, the fiasco of the Darling Harbour helicopter landing site. In reviewing the Darling Harbour fiasco, one finds it hard to believe that this is a true life story. Although this represents only a small aspect of the Department's operations, if it is indicative of what may be happening in other areas there is a mammoth task ahead for someone. No doubt as the Committee's inquiry continues, some answers to that question will be found. For the sake of the record it is worth briefly recalling some of the salient points of the Darling Harbour story. This story highlights the communication breakdown between the regional office and the central office of the Department of Aviation. It also emphasises the problem of not having clearly described operational design criteria and licensing procedures for helicopter landing sites. This matter is covered by recommendation 2 in the report. The saga of Darling Harbour also places the Department in a very poor light as far as its public image is concerned. Here we had a situation where the regional office, acting within what it believed was its authority, approved a helicopter landing site at Darling Harbour for commercial use in late 1978. The New South Wales Premier, Mr Wran, announced the new development. Probably at least $100,000 was spent building the helipad by the licensee. Then central office came tootling along, months later-yes, months-and said no. In fact, the central office Examiner of Airmen-Airways Surveyor looked at the pad and produced a report in which he said: The area is not just unsafe, it is highly dangerous for single engine helicopter operations; and: In conclusion I would say without hesitation, that the site is unsuitable for consideration as a city heliport. Here, now, we have a great situation. The regional office said yes; the Premier said great; the licensee spent $100,000; and, then, eight months later, the site was declared not just unsafe, but highly dangerous and unsuitable. So, just 15 days before the official opening of the helipad, the Department said: `Hold it'. Despite the description of the central office expert that the helipad was unsafe and highly dangerous, the Department then said it would allow the helipad to operate under dispensation, but with some severe operating restrictions, some of which were more noteworthy for the frequency with which they were ignored, than their contribution to safety. The inconsistency of this decision must be obvious. The implications of it are serious. The central office firstly overrode its regional office; it then qualified the opinion of its expert in a way that appears arbitrary-not to mention the inordinate delays in reaching the various decisions. Why was the Department so inconsistent? Why did it not take the advice of its central office expert? Why was the Darling Harbour helipad ever allowed to open? Further to these points, has anyone evaluated how much damage this saga has done to the helicopter industry? It is probable that, if it was not for Darling Harbour, the industry, at least in Sydney, would be much healthier today. This begs the question: Will the Department now change its attitude to the indusry and encourage it to grow by offering a positive approach-an approach that is consistent and logical and that recognises that the role of the Department is to service the industry rather than frustrate it? The Department of Aviation has an opportunity with the five recommendations of the Committee's report to demonstrate, at least in the area covered by the report, that it will work to improve its image and to improve relations with the helicopter industry and that it can respond to constructive comment. More specifically, looking at two of the re- commendations, namely, the second and third, I would like to make a few observations. Recommendation 2 suggests that the Department publicly explain the operational design criteria and licensing procedures for helicopter landing sites. For all the reasons mentioned, I sincerely hope the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) will instruct the Department to adopt this recommendation. Apart from removing the doubts and misunderstandings that have occurred with Darling Harbour, this would have another major benefit. As was seen with Darling Harbour, the licensing arrangements with helicopter landing sites are very much dependent on subjective assessment. Many sites need to have a dispensation in order to be licensed. By any measure, this is a dangerous situation-dangerous because it can allow individuals within the Department the power to grant or withhold a dispensation in an arbitrary manner. Obviously this could lead to a situation where the Department could be seen as acting in a partial manner. Furthermore, it might explain why many involved in aviation are reluctant to criticise the Department in public, yet privately hold strong and often damning views. It seems that when actions or procedures of the Department are questioned, it always wheels out its third commandment which, according to its functional directory, is `the promotion of measures for the enhancement of safety of flight'. I shall return to this point shortly. Recommendation 3 in the report suggests the establishment of a forum for close consultation between the helicopter industry and the Department. The desirability of this should be obvious, but the recommendation also contains a clear warning. By suggesting that the Committee review the functioning of such a forum, assuming the Minister accepts the recommendation, the Department is given a clear warning that such a forum would have to be effective, have meaningful discussions and lead to a positive response by the Department on any recommendations from such a forum. Such a forum should be effective in improving relations between the Department and the industry, and also improve departmental performance. Anything less would be unacceptable. I mentioned the third commandment of the Department of Aviation relates to the golden word `safety'. A recurring theme to emerge during the inquiry was the Department's ability to use the word `safety' to override all other considerations. As has been seen from the Darling Harbour saga, `safety' can mean different things to different people within the Department, let alone what it can mean to people out in the industry. Dick Smith highlighted, in his book, some of the problems this can create. With good reason the Department has always taken very seriously its function of promotion and enhancement of safety. All honourable members would endorse this. However, the question of safety, at times, seems to have been pursued at the expense of other considerations. For example, the question arises: Has administrative efficiency been given the back seat? Has this allowed overinvestment in some areas of aviation, without regard to who really benefits? To illustrate this, I refer to the report of the Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery, tabled in November 1984, otherwise known as the Bosch report. In its overview and recommendations, the Bosch committee noted, in relation to cost recovery: There is cause for concern in almost every aspect of the present situation. The committee went on to state: More should be done to reduce costs, in particular by judicious investment in the airways area, which has not received a sufficiently high priority in the past. Looking to the future, the Committee-- that is the Bosch committee-- considers that the most effective way of controlling costs will be by the development of an improved system of planning that would involve more closely those who will use and pay for facilities. The committee said on page 16: In a real sense governments have over-invested or over-serviced the industry . . . The question arises as to whether such over-investment may have occurred in other areas of the Department's responsibility. Likewise, is the aviation industry overserviced in other areas? Such questions will be faced by the committee in its next report. The committee will be looking at evidence to see how widespread these problems really are. I turn to administrative responsibilities within the Department. Darling Harbour highlighted problems of communication and delegation of authority between the central office and the regional office. The committee will be looking for firm evidence that these problems have been overcome. I hasten to add that during the inquiry the Department informed the committee that the Department itself recently instituted a 2 per cent per annum cost reduction program for some of its activities. For a department to institute such a program is, in itself, quite a remarkable development. But rather than allaying some of the criticism that the committee has received, this could be seen by some as reinforcing their views. After all, a 2 per cent cut is not really an earth-shattering move. Is there scope for more significant cuts without jeopardising either safety or administrative efficiency? Could a bigger cut in fact improve both? In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the findings of this inquiry. The Darling Harbour saga highlighted some glaring shortcomings in the administration of the Department. As a result, the Flight Standards Division has moved towards ensuring that these shortcomings will not occur again. The committee believes that, if the Government takes up the recommendations of this report, the Department will, at least in the area covered by the report, be moving in the right direction. Some of the wider issues raised by the submissions will be covered by hearings next year. The response of the Department to the committee's recommendations will influence the committee in these hearings. Overall, the committee has found the Department to have a poor image in the helicopter industry. This inquiry should provide the Department with the impetus to rectify further some of its shortcomings. If this is achieved, the value and importance of the committee's work will be recognised. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —by leave-I congratulate the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) for both his contribution to this debate and his work on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. I think the standard of his speech today indicates the enormous amount of work that he has done on the Committee and the contribution he has made to the report that is before the House. This report, appropriately named `No Port in a Storm' tells the story of the fiasco of the Darling Harbour heliport. `To Be or maybe Not To Be' should be the sub-title of this report. As the honourable member for Wannon said, it outlines the saga of the Darling Harbour helicopter landing site which began with the site being approved without reservation by the regional office of the Commonwealth Department of Transport for all classes of helicopter operations in November 1978. In May 1979 the central office of the Department became concerned that certain types of helicopter operations could not be conducted with the required level of safety. However, it was not until January 1980 that the final operating restrictions were placed on this site, thus contradicting the earlier advice and effectively crippling operations at the site. Despite the wishes of the State Government and the helicopter industry, Sydney did not get a heliport suitable for regular passenger transport operations and operations at night in close proximity to the central business district. From 1980 until 1985 both the helicopter industry and certain regional officers of the Department tried to get some or all of the restrictions lifted. They were basically unsuccessful until July 1985, which was only six weeks before the closure of the site. At this time the restriction on night operations was eased with the proviso that operations could take place only in `dead-calm' conditions. This controversy about the Darling Harbour helicopter landing area was one of several case studies cited in a book by Mr Dick Smith which was highly critical of the Department of Aviation and its predecessors. Mr Smith alleged that the initial approval of the landing site by the Department and the subsequent decisions concerning operations at the site were an example of gross departmental incompetence and a personal feud between central office officials and the New South Wales regional office officials. To test these allegations the Committee first examined the events surrounding the establishment of the helicopter operations at Darling Harbour. This was no easy task since operations at the site commenced approximately seven years ago and some of the Commonwealth officers involved had retired from the Department. The Committee would like to thank Mr Dick Smith and the Department of Aviation for the provision of substantial information which greatly assisted the Committee's understanding of the events which unfolded from 1978 until 26 August 1985 when the landing site was finally closed. The Committee was able to identify four main factors which influenced the Department's decision-making process concerning Darling Harbour. Firstly, there was evidence of serious communication failures within the Department of Aviation. Secondly, there was a genuine and legitimate concern in central office about the safety of operations at the site. Thirdly, departmental officers were concerned to protect the credibility of their Department and to avoid possible litigation against the Commonwealth as a result of conflicting advice to both the site lessee and the New South Wales Government. Fourthly, personality conflicts within the Department and between the Department and the industry contributed, along with the other factors I have mentioned, to a most unhappy state of affairs for all concerned. Mr Smith had asserted that personal differences were the root cause of restrictions on site operations. Although there is some evidence that personality conflicts existed, from the evidence presented to this Committee it is not possible to support Mr Smith's assertions. It is incorrect to reduce the Darling Harbour helicopter landing site difficulties to a personal feud between central and regional office officials. It is just not that simple. If personality conflicts had been the only real problem with Department of Aviation decisions concerning Darling Harbour, the Committee's task would have been, in one sense, far simpler and the remedies much easier to prescribe. It is the administrative weaknesses revealed which are of most concern because the deficiencies and inconsistencies in the Department's decision-making procedures are likely to prove a continuing problem for the Department and, therefore, the aviation industry. We have therefore recommended that the Department review these arrangements. The Department of Aviation is currently undergoing substantial change. In particular, as the honourable member for Wannon said, the Flight Standards Division of the Department has recently been restructured. It is too early to evaluate the impact of these changes but the Committee is optimistic that these changes, together with the implementation of our recommendations in this report, should help to prevent another Darling Harbour fiasco. The Committee has received over 800 submissions. This report is only the first report on this issue. The major issues raised in the many submissions are: Firstly, the overall administrative efficiency of the Department of Aviation; secondly, communication difficulties within the Department and between the Department and the industry; thirdly, the extent and basis of the various regulations and orders et cetera, their dissemination to the industry and their legal validity; and, fourthly, the effects of operational regulations on the industry. These issues will form the framework for consideration of submissions already received and further public hearings to be held next year. The Committee will also be intent on ensuring that processes are in place to ensure that adequate parliamentary and therefore public scrutiny of aviation policy takes place. In conclusion, I thank all the individuals and organisations that made submissions to our inquiry and the witnesses who gave evidence at our public hearings. The Committee acknowledges the co-operation of the Department of Aviation and is particularly grateful for the assistance of Mr Leon Norsworthy and Mr George Grunbaum. Mr Dick Smith has been the catalyst that has drawn the Committee's attention to the difficulties which existed in the Aviation portfolio. Although the Committee does not agree with all of Mr Smith's allegations concerning the Darling Harbour issue, his approach and enthusiasm have undoubtedly highlighted some serious shortcomings in the Department of Aviation which the Committee will pursue over the course of its inquiry. The Committee would therefore like to thank Mr Smith for drawing the attention of the Parliament to these matters. As Sub-committee Chairman I would also like to thank sincerely my fellow members, particularly the Chairman of the Expenditure Committee, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), the honourable member for Wannon, whom I have already thanked, and the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin). Their efforts have been very much appreciated. I also give special thanks to the secretariat, particularly to the Secretary, Mrs Sue Harlow; the adviser, Mr Adrian Scott, who has made an enormous contribution to this report; Mr Christopher Paterson; Peter Ratas and Christina Brauer. Because the Darling Harbour site is now closed, our report details a saga which has reached a conclusion, albeit one which has not been to the satisfaction of all concerned. The Committee believes it would probably be beneficial for all parties if the divisive events of the past were now put to one side in order to concentrate on rebuilding relationships between the Department and the industry and overcoming administrative difficulties within the Department. This will certainly be the thrust of the Committee's approach over the remainder of the inquiry. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the fourteenth and fifteenth reports for 1985 of the Committee, relating to the fitout of office space at Canberra National Convention Centre, Canberra City, for Commonwealth use and the construction for Telecom Australia of new accommodation at Resources Management Centre, Clayton, Victoria, respectively. Mr WILSON(Sturt) —I present the report of the Australian delegation to the seventy-third conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Mr WILSON —The seventy-third conference of the IPU was held from 20 to 30 March this year in Lome, the capital of Togo, a small country on the west coast of Africa near Nigeria, located between Benin on its east and Ghana on its west. The Australian delegation was led by Senator Colston and comprised myself as deputy leader, Senator Noel Crichton-Browne, the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). Members of the delegation and the delegation as a whole played a useful and constructive part in the proceedings of the conference. At the time of the conference agreement had not long been reached between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America on the holding of talks in Geneva on the entire range of complex questions related to space and nuclear weapons with the objective of working out effective agreements aimed at preventing an arms race in space and terminating it on earth. Those proposed Geneva arms talks generated around the world an atmosphere of hope verging on cautious optimism. It was therefore appropriate that the 636 delegates to the Lome conference from 84 national groups should debate a resolution in the following terms: The contribution of parliaments to the promotion of disarmament, especially nuclear disarmament and the elimination of chemical and bacteriological weapons, to the promotion of peace and security and the elimination of hot-beds of tension in the world, particularly as regards the Middle East, the Iran-Iraq war and navigation in the Red Sea, as the most necessary prerequisites for achieving disarmament. It is a pity that, contrary to the spirit of the IPU statutes, many delegates speaking in the plenary debate failed to speak as individuals from the viewpoint of members of parliament, but rather used the opportunity to repeat the oft-heard rhetoric of their governments and their countries. At the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting it would have been far more effective if a greater number of members had been able to speak as individuals about their individual concerns and the individual concerns of the people they represented. I am pleased to say, however, that despite my comments significant numbers of delegates did speak in a genuine and heartfelt way. A representative drafting committee was established to draft a resolution on the topic I have just referred to for submission to the final plenary session of the conference. The committee, despite the diversity of its members, was able to prepare a resolution which appeared to be acceptable to the West, the East and to the non-aligned world and its various elements. In light of the impending conference on disarmament it was a great pity that the parliamentarians from the 84 countries represented were not able to give the resolution prepared by the drafting committee unanimous support. This occurred because the drafting committee's draft resolution was, so far as it related to the Middle East, substantially altered by the committee to which the drafting committee was required to report. As a result when the resolution was submitted to the plenary session there was a substantial number of negative and abstention votes which votes included the votes from Australia. It is most unfortunate that the constructive balance of the resolution prepared by the drafting committee was destroyed in a way which prevented all the parliamentarians attending the conference from supporting the resolution which dealt so positively with matters relating to nuclear disarmament and the Soviet-American talks that were due to begin in Geneva, chemical and bacteriological weapons, the Iran-Iraq war and the hot-beds of tension in the world. This occurred all because of the intemperate and unbalanced language used by the final committee, the people who promoted some amendments to the drafting committee proposals in that section of the resolution dealing with the Middle East. It was a great disappointment to many delegates that, at a time when that hope I spoke about was being felt around the world, the parliamentarians from those countries could not get together and give unanimous support to a resolution which focused on those essential issues for the future well-being of mankind. I hope that in future those countries that took the opportunity to play world politics about their own immediate concerns on important issues may sometimes see the merit of omitting from resolutions matters which cannot be supported when so much of the resolution would have meant such a great deal in the momentum that was developing in relation to the Geneva talks. At the time of the conference the world's awareness was also heightened to the plight of millions of Africans. That awareness was perhaps at its height at the time the conference was being held. It was therefore fitting that the conference should be held in Africa and that it should debate and subsequently adopt a resolution on famine, desertification and drought in Africa. As the report reveals the Australian delegation played an important role in the conference's consideration of this subject. In this regard I wish to bring to the attention of this House and place on record the work undertaken by the honourable member for Lilley. She submitted a draft resolution to be considered and that resolution gained the support of the conference. Most of its substantial concerns were incorporated in the resolution that was ultimately adopted in the final meeting of the conference. The initiative taken by the honourable member on behalf of the delegation attracted great credit to this Parliament and to the delegation. In spite of the illness the honourable member for Lilley contracted in Lome, she showed great courage and perseverance in pressing on to see that the matters she had brought up in the committee stages of the debate on that resolution were carried through into the final resolutions. May I say-I know she will not say this in her comments on the report-that the severity of the illness from which she suffered following the conference was no doubt contributed to by the amount of energy and effort she put into the work she did on this particular resolution in the conference. All members of the delegation are pleased to see that she has been fully restored to health. The resolution of which I am talking called on parliaments and governments: to take all necessary measures, at the local and national levels, to develop food production, eliminate famine, resist desertification and address the problem of an extremely high population growth rate, and to recognise that these problems do not respect national or other boundaries and require close co-operation at the regional and international levels among all countries concerned, irrespective of ideological or other divisions; By that element of the resolution dealing with famine, desertification and drought, the conference made it clear that it was its view that famine and desertification are not solely the consequence of drought. It is to be hoped that those who would put the whole blame for the problem of famine and desertification on mother nature will heed this call. The conference also adopted without vote a resolution on the role of parliaments and their contribution towards the elimination of poverty by relieving the burden of international debt, and a further resolution dealing with the then recent events in Langa and the repression in southern Africa. I draw to the attention of the House the full text of the resolutions to which I have referred. They are included as attachments to the delegation's report. All of them are resolutions of significance and should be considered by members of this Parliament and also by the Government. I conclude my remarks by thanking the Australian posts in Madrid, Paris, Rome and London for the assistance they provided in the travel arrangements for the Australian delegation. I particularly thank the post in Madrid which assisted Senator Colston and myself as we attended a preliminary meeting of the 10-plus group of the IPU. I extend to the leader of the delegation, Senator Colston, my thanks for his leadership. I especially want to place on record my appreciation and, I am sure, that of all members of the delegation, of the contribution made by the secretary to the delegation, Mr Tom Wharton, and Mr Peter Houston, who was the adviser to the delegation from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Because of administrative conditions in Togo, conditions which left much to be desired, a tremendous burden was placed not only on the shoulders of the leader of the delegation but also on the shoulders of those officers who serviced and supported the delegation. Both Tom Wharton and Peter Houston worked long hours, with dedication and enthusiasm, and converted what might otherwise have been an administrative nightmare into a well-supported delegation. Finally, I wish to thank my fellow delegates for their companionship throughout the conference. I commend the report to the House. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —by leave-There are some aspects of the seventy-third conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union held in March 1985 which I believe are worthy of note. One is the fact that the conference was held in Togo. Tiny Togo, with a population close to three million on the west coast of Africa, is one of the world's poorest nations. The United States classified Togo in 1982 as one of the least developed amongst developing nations. But although low in material goods, Togolese people in the dusty coastal market capital of Lome, where the conference was held, are high in qualities of optimism, vigour and pride in their nation. Their economy, which is 70 per cent agriculturally based, has been hampered by a staggering foreign debt following the adverse effects of colonisation. The choice of this venue had broad ramifications for delegates, particularly those such as Australians who enjoy the privileges of developed nations. I believe that for such a conference to be more than a talk-feast, it is important that delegates do not meet only in societies which present a mirror image of their own societies. The Togo venue served two purposes: It gave Togo equity in enabling that nation to host a conference despite extreme economic difficulties, an offshoot being a possible boost for its struggling infant tourist industry; and it provided delegates from developed nations the opportunity not only to meet people from other nations and discuss at first hand problems on which they may be required to vote in their own parliaments but also to meet Togolese people and see them in their natural environment as they struggled to wrest a living from the barren land. Delegates also had the opportunity to speak to refugees from Ghana who were huddled on the coastal areas and living on their catch from the sea. The Togo experience broadened my understanding of the problems encountered by developing nations enormously. I commend the leader of the Australian delegation, Senator Mal Colston; the deputy leader, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson); the secretary to the delegation, Mr Tom Wharton; and Mr Peter Houston from the Department of Foreign Affairs for their organisation of the Australian program. Delegates were deeply involved in the debates, committees and decisions of the conference. I also thank the honourable member for Sturt for his typically generous comments regarding my own role. If the Togo conference was typical of IPU conferences, I am impressed. Given the disappointment regarding lack of unanimity on the resolution relating to disarmament referred to by the honourable member for Sturt, I wish to say that the potential of such forums in educating and providing parliamentarians with background which is essential if they are fully to realise their legislative responsibilities should not be overlooked. Any forum is only as effective as those who use it allow it to be. I believe that the Togo conference met the IPU objective `to promote personal contacts between members of all parliaments constituted into national groups, and to unite them in common action'. The serious matters debated, which were referred to by the honourable member for Sturt, were worthy of a conference between delegates representing 84 national groups. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —by leave-Unlike the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), if my experience and that of my colleagues at the Seventy-third conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Lome is any indication of the effectiveness of that body, I am most unimpressed. Let us be very clear about this matter. Whenever anybody from a Western democracy attends an international conference of this order, dominated as it is by Eastern bloc representatives as well as representatives from the Third World developing countries, we can be certain of two things: Certain agenda items including motions against Israel and South Africa and the issue of debt repayment will be raised; and the Western democracies will be blamed for all ills and held up to ridicule to some extent. The question in my mind, and in the minds of so many honourable members, is whether it is worth attending these international conferences when the outcome can be quite predictable. We have to measure that against the good effects that have been mentioned by the honourable member for Lilley and the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) in that we are opening, to some extent at least, a window for delegates from oppressive regimes. We have to weigh up the value of this IPU conference, operating as a mini-United Nations, and incorporating all that body's best and worst features. But let us make no mistake about it; the representatives of banana republics and oppressive regimes do not allow too much free speech at these conferences. For instance, when Senator Noel Crichton-Browne during his address sought to make a short statement on the inconsistencies and hypocrisies in relation to the treatment of South Africa by these undemocratic, repressive regimes, he was to a large extent howled down. The fact is that these international conferences will be dominated by the Third World developing countries and repressive regimes. On balance, it is worth attending these conferences because in some small way, quite often an unquantifiable way, we are perhaps showing the world another side. But I must say that I for one do not support all international conferences. I think the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union has been called into question by members of this House before, and I for one would join the list of people who question not only its motives but also the reasons for its very existence. For instance, the conference was held in Lome, the capital of Togo, that small country on the west coast of Africa, where, as always in these cases, there are a number of beautiful five-star international hotels and, across the way, a magnificent conference centre. If delegates cannot be bothered walking, there are magnificent limousines to convey them. But once we look outside that radius, the poverty and the depression of the, at best, benevolent dictatorship of Togo is only too apparent. If delegates from Western democracies visit these developing countries and see only the radius of the confines of their conference, I think they will come away time and again with the wrong impressions. There is no doubt at all that Togo put on its best face, but the day-long car trip which Senator Noel Crichton-Browne and I took during the conference and which took us to different parts of the country was an eye-opener. Whilst I think Togo, at least to all appearances, is a benevolent dictatorship rather than a repressive one-the President of that country came to power well over 18 years ago by way of military overthrow of the then ruler-there is clear evidence that his management of the economy and the freedom allowed to his people are miniscule compared with the situation in our own country. We should not visit African states or any Third World developing country with a closed mind, taking across our set of values and our ideas of democracy and materialism, but there is a base-line to what constitutes freedom and quality of material possessions. By any measure, Togo does not satisfy that criterion. In conclusion I join the honourable member for Sturt and the honourable member for Lilley in thanking the secretary to the delegation, Mr Tom Wharton, for his tremendous dedication and good humour. I also thank Mr Peter Houston, an adviser to the delegation from the Department of Foreign Affairs, for his special knowledge and marvellous contribution. Senator Mal Colston and the honourable member for Sturt also provided the leadership which ensured that the Australian delegation was both united and able to make a contribution to the proceedings of the conference. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby) —by leave-The seventy-third conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union was my first opportunity to participate in a meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I pay tribute to the leader of the delegation, Senator Colston, and the Deputy Leader, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). I pay a special tribute to my good friend and colleague the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), whose contribution was outstanding, especially her contribution on the supplementary item on famine, desertification and drought in Africa. The draft resolution submitted by the honourable member was, in large measure, the resolution unanimously adopted by the conference. I also thank the secretary, Tom Wharton, for his humour and good sense-especially when we arrived at Lome and our thrice confirmed accommodation was not available-which kept us all on an even keel. I also thank the adviser, Mr Peter Houston, who made sure the Australian delegation did not cause any diplomatic incidents. There was no great rush of applicants from this side of the House to be part of a delegation to Togo. It is not high on my list of priorities to revisit but I found the country fascinating. As well as meeting people, one day in company with the honourable member for Lilley I made a trip to the countryside. We thought we would return at about 4 o'clock but I think it was about midnight when we returned. We found it fascinating to go through the countryside, talk to the people and experience some of the conditions under which they live. As I have stated, it was my first experience of an Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting. I found it of tremendous value and I have returned convinced of the value of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I do not want to be contentious but I was saddened by the comments of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). He should remember not only the debates that take place at these meetings, which are often showpieces, but also the contact with members from other parliamentary unions throughout the world. Perhaps it is because he arrived a little late, he was sick on one day, went on a car trip on another day and left early that he spoke as he did. Perhaps he did not have the opportunity to make the contact with other delegations that the honourable member for Lilley, the honourable member for Sturt and I made. Finally, I sincerely thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to participate in what I regard as a very valuable learning experience. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr McGAURAN —Yes. The honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) misrepresented me in that he advised the House that I arrived late at the Lome conference. I arrived three hours before the commencement of the conference. He told the House also that I was absent one day because I was ill. I was not absent on any occasion except when I went on a day tour throughout the countryside. I left the conference only hours before its conclusion. For those reasons I was misrepresented. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(6.25) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Restoration of facade, General Post Office, Martin Place, Sydney. The proposal is to restore the facade of one of Australia's most important public buildings and this will be one of the largest stone restoration and repair projects yet undertaken in Australia. This building is entered on the register of the National Estate and is classified by the National Trust of Australia (New South Wales). The Australian Heritage Commission and the National Trust have signified their agreement with the manner and extent of the proposed restoration of the facade and clock tower. This project involves the following work: Replacement of deteriorated stonework; repair or replacement of windows; restoration of exposed cast iron work; replacement of overflashings; cleaning of the stonework and other surfaces, and restoration of the collonade and paving steps. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $17m at April 1985 prices. It is estimated that the project will take up to seven years to complete, but this will be largely dependent on the availability of skilled stonemasons and the extent of other stone restoration projects being undertaken in the period leading up to the Bicentennial in 1988. I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(6.26) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making the information available to the Opposition. The Opposition supports this project. In passing I should say that it is just as well that the project deals with the outside and not the inside of a post office, given the recent irresponsible behaviour of the postal unions. I am indebted to my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) for reminding the House on 22 August that the General Post Office in Martin Place, Sydney, is `one of the finest Italian renaissance buildings outside Italy'. We enjoin the Department of Housing and Construction to rely heavily on the private sector for this project, hopefully using artisans who will take pride in the restoration of this great building. We also enjoin the Department to have the building completed for the 1988 Bicentennial. If only there had been more projects like this the Australian Bicentennial Authority would not be in the mess that it is in at present and it would have had a real purpose. We wish the Department well for the successful completion of this project. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(6.28) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of Melbourne Mail Centre, Spencer and La Trobe Streets, Melbourne. The proposal is to construct new accommodation for the Melbourne Mail Centre which will reflect contemporary mail handling and sorting requirements. The current mail centre is located in the obsolete Spencer Street Mail Exchange building. The new centre will process mail from the central business district of Melbourne as well as incoming interstate air mail, and will form part of the network of mail centres throughout Australia. The Melbourne Mail Centre will provide accommodation for the processing of mail, loading bays for mail trucks and containers as well as offices, staff amenities and official and staff car parking. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $16.34m at January 1985 prices. Design and construction will be completed within 28 months of the signing of contracts. I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Public Works for its prompt consideration of this proposal. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(6.29) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making the information available. The Opposition does not oppose this motion. In a speech in the House on 13 September, when this project was referred to the Standing Committee on Public Works, I noted that, firstly, we did not want this project to be another Redfern Mail Exchange and, secondly, we also did not want it to turn into another Rushcutters Bay facility with its extraordinary all-on practice-the practice of all-on involved workers who would not work overtime unless all the workers worked overtime. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I am not quite sure whether that is contained in what we are discussing at the moment. We are discussing the bricks and mortar. Mr BEALE —Australians are sick to death of the coercive use of union power by the unions of Australia Post. Let us hope that the Department of Housing and Construction can get this one right. We ask the Department to use maximum skills from the private sector in order to get this job done on time and within budget. Question resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(8.01) —I move: That, in accordance with the provision of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of new ward block and outpatients departments, Repatriation General Hospital, Heidelberg, Vic. The proposal is to construct a new four-storey ward block and a new single-storey out-patients department. Some elements of the now disused nurses home No. 1 will be incorporated in the out-patients facility. The new ward block will replace the six obsolete pavilion wards which were built during the 1940s and will consist of plant rooms and an open area at ground level and two 28-bed wards on each of the three upper floors. The out-patients department currently operates from several buildings remote from the clinical-diagnostic facilities and the new accommodation will alleviate the high level of inefficiency and patient confusion this currently causes. The floor layout of the new department will accommodate suites of consulting and examination rooms, together with various specialist clinics, reception areas, patient waiting areas and staff amenities. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $6.860m for the ward block and $3.405m for the out-patients department. Construction should be completed within 12 months of acceptance of a tender for the out-patient department and within 18 months for the ward block. I would like to thank the Public Works Committee for its prompt consideration of this proposal. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(8.03) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making the information available. We do not oppose the motion. I draw the Minister's attention, yet again, to the need for proper co-ordination between the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Housing and Construction on this project. As we know, their co-operation in the past has been subject to some unfavourable comment by the Auditor-General. My colleague the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) expanded on this matter in speaking in the House on 18 September. Again, we ask the Department to ensure that the maximum skills from the private sector are available for completion of this project. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(8.04) —I move: That, in accordance with the provision of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of Commonwealth Law Courts building, Parramatta. The proposed work reported on by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works is the construction of a purpose designed building to provide consolidated, permanent accommodation for the Federal Court of Australia, the Family Court of Australia, the Adminstrative Appeals Tribunal and the Commonwealth Reporting Service at Parramatta. The proposed building will replace existing inadequate and unsuitable leased premises at present used for these functions. It will be constructed on a Commonwealth-owned site at the corner of George and O'Connell Streets, Parramatta, and has been designed to satisfy the special operational and security needs of the Federal and Family Courts. The design of the building also recognises and complements its historic surroundings. In reporting favourably on the proposal and recommending construction of the Commonwealth law courts building the Committee expressed the view that there was a lack of car parking spaces for staff and members of the public. Car parking space provided within the courts building will indeed be limited to that required for use by judges and those with special security needs. Car parking space for other users of the building and for members of the public will be provided in a multi-storey car parking station to be constructed by the Parramatta City Council on a nearby Council-owned site by agreement between the Commonwealth and the Council. The estimated cost of the proposal is $15.48m at April 1985 prices and it is planned to invite tenders for the work in the first half of 1986. Construction time is estimated at 24 months. If the House agrees to support this motion planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Public Works Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(8.05) —Once again, I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making the necessary information available. The Opposition does not object to the motion. Now is not the time to traverse the merits of such legal institutions as the Family Court of Australia which will be located in this new complex at Parramatta. However, that is a matter that will occupy the minds of the community over the coming years. We commend the Minister on at last organising a major Commonwealth centre away from the centre of the city of Sydney. I have already drawn the attention of the House to the fact that the headquarters of the Department of Housing and Construction are in Australia Square where they occupy 12 storeys-with the necessary canteen, of course. I have drawn the Minister's attention to the fact that if he would relocate those headquarters-for example, to Parramatta-he would save the taxpayers $1m a year in rent. Once again, we ask the Department to ensure that maximum skills for this project are available from the private sector. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(8.07) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969: the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of new telephone exchange building for Telecom Australia at Dalley Street, Sydney. The proposal is to construct a new telephone exchange building and associated cable bridges to link with the existing Dalley Street telephone exchange. The new building will consist of a part basement, ground floor, first floor, six equipment levels and an enclosed roof level plant room. The equipment levels will be fitted out to Telecom Australia's requirements. There will be three elevated cable bridges which will be constructed at second floor level to carry out telecommunication cabling and provide secure personnel access between the new and existing telephone exchanges. Alterations will be made to the existing telephone exchange to provide for the requirements of these cable bridges. The limit of cost of the proposed works is $13m at June 1985 prices. I table plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(8.08) —Yet again, I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making the information available. Again, the Opposition does not oppose the motion. However, we ask that in referring this project to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works the Minister ensures that, firstly, the design is such as to maximise the role of the private sector in the project; secondly, there is no duplication between this exchange building and others being established in the Sydney area; and, thirdly, the design is such as to minimise industrial problems. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(8.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes assistance by way of subsidy on grain harvesters and certain parts for grain harvesters produced in Australia. The subsidy period is 21 August 1985 to 31 December 1990. The Bill also contains provision of a special subsidy on certain imported grain harvesters and parts. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced in the 1985-86 Budget that, as one of the important initiatives to assist the rural sector, tariffs on grain harvesters were to be replaced by a subsidy on local production. The Industries Assistance Commission was subsequently asked to advise on the assistance level and conditions that should apply over the next five years, consistent with the level of assistance accorded producers by way of tariff. The objectives of the Government are to reduce the cost of grain harvesters to farmers whilst maintaining assistance to local producers by means of a subsidy rather than a tariff. The Government accepted the IAC's finding that, of the options available, a composite two-part scheme would best approximate the structure of assistance to local producers under the 15 per cent tariff. The need for such a scheme arises from the difficulty of devising uniform and equitable arrangements for an industry which, as the IAC found in its inquiry, has patterns of production and cost structures varying widely from producer to producer. As a consequence clause 13 of the Bill provides for substantial local manufacturers of grain harvesters, whose value added in production of complete machines is not less than 40 per cent of ex-factory selling prices, to be eligible for subsidies at the rate of 12.5 per cent of ex-factory selling prices. For other manufacturers of grain harvesters and parts classified to sub-item 84.25.9 of the Customs tariff, subsidies will be at the rate of 25 per cent of value added. The new arrangements will also result in grain harvesters and parts classified to sub-item 84.25.9 imported on or after 21 August 1985 being duty free. The necessary action is being taken to alter the Customs tariff to coincide with the other assistance arrangements. Clause 23 of the Bill includes a provision designed to promote the orderly development of the local grain harvester industry and to avoid framentation of production. The Comptroller-General of Customs will not register the premises of any applicants for registration that were not in production of goods eligible for subsidy on 21 August 1985-the operative date of the proposed change in assistance arrangements-if, in the opinion of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, such registration would not permit the orderly development of the industry in Australia. Parts III, IV, and V of the Bill contain administrative provisions modelled on similar provisions in recent bounty legislation. The arrangements I have outlined will remain in force until 31 December 1990, but will be reviewed by the IAC before the end of this period. Provision has been made to enable the Minister to extend the scheme for up to six months beyond the terminating day to cater for any unforeseen delays in determining the assistance measures, if any, beyond 31 December 1990. This brings me to the special subsidy to be paid on imported harvesters. This is a temporary measure designed to deal, in a manner fair to all interested parties, with a special problem affecting sales of harvesters which, if left unresolved, could exacerbate an already difficult market situation and reduce the benefits to the grain growing sector flowing from the Budget decision. Prior to 21 August 1985 a substantial number of grain harvesters were imported for sale in the current season. Most of these harvesters have yet to be sold. Importers would therefore have been faced with the prospect of having to sell duty paid machines in the 1985 season in competition with other harvesters which will be duty free or with locally produced machines on which the subsidy under this Bill will become payable. This would have seriously disadvantaged some suppliers in a fiercely competitive market, already depressed because of other domestic and world factors. In order to deal equitably with this situation and remove some of the uncertainty in the market, the Bill contains special provisions at clauses 11 and 14 whereby subsidies will be available in respect of domestic sales of imported grain harvesters cleared for home consumption before 21 August 1985 and sold on or after that date. These subsidies will also be extended to parts for grain harvesters classified to sub-item 84.25.9 cleared before 21 August 1985 and incorporated as original equipment into grain harvesters sold or otherwise disposed of on or after that date. The subsidy will be equivalent to the net duty paid on the subsidised harvesters or equipment. The Government considers that the provisions of the Bill will meet this twin objective of reducing the costs of grain harvesters to end-users and maintaining the structure of assistance to local production. The subsidies available to producers will enable them to remain competitive against imports and grain growers' input costs will be reduced. This reduction in costs, when taken into account with the other cost reductions for farmers made possible by the package of measures announced in the Budget, will alleviate the pressures that grain growers have been experiencing and increase the returns to an important sector of the rural economy. Financial Impact Statement It is expected that these subsidy arrangements will involve costs of approximately $5.65m in 1985-86 and of the order of $3.75m per annum thereafter during the life of the scheme. Total costs, including revenue forgone as a result of the related tariff change, will be approximately $9.75m in this financial year and $12m annually thereafter. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with orders of the day Nos 7 to 12. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. (Quorum formed) Mr MOORE(Ryan)(8.22) —Tonight we are debating the Customs Undertakings (Penalties) Amendment Bill and cognate Bills. That Bill complements changes made to tender quota arrangements in earlier legislation. In the past, the Act has provided for the imposition of penalties in relation to quotas over a particular time. Because of this, applications to the Australian Customs Service had to be made in the year in which the quota applied. As a consequence, there would have been many occasions on which Customs Ministers were approached by importers in relation to problems; for example, ships being off shore, strike-bound or, for a number of other reasons, being unable to land goods within the quota period. In view of that, the Customs Undertaking (Penalties) Amendment Bill will be supported by the Opposition. The Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 is of a more complex nature. The Bill concerns a variety of interests and encompasses a number of Acts. Not the least of those matters, of course, is inward duty free shopping. This Bill is notable mainly for four amendments. For example, certain amendments allow for payments to Customs officers within the range of a 40-hour week. This provision enables the Service to charge for the time of those officers. Currently the Service is allowed to charge only for overtime in relation to the employment of these officers. Another amendment in this Bill provides for changes in the rules of origin. This was brought about as a result of a request by the Forum Islands in relation to customs duty. It relates to goods which have been imported to the Forum Islands and subsequently re-exported to Australia. The proposition is that the 50 per cent content be broken down into two lots of 25 per cent, which would allow those goods to be covered in relation to their import into Australia. The Bill also is concerned with the full rebate on diesel fuel. This is particularly relevant to the rural sector. As a consequence of this Bill people in the rural sector will get the full benefit of the rebate in relation to excise. Honourable members will recognise that previously the diesel fuel rebate was subject to considerations in the annual Budget. However, it is now subject to consumer price index increases which are on a six-monthly basis, in other words, a creeping tax. All those honourable members who buy excisable commodities-I see quite a number who would-will have to pay this additional impost. Those people in the rural sector who buy excisable diesel fuel will, under the provisions of this Bill, be allowed the full rebate in relation to that commodity. As an illustration, presently people in the mining sector are granted a partial rebate on diesel fuel excise. That is because there is a profit margin on the excise on diesel fuel, the price of which has been subject to the consumer price index. As the excise which is based on the CPI increases, so does the profit margin. Those people in the rural sector will get the total amount of rebate, whereas those people in the mining sector will get only the rebate as it applies to the increase in the profit margin, not the Government take. There is a significant difference in that. The quantity used in that industry would of course make a considerable impression. Another aspect of this Bill allows Customs officers at the Customs barriers to rearrange their duties. I would regard that as a sensible approach. If a Customs officer at the Custom barrier determines that someone should be searched that officer, for one reason or another, will not now have to carry out the search. But it will be done by senior people. This is a particularly difficult area. Those honourable members who have had anything to do with Customs would know of the many representations that one gets in relation to the ability of Customs officers not only to determine whether a person should be searched but to carry out the search themselves. We welcome that amendment. There are a number of matters in these Bills which the Opposition intends to oppose. The principal matter which we intend to oppose relates to inward duty free shopping. We will be moving against that legislation. The Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill is the vehicle by which this is allowed to occur and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) provides the machinery by which that occurs. We do not see the need to expand duty free shopping. Duty free shopping is a particular concession allowed to those who have travelled overseas and who can thus buy duty free goods outside Australia. It is proposed under this legislation to allow that duty free shopping to occur within Australia. In other words, when a person comes back home and realises that he has forgotten to buy duty free goods in a foreign country he will be able to buy those items at the airport. There are a number of good reasons for not allowing this. I suggest firstly that those in the Customs Service would find this suggestion fairly objectionable for the simple reason that it adds to the security problems. It increases the number of people around the terminal-both incoming travellers and people in the duty free shop itself. A number of possibilities thus arise. What do I mean by all that? The Industries Assistance Commission's report on this is very precise in its non-acceptance of the arguments in relation to inward duty free shopping. The argument put forward by Qantas Airways Ltd, which is probably the biggest proponent of on-airport inward duty free shopping, is one of self-interest, an interest which is not limited to Qantas but extends to all airlines coming to Australia. The argument put forward is that the airlines save an enormous amount of fuel by not carrying extra material. The argument put forward by the Australian Treasury, as the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) well knows as a frequent overseas traveller, is that buying goods overseas and bringing them into Australia saves duty. But to buy them in Australia would add to the cost and quite clearly the items bought would not enable Treasury to meet anywhere near its expectations. Mr Ronald Edwards —But you may not buy them otherwise. Mr MOORE —That is assuming inelasticity of demand, and I am sure that the honourable member for Stirling would know what that meant. I would not go along with that at all. Mr Ronald Edwards —It is a segmented market. Mr MOORE —That is an academic one. There is no doubt in my view that if duty free shopping were allowed at the point of entry into Australia, as proposed under this Bill, while not only Qantas but all the foreign airlines would gain, the loser would be the Australian revenue for a start. The only saver would be Qantas. It is no use the honourable member for Stirling shaking his head. It adds up. Qantas is only one airline against 10 others, and one out of 10 is 10 per cent. Mr Ronald Edwards —Come on! Develop the argument. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The honourable member for Stirling might like to wait until it is his turn to develop the argument. Mr MOORE —That is a very good observation, Madam Deputy Speaker. If inward duty free shopping were allowed, people would be invited not to buy in Singapore or at least their last point of departure for Australia but to buy at the Australian terminal. All those who have travelled are only too aware that surveillance through the terminal starts at the point the cabin door opens. This is not just a question of what is brought into this nation by way of grog or concessional items. There are such things as drugs and other items which severely affect this nation. The type of procedure which has been developed by Customs over the years in relation to entry is precise and very explicit. From the moment one leaves the plane until one passes through the Customs barriers one is trailed by a number of cameras and surveillance authorities. Under this proposition there will be injected into that a side store which people can pop into to buy the legal amount of liquor, tobacco or perfume. They are not significant items in themselves, but they are highly taxed items in Australia and therefore constitute a loss of revenue to this nation. People wanting to buy these items will be able to leave the flow of people coming from a plane to the Customs barrier and thus leave the areas of surveillance by the Customs authorities, and they might be there for an hour or two hours. Who is going to check what happens in those two hours? Who is going to check the employees within that concession in relation to what might be handed across-for example, a bottle or a packet? Drugs are the greatest curse to this nation and, by allowing this, a major potential temptation for people to get through the barrier will be opened up. Mr Ronald Edwards —Duty free drug imports? Mr MOORE —It is not as easy as that. In Western Australia they might grow a bit on the side, but that is not the sort of stuff I am talking about. If people are to be allowed to come through the barrier with an ability to side step the mainstream of inspection for a time, the opportunity will be there for a large number of other people to get around the corner. If I have failed to make that point strongly enough, I am sorry. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) will be bringing up the small business aspects later in the debate. But I cannot stress too strongly the possibility in this proposal of working the angles and bringing illegal items into Australia by breaking up the flow of movement from aircraft through the Customs barrier. I press on to the recommendations of the IAC report, which was quite clearly opposed to the extension of duty free inward shopping on-airport or off-airport. In the draft report on passenger concessions brought down by the IAC a number of worthwhile observations have been made about not only duty free shopping but also the rationale for having it, which in itself is hard to sustain. To allow the extension of duty free shopping away from the airport is even harder to sustain. I quote from the paragraph headed `Policy Objectives': The objectives of passenger concessions are passenger facilitation, immigration and cost effectiveness in Customs administration. Inward duty free shopping cannot be justified in terms of any of these objectives. That is a direct quote from the IAC report. The report then goes on to refer to the aggravated effects of passenger concessions on other countries, an argument which I do not hold with at all. In its conclusion the report says: The reference requires the Commission to comment on the applicability of recommended concessions to goods purchased in Australia by arriving persons before they pass through the Customs barrier. The objectives of passenger concessions are passenger facilitiation, immigration, and cost-effectiveness in Customs administration. The Commission does not believe that inward duty free shopping helps to achieve any of these objectives. Indeed, the probability is that it would hinder Customs in processing passengers and achieving the other objectives of the barrier control. That is what I was referring to earlier. To continue: The Commission does not therefore consider that passenger import concessions should apply to goods purchased in Australia by arriving persons before they pass through the Customs barrier. That is the considered view of the Industries Assistance Commission. I would not pass it up lightly. I think it is significant. It is a view supported by those in the Customs area. They make no bones about it. Mr Cohen —You know Customs well, don't you? Mr MOORE —I have a healthy working relationship with Customs. I am sure that the Minister for-is it travel?-knows that only too well. The final Bill in this package is the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2). This Bill gives effect to a number of decisions in the Budget in relation to tobacco. Over a period it brings the duty on cut tobacco into line with that on cigarettes. It also deals with the variation in duty on certain goods, including lawnmowers, as a result of trade agreements, most notably those with New Zealand. It gives effect to an agreement with Fiji over plastic bags, which I am sure would delight the Minister. It also gives effect to the rules of origin, which affect the South Pacific Forum states, in relation to the 25 per cent of local content and it contains a redefinition which allows the other 25 per cent to be made up of a component of Australia-New Zealand goods. It deletes the provisions relating to the old Temporary Assistance Authority. All those who pay keen interest to this-I know that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) does-would be aware that the Temporary Assistance Authority has been dismantled and now the temporary assistance comes by way of the Industries Assistance Commission. These provisions will give effect to that particular process. The Bill also restores certain assistance levels that were in question as a result of decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. On top of that, it gives implementation to decisions on metal working machinery tools and robots, heavy commercial vehicles and agricultural tractors. This brings us back to the practical application of inward duty free shopping. I now turn to a couple of aspects which I have not mentioned before. First and foremost is the redefinition of rum. I know that the Minister for Science will be interested in this. Some time ago the Parliament went through the process of redefining the maturation period of brandy and the distilling processes, but it did nothing in relation to rum. There is a very precise definition which sets out what one can make rum from, what products must be used and the way in which it is done. This Bill proposes to do away with those definitions completely and to bring out a definition simply that rum is rum. I can understand that sort of logic by the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) as he is aware of those problems. Mr Robert Brown —I am not an expert on that, John. You credit me with attributes to which I don't aspire. Mr MOORE —I am sorry if I have done the honourable member a discourtesy. The facts of life are that at a time when the sugar industry in Australia could not be in worse shape, the Government has forced sugar growers to pay extra amounts in terms of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission national wage increase decision. They cannot afford to pay it. They are absolutely destitute. If one goes through the north Queensland sugar towns today-towns which are based on a huge cash economy-one finds that very few of the sugar farmers of the State are in a position to pay their commercial accounts at the appropriate time. Commercial activities in the sugar industry throughout Queensland are very depressed. Notwithstanding that, we find in this particular Bill a redefinition of rum. I do not claim to be an expert in any way. The honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) no doubt is very aware of the qualities of sugar grown in his electorate. I suggest that a more inappropriate or insensitive time could not be found to redefine or define out the properties of rum. I hope that the cane farmers of Queensland are aware of what is going on. One can now develop a completely artificial product-a product developed by a process totally unrelated to all the past norms and what people would regard as a reasonable drop. The traditional base has been wiped out and one can now use any artificial product. That sort of stuff shows a degree of gross insensitivity. It is not the sort of stuff that the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) would ever do. He is a man of great sensitivity. I must say that I am surprised at the Government's approach to this. I know that there are only two seats which the Australian Labor Party holds in sugar areas. It probably is not looking forward to holding them because I will remind the people of the rum decision. It brought about a rum rebellion. We will hear more of this in the future. It is the sort of stuff we Queenslanders are very sensitive about. I would not have expected people so insensitive in the Government as to do those things. I now come back to ALP policy on the introduction of inward duty free shops. This legislation brings about its implementation. I mentioned before the many faults that flow from that. I do not resile from those comments at all. The Opposition, in the Committee stage, will move amendments on certain aspects. Those amendments have been circulated in the House. I have no doubt that any attempt to divert the general course of Customs survelliance which takes away staff from the area of observation judgment in relation to people entering Australia will do nothing to keep the people at the front-line of entry to this nation. The proposition put forward here quite clearly enables people who enter this nation through airports, as they approach the entry points, to walk away down the corridors and to enter a shop to buy three items-grog, perfumes and tobacco. People could take whatever time they like and this would open up any number of possibilities. It would require the Customs Service to have extra checks on these shops and the people employed in those shops; and for what purpose-to allow people coming into this nation to buy items which ought normally to be bought in this nation with duty paid on them in this nation. Honourable members opposite who are so keen on income and taxes are supporting an area of privilege to the foreign traveller and the Australian traveller and they are supporting an area which is unrelated to the normal course of business. This will give up income. It will cause Customs to spend more in surveillance of a trivial area. Surveillance of the three items concerned will cost more and take away Customs staff from the general area of airport surveillance in this nation. Mr Fife —Running a risk that no responsible government should ever take. Mr MOORE —The honourable member for Hume, as a former Minister, knows that only too well. This sort of nonsense would not be undertaken by a government with the national interest at heart. The four related sales tax Bills are Bills which are totally enabling of the Customs changes. Because of that I do not propose to go into them. Mr Barry Jones —We are disappointed. Mr MOORE —I am surprised that the Minister for Science is so disappointed. If he will grant me an extension of time I could run through the rum rebellion with him. I am sure that is a saga about which he will hear a lot more at the next Federal election-how Labor Party members walked away from the sugar areas of Queensland and how they took away from sugar farmers a major area of concession. One does not expect much more from these people, of course, because that is the sort of approach they have to this. I am surprised at the Minister for Science, but, of course, he probably believes in the unnatural product rather than the natural product. We will move amendments in the Committee stage and I look forward to debate at that point. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(8.50) —The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) has just made an extraordinary speech. I think we should get on the record right away the fact that the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) are excellent members. They represent their sugar industry very well and they represent their electorates very well. Neither we on our side nor members of the sugar industry have any doubts about their ability to perform as members of this Government. A number of issues will be developed. My colleague the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) will be developing many of them, as will my colleague the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall), another excellent Queensland member. The contributions from the Opposition leave us puzzled. We are not really sure whether the honourable member for Ryan is amongst the free marketeers and in favour of reducing protection, or amongst the mercantilists of about the seventeenth century. The Liberal Party, it is true to say, is in the 17th century-back in early classical economics. Nevertheless, it leaves us puzzled, I think with due cause. We are trying to make some sensible arrangements with respect to inward duty free shopping-I will talk about that in a moment-and I think the honourable member for Ryan has got the issue at the wrong end. We are also dealing with the question of the diesel fuel rebate. Very clearly, that is an issue which this Government recognises as being important in the context of rural industry. The cost pressures in the primary sector are recognised by this Government and by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who clearly understands the problems of those in the rural sector. The Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) provides for that rebate, and we believe that that is an important change. Let me go right to the question of inward duty free shopping, which is dealt with in clauses 7, 8 and 9. The issue to be debated is why this Government is bringing in these changes and what arguments we can advance for them. The honourable member for Ryan has placed great emphasis upon the concern about narcotics control and Customs control. Clearly, if Customs officers are preoccupied with the trivia of observing which duty free goods people are bringing into the country, they are being misdirected from their most important task, which is narcotics control. We also have the quarantine officers, who are concerned with quarantine control. I submit to the honourable member for Ryan that they are the major issues to be addressed in relation to airport arrivals. If we clear away this nonsense, if we simply say `let us make it easier and more understandable for people to bring these goods into the country', we have removed the burden from Customs officers. The honourable member for Ryan really does not have the wrong idea. Customs officers with whom I have spoken favour this change because it simply clears them of a policing arrangement. The honourable member has spoken about revenue. I cannot see that there is a loss to revenue when people are spending money in Australia, and that is clearly the intention. If we say to people `you can buy the goods when you return to the country', there is a very good chance that they will buy those goods in Australia. We have to take that issue just a little further. The honourable member is arguing that the expenditure on duty free goods could be expended on goods within the country, subject to duty. In fact, we have a segmented market. If we talk to travellers we find that they specifically allocate money to spend on duty free goods. They will spend it either in Australia or overseas. It is as clear as that. Anyone who travels will say that he will buy a certain number of things duty free. At present he is not going to spend that money on goods in Australia. It is money foregone if we do not get travellers to spend the money in Australia. This mechanism is designed to get them to spend the money in Australia, that is, when they return. It is as clear as that. The honourable member for Ryan should recognise that there is a very inelastic demand in this area. It is a price sensitive area. I recognise that degree of elasticity, but the issue that has to be recognised is that the people concerned make a decision to spend on duty free goods. They will buy them either in Hong Kong, Singapore or elsewhere, or in Australia. This Government has no doubt about the matter; we want travellers to spend the money in Australia. We believe that it will do something about creating jobs. We recognise that job creation is a strange phenomenon for the Opposition because it went in the other direction when it was in government, with 250,000 jobs down the drain in its last year in office. But we recognise that job creation is substantially important, and we are about creating jobs. There are a couple of other important arguments. One of the important issues is that of safety. It does not make sense to have people carrying substantial amounts of alcohol in an aircraft travelling overseas. It is a bad safety problem. Incidentally, we have recently seen problems with football teams on board aircraft where they can supply themselves with their own alcohol. We think that inward duty free shopping minimises that risk. That is a safety issue. The argument concerning Qantas Airways Ltd has been addressed by the honourable member for Ryan. What he did not point out was that Qantas has estimated conservatively that under this legislation it would save $6m per annum on fuel. That is its conservative estimate. That represents a saving of $6m per annum in the amount of freight it currently has to carry out of the country and back in again. We will recoup $5m at airport franchises and Qantas will save $6m. That totals $11m. The honourable member for Ryan talks about forgone revenue. I cannot see where the revenue will be forgone; it will be in Australia. That is what we are about. We are about saving money and operating a more effective system. I also need to deal with the question of privilege, about which the honourable member for Ryan has spoken, and the belief that somehow people who travel internationally are privileged people. Travel, particularly from Western Australia to South East Asia, is so inexpensive these days that almost anyone-not everyone, but almost anyone-has access to such travel. It is not fair to say, and it is not true, that such travellers are but a privileged minority. It is not accurate, and we need to redress the record. I need to point out a couple of areas where not only would I have introduced duty free shopping, but also I would have gone further. I believe that the current arrangements advantage the airport concession holders in relation to those who are off airports. In effect, one of the problems with this legislation is that it advantages only those who have the airport franchises, yet there are many duty free shops in metropolitan and city locations not related to airports. So one of the weaknesses of this legislation, and one of the issues that we will have to address down the track, is the need for the extension of this arrangement to off-airport locations. The honourable member for Ryan spoke about policing and control. Very clearly, the Australian Customs Service already has to have strict controls over what goes on with respect to duty free shops. There will be no change. All we are changing is the way in which the duty free arrangements prevail, but there will be no change in terms of the administration. I think the honourable member for Ryan has used a misnomer. There is another thing that I think we have to address and which clearly, as I have learned from the many travellers to whom I have spoken, is currently a disadvantage. When people come back into Australia they like to buy goods such as videos and cameras. We have many accounts of people who have bought videos in South East Asia and have discerned that they do not match up to Australian standards and are therefore ineffective unless they have substantial modifications which put them well above the market price in Australia. There is an advantage in people buying videos in Australia. The disadvantage at the moment is that after they buy them they have to carry them overseas, run the risk of their being damaged and then bring them back into the country. I believe that down the track we should be looking towards a situation in which people can buy such goods when they return to the country, thereby attracting-the honourable member for Charlton recognises this-all the consumer protection that we have in this country plus the quality control that comes from buying Australian manufactured goods. We on this side are confident of that. That is one area. The other area of problems is cameras. Clearly, there is again an advantage in buying them here. I know of a case-the honourable member for Charlton, being a good member of this Parliament, would sympathise with this-of a traveller who bought what was supposed to be a $900 Nikkon camera. It turned out that the lenses were worth less than $10. The case was Nikkon, but the lenses were some plastic contrivance. That traveller was not advantaged by buying overseas. We want travellers to buy in this country. This legislation is valuable in that context because it reduces the safety problem on board aircraft. There is a safety problem if substantial amounts of 40 per cent proof spirit are carried in bags on to aircraft. Secondly, this is a cost-saver for Qantas-it will save it $6m. It is also bound to recoup some $5m extra at airport franchises. I have dealt with the question of narcotics control. With respect to what the honourable member for Ryan has said, I believe that the business of Customs people is substantially that of narcotics control. I believe we also ought to be looking to extending this concession to off-airport franchises and to including other goods because I believe this would make sense. In conclusion, I believe that many contributions will be made from this side of the House that will add up to what amounts to substantially sensible economic comment. I have heard the comments of the honourable member for Ryan and I think we are a little puzzled by them. Nevertheless, we are happy to participate in this debate because we believe that these are commonsense changes which the people in the community will respect and recognise as being part of the fabric of good government. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(9.01) —The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) just referred to common sense. He told us that people need inward duty free shopping so that they can have the additional opportunity to buy a camera. He is saying that they will do this after they have arrived back home and left all the sights behind them. Who in their right mind going on a trip would buy a camera in an inward duty free shop when they got back home? The honourable member may as well suggest that they buy 50 rolls of film as well. The reality is that one buys a camera before one leaves on a trip. It is most likely that a traveller will buy it in one of the 100-odd duty free shops around Australia. That shows how illogical the honourable member for Stirling is on this whole issue. The honourable member talked about aeroplanes suddenly being lightened of their grog load because, for some inexplicable reason, everyone coming to Australia will know that we have the only inwards duty free shops in the world, other than Iceland. All these people are going to leave their alcohol behind and buy it when they get to Australia! Big signs will be displayed in all the international airports of the world saying. `Don't buy your grog here; buy it when you get to Australia'. Is the honourable member going to tell me that the only people who fly Qantas are Australians, that they are all returning passengers and they are not going to buy any alcohol before they get on the plane? Let us strike that one out. The Australian Retailers Association in complaining about this issue said that it is ridiculous to suggest that there will be significant changes in the fuel consumption of an aircraft like a Boeing 747 as a result of people leaving a few 40 ounce or 26 ounce bottles of whisky behind. Some people will use inward bound duty free shopping. However, the difficulties that such an arrangement will create in no way justify the difficulties it will create for the Australian Customs Service. We know that people who arrive by plane are breaking their necks to get out of the airport. They move out of the aircraft en bloc; they collect their luggage off the carousels en bloc; and they get to Customs en bloc. We know that Customs has people under surveillance as they move down the passageways. It also has some idea of the flight the people have arrived on. It is now proposed that there will be a couple of diversions half way down those passageways. The people who want to buy a bottle of whisky or a packet of cigarettes will be pushed off to one side. I do not think they will buy much perfume. After they have made their purchases they will then try to collect their luggage, which will by then be getting in the way of luggage from the next flight. Of course, Customs will not know which flight they are off and that will create other difficulties. A new mechanism will be needed. We all know that the Customs declaration form is filled out on the aeroplane and is handed to the cabin staff. A passenger who gets off the plane and suddenly decides that he wants to buy some bottles of spirits has to decide whether he will change what he has written on the card. That is not the sort of thing people will do after they have got off an aeroplane. Therefore, there are a few question marks in respect of some of these issues. I am aware of what the Government is on about. It believes it might attract a few more sales to Australia that are now being made at an overseas point of departure. I do not know whether that is a wise move. It is reputed that the sales tax that might be lost under this arrangement could increase the Government's revenue problems by about $10m. The Government will certainly not get that from the licensing of another five or ten inward duty free shops. The honourable member for Stirling talked also about free marketers. Let us get something very straight-there are no free markets in this proposal. The reality is that a very privileged group of traders will be licensed. We will not be having a free market in which Wilson Tuckey with his liquor licence in Carnarvon can get a spot, along with some other publicans from Sydney, Melbourne and elsewhere, and sell his products. It will not be a free market of that nature. I guess even the present licences are being granted in a restricted market. But this will be a highly restricted market. Licences will be restricted to those who are lucky enough to get a spot, and this will be to the detriment of normal traders who are operating in the capital cities and elsewhere and, of course, the already established duty free traders. The Government will be putting some people into a very privileged position. So do not let us talk about a free market. That would have to be one of the more silly things that have been said, although probably not as silly as the remark about buying a camera when one got back from a trip. On the other hand, this suggestion is in the same category. The honourable member for Stirling was at pains to tell us that a person could do that. I just wonder what effect this legislation will have on the Australian tourist industry. I am never slow to admit my business background in the hotel industry. I also remember to take advantage of opportunities when I travel. We become aware that drinks are very expensive in the hotels of certain countries, so we often take a bottle with us to drink in our room when we go overseas. That is not of much help to the local tourist industry overseas whose hotels and other establishments are very anxious to sell mixed drinks because their profit margin lies in selling drinks in glasses. Many young people looking for jobs in Australia are able to gain employment in the hotel industry. Everyone knows that the serving of mixed drinks is highly labour intensive. Why should we create a facility for every tourist who forgot to buy a bottle of liquor before he left his home port or drank what he bought on the plane-and there is absolutely no reason why they should not do that if they knew they could get some more at the point of arrival. An additional opportunity is to be provided for tourists coming to Australia to buy alcohol and not pay the duty that would otherwise be paid if they bought mixed drinks in hotels or bars. As a result, people who want to do that sort of work will not be able to gain employment. Travellers will be encouraged to reduce the amount of money they might spend in our tourist industry in Australia. I think it is pretty poor and second best that we are going to create a facility merely on the basis that a few more tourists will be attracted to Australia. Also we are going to cater for some Australians on their return trip who would otherwise go down to their regular bottle shop and buy their drinking requirements. The small business sector is not happy with this arrangement and it has been criticised by the Australian Retailers Association. The Australian Small Business Association submitted a lengthy submission to the Industries Assistance Commission and also put out some Press releases. The Government suggested that there would be an IAC inquiry, which it understood would address the problem of whether there should be inwards duty free shopping. The Association is deeply upset because it has suddenly discovered that that is not what the inquiry was about, that it was in fact only going to look at unrelated matters and that it had wasted a lot of money. A Press release issued by the Australian Small Business Association on 6 May 1985 stated: Mr Boyle- that is the President of the Australian Small Business Association- said it was `farcical' that the IAC should have received more than 40 submissions on the matter only to have the ground cut from under it by a Cabinet decision that could best be described as ill-conceived but which was certainly expedient. Mr Boyle said: . . . . `ASBA and numerous other organisations put a great deal of time and work into their submissions. This cost thousands of dollars, which the Government now wants to flush down the drain. The Association is pretty upset about a proposal which it does not see as attractive or necessary. It is concerned about the loss of business to established duty free operations and their members in the tourist industry, as well as the loss of business that will be suffered by other people. More importantly, we have a problem in respect of the $10m of revenue that the Government is going to forgo. No doubt at times we are all pleased to see the level of taxes reduced. However, I believe it is pretty unnecessary to reduce them in this area. What is the proposal creating for us? The Government will have to look to another area for the money that it will forego. Maybe it will take a bit more off child care or pensioners. It seems to know all about those areas. In recent times we have had this big effort to expand the tax base. This arrangement is working quite well and is not creating any great difficulties, and the Government wants to throw away $10m in revenue. That seems to me to be pretty odd. It is amazing that some of the members from the left wing have considered that as smart. There are all sorts of problems in that area. I just want to put the case for members of the small business community. They say that they are opposed to this measure. I do not see that the bit of convenience to people getting off a plane will be all that great. Furthermore, at times I question whether the businesses will do all that well. My reaction is that once I can see the lights of home I will not rush off and try to get myself the odd bottle of whisky because it will cost me a couple of dollars less. I think many tourists will feel the same way after a long flight. Let us put down all these arguments that this provision will reduce the fire hazard in aeroplanes and the amount of drinking of that sort of alcohol on aeroplanes. Those arguments are quite clearly ridiculous. The other point I want to touch on is the terms of clauses 9 and 19 which deal with the removal of the full rebate of duty in respect of diesel fuel used for certain purposes. The principal purpose in which I am interested, naturally, is that which applies to rural industries. One of the worst things ever done was the introduction by this Government of indexation of excise duty. It is taxation by stealth and is something of which I do not approve. In past Budgets it was always the case that the Government announced that it was going to increase duty on alcohol or fuel. People took their medicine. Governments laid it on the line. This Government has slithered in and every six months the Australian community has to carry an additional tax burden in that regard. Probably the most disgraceful thing that happened was when the Government introduced a substantial increase by indexation and thenturned around and said that it would leave in place the original rebate granted by the Fraser Government. That left a situation where there was about a 7c rebate and immediately about a 9c excise. Farmers were up for the 2c per litre. That situation got worse. Then the Government became all generous and said that it would index both the rebate and the excise. What did we have there? We had the same percentage rate being applied to the 7c as that being applied to the 9c. It takes only simple arithmetic to know that that would make the gap continue to grow. The Government has had a flash of light. It has taken probably $50m or $60m off Australian farmers in the interim, and now they will get it all back. But it is pretty late. It was interesting to note that in the process of granting this rebate and a couple of others, which I think the farming community assessed at some $20m, the Government also accepted an anti-dumping case against a very important fertiliser, namely di-ammonium phosphate, which brought in about $26m. Consequently, there is no help to farmers from this measure while that other duty applies. More importantly, the duty on the DAP is very selective. It applies substantially to farmers in my State. Farmers who are more distant from the ports and who chose to use this more concentrated type of fertiliser are the ones who have the lowest returns per hectare and are the ones who have more difficulty. But I cannot complain about the Government at least moving to make good a very drastic mistake and very drastic damage to the farming sector. One of the most remarkable things is that the real burden of tax on farming is this sort of up-front tax. I have quite typical farmers who plant their 7,000 or 8,000 acres of grain. Some plant up to 25,000 acres of grain. The present tax and tariff regimes on fuels and chemicals mean that a farmer will pay a $20,000 or $30,000 tax bill for the privilege of planting a crop-not for the privilege of harvesting one. His up-front tax bill in fuels, chemicals and those sorts of things is of the order of $20,000. I think it is time that both sides of the House looked at some alternative. Farmers will pay tax, like anyone else. But I think it is time that the tax was more production-related than planting-related. It is just a tax on enterprise. It is amazing that the rural industry is probably the only industry in the world that is obliged to pay a tax for the privilege of taking a risk, which growing any form of crop certainly is. In the more marginal areas of my electorate the risk is just that much greater. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the time that has been made available to me today. As you are now aware, we thoroughly oppose any move to introduce inward duty free shopping. We do not see the benefit to the 1.4 million Australian travellers every year. We do not think they will be greatly advantaged. We see significant disadvantage in the administration of Customs. We see an increase in the risk of drug importation. That, in itself, in this day and age probably overrides all other considerations. We do not see that this legislation will assist in any way the better control of drug importation. In fact, all the Customs people are arguing that it will make the situation worse. I am very pleased to support the previous Opposition speakers and to say that we oppose this move. But, on the other hand, I applaud the Government for at last-it is a pity that it is not refunding the money it has received-removing that final burden of excise from the rural or primary industry sector. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(9.16) —We are now in the process of considering simultaneously seven Bills. I have been surprised at the incapacity of members of the Opposition to deal simultaneously with seven Bills. There has been no difficulty on the part of members of the Government. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), for example, dealt in a sterling way with those seven Bills. He brought to bear in relation to them all the powers of his understanding, which are very significant and very extensive. Later the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) will speak. He is an acknowledged expert in the area of Customs and tariff duty, the whole question of tariff structures and trade protection. I know that he will be making some very important comments in relation to those Bills dealing with Customs tariffs in Australia. I am particularly concerned about the group of Bills dealing with sales tax. As was indicated by the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Mr Barry Jones), the purpose of that package of Bills is to amend the sales tax law to exempt from sales tax the sales of limited quantities of spirituous liquors, tobacco products and perfume from inward duty free shops to passengers and crew of aircraft arriving in Australia on international flights. These Bills are designed to enable the establishment of inward duty free and sales tax free shopping facilities at international airports in Australia. I was very surprised to hear some of the arguments that were advanced in opposition to these measures by speakers from the Opposition. Firstly, we had the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), who had the responsibility of leading for the Opposition on these matters. He is a man of some substance. He would have to be because he is the President of the Queensland Branch of the Liberal Party of Australia. He is also a man with a commendable sense of humour. He presented to the Parliament what he considered to be some compelling arguments against this very simple proposal which the Government is presenting. He said that there were important security considerations in allowing people, when they return to Australia, to buy from an inward duty free shop at the airport a bottle of whisky, 200 cigarettes or a bottle of perfume for their wives. He said that there were important security considerations. He referred to the congestion that would take place as all of these husbands returning from their overseas trips queued at the Customs barrier in order to buy a small bottle of French Joy perfume for their wives. He referred to the additional responsibility that would be placed on those dedicated and competent Customs officers at the airport as a result of this commendable concern on the part of the returning husbands who wished to buy a small bottle of perfume for their wives. In addition, the honourable member for Ryan referred to the possible introduction of drugs. In fact, we are providing for the duty free purchase of drugs-alcohol, a legal drug but nevertheless still a drug. I was surprised and disappointed that the honourable member for Ryan launched such a violent attack on the people employed in the Customs area-attacking the integrity of our dedicated and competent Customs officers and their capacity to be able to identify these things. Mr Moore —I wish to take a point of order. The Customs officers at the Sydney Airport and I have a close personal relationship. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! There is no point of order. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I assure the House that that is not what they tell me. They have been in touch with me today, because they knew that this matter was to be discussed tonight. They have told me a few things, most of which I do not intend to reproduce tonight because I do not want to cause any further embarrassment to my good friend, the honourable member for Ryan. The total number of arrivals coming into Australia from overseas every year since the start of the 1980s at least has exceeded two million. Over 1.2 million of those people are Australian residents returning from overseas after short term tours and holidays. That is a fairly substantial market. Synthetic rum was referred to by the honourable member for Ryan. I would point out that some members and supporters of the Australian Labor Party who live in the electorate of O'Connor and who, because of the great distance involved in trying to avoid the hotel of the honourable member for O'Connor, drink there tell me that he sells synthetic rum, and not only that but it is watered. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for Charlton to restore relevance to his remarks. Mr ROBERT BROWN —All I was doing was responding to the quite legitimate concern expressed by the honourable member for Ryan. On behalf of the Australian sugar industry-which now to the greatest extent is represented by Labor members of this Parliament-he expressed concern about the fact that synthetic rum was being developed. The point I was making was that a member on his own side of the House was responsible for dispensing it, and not only dispensing it but also watering it. That is a matter of very great concern-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is coming perilously close to personally reflecting on a member of the House. That of course is inconsistent with Standing Orders. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I accept that absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. If I were to do that, I would have to do so by way of substantial motion. I would prefer not to go that far. Mr McGauran —Substantive, not substantial. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Well, a substantial motion as well, very substantial. In addition to the 1.2 million Australians who are returning to Australia after short term trips overseas, there are also a million arrivals from overseas countries who themselves come to Australia for short term trips or tours in Australia. That is a very substantial market. Mr Tuckey —I have water in my scotch, too. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I did not want the honourable member to admit to it. Opposition members interjecting- Mr ROBERT BROWN —I think Opposition members are trying to use my time. They know I have got them on the run-the honourable member for Ryan, the honourable member for O'Connor and the others. This is just a lead-in to the honourable member for Calwell, who will follow me in this debate. We could see these people buying their duty free goods in Hong Kong or in any of the overseas duty free stores, or alternatively we could try to provide a significant market for Australian business. That is what we are all about. Yet the honourable member for Ryan advises us that the Opposition, the people who purport to represent business in Australia, will oppose this proposition. What they want to happen is for all these people coming back to Australia not to buy their spirits, their tobacco and their perfume from Australians in Australian shops, but to buy those items in Hong Kong. How can Opposition members possibly defend such a proposition when they so frequently tell us that they support Australian business? Opposition members are doing nothing of the kind. They are supporting retailers over in Hong Kong and in any of those overseas duty free shops, but are not supporting our retailers. The job of defending Australian small business is left to the Government. We defend small business as commendably as we defend every other section of the Australian community. Opposition members also spoke about the security considerations. There are also very serious security considerations in this question. Imagine what will happen. People will buy goods before they got on to the aircraft and carry them on board. If that does not create some sort of security implications and dangers, what will? They will carry the goods on to the aircraft, they will carry them around the globe and will then bring them back home. Does that make sense? Opposition members are coming down on the side of a continuation of ridiculous, absurd, inefficient, dangerous and expensive proposals of that kind. I would have given the Opposition credit for having a little more sense, but increasingly I am finding it difficult to do so. If Opposition members genuinely support that sort of proposition, it throws into serious doubt the mental capacities they could bring to bear on any question. I am very disappointed that the honourable member for Ryan, a man of some substance and intellectual capacity, would put himself in such an embarrassing position and lead for the Opposition on this matter. I do not know who prepared the Opposition's response on this matter. I sympathise with the honourable member that he has been put into such an embarrassing position that he had to come into the House and present and defend such an absurd case. I hope Opposition members will not go so far as to divide on this legislation. They can oppose it, and I sympathise with them, but I hope that they will not divide. The honourable member for Ryan knows that this is eminently sensible, constructive and intelligent legislation. I prevail upon him and upon his colleagues, while there is still time, to support this legislation. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(9.30) —It is very difficult to follow the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown); he is such a worldly person. Of course he does not drink much whisky; he prefers rum. Usually, when Queenslanders suggest that we have a rum or two we are not regarded as being worldly but a little raw. Since the honourable member spent so much time on the subject of alcohol and rum, I remind him that most of it comes from Queensland-Bundaberg and Beenleigh. It is the best product there is. Queenslanders suggest that it ought to be sold at all duty free shops around Australia and, of course, in Wilson's pubs as well. Unfortunately, the National Party of Australia is having its Christmas party tonight. I have not drunk too much rum but I have had a couple of whiskies. I am a bit more worldly than Government members. One of the problems I have is that my side of the House is opposing this idea, but I think it is a damn good idea so that puts me in a quandary. As one who travels a bit and drags stuff in and out of the country I think the present arrangement for duty free goods is absurd. We are debating seven Bills. Under the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) a restricted range of goods can be sold inwards duty free-spirits, tobacco products and perfume. I ask the Government, if it is gung ho about selling stuff on the way into the country, why it does not include all products sold at airports-electrical goods, cameras et cetera? I do not know why the Government restricts this to only a few products. I do not doubt that as time goes by we will expand this principle to other areas. Dr Theophanous —But you are opposed to it. Mr IAN CAMERON —I am not in one sense. The Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Mr Barry Jones) has put up some amendments; we do not know what they are. The Opposition has some amendments which I cannot understand; they are written in Chinese. Tonight I am representing my constituents. Mr Donald Cameron —Why didn't you speak up in the party room the other day? Mr IAN CAMERON —I did, Don. I usually speak up in the party room, you know that, Cameron. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member must desist from referring to honourable members by their personal names- Mr IAN CAMERON —I know that there is concern on our side of the House-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Maranoa might refrain from speaking over the Chair when the Chair is addressing the honourable member and inviting him to refer to honourable members by their electorates and not by their personal names. Mr IAN CAMERON —I am not one for holding my tongue in the party room. I can assure honourable members that the Opposition has a number of concerns about these Bills. Our main concern is drug smuggling and that was voiced-- Dr Theophanous —What has that got to do with the Bill? Mr IAN CAMERON —All the experts tell us that it is easier for people to bring in drugs if they can make a sale at the point of entry rather than at the point of leaving a country. I have yet to understand why but that is the way they see it. The volume of sales will not change. We will still be allowed to bring in to Australia duty free only one litre of alcohol, perfume not in commercial quantities, 200 cigarettes and 250 grams of tobacco. So no revenue will be forgone. Inward duty free shops will be set up and the Government will gain $5m in extra revenue. There are already existing laws which cover imported goods. Where they are sold to other persons or brought by a proprietor of a shop sales tax will be payable. If the sales tax is not paid immediately the goods may be seized and forfeited to the Crown. A couple of Bills impose a sales tax on the sale value of Australian manufactured goods sold at airport shops et cetera. As I asked earlier, why does the Government not include cameras, electrical goods and all other goods available to people who travel? There is competition in this area and duty free goods are available in other parts of the world. We looked into this matter a number of years ago. It is important that we offer duty free products either in the air or at our airports to people who leave the country. Obviously it helps our Australian manufacturers if Australian duty free goods are bought. Most people today travel by jet aircraft. They no longer travel by train-or camel train. We get into jet aircraft and travel from the fantastic international airports that we are building but we fail to promote our products. No jets are in Maranoa; we still have trains. I have always felt that we have a great opportunity to promote our goods. We ought to be offering Australian goods duty free regardless of whether the shops are on the way out of or on the way in. We ought to be giving a franchise to people who are prepared to offer, promote and display our goods. For instance, our manufactured woollen cloth is the best in the world. I must say that I bought this suit in Hong Kong. That is why it is falling to bits. All the cotton is falling out of the side of it. There is a tremendous opportunity for us to promote our opals, our woollen goods and our cotton yarn that rural Australia is so good at producing. A lot of opal is mined in the back end of Maranoa in places like Quilpie. There are no opal mines in St George but a lot of opal comes from Quilpie. These are the sorts of products that we ought to be promoting and selling duty free at our airports. There is no duty on opals but those are the sorts of goods we ought to be promoting and selling at our airports to our international tourists coming and going. I have always thought that that is the area into which we should be getting. I also point out to the House that a lot of products do not have duty applied. Although we see `duty free' neon signs, there is a 20 per cent duty and a 30 per cent sales tax on perfume but there is no duty on cameras. I think it is important to tell tourists that. A sales tax is applied in Australia. If a person buys a camera in Australia he will pay 30 per cent sales tax but he will not pay any duty. There is a great rip-off by the so called duty free shops which promote their products as such because there is no duty on them. There is no duty on video recorders but there is a 30 per cent sales tax. There is a 25 per cent duty on colour television sets that have a screen of 47 centimetres in diameter or less. If the screen is over 47 centimetres in diameter the duty is 50 per cent and sales tax is 35 per cent; there is a combined duty and sales tax of 104 per cent. I find that incredible. The AWA company has just closed down one of its television manufacturing plants in Australia. Although we are asked to pay 104 per cent duty and sales tax on colour television sets we still cannot manufacture them in Australia, compete on our market and sell them at a profit. It is incredible. That is the sick situation that the Australian Labor Party has got this country into. Whisky is still dutiable at $23 a litre of alcohol and attracts a 20 per cent sales tax; cigarettes, $36 per kilogram with 20 per cent sales tax; tobacco, 15 per cent duty; watches 2 per cent duty and 30 per cent sales tax. All in all, honourable members can see that a lot of duty free shops are selling some products to which no duty whatsoever is applied. There is no greater rip-off than the sales tax on lubricants and fuels that this Labor Government has imposed on the farmers of this nation. It has had a crippling effect. It is time the Government withdrew it. The Government hates the farmers and it is time to take off some excessive taxes. How are we meant to compete and produce in the world market when a 44-gallon drum of 30 grade oil is currently worth $424? I will repeat that: A 44-gallon drum of oil is worth $424. Since this Government came into office it has imposed a sales tax of $71 a drum. Every drum of oil which I use on my farm has a sales tax component of $71. This imposition has been placed on oil by the Labor Government in the past 18 months. The National Party is opposed to these sorts of imposts. We are totally opposed to the sales taxes which are being imposed by the Labor Government. I guess that we will be voting against the whole package in this place tonight. I think it is unfortunate that the Minister has not given us time to study his amendments. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(9.42) —We have just heard a great speech by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) in defence of the Government's position. All I can say is that it is quite clear that there is some truth in the idea of the rural socialists because, quite obviously, the honourable member for Maranoa is supportive of the general logic of the Government's position, as was outlined by my colleague the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), concerning the new duty-free arrangements. For the life of me I cannot see how any country, which is concerned with its level of imports, can be opposed to the idea of its own travellers being able to purchase duty-free goods from its own market when they return to that country. It seems to me to be incredible that anyone should oppose that idea. Just as the honourable member for Charlton could not fathom it out, neither can I. It is my intention to address my remarks to the whole area which the Opposition shadow Minister, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), failed to address; that is, the important amendments to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) and other such amendments. He dealt with that in a peremptory fashion. The fact of the matter is that these changes are extremely important. It is unfortunate that with all the mirth in the House at present we cannot discuss the matter seriously, but we should attempt to do so. The Customs amendment Bills embody a new approach to both industry development and trade that the Government has taken up as its response to the serious situation in the current account deficit and the balance of trade situation which was created by the policies of the former Government. We have a terrible situation in relation to the current account deficit and the balance of trade. Mr Ian Cameron —You can't blame us for everything. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The honourable member for Maranoa says that we cannot blame the Opposition for everything. We do not blame it for everything. We do blame it for the breaking of the drought, for example. The Bill embodies amendments which incorporate the kind of approach which the Government ought not only to be putting into place but also developing even further. It is time for us to zero in on what the fundamental causes of the situation are with respect to the devaluation of the dollar. Mr Hunt —That's right. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The Deputy Leader of the National Party says: `That's right'. To his credit, he has expressed concern about these matters. But how much analysis and how much reflection has the honourable member done regarding the mismanagement of the agricultural and mining resources of this country and especially the mismanagement of the economy regarding the so-called resources boom in the seven years when the Opposition was in Government? During the Fraser years, especially during his second and third terms, there was an attempt to try to claim that the Australian economy would be saved by nothing else but a resources boom. There was to be no development in manufacturing and no development of mineral processing industries. There was to be no development of those industries-just simply raw materials going out of this country. That was going to solve our balance of payments problems and our trading problems. It was going to sustain a high standard of living for the Australian nation. Could there have been a more wrong-headed approach to the economy and to trade than that? There could not have been a more wrong-headed approach. As a consequence, when we came into government we faced an absolutely disastrous situation not only in the macroeconomic sphere, which many people have talked about, but also in the area of trade and the deficit. That is the situation which we faced. It was a consequence of the total failure of honourable members opposite to adopt any form of planning in relation to industry development, especially in relation to the production of manufactured goods for export. What has happened? We are now faced with a difficult situation because we do not have, and we did not have in the past, a manufacturing base orientated towards exports. Everyone believed that we could live merely on the basis of the farm and the mine. There was no conception whatsoever that we ought to be developing Australia's manufacturing industries by way of the promotion of manufacturing exports and export industries. If there was one area in which the neglect was virtually criminal it was in the area of the processing of minerals, an area in which we should be at the forefront. What did the former Government do? It decided that Australia did not need to process minerals; all it needed to do was to simply take them out of the ground and out of the country. There was no need for processing. There was no need for development of processing industries and secondary industries based on that processing. Mr Peacock —What about walking down the uranium cycle a bit more? Dr THEOPHANOUS —Honourable members opposite do not like to hear the truth. The facts of their mismanagement have come home to this nation in a very serious fashion indeed. We are now paying the price. Mr Peacock —Will you help us? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for Kooyong will cease interjecting. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I have great respect for the honourable member for Kooyong, but I ask him to cease interjecting and listen to an alternative to his crazy free trade theories. I ask him to do so just for a moment. Let him hear an alternative; he might even learn something. The growth in the Australian economy in the past three years has been spectacular, especially as a consequence of the prices and incomes accord which is one of the major income policies in Australian history. It is also one of the major and most successful income policies in the world at the moment. There are not too many successful income policies around the world at the moment. Because of the accord there has been continuous growth in the Australian economy, and there will continue to be so. At the same time there has been a reduction in unemployment, an increase of nearly half a million jobs-we will be announcing soon the attaining of the target of half a million jobs-and a reduction in inflation. Mr Hunt —But we have got to come to grips with that overseas debt. Dr THEOPHANOUS —All right, I will come to grips with the overseas debt. There has been a consequence. Whenever a country's economy grows at the rate at which our economy has been growing, there follows a consequence. The consequence is the propensity for imports to flow into the nation. That fact does not apply only to Australia at the moment. That tendency was also present, for example, in the French economy during the period when it was growing very quickly. We must act to control this problem. We must act to look at this problem and see what we can do about it. What are we going to do about it? Mr Peacock —We are going to sell all these things in duty free stores! Dr THEOPHANOUS —I say, with the greatest respect to the honourable member for Kooyong, that we do not expect the duty free stores to solve the problem. With the greatest respect to the honourable member, I point out that the sorts of measures contained in the Bill that I have been talking about-namely, the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2)-will help resolve the problem. Let us look at what these measures provide. They provide for the fact that we will be importing goods. But the focus of the imports in future will not be on the finished products, but on components and machinery to help us produce more finished manufactured goods in Australia. If honourable members look at the changes that are proposed in this Bill, they will see that these are the sorts of things that will be brought in: Metal working machine tools and robots to assist in manufacturing production; heavy commercial motor vehicles parts and accessories; agricultural wheeled tractors and certain parts. These are the sorts of things that will be brought in. In particular, I focus on the fact that it is those parts which will assist in the productive process in Australia. I appeal to honourable members to recognise that this is not a partisan matter; it ought to be a bipartisan matter. We should be looking at what we can do to turn the situation around from that which applied under previous philosophy, which was that we should be entirely reliant on the farm and on the mine. We should be looking at turning the situation around by focusing on productive manufacturing enterprises so that our people can produce the value added products. On that basis we can then export and we will have in future, a balance of payments situation which is based on some sense. A lot has been said about the J curve. Honourable members interjecting- Dr THEOPHANOUS —This debate seems to be provoking some interest. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) persists in travelling around Australia, trying to dampen our economic interests. He says to various companies: `Don't invest now because the Australian economy is going to fall apart. We are doomed'. Mr Robert Brown —Sabotage. Dr THEOPHANOUS —That kind of economic sabotage, as the honourable member for Charlton puts it, is absolute nonsense. The fact is that as every sensible businessman knows, the devaluation- Mr Slipper —You want to put them out of business. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The honourable member interjected that we put people out of business. Where does he think the half a million new jobs have come from? Out of the air? Mr Peacock —The Public Service. Dr THEOPHANOUS —No, that is not true; they have not come from the Public Service. It will come as a disappointment to the honourable member to know that that is not the case. We have had nonsensical interjections which are not based on any economic analysis. There are such things as economic facts and the economic facts are the ones that I have stated. I will conclude by saying this about the J curve: Statements have been made by certain members of the Opposition that the J curve effect will not occur and that we will have an L effect. Let me say that they do not understand. They should be encouraging, especially at this time, a turnaround so that we can ensure that Australian industry further develops, so that we can increase exports and reduce imports. That is what we ought to be doing. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(9.56) —The provisions contained in these Bills will ensure that incoming passengers on international flights will be given the opportunity to purchase certain items free from Australian excise, customs duties and sales tax. The types of goods which may be purchased on arrival are intended to be alcohol, tobacco products and perfume. The quantities which may be purchased before clearing Customs are to remain the same. We are talking about the addition of one further outlet on our soil which will provide the opportunity for new relief for incoming travellers. It should be stressed that this new opportunity is confined to those international airport terminals that have the space to enable location of sale and distribution points of alcohol, tobacco and perfume in a secure area before Customs clearance, in the chain of events which is necessary to handle expeditiously large numbers of disembarking passengers. It needs to be pointed out that those terminals without the space will not be able to take advantage of the measure. Nothing in the information provided by the Government gives a clue to the location of the international air terminals in which the proposed services will be available in the predictable future. Will Melbourne and Sydney terminals be the only terminals able to cope? That is the sort of thinking on this side of the continent which leaves us to speculate, because we are left to speculate for want of simple information. Clearly, some alterations and extensions to existing terminals will be necessary. But where, at whose cost and when? The Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Mr Barry Jones) is approaching his advisers to ask them that question. Why was it not provided in the original information? One would have thought that answers to these elementary queries would have at least been canvassed in the Minister's second reading speech. If they had been, the costings would presumably have been taken into account before the Government claimed a virtue out of the $5m annual benefit to airport revenues. That amount of $5m is meaningless in measuring the total net benefit. That will be apparent even to the Minister. To be offset against the expected revenues-before anyone gets excited about that $5m-are the costs of buildings or building alterations, the loss of revenue by existing duty free shops and by Qantas Airways Ltd in-flight duty free services and the costs of providing additional Customs staff, Australian Federal Police and other personnel. In fact, the net revenue outcome could well be negative to all but airports. It may well prove to be a further cost to be borne, once again, by the Australian taxpayer under this Government. That might be acceptable in the interests of tourism. That would be a fair enough argument. However, it does not seem to have been put very strongly in the Government's case. We should at least have enough information in this Parliament to calculate the cost benefit-if indeed there is one. Taxpayers and the travelling public may even be better served than they will be as a result of these measures if some fundamental changes are made in the treatment of our own citizens returning to our shores. United States and United Kingdom citizens returning home receive preferential treatment by their immigration and Customs officials. They do not have to join long queues of aliens, as do Australians returning home. Perhaps we should have addressed that question before fiddling around with this nonsense of inward bound duty free shopping, which has not been well costed. Perhaps we should be giving some comfort to our own people. Perhaps we should be giving them some consideration before we devote time and resources to duty free shopping for some international arrivals at some international airports. If the Government really wanted to help Australians it would do something about that. The Government also would address its mind to the possible raising of the limit on the value of gifts which travellers may bring into Australia in accompanied baggage before becoming liable to pay duty. That duty free limit is $200 per adult; it has been $200 per adult for 10 years. Even the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) knows that a suede dress for his wife costs more than $200-not to mention the cost of gifts for his kids or his grandkids. Since the Special Minister of State had occasion personally to check the price of these things overseas his Government has floated and almost sunk the Australian dollar. Here is a news flash for the Minister and his Government: It now costs 40 per cent to 90 per cent more to buy the same items he bought, depending on whether one travels to the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan or a host of other countries. To that amount of $200 can be added 10 years of inflation since that limit was set. That is a direct consequence of the fiscal policies of the Hawke Government. However, there is no relief in sight, even in relation to this small duty free amount of $200. Despite the amendments proposed in the Bill and despite the fact that there has been a $200 limit for 10 years, it will remain. The limit of $160 for gifts which are in addition to the $200 and which continue to attract a 20 per cent duty will remain unchanged. That $160 also remained unchanged for more than 10 years. Ten years inflation coupled with the recent massive devaluation of our currency reduces the overseas purchasing power of that $200-or all up, $360-originally set in 1975 to a mere fraction of what it was when the limits were first struck a decade ago. We all know that the Hawke Government is keen on indexation; that is, provided it is demanded by the Australian Council of Trade Unions or, if it means more revenue to finance its extravagance. The dominance of the Hawke Government by the ACTU has been amply demonstrated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and others of us in the coalition. We have, along with many people in the community, reached the point where it is being freely said that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) now regrets that he is no longer the President of the ACTU. He regrets that circumstance because if he were still President of the ACTU he would be running the country. As it is he is not running the country; he has sub-contracted that task to Mr Simon Crean and his cohorts. Indexation is okay with this Government only if it serves the interests of its masters in the ACTU. An anomaly such as the $200 duty free limit on the value of gifts which returning Australians may bring with them for their families does not concern this Government. Certainly the Government is not concerned when it comes to the indexation of limits determining marginal rates of personal income tax. One of the Government's great cons is a rebate of excise on diesel fuel. That is included also in these Bills. Under the Hawke Government the excess is automatically increased twice a year, in the hope that it will not be noticed by anyone other than the big users. In other words, the diesel fuel impost is indexed. The Government's coffers grow mainly at the expense of wealth creators; they are patently fair game under this Government. The measures before the House propose a rebate for certain primary producers. However, a deception is involved; it is called giving with one hand what is to be taken away by the other. The mining industry may benefit by applying for a rebate of 2.4c a litre for diesel fuel purchased between 1 November this year and Budget day in August 1986. Let me say that that limit of Budget day 1986 is not much of an assurance. It gives the mining industry a little time, but there is no certainty as to what happens after that. There is unlikely to be free commitment to investment in goods which use diesel fuel until the industry knows the answers. That is the good news-or the relatively good news. At the same time the Government has proposed taking the granting of further rebates out of the hands of the Parliament. What is new? It would do that, if it had its way, by giving the relevant Minister the right to grant future rebates by declaration. That is a declaration which may or may not be made at the whim of the Minister. What else we are told about this discretionary power to be vested in the Minister either is not clear or remains to be seen. As if to assuage the concerns about this transfer of further power from the legislature to the Executive, we are told that a ministerial declaration will be subject to disallowance procedures. What sort of a big deal is that? If the Minister declines to make a declaration what grounds exist for disallowance? There is nothing to disallow. If he makes a declaration it will be to announce a rebate. That is the only circumstances in which he may make a declaration. Who in the world will seek disallowance of relief from the enormous tax burden imposed by this Government? It is the old trick: Heads we win, tails you lose. It is part of the old uncertainty game played on business ever since the Hawke Government gained office. The Government, firstly by the device of automatically increasing excise on diesel fuel twice a year in accordance with movements in the consumer price index avoids the pains of having to legislate in this Parliament while at the same time swelling its coffers. Mr White —Hear, hear! Mr ROCHER —I thank the honourable member for McPherson for his support. I am glad to see he is in the House. Mr Hawker —There are a few others. Mr ROCHER —Yes, the honourable member for Wannon is here also. Secondly, the Minister may or may not at his sole discretion decide whether some of the increased excise will be returned to primary producers. There will be no effective appeal against the Minister's failure to exercise his discretion to grant a rebate. It is simply not good enough to try to kid honourable members in this place that there will be appeal provisions that mean anything. The fact is that if the Minister does not at his discretion declare a rebate there is nothing to appeal against. If he does, there is not a fool in the country who will ask for disallowance of that. That is the simple fact. Why the Government comes up with that hogwash I will never cease to wonder. The collection of sales tax is a great problem in the private sector. A constituent of mine received from the Australian Taxation Office at the end of last year a letter which in effect said that my constituent must get a sales tax exemption number from anyone who wishes to buy from his business premises. That applies not only to anyone who comes in the normal way of business but also to people who might want to make a cash deal. The Australian Taxation Office has directed that it is the responsibility of my constituent to establish the bona fides of a purchaser. In other words, he must make certain that the taxation exemption number the purchaser quotes is in fact bona fide. It does not matter that that information would not be available to my constituent, because the Australian Taxation Office goes on to refer to the acquisition of `substantial quantities of goods' and describes them as being known to the taxpayer and to the person offering payment by way of cash, bank cheque or other non-traceable means. The Office said: Accordingly, where a person seeks to acquire substantial quantities of goods and payment is offered by cash, bank cheque or other non-traceable means, to ensure that no liability for such transactions falls on you- that is, my constituent- you should obtain confirmation in writing from this office that the quotation of certificate is in order. He has to knock back a cash sale and wait until the Australian Taxation Office says that the number he has been quoted by his potential customer is a valid and correct one. That is plain cloud-cuckoo-land. The same gentleman provides goods to, among other people, cray fisherman in my electorate who are notorious for making cash transactions. When, as has happened, a couple of those men in partnership go into his premises and say that they want to buy $9,000-worth of goods for cash, he has no way of validating that sales tax exemption number, and it is plainly ridiculous to ask him to. But if he does not, he or his staff may be held liable under the Act. That is the sort of crazy situation apparent in these Acts and in other taxation Acts whereby, although the power exists with the Australian Taxation Office and with the Commissioner of Taxation, they care not to exert the powers they already have under existing legislation. So what happens? They ask this Government to legislate, and it is willing to acquiesce. Because they cannot make the Act work and because they cannot provide the supervision that is required, they insist that this Government then legislate further. In these Bills we see amendments to nine existing pieces of sales tax legislation and a whole host of new legislation, some of it incomprehensible and some of it quite unnecessary in the terms I have just described. Mr Hunt —Would you describe it as a farce? Mr ROCHER —I would describe it as a farce, but it is a farce perpetrated by the Government. I do not really blame the Commissioner for asking the Government because the Government so readily complies, but the net effect of these measures, particularly in relation to sales tax, is to increase the volume of words and the incomprehensibility of these Acts to an extent which goes far beyond the reasonable expectation of any reasonable man to follow and understand them. We have before us legislation which is limited in its application, particularly in terms of duty free shopping, to maybe one or two airports around the country in the immediate future. Later this week there is to be a debate on legislation concerning a proposed airports corporation or something of that kind. That will spell out even more that point I have already made about the limitation of duty free shopping to one or two airports in this country. I know that that will not bother you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because one of those airports happens to be Melbourne Airport, but it will bother me and it will bother people in Cairns and Adelaide where the airports have just had building extensions and alterations, and if they are to get the benefit of this they will have to have more building alteration and extensions. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Mr Brumby) adjourned. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1985-86. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.17) —I have much pleasure this evening in announcing a development in a very important aspect of Australian-South Pacific relations; that is, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence of this Parliament has decided to conduct an inquiry into Australia's relations with the South Pacific. The inquiry will be conducted by the Sub-Committee chaired by me, the Deputy Chairman being Liberal Senator Baden Teague. The Sub-Committee has asked for submissions to be lodged with it by 16 May 1986 and it will then commence a series of public hearings with a view to presenting a report to the Parliament during the autumn session of 1987. In 1976 the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence conducted an inquiry on Australia and the South Pacific. This was considered an excellent report and dog-eared copies of it are still being carried about by people attending conferences and the like within the region. It is most appropriate that the Parliament review development in the South Pacific region since that report. It is most appropriate that the Parliament review development in the South Pacific region since that report. The specific terms of reference of the inquiry are: To investigate and report upon Australia's foreign relations in the South Pacific region, with particular reference to: (a) current regional issues of political, economic and security concern to Australia and to other South Pacific countries; (b) Australia's foreign, economic and development assistance policies in the region; (c) the impact on Australia of security, political and economic developments in the region. The Sub-Committee hopes that it can make contact with the peoples of the South Pacific to ensure that there is a South Pacific input into the inquiry and that it is not limited to Australian sources. I am quite certain that that will occur. Every effort will be made to ensure that submissions are received from within the region, and I hope that it will be possible for at least some members of the Sub-Committee to visit the South Pacific region during the inquiry. I urge everyone in the South Pacific, including our own country, who is interested in this very broad and extremely important reference to place a submission before the Sub-Committee either in writing or at least at one of the public hearings that the Sub-Committee will hold throughout the term of the reference. Of course, several options will be open to the Sub-Committee in regard to the conduct of the inquiry; namely, to bring one substantial report to the Parliament covering the many issues that will obviously arise during the inquiry or to submit a number of reports to the Parliament from time to time, each targeted at specific issues. The Sub-Committee will of course decide on its preferred course of action during 1986. The report, I believe, will make a contribution to the development of Australian foreign policy towards the region, the importance of which is now being recognised by the super-powers. It has been one of the major focuses of the Hawke Government since its election in 1983. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.20) —I take the opportunity in the adjournment debate tonight to raise in the House the concern of a number of people in this country about the plight of the large number of Hungarian people in neighbouring countries to Hungary who are significantly discriminated against in a way that we in Australia would not readily understand. There have been complaints over a period of time. Some 3.5m Hungarians live in other surrounding countries. Some two million live in Romania, 250,000 in the Carpathian region of the Soviet Union, 750,000 in the southern areas of Czechoslovakia and 500,000 in Yugoslavia. The group that is most significantly disadvantaged appears to be in the area known as Transylvania in Romania. Mr Barry Jones —Dracula country. Mr RUDDOCK —I understand that is questioned. However, I will suggest some material to the Minister to read to expand his sources of information on that subject. The matters that are of particular concern to the Hungarians are similar to the charges that are made against the Soviet Union in the Baltic areas, and that is that there is a concerted effort to wipe out their culture, their cultural background and their heritage. It is in that sense that I raise the matter to bring to the attention of members of this House. In Australia we have enjoyed a tolerance of other people's cultural backgrounds. We use the term `multiculturalism' and I think that generally we use that with a view to ensuring that people understand that we have an appreciation that people do treasure their heritage and their background. We are concerned that they are able to use their language and to understand the way in which their forebears lived. We see that as a fundamental and basic human right. Yet, what is happening in so much of eastern Europe with the artificial way that boundaries have been drawn is that many people have been moved into nation states which do not have this same tolerance and understanding and we see the efforts that are made to incorporate them. Mr Charles —Turkish people in Bulgaria. Mr RUDDOCK —The honourable member for Isaacs mentions the situation in Bulgaria where the Turkish minorities are involved. This is a matter that I have addressed on other occasions and acknowledged in this context. One matter that has been drawn to my attention is that there has been some activity by our colleagues in the Congress of the United States of America, particularly in the House of Representatives. A very large number of members of the House of Representatives have signed a letter to George Shultz, the Secretary of State, in this form: We the undersigned members of the United States Congress would like to call your attention to the continued deprivation of human and self-determination rights of the national minorities in Romania, particularly the 2.5 million Hungarians assigned to Romania in the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty. We congratulate you on your firm stand against the emigration tax imposed by the Romanian government on emigrants, and we urge you include into your negotiating agenda the human and self-determination rights of the Hungarians in Romania. For more that two decades, Romanian pressures against the Hungarians in Transylvania assumed characteristics of ethnocide including complete suppression of the social and youth activities and the internal indipendance of the Hungarian churches; destruction of the Hungarian-language schools in existence in 1958 and their replacement with steadily declining number of Hungarian-language ``sections'' in the Romanian schools; the systematic destruction of the documents of the Hungarian past of the province, and finally a conscious dispersal of Romanians amidst the Hungarian regions of Transyvania. Last fall Hungarian intellectuals were arrested and badly beaten, and released only because of international pressure, including letters from Members of Congress to President Ceausescu. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.25) —When coming up to Canberra for this week's sitting of the House as usual I flew on Trans Australia Airlines-the people's airline. Unlike most members on the Opposition side, I insist on flying TAA. I consider that because our fares, as members of Parliament, are paid by the people, the least we can do is to make sure that the taxpayers' money is not channelled into private pockets as dividends but is returned to the people. As usual, we were served an excellent breakfast on the flight. However the breakfast included a small jar-I have it here with me-of orange marmalade with the brand name `Bonne Maman'. On closer examination of the jar I noticed printed on the label `Produce of France'. Mr Charles —That is disgraceful. No wonder I fly Ansett. Mr KENT —Of course it is. I will come to that in a minute. As I have previously often drawn to the attention of the House the question of excessive imports harming our own industries I do not intend to dwell too long on this matter. However, I wish to point out that, according to the label, the marmalade consisted of oranges, of which we have plenty in Australia, sugar, of which we also have plenty in Australia, to say the least, and fruit pectin and citric acid, of which we also have plenty. I really cannot understand why TAA caterers find it necessary to import Bonne Maman orange marmalade from France. I am not opposed to all imports, but to import orange marmalade into Australia I find offensive. It is an outright insult for it to be imported from a country like France which arrogantly disregards the interests of our region by participating in nuclear tests. The latest test was carried out at Mururoa Atoll on 25 November. The blast was a yield of 7 kilotonnes, according to the New Zealand scientists. It was the seventy-second test at Mururoa since 1975. According to the latest news, France exploded a large nuclear device again today. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has repeatedly expressed every Australian's dismay. Strong opposition to nuclear testing in the Pacific region by the Pacific nations evidently does not have any weight with the arrogant French Government which blatantly disregards the wishes of the people of the South Pacific. To justify its vandalism, the French wish to play down the ecological damage they are doing. In an Information Bulletin of the Embassy of France, the French assure us: In 1983, a scientific mission of specialists from Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, have confirmed the conclusion of PEC scientists- whoever they are- that radioactive contamination on the atoll is virtually nil: ``the level of ambient radioactivity in the area of the base installations was, in general, inferior to that of the rest of the world, and that fallout from atmospheric tests were discernible only at levels much lower than those which would affect health''. Who would believe that, because as part of this article there is a map of the Pacific-actually, a map of part of the globe-and on that map it shows Mururoa Atoll right in the middle of nowhere. According to this map, there are no islands in the Pacific. Australia and New Zealand exist on the map; however, I remind the French that there are other islands in the Pacific that they deceitfully do not show on that map. They attempt to show that Mururoa Atoll is in the middle of nowhere. Why should it be shown in the middle of nowhere if the tests are not dangerous at all? I advise them to carry out the tests in Paris. The tests, according to the French, do not yield any radioactivity and do not do any damage, so they can bore right under the Eiffel Tower and test the bombs there. I remind the French that there are two million people in the Pacific living on thousands of islands. I will just mention a few of the larger islands states which they did not show on the map. There are the Truk Islands, Ponape, the Solomon Islands, Nauru, Tarawa atoll, Bganaba, Vanuatu, New Caledonia, Norfolk Island, Canton, Western Samoa-I cannot even pronounce some of the names-American Samoa, Fiji, Niue, Tongatapu, Kiribati, Raratonga, Hiva Oa, Tahiti, Morea and the Pitcairn islands. I mention only a few. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(10.30) —Madam Deputy Speaker, as this is probably the last time I will be speaking in the House this year I would like to take this opportunity to extend to you, and to ask you to pass on to Mr Speaker, my personal thanks for the courtesy, kindness and assistance that you both have given me throughout my first year in Parliament. I will be grateful if you will convey my thanks to Mr Speaker. This is the day on which Australia's second satellite was due to be placed in the heavens above us. I am indebted to the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) for confirming that the satellite was launched successfully. That is a great thing for Australia. It is marvellous that Australia is embarking on such a new mode of technology and communications. Yet, sad to say, a great many communities in Australia, albeit small communities, do not have the benefit of a simple piece of communication equipment like a public telephone. I find this very distressing because a great many people are in need of that basic means of communication. To emphasise and illustrate this problem, I refer to four spots in the electorate of Cowper where there is a need for a public telephone. First, I mention the Wauchope railway station. Madam Deputy Speaker, as you would know, Wauchope is a thriving town in the Hastings Valley. The Wauchope railway station at which trains arrive seven days a week at 11.15 p.m., 12.51 a.m. 1.20 a.m., 2.20 a.m. and 4.21 a.m. does not have a public telephone. Only the train which arrives at 4.21 a.m. is met by a bus to take people to Port Macquarie. People disembarking from trains at those times are not able to use a public telephone even to call a taxi. That situation is not good enough. The little village of Byabarra in the Hastings Valley is 22 kilometres from Comboyne and 45 kilometres to Wauchope where, as I have just mentioned, there is no public telephone at the railway station. Byabarra lost its post office and its only public phone about five years ago. It is located on a tourist road of great value which leads to the Ellenborough Falls, Comboyne, Wingham and Kendall. There is a desperate need for a telephone in that area. Further north on the northern edge of the Macleay Valley and 15 kilometres from Eungai Rail and Frederickton is the village of Clybucca where a service station serves at least 300 vehicles and 1200 people and sells about 10,000 litres of petrol a day. However, this significant stopping place on the Pacific Highway has no public telephone. There are a great many accidents and breakdowns in the area. The owner of the service station tells me that about 15 to 20 urgent or emergency telephone calls are made every day from his establishment. Of course, if people are in need of an ambulance or emergency assistance at weekends they have to knock up the owner of the service station. Once again, this is not a good enough telephone service at all. A little further to the north in the Nambucca Valley is the town of Taylors Arm. I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be aware of Taylors Arm because that is the location of the Pub with No Beer. Of course, I as the honourable member for Cowper, am particularly fortunate that the Pub with No Beer is located in my electorate. It is a place that I visit with pleasure as often as I can. Again, the nearest after hours public telephone is 30 kilometres away at Macksville. People living 40 kilometres up the valley past Upper Taylors Arm and past Burrapine still have no access to a public telephone except when the post office is open. I suggest that, while Telecom Australia says that telephone services have to be self sufficient, and self supporting, the wider issue of community service and safety should be considered. I suggest to the House that Telecom should be made more thoughtful and generous in deciding where to place public telephones. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.35) —Madam Deputy Speaker, in the spirit of good will that pervades the chamber tonight, may I join with the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) in his very kind and appropriate words to you and Mr Speaker. I also commend the honourable member for a very forthright speech in which he supported the need for community service orientation by Telecom Australia. May I say to him that while Telecom is in public ownership there is some prospect of achieving what the honourable member wants but if it goes into private ownership there will be none. I rise tonight to speak in support of the rights of two constituents of mine, Mr Ian Hodges and Mrs Gail Hodges, who I believe have suffered a massive injustice at the hands of Streets Ice Cream Pty Ltd. My constituents are locals of the Sutherland Shire where they were educated and have lived all their lives. They have been successful local business people and have operated two small businesses employing up to seven local persons. The sad and sorry story of how these youing people were ripped off in a very shoddy and unsatisfactory manner by Streets Ice Cream must lead the public, and I suggest the Parliament, to question the ethics and commercial morality of Streets Ice Cream and, of course, that of the ultimate owners, the multi-national corporation, Unilever. It is my belief that, although the conduct of the Streets company may have been narrowly within the law, and even that is questionable, clearly its conduct fell far below the standard of business ethics and reasonable commercial behaviour that the public expects from such a large corporation. My constituents, Mr and Mrs Hodges, will never give up their fight for justice and in their crusade they will certainly have my full backing. The circumstances of their injustice at the hands of the Streets company are as follows. Mr and Mrs Hodges had operated a small smash repair business for 10 years in the Sutherland Shire and then, on doctor's advice, sold this business and bought an existing franchise business, the ultimate owner being Streets, from the previous holder of the franchise. They paid $75,000 for the business and signed a two-year agreement with Streets Ice Cream. They were given a verbal assurance by senior management of Streets about the renewals of this contract at the end of this two-year period. My constituents worked extremely hard to build up the franchise, establishing many new customers and, in doing so, increased the turnover of the business from $500,000 to $1m within that two-year period. Naturally enough, with such splendid small business success behind them, they confidently approached Streets to obtain a renewal of the franchise agreement. They were met with a refusal and were informed that Streets were going to resume the business. After seeking legal advice my constituents became locked into a pitched legal battle with this multi-national corporation-a battle truly of David and Goliath proportions. Regrettably, after spending $30,000 on legal costs and fighting two epic court battles my constituents lost the lot. Streets gained the business and Mr and Mrs Hodges received no compensation at all. They received not even the reimbursement of the $75,000 which they originally outlaid. Streets left my constituents, to use their own words, with `only memories of years of hard work and in a ruinous financial situation'. It is significant to mention that Mr and Mrs Hodges sought relief through the only available avenue of legal recourse, namely, the New South Wales Industrial Arbitration Act-a woefully outmoded piece of legislation, I must say. This legislation and other State and Federal legislation which relate to franchising is, as I have indicated, woefully inadequate. I am pleased to note that the New South Wales Attorney- General is examining the question of providing greater controls on the offering of franchises and on the conduct of the franchisor-franchisee relationship. The judgment on appeal in my constituents' case was given by the Industrial Commission of New South Wales in court session and, although the court found that the contract between the Hodges and Streets was unfair, it was not prepared to award damages. This is despite the fact that the Hodges paid a substantial sum for the agency business which they would not have paid had the intentions of Streets to resume the franchise at the end of the two-year period been revealed to them. I reiterate that there is an urgent need for legislation to protect the position of small businessmen in a franchise situation who are increasingly at the mercy of multi-national corporations with far greater bargaining power. I know Mr and Mrs Hodges. They are fine people. They are the epitome of entrepreneurial small business people. Their lives have been torn apart by the shady commercial conduct of Streets. It is not too late for Streets to right the wrong. As the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program The Investigators highlighted, they had been done an injustice. As their local member of parliament, I will keep up the fight. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.40) —Before I enter the area which I want to bring to the attention of the House tonight, I take up a point made earlier in the adjournment debate by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent). Whilst I respect the sincerity with which the honourable member for Hotham made his remarks about the importing of marmalade into Australia, I have to point out to him that he is in error if he imagines that in this nation there are oranges aplenty. Indeed, I think it worth saying in the House that for at least the last 10 or 15 years Australia has had to import oranges in order to meet the demand in Australia for that commodity. Mr Milton —We do not have to import orange marmalade from France though. Mr ANDREW —As I have said, I am not taking issue with the point of the honourable member for Hotham but merely the error in some of the material he brought before the House. I speak with a little reluctance tonight because the matter I want to bring to the attention of the House may well be misinterpreted by those who are present. I preface my remarks by saying that I, along with, I suggest, the majority who sit in this chamber, consider the events of 48 hours ago involving someone masquerading as a chicken coming into the House as entirely inappropriate. I believe that this chamber ought to be a chamber on which the whole of Australia can look with respect. I find it particularly uncomfortable to participate as a member in this chamber when either the chamber is regarded in jest or members of the chamber are treated by either side with derision. I think both are despicable characteristics. I have to say to honourable members that in fact quite by coincidence a group in my electorate has come to me with their concern as a result of the sales tax legislation. Their concern is about food for birds kept as domestic pets. I felt that were I to raise that matter without some preamble honourable members might have thought that I was simply being facetious. Therefore, I will read verbatim into Hansard the letter that has been sent to me so that people will be aware of the concern this industry has. The letter states: Dear Sir, I take this opportunity to confirm details of our telephone discussion, earlier today, concerning the proposed 20% Sales Tax on `Foods for birds kept as domestic pets'. The following points are pertinent to the issue. (a) The changes of tax rate categories apply from 20 September 1985. One merchant I have spoken to, was not aware of the intended introduction and at this time, is due to pay $600 sales tax, which he cannot pass off to his buyers. (b) It appears that the Government has little knowledge of the grain industry and therefore very few merchants have received copies of the information sheet. My own company holds a registered sales tax number, and consequently attracted this information sheet. (c) Our grain (birdseed) industry is operated by a number of different industry groups, these are: (1) the grower who supplies to merchants (2) the merchant who can supply to other merchants, produce merchants or end users (3) the mercantile broker who offers parcels ranging from one to any number of tonnes to merchants, produce merchants and packagers, the origin of this material is other merchants (4) merchant packagers such as Anchor Foods, Elders IXL, Mifancy, Coles and Woolworths (5) produce merchants who supply the bird fancier and the person on the street (6) the Supermarket or local store (d) Neither the merchant, broker or produce merchant in many instances, has any knowledge of what the commodity he is selling is likely to be used for. In many instances, the commodity may be fed to horses, feed lots and so on. One must ask where it is intended to implement the tax in view of the lack of supplier knowledge of usage. (e) I was informed by the Australian Tax Office, that a domestic pet is a bird which is not sold or one which is not marked. Whilst this leaves me totally confused, one wonders about the man who raises pigeons, ducks, pheasant or quail, not for sale, but for meat birds for his own use. Cynically, one must wonder whether this is just another move to get at the pensioners who are one of the largest groups owning a single bird not for sale. (f) The buyer at the packet level is indirectly contributing to duty on some farm machinery, fuel tax . . . road tax, tax on the package in some instances . . . this appears wholly unjust. (g) If the tax is to apply only to packaged birdseed, why does it not specifically state this in the information sheet. (h) Birdseed can comprise any or all of the following grain and pulse crops, Wheat, Barley, Oats, Triticale . . . sales tax will only reduce useage and thus disadvantage and damage the farming community. On the surface, this appears to be sales tax by stealth and deception and surely necessitates review and further consideration . . . Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.45) —During a previous adjournment debate I spoke about penalty rates and I would like to add to my remarks tonight. The most strident attacks on penalty rates are made on workers in the tourist industry. One particularly fallacious claim is that penalty rates are not paid overseas. This claim is totally untrue and most European countries, including the United Kingdom, have similar penalty rates to those in force in Australia. It is interesting to note that in Third World countries such as the Philippines and India, where wages are extremely low, hotel charges are virtually the same as those in Australia. With such examples it is very clear that there is nothing substantive in the argument that lower wage rates will result in lower hotel charges. The problems in the tourist industry have nothing to do with penalty rates but a lot to do with the international economic situation involving recession problems in a number of countries and the high levels of unemployment in Australia resulting in a lack of growth in domestic tourism. The opposition to penalty rates is also promoted by employers in the retail industry. The arguments are similar to those adopted by the hospitality industry employers and cover three main areas. Firstly, it is asserted that removing penalty rates will provide employment opportunities for workers who wish to work as casuals or part timers. Secondly, the roster systems are structured in order to maximise output and, thirdly, loadings and wage on-costs are excessive in Australia. Underlying these arguments is the constant campaign by the retail industry employers to extend trading hours. This campaign has not resulted in improved service for the consumer but rather has resulted in substituting casual work for full time work, thus creating disguised forms of unemployment. A typical example was the recent attempts by the fast food industry to employ part time young workers at less than award wages. The truth is that the abolition of penalty rates would reduce the real wages of employees in the retail industry and the roster system would result in an increase in part time and casual work with a complete loss of job security, career prospects and loss of income. Substituting casual or part time work for full time work may improve the profits in the retail industry but will most certainly reduce the employment prospects of workers in the industry. With respect to on-costs, are retail employers really expecting government to accept that they should not bear the costs of workers compensation, annual and sick leave, long service leave and public holidays? In relation to the impact of penalty rates on industry in general the National Labour Consultative Council, in a 1979 background paper, commented as follows: An analysis of the available published employment data does not indicate that those industries which have been identified as substantial users of labour outside normal working hours have had a worse employment performance over recent years than other industries. There is no correlation between the employment performance of an industry and the apparent incidence of penalty rates. I would not like to conclude my speech without referring to the problems experienced by shift workers. The biological system of human beings is related to the 24-hour pattern of sleep, hunger and alertness. Workers on shift work became desynchronised and find it extremely difficult to adjust their internal rhythms to night-time work or shifts involving part day-time and part night-time work. Mr Tim Fischer —And parliamentarians. Mr MILTON —I understand that it applies to parliamentarians too. As a result, shift workers suffer sleeplessness, headaches, fatigue, loss of appetite, digestive and respiratory problems, muscular soreness and chest pains. Mr Tuckey —Rubbish. Mr MILTON —The honourable member should try it. Shift workers also use more laxatives, sleeping pills, pain-killers, cough medicines and stomach medication compared with normal day-time workers. Social and family life is severely disrupted. In the cases presented to industrial tribunals by union representatives of shift workers a large amount of evidence has been provided which substantiates the claim that huge social and domestic inconveniences are suffered by shift workers. Despite the overwhelming evidence of the distinct social inconveniences suffered by shift workers, there remain some employers who have the gall to demand a reduction in the penalty rates received by shift workers. I will end my speech by quoting from the policy of the Australian Council of Trade Unions on penalty rates, which is as follows: Congress calls upon the Australian Government to re-affirm and honour previous assurances given that, consistent with the prices and incomes accord, penalty rates will not be attacked. Congress opposes any inquiry being conducted by the Australian Tourist Commission or any other government body which could lead to a review of the penalty rate structure. Congress restates that any attack on penalty rates will be vigorously resisted by the union movement at all levels, including the use of appropriate industrial action. I believe that this House should support that call. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.50) —Some months ago I drew the attention of the House to certain problems that were being experienced in my electorate by people with Telecom Australia. The situation is that Telecom has a monopoly, and if that monopoly exists Telecom should provide service to the people of Australia. It is amazing that many people who live within close proximity to the capital city of Queensland are unable to obtain a reasonable telephone service. In particular, I wish to draw the attention of the House tonight to the difficulties experienced by a constituent of mine who was relocated to Morayfield about 25 kilometres north of Brisbane. He was told initially that he could transfer his Caboolture telephone number to Morayfield. That could certainly be done in a physical sense by Telecom Australia. But after he has moved in at considerable cost and after he has expended a considerable amount of money, Telecom advises that he cannot have the telephone installed now and must wait until July 1986. That is simply unacceptable. Telecom has told my constituent that he could have a telephone, he incurred expense and then Telecom reneged and refused to install that telephone. That is certainly a matter that should be investigated by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). I have another problem that I would like to draw to the attention of the House. I refer to people who reside in the Stanmore area. They were told that they should put in their applications for a telephone and did so. They were told that the telephone would be installed just two weeks after they advised of the required connection date. An application was made more than 12 months ago, and yet Telecom Australia advises my constitutents that the application form has been lost, and that the telephone will now not be installed untill the middle of next year. My constituents must move out of their existing premises on 27 December this year. As a business is involved, substantial loss will be sustained. Another constituent resides in the same area. She has certain medical difficulties and has obtained medical certificates. Notwithstanding that, Telcom Australia has simply refused to instal a telephone. Labor members say how wonderful is the Telecom service provided to this country. If they are to urge that this monopoly should continue, they should be prepared to provide Australians with a reasonable service. I have already mentioned in this House that the Chairman of Telecom, referring to Telecom's first 10 years of operation, mentioned that the organisation was `proud of the substantial achievements that have been made during this time with the help of new technologies and continuing productivity improvements by management and staff'. Why is it that these benefits have not been seen in my electorate? Why is it that time and time again people come forward to my electorate office to complain about the service that they are not obtaining. I am not complaining about individual staff at Telecom because I find them unfailingly helpful and indeed they try to assist in every way possible, but I have had to assign two staff members two days a week to deal with Telecom problems. Telecom must shape up or ship out. I urge that the Government look at this problem. It is not a partisan matter. We should all work to ensure that we have a reasonable telephone service for all Australians. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.55) —My support for the Tamil cause in Sri Lanka is well known in this House. Some people may ask why I am so interested in the matter as I certainly do not have any Tamils in my electorate. I raise this matter not for electoral purposes, but because Tamils in Sri Lanka are being denied basic human rights and civil liberties. Like all members of this Parliament, I have received many anonymous letters and telephone calls in the middle of the night and all sorts of threats. I received a number of these recently after my last speech supporting the Tamil cause in Sri Lanka. I received several letters, which people had the courtesy to sign, from Singhalese in Queensland and I have replied to them. I also received a number of very abusive, offensive and indeed threatening letters not only addressed to me but to my family, also postmarked `Queensland'. It is interesting that tomorrow representatives of the Queensland Association for Sri Lankan Unity will come here and they have put out a circular about what they will say. I must say that it contains many false and inaccurate statements. One might ask why, as this group calls itself the Queensland Association for Sri Lankan Unity, there are no Tamils in the group, as there are not. The reports one has in Australia concerning the communal violence in Sri Lanka are very biased. Sri Lanka is a country that is not well known in Australia, but most of the reports come from agency reporting-I might add, from a censored press. Those who dispute my view and the views of the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) and Senator Missen as well as the views of other honourable members need not take my word. I recommend that they read the reports of the International Commission of Jurists, Law Asia, and Amnesty International and also the excellent report recently put out by Senator Missen, who incidentally is not a member of the same party as I am. I would make the point that violence, wherever it occurs, is always to be deplored. On this aspect I pay a particular compliment to India and the good offices that country is exerting in trying to bring about a peaceful resolution to the communal violence that is occurring in Sri Lanka. The propaganda being put out by groups such as the Queensland Association for Sri Lankan Unity constantly refers to labels such as `Marxist' and `terrorist'. One could use whatever labels one likes-whether Marxist, terrorist or whatever-but these labels do not deny the existing problem, which is that the Tamils in Sri Lanka today face genocide at the hands of the Sri Lankan Government and the army. At present the Tamils have no representation in the Sri Lankan Parliament and thousands have left. The Tamils are being denied basic human rights. What are the rights of Tamils in Sri Lanka today? They have the right of not being represented in parliament, the right of fear of being killed, fear of arrest, fear for their children going to school. They have no travel facilities, suffer food shortages, require permits to ride a bicycle, and are subject to a dusk to dawn curfew. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) recently drew a comparison between the situation in South Africa and the situation of the Tamils in Sri Lanka. That caused an outcry from some of the Singhalese, including the Sri Lankan High Commission in this country. Even the black people in South Africa have the right to burial-a right that is being denied to many Tamils in Sri Lanka today who are being murdered. That is being enshrined in law and in other ways. I hope that a solution is soon found to the communal problem. Personally, I do not support a separate state, but I do support more community representation and devolution of power. It is my earnest hope that once more all people on the beautiful island of Sri Lanka can live in peace and harmony with each other. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 and by reason of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without it having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Construction of the National Maritime Museum, Sydney. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was refered to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Fitout of office space at Canberra National Convention Centre, Canberra City, for Commonwealth Use. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was refered to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Telecom Australia-Construction of new accommodation at Resources Management Centre, Clayton, Vic. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 27 November 1985: Defence Act-Determinations-1985- No. 69-Attendance Allowance and other allowances. No. 70-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 71-Field Allowance and Travelling Allowance. Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing 3 December 1985 as the date on which section 178 of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act (No. 2) 1982 shall come into operation. Mr Hunt asked Mr Speaker, upon notice, on 17 October 1985: What was the average cost of a 3 course (a) luncheon, and (b) dinner, to Members in the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms in 1984-85? Mr Speaker —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (b) $7.25. The Presiding Officers, in consultation with the Joint House Committee, increased prices by 20%, effective from 1 July 1985 in the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms. The average cost does not include alcoholic beverages which are charged at normal bar prices.