Thursday, 20 March 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(10.01) —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: Provision of 50 replacement houses at Woomera. The proposed work is for the construction of 50 replacement houses at Woomera. The existing houses at Woomera are old, in poor condition and need replacement. Twenty houses were constructed in 1983 following a pilot study which showed that new construction would be more economical than would upgrading. The current known requirement is for an additional 50 houses for key defence and Commonwealth personnel. The long term redevelopment plan provides for up to 300 houses, but the number is dependent on the findings of further studies, including Commonwealth-State negotiations on the normalisation of Woomera. The work proposed under this submission comprises 50 transportable houses; 45 3-bedroom houses and five 4-bedroom houses. The houses are to be fitted with ducted evaporative cooling and solar hot water units. Landscaping will include public areas, and existing power, water and sewerage service lines will be replaced. The estimated cost of the proposal is $4.1m at January 1986 prices. It is intended that construction will commence in September 1986 and it is anticipated that the project will have a construction period of some 12 months. I table the plans of the proposed work and I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.03) —Firstly, I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making available to me the details of his motion. We ask the Minister to keep the following matters in mind when he refers this work to the Standing Committee on Public Works. In the first place, $80,000 for each house looks to be a relatively high price. Secondly, we ask him to see whether it would be possible for the construction of houses at Woomera to be put in the hands of the private sector. For example, tenders could be called for the houses to be built and the tender price could be compared with the estimate that has been made by the Minister's Department. The Government could get quotes on leasing the houses for defence and Commonwealth personnel; a financing package could be obtained from the private sector; and consultations could be conducted with the Treasury on the best way to use the Government's money. It is worth noting that the Government, with all its emphasis on monetary policy in order to protect the value of the dollar, not only is killing the housing industry but also is not doing what it should be doing in terms of fiscal and wages policies. An opportunity is presented in this case to pass some of the burden falling on monetary policy over to fiscal policy. We, in the Opposition, feel very strongly that here is a case where the Minister could use the private sector, rather than the public sector and if, when this matter comes back to the House, we do not have any indication from the Public Works Committee that these matters have been considered, we shall have to consider our position. In the meantime, we do not oppose the reference of this matter to the Public Works Committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —On behalf of the Committee of Members' Interests, I present the following report from the Committee entitled: `Report relating to the Form of Return for Re- gistration of Interests.' Ordered that the report be printed. Dr KLUGMAN —by leave-On 13 February 1986, the House of Representatives adopted re- solutions: (1) Reaffirming the requirement for the registration and declaration of the interests of Members, their spouses and dependent children; (2) making a number of amendments to the matters requiring registration; (3) directing the Committee of Members' Interests to determine a form for the registration of interests by 10 April 1986; (4) requiring each current Member of the House to provide to the Registrar of Members' Interests by 30 June 1986 a statement of registrable interests, and (5) making certain declarations in respect of failure to comply with the requirements. Since that date, the Committee has met on a number of occasions and determined a form for the registration of interests and that form and explanatory notes are included in the report which I have just tabled. I invite honourable members' attention particularly to paragraph 4 of the Committee's report. The House will recall that, on 13 February 1986, the Leader of the House (Mr Young) informed it that the Government agreed with the Committee that trustees of estates, who have no beneficial interest in the estates, should not be required to disclose their trustee arrangements. An amendment to give effect to this intention was incorporated in paragraph (b) of resolution (2) of 9 October 1984 a.m. On examination of this matter, it appeared to the Committee that a similar amendment should have been incorporated in paragraph (a) of that resolution in respect of shareholdings in public and private companies and in paragraph (c) in respect of legal title held in real estate as a trustee of a deceased estate where the member, the member's spouse or dependent children are beneficiaries of that estate. Since this was the clear intention of the House, the Committee has decided to incorporate these qualifications in the return form and explanatory notes. Unless it receives any direction from the House to the contrary, it will so interpret the registration requirements. Under paragraph (v) of standing order 28a, the Committee is required to consider what classes of person, if any, other than members ought to be required to register and declare their interests. The Committee has noted that on 17 December 1985 the United Kingdom House of Commons adopted resolutions requiring in part: (1) Those holding permanent passes as lobby journalists, as journalists accredited to the Parliamentary Press Gallery or for parliamentary broadcasting to register not only the employment for which they had received their pass, but also any other paid occupation or employment where their privileged access to Parliament is relevant, and (2) holders of permanent passes as members' secretaries or members' research assistants to register any relevant gainful occupation which they may pursue other than that for which the pass is issued. It is the Committee's intention to give early consideration to this matter, especially in respect of a requirement for members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery and other media representatives to register and declare their interests in a similar manner to members of the House. The Committee will be reporting on this matter as soon as possible. I conclude by saying again that it is my view that the obligations of registration of members' interests should be similar for senators and I urge the Senate to at least look at the issue. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —by leave-The report of the Committee of Members' Interests relating to the form of return for registration of interests, a report which is now before the Parliament and which is to be implemented by a registration statement and a registrar, has been the subject of debate on and off for some time. The Opposition members who were present at the last meeting of the Committee, which is chaired by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), dissented from the report and from the fundamental conclusions in the sense that we dissented on the fundamental matters. One does not dissent, of course, about the proposition of bringing a report back to this Parliament so that the House can be informed of what has taken place. The proposal for registration statements is based on the proposition that, by registering certain interests, conflicts of interests or likely conflicts of interest will be disclosed. For example, there is included in the registration statement a provision that one registers the whereabouts, in terms of locality, of any dwelling or other property one may own. How it could possibly be relevant to proceedings in this Parliament, or how it could possibly give rise to a conflict of interest, that a member of this House owned a house in Cabramatta, Wollongong, Woollahra, or wherever, is impossible to say. However, it struck those on the Government side who had the task of preparing the matters that we were to consider that this was a relevant consideration. The proposed form of return contains, amongst other things, provision for making a return on hospitality received from foreign governments-and many of us do. In effect, we are told as well that if we have received a bribe from a foreign government for the purposes of influencing the way in which we are going to go about discharging our parliamentary duties, we should be kind enough to record particulars of the bribe. I am not sure where one would put that information; perhaps under `other sources of substantial income-one bribe, country X, substantial amount in 1985-86; not so good in 1986-87 because I'-the member in question-was not able to deliver the necessary parliamentary votes'. That illustrates the complete absurdity of the proposal which is now before the House and of which, I do understand, members on the other side of the House are not universally in favour. There are certain matters which as well constitute a gross invasion of family privacy and a gross invasion of the privacy and the confidentiality of marriage. These are matters which we, as members of the Opposition, will deal with at a later stage when finally we, as with other members, are required to make a registration statement on the basis of this proposal. We referred earlier to the complete absurdity that members of the Senate are not bound to make a return of interests. Without traversing the argument, we all know that if there is influence which can be brought to bear for the purposes of ensuring that a particular piece of legislation should go through-or alternatively of ensuring that it is blocked-and if one has some money and some power, the Senate is the place to go. But the basic point remains: If we are honest, we will be honest; if we are minded to be dishonest, no form of registration statement is going to change that and we will go about being dishonest. I for my part do not believe that there are members of this House of any political persuasion, or of the other place, who would, for example, accept bribes for the purpose of voting in a particular way. Perhaps I have a greater faith in the members of this House than is evidenced by the Government. The last thing that I would say is that, if we are to go down this absurd path, logically, as the honourable member for Prospect has pointed out, we should have members of the Press Gallery included. I suppose logically, and if one is going to be logical about an absurd proposition one should take it to its ultimate absurdity, we should have registration statements from the proprietors and editors of newspapers and other media outlets. That is something that I think we will probably have to consider. That is the logical consequence of the Government's action. I hope that those proprietors and others who may be concerned at the prospect of submitting their affairs to the scrutiny of this Parliament pay some heed to the consequence of the exercise on which we have now embarked. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —by leave-I do not wish to enter into a debate with the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) because the House has already adopted the resolution. I merely refer to the matters now raised by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) on behalf of the Committee of Members' Interests. Is it true that on 13 February we did accept the recommendations of the Committee on a whole range of matters to amend the resolution which had been initially adopted in October 1984, one of which concerned section (2) (b) (ii) which included the words: `not including the trustee of an estate where no beneficial interest is held by the member, the member's spouse or dependent children'. What the Committee has said to us today, of course, is that there are a couple of other sections, which should have been amended at the same time, dealing with shares and real estate where the trustees holding it have no beneficial interest. I think there is no conflict with the intent of the amendment that we accepted earlier with recommendations now being put by the Committee. Debate resumed from 19 March, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —I understand it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with order of the day no. 2, the Trade Practices Revision Bill. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.17) —On 19 November 1985 the Bill which was known as the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1985 passed all stages of this House with some alacrity, as a consequence of the use of the numbers by the Government. At that time I had made plain the Opposition's rejection of the Bill for the reason that it was in effect anti-business. There has been a great deal of interest in recent times in the Bell Group takeover proposal for the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. Those whose job it is and who earn a living from reporting what takes place in this Parliament seem to have entirely lost sight of what the Opposition said in November 1985 and the reasons why we objected to that Bill. Without for a moment believing that it is necessary for members of the media to read every Press release that I or any other member of this House puts out, I thought I would refer to a Press release that I put out on 20 November 1985, to disabuse those who seem to think that we have been inconsistent in our approach to this legislation. If they want to be disabused, they need only to read the proceedings that occurred in the Parliament, but I do not expect them to do so. However, let me read from what I said on 20 November which was the day after the Bill passed all stages in this House: The Opposition yesterday rejected the Government's Trade Practices Amendment Bill as adding to unwarranted and excessive regulation which places a strait jacket on Australian industry. The total package is deeply anti-business, will add greatly to the costs of businesses, will contribute to needless litigation and will do precious little for the consumers of this nation. The Bill starkly illustrated the clear contrast between the Government's specious pro-business and anti-regulation rhetoric and the realities of its actions. I said that the compulsory recall provisions were a major element and a deeply objectionable part of this Bill. I continued: The Bill's compulsory recall provisions are a classic example of Government intervention without any real consultation with business. They are draconian and authoritarian in operation and leave businesses subjected to recall orders without any appeal, or any rights to compensation where the recall decision proves to be plainly wrong. Every one of those statements is supported by an impartial examination of what the Bill does and is very largely supported by the complaints made by the business community about the Bill's effect. We have today, in place of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill, two Bills. One is the Trade Practices Revision Bill-a Bill of some 76 clauses which contains everything in the old Bill save for the amendment that relates to the transfer of market dominance where such transfer does not result in any enhancement of market dominance. That particular provision, which has excited so much debate of recent times, is dealt with in a separate Bill entitled, aptly enough, the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill. I shall deal, first of all, with the main Bill, the Trade Practices Revision Bill, the provisions of which were the subject of criticism when we debated this measure in the House on 19 November 1985. Let me make it plain immediately that not all the provisions of that Bill are found by the Opposition to be objectionable. There are, of course, improvements to be found in the Bill. It would be absurd to say that all regulation is bad or unnecessary; the question is ultimately one of balance and of judgment. If one listens to the Government's rhetoric rather than examines its actions concerning the lifting of the burden of unnecessary regulation from business, there is at least verbal agreement on that proposition between the Government and the Opposition. Some measures of regulation are clearly and unarguably necessary, such as regulation of the conditions in which people work in factories, shops and mines-regulations which are made in the interests of safety. Nobody would argue about the need for such regulations. The argument emerges as to how far we should go or whether regulations will achieve the desired result. As I have made plain, overall the Trade Practices Revision Bill adds unnecessarily to the burden on business, is highly regulatory in nature, is complex and ill-drafted in many of its provisions and, as we have said before, should be re-examined in its entirety. Let me tell the House of the expressions of concern about this legislation that we have received and list the organisations that have written to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), to me or to other members of parliament expressing concern or criticism in relation to various provisions of the Bill: The Confederation of Australian Industry, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, the Business Council of Australia, the Law Council of Australia, the Metal Trades Industries Association, the Australian Petroleum Agents and Distributors Association, the Association of Consulting Engineers of Australia, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, the Queensland Chapter of the Association of Consulting Engineers of Australia, the Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors and the Food Industry Council of Australia. Mr Coleman —Does anyone support it? Mr SPENDER —Very few, one would think. That is not a bad cross-section. What is the burden of the complaints made in the submissions these organisations have made? There are complaints concerning matters of substance in particular, for example, the proposed new division which is to deal with product safety recall-the mandatory recall provisions. There are complaints about the drafting. There are complaints about the extension of liability, for example, the amendment which extends liability to professionals in relation to statutory warranties. I will come to that matter later on. These complaints simply cannot be dismissed as self-serving. The Law Council of Australia, to take a body which has no interest one way or the other in the litigation, is trenchantly critical of the legislation. It is trenchantly critical of the Bill. I am talking now about the main Bill, the Trade Practices Amendment Bill. Many of its criticisms have been adopted by the Opposition; indeed, some have been adopted by the Government. The criticisms which have been adopted by the Opposition have been framed as amendments and were proposed to the Senate and they will be proposed again here. I hope that the Government will at least look at the amendments-they have been before the Government for some time-particularly since it has had the criticisms of the Law Council before it and it should consider the amendments on their merits. They have nothing to do with politics. They have nothing to do with this takeover; they are simply concerned with ensuring that the Bill is a better Bill, lightening the burden of regulation. In the case of the product safety recall provisions-the mandatory recall provisions-the amendments propose to bring an element of justice into the whole exercise. The very idea that it will be left to a Minister, with no provision for appeal, to make banning orders and compulsory recall orders, is contrary, we believe, to basic notions of justice. If an order is to be made against a person should not that person have an opportunity to contest that order? Is not that what our society is about? Are we not deeply concerned about governments getting things wrong? Does anybody believe that the bureaucracy always gets things right? We know that it does not. We know that governments do not. We know that Ministers and politicians make mistakes. Why is that? It is because we are all fallible. That is all perfectly plain. So why should we vest in a Minister such wide powers as are to be found in the proposed new division in the Bill? Lest it be thought that what I am saying is not supported by the complaints that have been made, let me read a few of them into the parliamentary record. I take a submission which was made to the Attorney-General and which was sent to me by the Law Council of Australia business law section by letter on 18 November 1985, one day before the Trade Practices Amendment Bill was pushed through this House. I will quote from page 13 of that submission. The comments were directed to clause 34, entitled `Product Safety and Product Information', which is new Division 1A. The submission stated: These amendments are premature. On 26 June 1985 the Government sought the public's view of the proposals. The process of gathering and considering these views cannot have been properly completed. Notwithstanding the drastic effects on a corporation the subject of a notice issued under this new Division, with one exception, there is only a requirement that the Minister publish the notice in the Gazette. I interpolate here that we all know how widely read is the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. A day does not go by when average members of the Australian public pick it up and peruse it to find out whether there is anything of interest and excitement or anything which may affect their affairs! Mr Cadman —They queue up for it. Mr SPENDER —As my friend says, they queue up for it as we all would! I return to the quote: There is no requirement that the Minister directly notified the corporation(s) involved. The legislation should require written notice to be given to all relevant parties that their identities and addresses are known. The Law Council goes on with that subject for 2 1/2 pages. Let me quote just one other paragraph: The Committee is concerned that the very extensive powers granted to the Minister, including the power to recall products, may be exercised without obtaining any Court order. The Committee urges that the Division be amended to require that an order be obtained from the Federal Court (ex parte if necessary in urgent cases) prior to any recall being implemented. We entirely endorse those criticisms. We have proposed amendments to seek to meet them. The amendments we propose are based on Law Council drafts. What has happened? As I understand it, the Government is not minded to accept those proposals. We do hope the Government will consider things again so that we can have a better Bill. To continue reading from some of the submissions which we on the Opposition side have considered and which we hope the Government has considered, but if it has it seems to have rejected them without giving any reasons at all, I will quote now from a submission of the Confederation of Australian Industry. This again deals with product safety and product information. It states: The Bill contains eleven and a half pages of provisions relating to reserve mandatory recall powers. CAI responded to the discussion paper prepared by the Office of Consumer Affairs in relation to certain options for product recall. The closing date for comments on the discussion paper was 31 August. Having regard to the fact that the Trade Practices Amendment Bill was introduced into Parliament some five weeks later, it is doubtful whether any notice was taken of the contents of the submissions received. Let us just reflect upon that for a moment. Here we have the Government presenting a discussion paper in June 1985. The discussion paper is headed `Recall of Unsafe Products', and it runs to some 90 pages. What happens? Five weeks after that paper is made public for discussion we get an amendment Bill coming into this House. The CAI did not believe that it or anyone else was given a proper chance to comment on the discussion paper. We all know the time lag between the giving of instructions and the parliamentary draft which comes up here as a Bill. The obvious and inescapable conclusion is that the Government simply did not bother with the comments on the discussion paper. It was no more than an exercise to seek to appease business and industry and, at the same time, to delude them into thinking that their comments and criticisms would be taken seriously. Let me read again from the same submission of the Confederation of Australian Industry, once again on the same subject: The requirement that a supplier notify the Minister of a product recall whether or not a health or safety related defect exists. CAI considers that such a requirement will place unnecessary costs on business. Furthermore such a requirement may reduce the number of recalls where no health or safety related defect exists. It continues: The reserve power does not contain a requirement that before a mandatory recall power is used, a product must have first of all been banned from sale. Having regard to the economic loss which is likely to result by the use of a mandatory recall power, the Government should be satisfied before it uses such a power that the product has some health or safety related defect. I think at least some measure of attention has been paid to that finally by the Government. The submission continues: The reserve mandatory power to recall products is not subject to independent administrative law review. That is, in effect, the same criticism as has been made by the Law Council of Australia. The Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia has also been critical of the product recall provisions. I wish to quote from a submission which was sent to the Minister on 20 December 1985-that is, after the Bill had passed this House. The submission stated: In point 3 of our October letter we maintained that there should be a positive finding that goods were defective and were likely to cause injury before they could be recalled. The necessity of obtaining a court order before goods could be recalled, repaired, replaced or the cost of the goods refunded, would enable the views of all relevant parties to be properly considered in a hearing by a competent authority having regard to the legal rights and interests of the parties. The requirement to obtain a court order would also facilitate access to appeal procedures, thereby answering the concern expressed in point 5 of our letter of 30 October that no review procedure had been provided in relation to the purely administrative decisions reached under the proposed legislation. The Association submits that the obtaining of a court order before recalling goods or ordering repair, replacement or refund would assist in ensuring that the rights and interests of all parties would be protected. Is that not a fairly straightforward and understandable proposition? If we are going to make an order that there be a recall of goods and the recall of goods could result in the financial insolvency of the company at the receiving end of that order, is it not fair that there should be an opportunity for that company to contest before a court the recall order? What if we are ordering a recall of the major line of goods put out by that company, be they cars or be they anything else? Why should there not be a right to contest so long as the Government is in the position, as it should be, to act quickly and to get ex parte orders, which simply mean one goes to the court without the need of advising the other side, where there is some matter of immediate concern, where some safety question emerges which has to be dealt with speedily. All of us believe that where a safety question does arise that has to be dealt with speedily, it should be dealt with speedily. If the Government has the power to go to the court, as one does when one needs to get an immediate injunction and an order, the situation would be safeguarded. Anyone who has practised knows that if there is an emergency, courts can act with great speed and one can get an order within hours, and sometimes less, of the need arising. This is being rejected by the Government. There are many other criticisms in the submissions to which I have referred. However, time does not permit me to refer further to those submissions and I would like to return now to some more general observations. For example, I refer to the question of product safety and product recall. Let me put this to the Minister: As I said before, is it not a fair proposition that before an order is made that there should be an opportunity to contest the need to make the order? Is it not fair that before there is a ministerial decision to declare goods unsafe or place a permanent ban on goods or compulsorily recall goods there should be an opportunity to contest that order-not an opportunity before the Government itself, not an opportunity before the Minister, not an opportunity before the Trade Practices Commission, but an opportunity before the courts? If the result of government action is greatly to damage the corporation that is at the receiving end of the order, where does that leave the corporation? What about cases where orders will be made-given the inherent likelihoods that that will happen-on grounds which prove to be quite baseless? In the interest of justice, the party who was to be subject of the order should be given a very simple right; a right to contest and to say: `You have said that this product should be recalled for the following reasons. You assert that the product is unsafe and dangerous. You are wrong. We can show you the reasons why you are wrong and we can demonstrate beyond any dispute that you are wrong'. Where the Government or its servants have come to a particular conclusion, we all know that it is difficult to persuade them to change their minds. The courts are quite impartial and that is why courts are so much at the heart of our entire system. The courts stand there as the arbiter between the Government and the citizen and between the Government and corporations affected by its actions. The courts, without fear or favour and without interest in upholding one side or the other, come to a conclusion on the basis of the law and some commonsense notions about justice. That is what we propose in the amendments which will be moved in the Committee stage. I now turn to the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill, the provisions of which have created such a degree of controversy. The purpose of the provision is very simple and is set out clearly in the explanatory memorandum of the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill. It states: The amendment contained in the Bill is designed to make clear that the Act does not apply to the acquisition of a body corporate with existing market dominance, provided the acquirer is not thereby in a stronger position to dominate that market. Such acquisitions are commonly called `bare transfers of monopoly power.' We agree with the Government's proposal and we support the underlying principle, because the consequence of opposing the underlying principle is to help to entrench the management of monopolies, which is not a very healthy thing in a free enterprise system. We should understand precisely what is happening. The Government included that proposal in the original Trade Practices Amendment Bill. That Bill passed through this House on 19 November 1985 and may have been expected to pass through the Senate in the same year. The operation date for the clause which dealt with the transfer of market power was 1 January 1986. We have proposed that a clause be included, which has been called a grandfather clause. The purpose of that clause is to ensure, in the case where under the existing law a Part A statement has been lodged, that that Part A statement is dealt with under the existing law. There does not seem to be anything particularly revolutionary about that proposition. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has said, it is designed simply to ensure that the rules of the game are not changed after the game has been started. In this case we are talking about a pretty expensive game and I doubt whether there are any players around this table who would have the money to buy into it. I noticed in the Attorney-General's second reading speech-I would be glad if he would comment on this-that the Government seems to have gone some distance towards an acceptance of the proposition which has been put by the Opposition. If I am right, it is a very important and sensible concession. I refer the Attorney-General to the concluding remarks of his second reading speech, when he said: The provisions in this Bill were first mooted quite some time ago and were embodied in a Bill, and passed by this House, in November last year, well before the Bell bid was made. The amendment will apply to any acquisition which takes place after the commencement of the legislation. Any acquisition which takes place before that date will stand to be considered under the present law. It could be argued that not to proceed with this amendment would in reality be changing the rules which could reasonably have been anticipated to apply by now. Leaving aside whether or not that could be argued, I stress the words `any acquisition which takes place before that date will stand to be considered under the present law'. I remind the House that in contrast to the original Bill, which had a date certain for the commencement of the bare transfer of monopoly power provision, the present Bill has a date which is to be fixed by proclamation. I ask the Attorney-General, firstly, what date is intended to be fixed by proclamation and, secondly, am I right in interpreting what he has said as a substantial concession to the view which has been put by the Opposition, because the change in the commencement date and what he has said about the position of acquisitions before the commencement date, seems to lead to that conclusion. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(10.47) —This is the second time in a matter of months that we have had a Bill before this House to amend the Trade Practices Act. It has been explained by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) that it has been necessary to bring back to the House the Trade Practices Amendment Bill because it was necessary to withdraw it from the Senate as it faced defeat-not because the provisions relating to business or consumers generally were opposed by senators in that place, but because of proposed section 50 (2C) relating to what is commonly called the bare transfer of monopoly power. I do not intend to canvass that aspect at this point, but I welcome the opportunity to again speak on this Bill, especially since I have just had to sit through 30 minutes of a speech by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). People in the community are well aware that we cannot have a system that allows total free enterprise. That seems to be the argument being put forward by the honourable member for North Sydney. He is promoting a system in the market-place that has as its main characteristic the freedom of enterprise; where self-interest is the real motivating force; and that we underline the system with the concept of risk and reward-those who take any type of risk deserve the maximum reward. It seems to me that the honourable member for North Sydney wants to bring back into force caveat emptor-let the buyer beware. He wants to forget about rules and does not care about any provisions or protections and wants to allow anyone who has a quid to go out and sell any product, any way or anyhow. He says that, if the consumer gets caught, it is too bad; if it is unsafe, that is too bad also. I will not cop that and I believe that a vast majority of Australians will not cop it. I accept that the concept of risk and reward is vital if we are to have initiative, innovation, efficiency, inventiveness and the best use of our productive resources. Let us embody risk and reward in the system so that those who take risks get a reasonable reward, but we should not allow them to walk on people's heads, destroy their homes, wipe away their quality of life, destroy their purchasing power or put at risk their lives and their children's lives. That is what the honourable member for North Sydney is saying today. Mr Spender —That is absolute rubbish. Mr WRIGHT —I will take up that interjection because the honourable member said on the question of product safety: Before an order on product safety is made- these are his exact words- there should be the opportunity to contest the order. Mr Spender —You obviously don't understand. Mr WRIGHT —Oh, I understand you; I know whose barrow you push. Regardless of how dangerous the product is, the honourable member for North Sydney thinks there should be an opportunity to contest the order. What he wants to see is the whole thing put into the courts, to allow the lawyers to have their day. After all, when I spoke some months ago about the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and what it was doing to the aerobic people, the people who joined health and fitness groups, he was the same man who stood up and tried to stop me. He was the one who called points of orders and quorums in order to try to stop my speech. What was the outcome? The ANZ Bank was found guilty by the public and has handed back something like $3m to 15,000 or 16,000 people who were caught in those health and fitness groups. It was the honourable member for North Sydney who went to the defence of the ANZ Bank because he did not want any linked credit provider provisions being enforced through this Parliament or in the community generally. While I accept that there is a need for a balance, we surely must have ground rules, otherwise within the market place we will continue to have the fraud, the faulty goods, the hazardous products and the cutting of corners in quality. If the honourable member for North Sydney is the spokesperson, it seems that the Liberal Party is prepared to cop that. There is a need for a balance surely between consumer interest and community interest, but that must be underwritten with proper consumer protection, a set of enforceable rules, because we have seen that the industry-based codes do not work. If the codes worked, we would not have legislation in every State and Territory. We have thousands of pieces of consumer-based legislation on the statute books. The amount of legislation that exists is proof that the self-code system, the industry based self-control, has not worked. There must be protection for all consumers. I believe that that protection should be national. We need to bring about a uniform code. Every person is a consumer at some point. It does not matter whether one is a member of a firm, a farmer, a small businessperson or the wealthiest person in Australia. At some point, everyone is a consumer. We need to ensure that there are laws to protect consumers. The honourable member for North Sydney talked about recall. He does not bother to tell the people of Australia that we had a car manufacturer here a few years back who took seven months to recall a motor car that was plagued with under-bonnet fires-seven whole months! Despite exposure by the consumer organisations and requests that came forward from government agencies, that firm still did nothing about it. Finally, as pressure grew, the company had what it called `a field check'. This was not a recall of its product; the company was not prepared to say that. Instead it advertised what it called `a field check'. Then we had the case of the bikes that were breaking at the fork and young people were being hurt. The manufacturers who were overseas had importers fighting for them saying that there was nothing really wrong with the bikes; it was ill-use by the kids. I wonder whether the honourable member for North Sydney would rather have that sort of case go through the courts. It is like the case of the bikes and their saddles that we had to ban eventually because the bar that was holding the saddle on to the bike kept coming up through the saddle. One can imagine what that was doing to the young boys and girls who were riding the bikes. Does the honourable member for North Sydney want to throw cases like that into some court of law and let the kids continue to be injured? Then there was the case of the car jacks that were found to totally misrepresent the weights and loads that they could hold. What is the rule there? Are we to allow people to be squashed? Will we let people continue to buy them while the lawyers fight it out in some court because the Liberal Party has no interest in consumers and does not want to see any real protection. Is that what the honourable member for North Sydney wants? What about salmonella poisoning? A few years ago 260 people went to hospital because no one could trace where the product had been. That happened because the manufacturer had not kept any checks on the retailers. Do we want to fight this? Do we want to argue this in the courts? Do we want to get the number of poisoned people up to 300 to 400 before we do anything about it? That is the nonsense that the Liberal Party is talking about when it tries to water down and reduce the effect of the recall of hazardous goods that is being brought forward in this legislation. It was only three Christmases ago that we had Christmas trees coming in from Taiwan. The bulbs were overheating and melting the leaves and the branches and causing fires in the homes as they burned up the carpets. Now we will be able to do something about those goods. Instead of just banning them we will be able to recall them. What about the guillotine toys that were being sold only 18 months ago? It was claimed that one could put a carrot in the toy and it would cut the carrot in half but if one put one's finger in the guillotine it was not supposed to cut the finger off. It was not supposed to, but there have been some casualties. About one and a half years ago, I pointed out in this House that there were 40 different dangerous goods that were being sold somewhere in Australia. All had been banned in one or two States. They could not be recalled because there was no power to recall them. As an importer found his product banned in say, New South Wales, he would quickly send the product up to Queensland and, when the Consumer Affairs Minister acted on the issue up there, the product was whipped across to South Australia. When finally it was chased out of South Australia, it ended up in Victoria or Western Australia. The reverse was true. When Brian Burke in Western Australia acted on some matter over there, a product was raced across to the eastern States. It seems to me that the Liberal Party does not want to stop that sort of thing. Instead it wants litigation. Instead of being able to recall these items, ban them, prevent them from being sold and remove them from the shelves, the Liberal Party wants to talk about it in the courts and allow people to continue to be injured. I believe that there is an immorality in certain aspects of business and that immorality can be shifted from shelf to shelf and from State to State. We need national legislation to put an end to that. I was hopeful that the Liberal Party would have changed its approach from the attitude and stance that it took last November when the honourable member for North Sydney virtually said the same things as he said today. I was hoping that the Liberals would support tougher penalties to counter malpractice, that they would welcome the new protections embodied in this legislation for small businesses and farmers. That is what the Australian market-place needs to understand. The Trade Practices Revision Bill is doing that. The Trade Practices Act which is being amended and upgraded is not only for protection to the consumer but also for protection to the small businessperson and the farmer. That is what is innovative about it. I had hoped that those in the Liberal Party who took a broad approach would understand that. We are putting an end to the rorts that are pulled on farmers when it comes to buying farm machinery. All sorts of representations have been made about spare parts and after sales service, but after sales service is just not available once the tractor is on the farm. These practices will have to end. It will mean the end of the spare parts rorts where spare parts are not provided and when they are provided they are a thousand per cent dearer than the original indicated price. That sort of thing happens where farmers simply pay through the neck for those spare parts. Then there are cases where farmers put their vehicles or their machinery in to be repaired and they are charged the world for those repairs, but they are never supplied with the impaired parts that were supposed to have been taken out of the vehicle. That has happened with motor vehicles as well. I wonder how many consumers listening to these proceedings now have taken cars, washing machine or any type of equipment to the repairer and received a Bill for hundreds of dollars. When they ask what was wrong, they are told that some wheel or piston had gone. If they ask to see the wheel or the piston, they are told: `I am sorry; I threw it away'. That has happened to thousands of people. The trade practices legislation will put an end to that. We will require some honesty and some commercial morality. It amazes me that the Liberal Party, through the honourable member for North Sydney, opposes these provisions. Let the people of Australia know that; let the consumers, the farmers and the small business people understand that. Let them understand that, if one is a small business person, one will benefit from the stop we are putting to the rorts that are pulled in advertising. Many small business people get sales promotions through the mail which looks like an invoice. Without thinking, the office girl pays the bill. The businessman never ordered the advertisement but he is up for a sum ranging between $80 and $180. There is the case where a small businessman gets a phone call in which fraudulent claims are made about a particular directory which goes, for example, all over South Australia. Then he finds that it is a publication with a circulation of about 200. Nevertheless he has paid hundreds of dollars. I am fighting a case in central Queensland at the moment. A person rang from Perth and the businessman said that he would take one advertisement. He has now had a bill for two. He wants to fight the case but the bill is for $80 and it will probably cost him $180 to fight it. So he will probably end up paying. As I said, the trade practices provisions are all encompassing. They are for the small business person and they are for the farmer. They are also for the consumer. They certainly need upgrading for it has been nine years since the Act was reviewed. We need tougher controls over those promoters who make wild projections and promises about businesses. I was watching the Investigators program last night and on this program was a story about a photographic group called Kis selling machines for $60,000. It is alleged that it has sold some hundreds of them but many of them did not work, and if they do work they do not put through the film quantities that were promised and therefore people do not get the return. People were told that if they could put through some 28 films a day they could make $70,000 a year-that is clear profit. Of the many people who purchased these machines and were interviewed by the Investigators program, not one said that the projections were true. It has happened in Queensland with a seafood group called Manny's which went around making all sorts of promises as to what people could earn. It locked people into buying a product through the central point, and charged the world. We have to have some controls. Again, I am amazed that the Liberal Party is opposed to that. We have talked about stronger protection. I have heard the Opposition speak about controls on housing interest rates and the problems facing people. Right at this moment in Queensland we have some crooks and rogues who are going around getting people to sign housing contracts at 21 per cent interest. That is what it looks like, but there is a hidden clause. If one fails in one payment the interest rises to 31 per cent. Mr Cohen —It could be the National Party. Mr WRIGHT —I would not be surprised if the promoter was a National Party person. Just think of it, ordinary persons, usually those with a limited capacity to pay, those who simply do not have the financial backing and have to go to those rogues, can sign up a contract for 21 per cent believing that to be the interest rate-tough as it is-and find that because of just one fault in payment the interest rises to 31 per cent and it stays that way. It does not come back a month later when they catch up; it stays at 31 per cent. The Opposition wonders why we want to change the Trade Practices Act and put an end to some of these crooks. The honourable member for North Sydney, Mr Spender, with all his legal knowledge and wisdom, wants to say: `Oppose them, oppose them'. We need tighter controls, tougher protection, and better controls over the false and misleading advertising and the false promises and claims that are made not only by businesses but in every area. There was a recent instance in Queensland of young people from Brisbane going to Bundaberg and Mackay with all sorts of promises about jobs. When they got there they found that the position was not as it was represented. They had to canvass door to door. There was no board and lodging-that was their responsibility-and if they did not like it they could go back to Brisbane, hoof it back or get back the best way they could. But they were promised all these wonderful things. The trade practices legislation will put an end to that. There will be new controls over pyramid selling schemes-those people who over many years have been selling people rather than products, like the dare-to-be-great scheme that plagued Australia a few years back, taking millions of dollars from unsuspecting investors. We will put an end to the fraudulent claims in unsolicited advertising. One wonderful thing about this is that we will be ensuring that the Trade Practices Commission can act on behalf of consumers. We are going to expand the present provisions, because half the time you know you have a case, you know you have good reason to fight, and you know you have everything going for you, but you cannot afford it, so you give up. There will be some changes made to that because the Trade Practices Act will be amended so that the Commission can take on a case. All the people affected can be assisted so long as they register their names. The benefits, judgments and compensation will then flow across the broad community to those who are affected. It is a wonderful innovation. Yet we have the Liberal Party opposing such a move. The honourable member for North Sydney spoke mainly about the hazardous goods area and the need for change there. I am simply amazed that he pursued that line. I hope that other Liberals will change their approach and support what is being put forward here, because we do need to put an end to those who take down the unsuspecting people. We need to put an end to those who sell unsafe products. We need to put an end to the fly-by-nighters. People often need a case story to get the message. It was not so long ago that some house painters went through the areas of central Queensland with the idea of silver-frosting roofs. They picked on the old people, the old pensioners, and they would go along and offer them a price. They would then spray the roof, usually with a low quality silver-frost paint. I came across one place where they had not even bothered to lift the branches off the roof; they just sprayed over the leaves. As the wind blew one could see huge gaps where the silver-frost was missing. I came across another house where, after the first rain, the paint went down the drainpipe. They went to this old dear in Mount Morgan and offered to paint her roof-and they did so because she needed it painted. They then said to her: `We would like to paint your house'. She said: `I have not got the money'. They said: `How much money do you have in the bank?'. She said: `I have $800'. They said: `That is just what the price is'. They then went to the bank with her, withdrew the money and went back and silver-frosted her house. They are the sorts of things that go on when there are no controls. Fortunately, thanks to local police officers, we got those fellows and we got her money back. We were unable to compensate her by having her house repainted, but at least we got the money back for her. They are the sorts of things that I believe the fair dinkum Australian wants to put an end to. To do that we need legislation, protection and laws. We need provisions that are going to be enforceable. We do not want to get caught up in the courts all the time, whether it be a safety matter or any other consumer matter. We need to protect the rights of the business person, the entrepreneur, but let us make sure that there is true protection for the consumer. We have to ensure that people are kept from danger, that we are not having dangerous toys on the shelves. People caught up in the pushy environment of Christmas buy everything and anything, and face the consequences afterwards. Products come into this country and we have no control over whether they are lead based or not. We need to have some sort of preventive measure and also curative measure so that, if we do not stop it from getting here, at least once we find out that it is a hazardous good we can do something about it and not only ban it but also recall it. Finally, I want to echo my previous comments about the link credit provider. We have had a lot of trouble in recent years because banks and finance companies have been backing the crooks who have been running all sorts of rorts in the aerobic industry and the video industry. This legislation will put an end to that because the banks and finance companies from here on in will have to check the bona fides of those who promote the video schemes, the future food purchase schemes, the health schemes and so on. If the banks do not check them out and the promoters are found to be crooked, we can take action against the banks and the finance companies. This legislation deserves support and I call on the Liberal Party particularly to cast aside the attitude of the honourable member for North Sydney and company and back this legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(11.07) —This Liberal and National Party Opposition does not belittle the importance of many of the instances that the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) has, I think rather selectively, drawn to the attention of the House. But I wonder whether he really does believe that the bureaucratic straitjacket and the draconian, authoritarian provisions of some clauses of the legislation before the House will really achieve more effective and prompt results than the voluntary arrangements supplementing existing Federal and State law already in place. I will come back to that because I wish to direct my remarks principally to the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill. There are two Bills before the House. We have the Trade Practices Revision Bill, to which the honourable member for Capricornia directed his attention and which is substantially the same measure as the Trade Practices Amendment Bill that was before the House last year, and separately we have the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill, which picks up the clause deleted from last year's Trade Practices Amendment Bill which dealt, in effect, with the bare transfer of monopoly power and embodies it in this separate Bill. As I say, I want to direct my remarks mainly to that area. The Trade Practices Revision Bill, which last year was the Trade Practices Amendment Bill, was very extensively debated in this House on 19 November last year. My colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) who opened this debate today has traversed much of that ground. It is a major legislative package which adds very significantly to the burden of regulation on the business sector. That emphasises, as does the bleeding heart type of speech that we just heard from the honourable member for Capricornia, the hypocrisy of the Government's rhetoric about lifting the burden of unnecessary and excessive regulation on business. That rhetoric began with the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in November 1984 when, under the heading of `business deregulation', he stated: The reconstruction of Australia needs the systematic removal of unnecessary institutional and legal impediments to applying our national resources to their most productive uses . . . We have begun to review the great volume of laws and regulations affecting business which have accumulated over the past eighty-four years of the Australian Federation. They fall with particular impact on small business. It is good that that is recognised. He continued: Over the term of the next Parliament we will remove legislation and regulation- I repeat: He said: ``remove''- which is damaging to business and employment expansion, and which is not justified as an efficient means of promoting economic and social objectives. I have quoted the general thrust of the Government's rhetoric simply to contrast it with this measure containing 70-odd clauses which imposes so many additional potential restrictions on business. I will say no more than that my colleague, in summing up the measure in November last year, stated: The Bill- in effect this Bill that is now before us, the Trade Practices Revision Bill- gives the lie to the Government's deregulation rhetoric; to its expressed concern to consult with business- which it has not done- and to lift the burden of unnecessary regulation and, by doing so, help Australian business to regain its competitive edge. The Bill portrays an astonishing indifference to how business operates . . . It is doctrinaire, regulatory and profoundly anti-business. This side of the House persists in its strong opposition to that Bill. I turn to the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill. The Opposition's position is that it proposes an amendment, sometimes referred to as a grandfather amendment, the effect of which is to preclude-it does not refer, of course, specifically to the Bell Resources bid for the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, but since that is the current major takeover which involves an existing monopoly, that is implicit-the particular instance of that takeover bid from the effects of the change in the law which this Bill now proposes. That is in the interests of maintaining consistency with our view that when such a takeover bid has been formally commenced, as it has, with the lodgment of the Part A statement, the law, the `rules of the game' that applied when the statement was lodged should not be changed. Subject to that, the Opposition supports-and this should be made quite clear to the electorate-the amendment to the merger provisions of section 50 of the Trade Practices Act that is proposed in this Bill. The Opposition supports the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill subject to that general amendment to which I have referred. The logic of that position is unassailable. The whole thrust of section 50 of the Trade Practices Act-as is the case with section 46 which deals with monopolisation and, to some extent, section 47 which deals with exclusive dealing and section 49 which deals with price discrimination-is to prevent the creation of monopolies, and the extension of monopoly power. It is patently ludicrous that that legislation should be used to protect and entrench monopolies where the whole thrust of the legislation is to prevent the creation of monopolies. There has been no change in the Opposition's attitude to this clause as it appeared in the original Trade Practices Amendment Bill. It was not up front at the time because of the importance of the other clauses of that Bill to which I briefly referred, which are now embodied in the Trade Practices Revision Bill. It is our consistent view that this change to the existing law should be made. I am certain that that is also the view of the Trade Practices Commission. I am certain that that was the view, at all events, that was expressed by the previous Chairman, Mr Ron Bannerman. There was the matter of the Bond Corporation acquisition of Western Australia's sole brewer-a monopoly, in that sense-the Swan Brewery Co. Ltd. At that time or in the aftermath of that there was a determination that the Trade Practices Commission would not prevent the bare transfer of ownership of an existing monopoly, and that is what this measure before the House is concerned with. That gets caught up under the terms of the present section 50 because another party moving into that position is acquiring an extension of its monopoly power. But in the bare transfer of the ownership of an existing monopoly situation from one party to another there is no actual extension of monopoly power in the market. It is anomalous that the Trade Practices Commission should be obliged to be involved in action which would inhibit that in the context of an Act which is designed, as I have said, to prevent the creation of monopolies or the extension of monopoly power. An involvement of the Trade Practices Commission would inevitably delay and possibly in other ways affect the transfer. I again stress that a law which is designed to stop monopolies being created should not allow them to be protected. This is the consistent view of the Opposition and, subject to the amendment we have proposed, we would support the Bill. We have nevertheless witnessed an extraordinarily widespread view that there ought to be an inquiry of some sort into the proposed takeover bid for BHP by Bell Resources. That bid is inevitably within the purview of this debate because of the widespread discussion that has taken place. There is widespread support for an inquiry and even for more extensive Government intervention. The Prime Minister himself was gung ho about an inquiry in the early stages. Presumably he saw it as a matter of protecting the unions from some perceived threat if the takeover were to proceed-if necessary, at the expense of the shareholders of BHP. The New South Wales Premier, Mr Wran, was strongly in the act, as were, one might add, a number of senior commentators, sections of Australian business and maybe even the Board of BHP itself. They were seeking some sort of inquiry or perhaps more extensive Government intervention. There are two issues I would refer to in discussing such intervention, where surely this is a matter which should be determined by the market. I raise the first issue by posing the question: Is the Australian economy so limited in size and sophistication that the takeover of a company which is very large, which is heavily involved with the Government or whose employment levels are important to the economy of a particular region or State, has to be regarded as an event outside the purview of the normal operation of the system, requiring blocking or modifying or demanding a special inquiry or special undertakings? The second issue is that the proposed partial takeover is to be funded mainly by large borrowings and it was thought that the sheer size of these borrowings has the potential to weaken both the target company and what one might call the stalking company, the company proposing the takeover. As to whether or not the Australian economy is so limited in size and sophistication, I express the judgment that that is not the case. While the Australian economy is small and perhaps not so ebulliently free enterprise as the United States economy, we still have a vigorous and effective business sector and in my judgment it could cope. It is my judgment also that BHP is big enough to cope and to look after itself, and that is a widespread view out in the community. As to the argument that there is a case for intervention because of existing Government involvement, that would be introducing a very dangerous principle because, as pointed out in the Australian Financial Review, very few Australian manufacturing companies do not receive government assistance in some form or another. Whether by way of tariff, quota or subsidy, as in the case of BHP, most receive some form of government assistance. So, it would be extremely unusual if a government inquiry were to be held because a company was so involved with the Government. Is it suggested that every tariff-protected, quota-supported or subsidised business in the country should be held to have traded off its independence from government inquiry in the event of a takeover by virtue of that government assistance? I am sure the answer to that is no. I do not think that is any sort of argument. The second issue to which I referred concerned the borrowing, the large leverage, which could lead to some weakness. Let us be clear: This takeover bid has been made in an open market situation. It is subject to expert scrutiny by the lending institutions that will be putting up money, and by the big institutions numbered amongst the BHP shareholders who will determine whether they will accept or reject the offer. This takeover will not happen until after this scrutiny, which is part and parcel of the operation of the market system in which we believe and to which we are committed. It will not proceed if there is expert judgment that this alleged weakness stemming from large borrowings is of any great significance. As the Opposition has consistently said, this matter should be left to the market-place. The call for Government intervention is unnecessary and unwise. It should be left to the market. In general terms, the Opposition strongly supports the amending legislation before the House. The bare transfer of monopoly power is not a matter which should be subject to inquiry or delay by the Trade Practices Commission. Mr Cadman —Or the Parliament. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Or the Parliament, as my colleague says. We have a law to stop monopolies being created. The law should not allow them to be protected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(11.27) —I do not think anyone, whether he supports this trade practices legislation or opposes it, would deny that it is legislation of great importance. As a member of the Parliament and supporter of the Government who supports this legislation, I see it as being indicative of the responsibility that has been accepted not only by this Government but also by successive governments to attempt to put into place legislation designed not just to ensure that a business in Australia will act ethically and with some decency but, despite the vigour that we expect in business activities and competition, will act in a way which is not detrimental to the interests, particularly the long term interests, of Australia and of the Australian community. In addition, as a result of initiatives taken by the Whitlam Government in the early 1970s, this legislation enshrines in the Commonwealth statutes very significant and precise forms of legislative control designed to ensure that Australian consumers can act commercially, can buy and can relate to business with some degree of assurance that they will not be ripped off-not just ripped off, but positively endangered. Examples of the need for control were given by the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) whose understanding of and concern for consumer protection is very well known. An example was given of toy guillotines that were on sale that had the capacity to sever a child's finger. I do not know what it is in the thinking of supposed ethical business people who are hell-bent on making a quid that would allow them to put an implement of that kind on the market. The suggestion has been made by members of the Opposition that there is something sinister and inherently anti-business about this legislation. It is nothing of the kind. The Australian people indicated in the 1960s that they expected legislation to be put into place by the Commonwealth Parliament to ensure that business would be required to act ethically, that mergers would be subject to scrutiny and that monopolisation-an increasing concentration of economic and commercial power-would be matters of concern to the national community and the national Parliament. As I have said, successive government have respected that wish. These two items of legislation, the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill and the Trade Practices Revision Bill, are essentially the legislation that was introduced into and passed through this chamber towards the end of last year. As a result of developments that have taken place with the parties which make up the Senate, it has been necessary for the Government to withdraw that legislation from the Senate and to split the Trade Practices Amendment Bill into two pieces to facilitate its passage. We have seen a very marked difference in the attitude that has been adopted by the coalition in the Senate, which generally opposes the legislation but supports the proposed amendment to section 50 to enable the transfer of monopoly power from one beneficial owner to another, and it is opposed to the other business control and consumer protection provisions of the legislation. That was the position that was adopted by the coalition parties in the Senate. The Australian Democrats, on the other hand, have embraced and applauded particularly the consumer protection provisions of the legislation, but they have indicated that, because of their concerns about the implications of section 50 and the amendments proposed to it in relation to the present takeover bid by Mr Holmes a Court for Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, in particular, they will oppose that part of the legislation. In the light of those circumstances, there was no possibility that the legislation would have received a free passage through the Senate. As I have said, the legislation was then withdrawn by the Government and split into two parts. We are in the process of considering the two new Bills in a cognate debate. Because it is important to put into context the legislation that we are considering, I wish to make some very brief reference to its background. I think it is generally understood that there is no clear constitutional provision which makes it possible for the Commonwealth to legislate on consumer trade practices. Shortly after the Commonwealth came into being an attempt was made to legislate in that area, with the passage of what was known as the Australian Industries Preservation Act. Unfortunately, that Act was challenged in the High Court of Australia very shortly after it was passed through the Parliament and the High Court ruled that it was unconstitutional; in other words, it was invalid. Of course, the whole question of Commonwealth involvement in this area lapsed until 1965 when the original trade practices legislation was introduced. I believe, and I think it is now generally accepted, that that legislation introduced in 1965 was extremely deficient, but it indicated then the growing community concern about some of those things which I referred to earlier. When that legislation was passed in 1965, it was also challenged in connection with what became known as the concrete pipes case. The High Court made a very interesting decision at that time because it ruled that the particular legislation was invalid-that is, it declared that the Commonwealth did not have the constitutional capacity to act in the way that it sought to act under that legislation-but, very fortunately, what the Court did was expressly to overrule the Huddart Parker decision that had been made before and it ruled that the Commonwealth had power to regulate the trading activities of trading companies. That decision by the High Court on that occasion was fundamental to the power of the Commonwealth to intercede in areas of that kind and to legislate along the lines which subsequent Commonwealth parliaments have done. Following that legislation, the Trade Practices Act was passed in 1971. A certain number of problems, difficulties and deficiencies were exposed in that legislation. It was then sought to rectify or overcome some of those deficiencies in 1974 when the Whitlam Government introduced and then passed what has now become the principal Act of 1974, the Act to which we are now in the process of considering amendments. I refer to the principal Trade Practices Act. That action indicated at that time not only the commitment that the Australian Labor Party had to the pursuit of sound, legitimate, fair, just and ethical business practices but also an overwhelming commitment that the ALP had accepted to ensure that at the Commonwealth level Commonwealth governments will accept responsibility to legislate to protect consumers as well. I know that many of our States have been very enlightened in the approach that they have taken to consumer protection but it is appropriate, of course, as it must be appropriate, that the Commonwealth become involved. So we introduced that embracing legislation in 1974. The first major review of that legislation was conducted in 1976 by what was known as the Swanson Committee, and a large number of amendments were made in 1977 following that review. They were designed to ensure that the principal Act would perform its dual functions of controlling restrictive trade practices and monopolisation and at the same time protecting consumers from unfair commercial practices. A subsequent review-a second major review of that legislation-took place in 1983 shortly after this Government came into office. In the process of setting up that review the Government accepted a commitment which it had made and clearly enunciated prior to the 1983 election that it would amend the Trade Practices Act. That announcement was released in a business regulations paper in which all of the Government's proposals were outlined. There was an additional responsibility which the Government and the Labor Party had adopted in relation to its commitments under the prices and incomes accord which also highlighted the need to amend certain sections of the Trade Practices Act. That 1983 review gave rise to two important discussion papers. It was out of those two discussion papers-`The Trade Practices Act: Proposals for Change' and the subsequent one called `Recall of Unsafe Products' that a large proportion of these present proposals have arisen. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), when leading for the Opposition when this legislation first came before this House in November 1985, said in part in his contribution to the debate: The Trade Practices Amendment Bill is a text-book example of a Bill which is deeply anti-business. He kept on reverting and referring to that theme. Further on in his speech he referred to `Labor's anti-business instinct'. Referring to the legislation, he wound up his last sentence by saying in part that it was anti-business. The Opposition cannot get away with that any longer. It knows that it has been rejected by the private sector in Australia. The private business sector in Australia knows that, after the devastation that the Opposition brought to the Australian economy when it was in government, the constructive, consistent, enlightened and successful policies of the Hawke Government were responsible for turning the economy around, for building confidence, encouraging investment, bringing down inflation and unemployment and increasing employment. Something like 600,000 jobs have been created. The Opposition cannot get away with things any longer. The point that I want to emphasise in connection with that type of reference is this: If members of the Opposition genuinely believe that legislation of this kind which is designed to ensure ethical business practice and consumer protection is anti-business, what business in Australia are they really representing? I will tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and tell the Parliament that if that is their attitude about what is anti-business, they are not representing the vast majority of business people in Australia who act with vigour in the commercial community but also act ethically. They are not representing them. We know the ones they represent-those people who hounded them about copping out of the bottom of the harbour legislation; all of those shady characters who invaded the corridors, rooms and offices of this Parliament in an attempt to get them to water down the legislation which, on occasions, they introduced when they were dragged screaming into this place; legislation which was introduced in order to stop the tax dodgers, tax lurks and tax sharks. These are the people members of the Opposition represent and the community increasingly knows it. That is why the support for this Government is overwhelming, as it should be. The people of Australia are not dills or fools. They are not going to be hoodwinked and led up the garden path by members of the Opposition. They are enlightened, perceptive people who have displayed, as I have said on other occasions, outstanding judgment. They will continue to do so. The judgment which they make is on the Opposition and the people in this community that the Opposition represents. When this legislation got to the Senate in February, Senator Durack, who was leading for the Opposition, stated: . . . in essence and in principle the Opposition supports pro-competitive regulation of the kind in the Trade Practices Act . . . Does it indeed? I ask the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), who is sitting at the table: `Does it indeed?'. Is the Opposition going to vote for this legislation? Of course not. No one there is going to vote for this legislation. Mr McGauran —You are hysterical. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Hysterical! The people in Australia will increasingly be more hysterical about the attitude that Opposition characters adopt. They have tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the Australian people. Those people have got greater judgment and greater perception than Opposition members give them credit for. They should not take them for mugs and they should not come into this place and say they support the legislation. We will see whether they support the legislation when we divide on it. The people out there will get the list of names of all the people recorded in the Hansard who opposed and voted against it. What nonsense it is to say that honourable members opposite support this legislation. Senator Durack went on to say: It is our view that this example of proposed legislation should be opposed . . . What example of proposed legislation to protect the consumers and to ensure that business does not rip them off has ever been supported by the Opposition? In one word I can answer that rhetorical question-none. Let us hear no more of that nonsense. I am pleased to see that Senator Janine Haines, who led for the Australian Democrats, was considerably more honest. In part, referring to this legislation, she stated: . . . it is essentially a piece of good consumer legislation under which consumers, whether they are individuals or small businesses, will get more protection than they do currently. This is the considered judgment of the person leading for the Democrats. Let us see then where members of the Opposition stand on this. Let us see whether they divide on it and record for posterity all of their names as being in opposition to this legislation. In the short time that remains I want to make some brief reference to the amendments to section 50 of the Trade Practices Act. Those amendments were hardly referred to when the legislation was being considered initially last year, but they have been highlighted as a result of the attempt on the part of Mr Holmes a Court's Bell Resources Ltd to take over shares in BHP and to assume control of that company. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has indicated that the original Act-the 1974 Act; the one we are in the process of amending-was not intended to, and should not, interfere with bare transfers or monopoly power from one beneficial owner to another. Of course, the legislation is concerned about preserving competition. The point here is that if a monopoly is being transferred from one owner to another it has no significant competitive implications at all. For that reason, the Attorney-General stated: . . . because it is a competition statute; bare transfers of monopoly power are, by their very nature, neutral in competitive terms. I do not want to say a great deal about Mr Holmes a Court's proposed takeover, except to express some reservations which I continue to have about Mr Holmes a Court's capacity to finance the loan raising. If all of the shareholders in BHP were to accept his offer of $7.70c a share and took it in the form of cash, Mr Holmes a Court would have to have on hand $4 billion. I do not think it is available to him. It is certainly not available within Bell Resources. Its capitalisation is about $1 billion, which means that substantial borrowings would be involved. It is conservatively estimated that the amount of borrowing that he would need to undertake would be approximately $2 billion. I am concerned about the Australian steel industry but, in addition to that, I represent a large number of steel workers. I have seen the number of steel workers in Newcastle reduced from approximately 11,000 to 5,000 during the rationalisation process which has been under way in BHP. I want to be reasonably certain that if and when Mr Holmes a Court takes over BHP he is not going to find it necessary to finance that loan raising by stripping the assets, including the selling off of BHP interest in other firms, declaring higher dividends so that, in fact, BHP finances its own takeover, suspending any of the investment plans of BHP, cutting back on research and development or gearing down the steel division. I understand that firm assurances have been given to the Cabinet committee that had discussions with Mr Holmes a Court. I can understand Mr Holmes a Court giving undertakings about which there may be some uncertainty concerning the capacity with which those undertakings could be honoured. I hope that the undertakings have been sufficient. If Mr Holmes a Court does succeed in his bid, I hope that he will honour them because of the great deal at stake. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(11.47) —The contribution of the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) is typical of the contribution of previous Government speakers and, no doubt, of speakers to follow him from the Government in that it was pompous, self-righteous and quite dishonest. Lest any listener should be under the misapprehension that the Government is introducing today some sort of legislation which will wave a magic wand and correct all wrongs in the market-place, let me point out the situation with accuracy. The legislation before the House is about highly legal, technical and mostly mechanical adjustments to the Trade Practices Act. It is absolute nonsense for members of the Government to come in here and talk about generalities and every issue but the legislation before the House. It is simply a soap box for members of the Government to talk about specific issues of consumer fraud and dishonesty, none of which any member of the Opposition would disagree with. Indeed, if one looks at the history of the Trade Practices Act one will find that the major protections put in place for consumers were brought about during the Fraser-Anthony years. That is a fact that no member of the Government can deny. We have been subjected, once again, to the haranguing of the honourable member for Charlton. He has tried to elevate a piece of machinery legislation which has important implications for the conduct of business, not so much for the safeguard of consumers. This is a dishonest act on his part. At the risk of stating the obvious, any discussion of the Trade Practices Act will be both complicated and contentious-complicated because of the vast array of legal principles and concepts brought into play; contentious because of the political and economic philosophies behind each of the different approaches exhibited in this chamber, not to mention out in the community, towards trade practices legislation. At the outset let me make perfectly clear my approach to trade practices legislation. I believe that it should be designed to increase competition in the market-place while providing protection for consumers against unethical or fraudulent practices. When the legislation does not achieve this objective and, instead, adds to the existing welter of regulation imposed on the free market, it is bad law and ought to be changed. Excessive regulation-and I feel I need say this only for the benefit of Government members-adds to the cost of production which will eventually be borne by consumers. It is an inescapable fact that the Trade Practices Commission is a regulatory body in itself. We suffer this regulation in the belief that the Commission is charged with the responsibility of increasing competition. Hence the paradox. We impose regulations on the market-place so as to encourage a freer and less regulated market. The problem for the legislators is at once crystal clear but is much more difficult to address. We must never allow the Trade Practices Act to so regulate the market-place as to defeat its true objective, which I have outlined-that is, to increase competition. Where, then, does one draw the line? In my view the starting point has to be the great reluctance to interfere in business without compelling reasons. I certainly agree with the honourable member for Charlton that the protection of the consumer amounts to compelling reasons for interference. Indeed, I wish to put the threshold even higher than compelling reasons and say that unless there is a conviction that the interests of consumers would be served by regulation or, put in another way, served by interference on the part of the Trade Practices Commission, it should stay out. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would appreciate it is immensely difficult to lay down general criteria when interference by the Trade Practices Commission is both proper and desirable. In point of truth, it is a matter of examining each of the circumstances as they arise. There are two pieces of legislation before the chamber; one is the larger Trade Practices Revision Bill 1986 which, for the most part, imposes the same legislation introduced into this chamber on 19 November last year, and the other is a short piece of drafting, the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill 1986, which deals with the very controversial and very widely discussed section 50. For the moment, I wish to deal with the larger Bill, the Trade Practices Revision Bill. The concerns that I had when I spoke on the Bill when it first came before the chamber have not been allayed in any way. It is very important to realise that the provisions of proposed new Division 1A of that Bill, which deal with product safety and product information, will do much to hurt a number of business corporations and will give to the Minister an unfettered power which I frankly believe is unsatisfactory. Let me examine that. The product safety and recall provisions have three major features. The first is that the Minister will be empowered to publish a notice stating that certain goods are under investigation. Secondly, the Minister will also be empowered to publish a notice declaring goods that will or may cause injury. Thirdly, the next step in the process is that the compulsory recall of products such as motor vehicles or pharmaceutical goods can be ordered by the Minister. If the Minister is satisfied that certain goods may cause injury or breach safety standards and if he is further satisfied that the supplier has not taken satisfactory action to prevent injury to consumers, it can be required by the Minister, and it is the Minister's decision alone, to recall those goods. What is wrong with that? I believe that the major concern with giving the Minister such powers is that there is no appeal against a ministerial declaration. Once the Minister makes up his mind to declare some goods or items to be a danger or, to be more precise, unsafe, and he places a ban, there is no way that corporations can appeal against that decision. Nor is there any provision for compensation to a supplier where the recall order was made in error. I believe that the power vested in the Minister allows him to force the recall of certain goods, to repair them or to refund the price of goods, and that effectively is taking over the role of the courts. I very much regret the thrust of this legislation which is to give the Minister unfettered powers with no provision of appeal to a supplier or manufacturer of goods that the Minister arbitrarily declares to be the supplier of unsafe goods. Other features of the Trade Practices Revision Bill cause me and members of the Opposition great concern because they further add to the welter of regulation and red tape which businesses at great expense have to satisfy. I can only stress again to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) that the cost of business meeting the regulations and red tape is borne by the consumers at the end of the day. That may well be right and proper if the consumers were obtaining a tangible benefit. But under this legislation, which can be best summarised as anti- business, that is not the case. I wish to turn to the other legislation before the House which deals with section 50 of the Trade Practices Act. It is far, far easier to draft legislation in the area of shonky goods or dishonest advertising which directly affects consumers. There seems to be common ground between not just members of this chamber but business and consumer organisations themselves. Instances of retail fraud are easier to establish than the more complex dealings of the share and financial markets. No one has any sympathy for fraudulent practices by either manufacturers, suppliers or retailers. Consumers need protection in many different fields. Tough penalties must apply where such fraud-as defined by the Trade Practices Act-is made out. However, the problems surrounding some of the more complex workings of the market-place do not lend themselves to such bipartisanship or to such relatively easy solutions, particularly the problems surrounding mergers which have been the subject of wide discussions throughout the community for some time. Firms acquire other firms-usually smaller firms-for a variety of reasons. It may be to increase market power, to diversify so as to spread the risks, to achieve economies of scale or greater financial strength, to reap the profits associated with a merger transaction or to obtain tax advantages. In addition, it hardly needs to be pointed out that there are often human factors which come into play on a number of these mergers. From a broader point of view, the impact may be beneficial since mergers, even very large ones, may increase competition, provide economies of production or, for that matter, of distribution, and incite greater technical progressiveness. The potential negative effects have been the primary focus of recent concern. The increased concentration resulting from mergers may also be detrimental to competition, prices and efficiency. Questions have been raised about the economic benefits of mergers. In my view, there are two basic approaches. One approach is to focus on competition as the sole criterion of acceptability. I may say, having looked at the policies of a number of different countries in regard to mergers, I have found that competition is accepted by a great number of them as being the sole criterion for deciding whether a merger is acceptable or unacceptable. The other and broader approach is to ask whether or not the merger is in the public interest. Such a criterion takes into account possible social and economic effects as well as the impact on competition in determining whether or not a merger should be allowed. My view is that the Parliament cannot rule out for all time the prospect of the need to hold an inquiry into proposed mergers. There may well be some grounds in some cases. For instance, in the United States of America, particularly in New York but also in several of the larger cities such as Chicago, there has been large Mafia control of construction firms. A number of construction firms have been acquiring middle sized or small firms. In some cities this has led to a Mafia dominance of the construction industry. I understand that a number of mergers have been induced not just by financial incentives but that other offers have been made to directors or proprietors of construction firms which, to use a colloquialism, they could not refuse. Clearly in that case an inquiry as to public benefit should be initiated. Admittedly, that is an easy example and I do not think that there would be too many people in this place who would have any objections to a public benefit inquiry in those circumstances or in circumstances where a recommendation or warning came from the National Crime Authority. In the more legitimate takeovers, how does one conduct an inquiry into public interest? For that matter, how does one define public interest? This problem has always plagued this Parliament, not to mention the Trade Practices Commission, the business community and persons interested in this matter. At the end of the day, when all is said and done, the decision on mergers must rest with the shareholders. It is their right as investors to decide the fate of the corporation in which they have invested; it is not for the Government to decide for them. How can the Government tell a shareholder that he is not permitted to accept an offer worth twice the value of his share on the stock exchange? Such a move by the Government, except in rare and special circumstances-we would not know what those rare and special circumstances were until the issue was upon us-should not deprive investors, whether institutional or private, of that basic right to determine their own financial standing. Much of the discussion on the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill is taking place against the background of the bid made by the Bell Group Ltd on the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. I believe that the principles I have enunciated are those which are accepted by the Opposition. Firstly, no government can decide on behalf of the shareholders of BHP whether or not the offer made by the Bell Group ought to be accepted. Secondly, the rare and special circumstances which would justify the holding of a public inquiry do not exist, leaving aside any discussion on the format and powers of the inquiry or how it should be conducted. For that matter, what criteria should be established for deciding the public benefit? Since the Trade Practices Act came into force in 1974, section 50 of the Act, which is to be amended, has prohibited the acquisition of shares or assets by a corporation in a body corporate where the likely effect of the acquisition was to lessen substantially competition in a market-place for goods or services. The problem with that 1974 Act was that the courts interpreted it to mean that almost all mergers were caught by section 50. It was amended in July 1977 so that section 50 prohibited an acquisition if it had the likely effect of placing the acquiring corporation in a position to control or dominate a substantial market. Following a number of common law decisions, the problem arose that no mergers were caught by section 50. We have before us a sensible and proper amendment by the Government in regard to section 50, but only so long as the Government accepts our amendment, which is that any action or takeover bid commenced under section 50 prior to its amendment will continue in the same vein. In other words, to use that often quoted phrase, which in these circumstances is extremely accurate, do not change the rules of the game after the game has been commenced. Unless the Government accepts our amendment, which is called a grandfather amendment, I believe that it will not provide the consistency and certainty which this legislature has a duty to enhance. In conclusion, I stress the position of the Opposition which is that the Government, except in undefined circumstances, does not have the right to interfere in the market-place. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(12.07) —I rise to speak to the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill and the Trade Practices Revision Bill. While it is my intention to devote my time to the Trade Practices Revision Bill, which will bring some long awaited justice to Australia's much abused consumers, I would like to touch on some ramifications of the currently more controversial Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill. Primarily I am concerned that the provisions of the latter Bill and the issues surrounding the offer by Bell Resources Ltd for shares in the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd should be kept separate. While I do not claim that any such legislation could not in certain circumstances affect this or similar attempted business transactions, I think that legislation should be debated in this House on its merits or demerits. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has made it clear that this Bill, in ensuring that section 50 of the Trade Practices Act does not apply to bare person to person transfers of monopoly power, is addressing anomalies such as those which emerged during the acquisition of the Swan Brewery Co. Ltd in 1982. On that occasion the authorisation test for proposed acquisitions, such as that by Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd, was found to be inadequate because it was based on mergers having an effect on competition. The Trade Practices Commission decided that the Swan transaction was competition neutral. As a result the apparent breach of section 50 was not acted on. It is important to note that, while the Commission certainly did not authorise the merger, by the same token it did not take action against it. It is just not logical or desirable that such a loose situation should exist in such an important area. It is certainly not in the public interest to force a body such as the Trade Practices Commission to make ad hoc decisions whenever a transfer of a dominant position in a market-place from one person to another is mooted. This amendment will apply to any acquisition which takes place from the start of the legislation. There are aspects of the proposed Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd takeover which cause me concern. In some ways government is not easy. The objective of all Government members is identical: We wish to consider all legislation comparatively with a view to offering the best overall deal to the majority of Australians; we wish to legislate where legislation is required without forcing society to grind to a halt by over-regulation. Too much legislation is as bad in its effect on ordinary Australians as too little legislation. A responsible government must find the middle road. However, while we in the Government ranks share an objective of action for the common good, but of course giving priority and applying positive discrimination to assisting the disadvantaged in our society, we differ in choosing the means towards that end. An effective government means a united government. However, all members must stand by their consciences in very serious matters. The forum for proposing changes of policy direction, such as this, is within the Caucus and the debate will continue within these confines. Meanwhile the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill tightens up provisions affecting decisions made by the Trade Practices Commission by replacing an unsatisfactory ad hoc situation and I am thoroughly behind the Government and the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in the comments that he has made in introducing the changes embodied in this legislation. The Trade Practices Revision Bill also tightens and strengthens trade practices provisions which have an enormous effect on Australian consumers. These changes should have been made years ago and I am proud to be part of a government which is introducing provisions which will expand much needed consumer protection in key areas. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) gave an entirely false impression about consumer protection measures during the Fraser years. Past governments, Federal and State, have introduced some consumer protection processes and many of these have been effective. However, I wish to quote from a paper prepared by Roland Everingham, the Assistant Director of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations. In August 1985, he said: Consumers can be justifiably disappointed with voluntary standards which have tended to institutionalise industry practice rather than protect the interests of consumers. He went on to say: If voluntary standards have been disappointing, the situation is even worse with mandatory standards. Recently only 11 product safety standards and 21 banning orders were current under the Trade Practices Act and only three companies had been convicted for breaching such a standard. This Labor initiative is extremely important and will have long ranging effects. No section of this Bill is more important than the new Division 1a of clause 35 which deals with product safety and recall and important product information. For years Australian consumers have been placed at risk because of lack of recall provisions for hazardous products. It has been a national scandal. As AFCO noted in August 1985, there are a number of different areas which should be attended to. Speaking of the recall of hazardous products, AFCO said: At present, no government in Australia has the power to order the recall of products found to be dangerous after sale, let alone those that need modification or repairs for defects. This situation must be reversed. A mandatory recall code for hazardous products should be introduced immediately. The Hawke Government is introducing such provisions. The Trade Practices Act already provides for bans to be placed on the supply of unsafe products. The Trade Practices Amendment Bill has already been before this House in November 1985. The Bill extended protection to consumers in a number of areas, but pertinent to my comments today were the amendments to sections 62 and 63 of the Act relating to the recall of unsafe products. That is a most important area for the consumer. The Bill's provisions for mandatory recall provide reserve powers which can be used when the safety of the consumer is at risk and when voluntary recall schemes prove ineffective. Some Opposition members claimed during the November debate and again today that the provisions were anti-business. People's safety is at risk and yet there are Opposition members crying `anti-business'. These provisions are not anti-business; they are pro consumer and proudly so. It is about time that some significant laws of the land favoured consumers. In relation to the anti-business arguments, it is obvious that amendments to section 46 are aimed at reinforcing the protection afforded to innovative businesses wishing to enter new markets or expand in existing markets by preventing large firms from abusing their market power with the purpose of preventing that entry or expansion. In this sense, businesses which compete aggressively but fairly can only benefit from the section 46 amendments. Division 1 of Part V, while it protects consumers from misleading or deceptive conduct, also protects reputable businesses by preventing unscrupulous traders from using unfair tactics, such as making false representations to gain an advantage over their more ethical rivals. This is evidenced by the fact that most civil litigation under Division 1 involves one trader suing a rival for breaching the Act. In answer to the concerns of the honourable member for Gippsland, which were valid but not well based, I point out that product recall provisions under the Act provide adequate review procedures to safeguard the interests of suppliers. The majority of Australian business people, who are too responsible to wish to put Australians' health and safety at risk, will not be adversely affected by this legislation. Those who do not care will be made to care. The risks that have been faced by consumers who are not protected by such legislation should not be trivialised because these are not minimal. Let us consider the wine scandal that was identified last year. Imported Australian wines which were contaminated were sold to Australians by direct mail order. Those wines were contaminated with the anti-freeze chemical diethylene glycol. Even after the contamination was discovered in Europe, it was two weeks before the Australian public was informed that the wine was available locally. There have also been many instances where manufacturers have simply refused to recall apparently unsafe products. Some relate to road safety and honourable members should remember that road trauma is a major cause of death and injury in Australia. As such it is a major cause of concern to governments, both Federal and State. I will note a couple of cases. General Motors-Holden's Commodore cars were refused registration in the Australian Capital Territory because of cracks in the floor pan. GMH refused at that stage to recall the vehicles but agreed to rectify the fault at no cost to the owner. GMH therefore had little outlay in rectifying those vehicles that were returned for repair because only a small fraction of owners would have been aware of this `out of warranty' repair offer. That was reported in the Canberra Times on 5 October 1984. A couple of other instances were recorded by AFCO. The Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd refused to recall Cortinas with inadequate carburettor fittings that caused engine fires. That was in 1981. In 1980, Ducati motor cycles were found to have faulty front wheels. The company charged $150 to replace them. These were a number of incidents in which no action was taken because there were no adequate recall provisions for hazardous products in Australia, and so it goes on. The honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) referred to the speech by the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) as a bleeding heart speech. Actually, I am surprised that the honourable member for Berowra should make this comment as I have heard him make concerned speeches in this chamber and I must note that he is a man of conscience. But in this instance whose heart would not bleed and whose anger would not rise at the lack of public protection which existed in the past and which this Bill seeks to redress? There is another very important matter touching our national conscience which is addressed in this Bill. It relates to the international trade in hazardous products. I note that sub-section 65 (3) of the Trade Practices Act, consistent with the United Nations guidelines on consumer policy to which Australia, I am pleased to say, is a signatory, prohibits the export of goods which do not comply with consumer product safety standards, or have been declared unsafe or made the subject of a permanent banning order under the section, unless the Minister has consented in writing to the export of the goods. This will allow the Minister to consent to the export of such goods in appropriate circumstances-for example, where a foreign government requests supply of a certain product. To put this section into context, I point out that in 1972 the World Health Organisation reported that some 5,000 people die from the use of pesticides and 500,000 people are poisoned every year, and many of them from pesticides imported into developing countries. Third World nations are already staggering under the interest on foreign debt, famine and the effects of colonialism, and now what does the conscience of the developed world dictate? It dictates the exporting of pesticides into those countries, pesticides which have adverse effects on those unhappy people. That regulation is required to try to control this important area of criminal action by developed nations is a disgrace. But I am afraid it is so. After the United States discovered that the Dalkon shield intra-uterine device could be dangerous, about one million of these devices disappeared. It was later found that, in a bulk packaged and unsterile condition, they had actually been shipped to population control clinics in about 40 Third World countries-an appalling scandal. A number of such instances have occurred, both in Australia and in the area of international trade in hazardous products. The promotion of anabolic steroids as an answer to malnutrition and underweight children is emerging as the scandal of the 1980s. Countless children in the undeveloped world have suffered irreversible side effects, such as the masculinisation of girls, as a result of using these steroids. Australia should not turn its back on this problem, this criminal action, of international trade in hazardous products-nor will this Government. It is for that reason that we are introducing this important section which deals with prohibiting the export of goods which do not comply with consumer product safety standards in Australia. I will briefly comment on some of the other aspects of the legislation which I welcome. Section 53b will be repealed and replaced by a new section 53b. This is to prohibit a corporation engaging in conduct in relation to employment opportunities which is liable to mislead as to the availability, nature, terms, conditions or any matter of such employment. This section covers oral representations as well as the publishing of misleading advertisements concerning employment opportunities. Such abuse abounds in times of high unemployment. People who mislead in such a way prey upon the misery of those people who are seeking work. Job Watch, a Melbourne based organisation funded by the Victorian Government, has passed various complaints it has received to the Trade Practices Commission for action, including one about an American based operation, World Wide Opportunities, which placed advertisements in Sydney newspapers seeking people interested in working overseas and which, on inquiry, replied requesting a $35 international money order in return for a foreign employment information guide listing overseas employers. This causes unhappiness to young people and others who are hoping to get off the treadmill of unemployment benefit and earn their own way. Advertisements in the positions vacant column of daily papers sought courier owner-drivers interested in becoming sub-contractors with a leading transport company, but those inquiring were required to purchase a vehicle before gaining employment and the operation was run by a licensed motor car trader. It was another major abuse of consumers, and another reason why the legislation introduced in November and the amendments proposed today and spoken to so ably by the Attorney-General are entirely necessary. If only one could rely on the conscience of nations, governments and businesses to do the right thing by people, certainly no legislation would be necessary. But we cannot so rely, which is why this legislation is not only desirable but also essential to the continuing health and safety of Australians, both individually and as a nation. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(12.27) —I would like to say something this afternoon about the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill and the Trade Practices Revision Bill, which are currently before the House, although I did speak at some length in the previous debate not so long ago on the Trade Practices Amendment Bill. To begin with I would like to say something about the Trade Practices Revision Bill, which would appear to be the successor of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill, and to reiterate one of the points made by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), which was an important point. That is that, although on the one hand the Opposition does support a free and fair market-place in which business can operate with a bare minimum of regulation, it would be a gross misrepresentation of our position to say that we oppose all regulation designed to ensure that business acts in that market-place with propriety and with the interests of the consumers at heart. Of course, we believe ultimately in the interests of the Australian consumer, not ultimately in the interests of business as such. But it is through a free market-place and through fair rules for that market-place that business can help, above all, the Australian consumer. The legislation before the House today imposes an enormous increase in regulation on the business community. It is quite in contradiction of what the Government's professed policy is all about. After all, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) have established a deregulation unit in the Office of Consumer Affairs. That deregulation unit is charged, at some expense to the taxpayer, with the job of drawing up ways of reducing imposts on business and regulations. Whilst that deregulation unit is operating, the Government is ramming through additional regulations in the form of this legislation. The Prime Minister's position-I dare not use the word `hypocrisy' after the controversy yesterday-seems somewhat confused because on 29 October he made a speech to the Business Council of Australia when again he professed his commitment to deregulation and yet, at around that time, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Government were introducing this restrictive and regulatory legislation into the Parliament. To take up the issue of product safety which many have spoken about already, there are 11 1/2 pages worth of regulations which business is now going to have to cope with. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), made some points about specific examples. It is worth taking up one of those examples because she referred to the need for additional regulations to control the abuse in the wine industry when anti-freeze was added to wine. The simple fact is that this legislation, according to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), is not designed to obviate that problem. He said, in answer to a question from the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) some time ago, that his concern in that instance is to achieve uniformity of food Acts. So the example used by the honourable member for Lilley is, by the Government's own admission, completely irrelevant. The second aspect of this Bill which I want briefly to refer to is clause 22, which relates to what are described as `unconscionable contracts'. I spoke about this in my previous speech on this subject. It is a matter of very real concern to me and to the business community. The Government has set up a broad concept of unconscionable contracts in this legislation. Unconscionable contracts are not defined, so that every time anybody in the business community has to sign a contract or make a contract, he will not know whether at some future time the Trade Practices Commission or a court will determine that that contract is unconscionable. If ever there was an example of a government intervening in the market-place and creating uncertainty in business behaviour, clause 22, which is an amendment to section 52, is a case in point. It raises very real questions about the meaning of contracts. It raises very real uncertainty in the business community and, along with the rest of the Bill, it deserves to be rejected. I would like to turn now to the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill which, of course, is the Bill that relates to section 50 of the Trade Practices Act. I strongly support the remarks made on this Bill by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). Mr McGauran —And Gippsland. Mr DOWNER —Also by the honourable member for Gippsland. I think the Government deserves support in the introduction of this Bill, but I give my support in a qualified way. I certainly think that a grandfather clause must be introduced. It would surprise me if the Government and, in particular the Australian Democrats, did not later support that proposal. But I will come back to that point a little later. Section 50 of the Trade Practices Act, of course, is designed to prevent monopolies. I very much agree with that sentiment. I believe that the essence of capitalism is competition, and the ability of companies to compete against each other-not, of course, to make it difficult for them, but to compete against each other-is in the best interests of consumers. That makes companies remain honest and forces them to provide not what the management of a company may want, but what ordinary consumers want in the market-place and, as importantly, at the best possible price. In other words, the consumer, under competition, is guaranteed of getting the best possible deal. For those reasons I would very strongly resist the creation of monopolies and that, of course, is what section 50 of the Trade Practices Act is all about. That is why the Fraser Government during its period in office retained its support for that measure and that is why I think the present Government also supports it. But section 50 is all about anti-competitive behaviour and anti-competitive mergers. It is an inappropriate section of the Trade Practices Act and an inappropriate way to deal with bare transfers of monopoly power. That is not what the spirit of the section is all about. It is not what the detail of it is supposed to be about. The test for section 50 relates to acquisitions which are prima facie anti-competitive-in other words, that is what the section, as I said, is all about. The test that the Trade Practices Commission must apply is found under section 90 (9) which reads: The Commission shall not make a determination granting an authorisation under sub-section 88 (9) in respect of a proposed acquisition of shares in the capital, or assets, of a body corporate unless it is satisfied in all the circumstances that the proposed acquisition would result, or be likely to result, in such a benefit to the public that the acquisition should be allowed to take place. Of course, this raises the very real question about what is in the public interest and what is the net public benefit. There is very considerable debate both in the Commission and among the legal fraternity as to the meaning of `public benefit'. But what has come through from the Trade Practices Commission again and again is that the whole concept of competition is critical to the public benefit. One cannot have a market-place in which there is no competition if that market-place is to be to the benefit of the Australian public. I think that is an extremely important point. I think it is important to remember, in other words, that section 50 is all about competition and ensuring that there is competition. It really should have nothing to do with transfers of ownership of monopolies. I think it is also very important to make the point that to apply the public interest test to a monopoly would insulate those monopolies from any outside attack in the form of acquisitions of shares. In other words, that would entrench the position of monopolists. They would be able to act in the market-place, not in the interests of the consumers or of their shareholders, but in the selfish interests of the management of those monopolies. I cannot see by any definition that that is in the best interests of the Australian people. Monopolists would not be subject to any discipline whatsoever. It is interesting to note an editorial in the Canberra Times of 5 March which puts this point very succinctly. It reads: It seems ridiculous that a law which stops the creation of new monopolies- which is, of course, what section 50 is supposed to be all about- should be used to protect existing monopolies. That same sentiment came through in the Government's Green Paper on the Trade Practices Act, with which I had many difficulties and problems, and in what it saw as the need to reform that Act. The Green Paper stated: Under the existing provision some acquisitions, for example those which involve a `bare transfer' of monopoly power, do not reduce the level of competition at all but still fall within section 50. If the section were to be strictly applied in this way, it could have the effect of reducing business efficiency and performance by rendering entrenched managements immune from the threat-or stimulus-of possible takeover. It is interesting to note, without wishing to make a debating point about any particular companies, that the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd which, of course, is the subject of some controversy in relation to this piece of legislation and this section, also supported the spirit of the amendment that the Government has introduced. BHP wrote to the then Attorney-General, Senator Evans, about the reform of the Trade Practices Act. It is worth pointing out that BHP had many concerns about the Act which are supported also by the Opposition. But page 3 of BHP's letter, under the heading `Section 50', states: As drafted, the proposed new sub- sections . . . overcome an anomaly in the present Section, in that they will not apply to `bare transfers of monopoly power' . . . In other words, there has been broad agreement that this section has been misdrafted and that there is a need to redraft it so that it is entirely clear that it is concerned with stopping anti-competitive practices and not the transfer of monopolies from one person or one company to another, whatever the situation may be. The Attorney-General in his second reading speech has made great play of the Swan Brewery case in 1982. I suppose it is as good an example as one can get of the Trade Practices Commission again expressing the same concerns as those that I have drawn attention to. In that case the Trade Practices Commission made the point that at worst the Swan Brewery takeover was competitively neutral. However, it felt that it could not authorise the takeover because the test is the effect of the merger on competition. Of course, this whole question of competition did not, as the Trade Practices Commission saw it, come into effect in the Swan Brewery case. But the simple fact, through the examples that I have given, is that as section 50 has applied until now it was unsatisfactory. But, as I also said, I believe it is important that the Opposition introduce the grandfather clause and that that grandfather clause be supported by the Government and by the Australian Democrats. We do not want to see the rules changed in the middle of the game, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has said on a number of occasions. Of course, the game in which Australians are interested in this instance is the game relating to the Bell Resources Ltd attempt to take over control of BHP. The Part A statement in that takeover bid was lodged before this legislation had been introduced, so clearly the Government is attempting to change the rules of the game after the takeover bid has been made. The Government should be ensuring that that takeover is dealt with under the law existing at the time the Part A statement was lodged, and it should not be changing the rules after the lodgement of that statement. The position of the various parties involved in the takeover would then be entirely clear and would remain entirely clear. It would not be muddied by this quite controversial changing of the legislation-a change which should not in any other way whatsoever have been controversial. I very much hope that the Government will support our grandfather clause, and I hope that the Australian Democrats will do so even if the Government does not. If the Australian Democrats refuse to support it, it will be perfectly clear that they have no objection to the rules being changed in the middle of the game, even though the Government itself apparently does not object to that happening. Ultimately, the important point about this legislation is that it makes certain that section 50 relates to the competitiveness of the market-place. It should not relate to transfers of monopolies from the hands of one body to the hands of another body. If people are concerned about the transfer of monopolies, perhaps they should look at other means of intervening to stop those transfers. I do not take the view that government or politicians in general should intervene in that way. It is quite inappropriate for a member of parliament to comment on the merits of the Bell Resources takeover bid for BHP and I am absolutely determined that in this instance I will remain completely neutral. I hasten to add that I do not hold any shares in either BHP or Bell Resources, so I have the luxury of remaining neutral in a way that shareholders of those companies may not. However, this is the matter for the market-place, and the share market must be the ultimate judge of who will have control of BHP-in other words, who will be able or not able to hold shares in that company. Indeed, this applies to any company. People invest in companies, including BHP, with a view to maximising the return on their investment, to maximising the return on what would typically be their savings. They have good reason to want to do that. We-I am sure I speak for all members of this House-want to ensure that people can do that. Public or private shareholders, whoever they may be, investing to maximise their returns clearly place considerable pressure on the management of a company, be it a monopolist or in a competitive market, to ensure that it performs. If the management does not perform, profitability will fall and the share market price of that stock in turn will fall as well. That will leave the company subject to the threat of takeover by people who believe that they can manage the company, or can ensure that the company is managed, in a more efficient and effective way. If the company is being managed in the most efficient and effective way, it is being managed to the greatest benefit of the Australian community. If we do not allow that discipline to apply in the market-place and to management, obviously we will reduce one of the incentives for management to perform in the interests of the community. There is no doubt that where the company is a monopoly or part monopoly, as is the case with BHP, this form of incentive is a very important one and should not be taken away. I do not think there is a case for political interference and undermining Australia's capital markets, because if we ultimately get a reputation for political interference in capital markets, for distorting capital markets in the interests of political prejudice, we will pay a very high price for that. That would quite obviously reduce the incentive for shareholders to invest in Australian companies, and indeed in Australian share markets. By reducing that incentive to invest, we as a nation would be the poorer because there would be less investment in our economy. As it is, I am sure all members of the House are concerned about the very poor performance of investments in Australia over the last two or three years, in spite of the upturn in our trade cycle. So, doing something like interfering in the market-place in a political way would have a detrimental effect on investment. It would undermine capital markets. We should be doing precisely the reverse; we should be encouraging investment and trying to get our economy to achieve long term growth targets and a reduction in unemployment. That is what we all should be about. I make one final point about interference in capital markets. One further reason why I am opposed to government involvement in capital markets is that government should be trying to encourage ordinary Australians to invest in capital markets. There has been a very clear trend over the last three decades showing a decline in the proportion of shares held by individuals and an increase in the proportion held by major institutions. That is a sad thing. If we are to make capitalism work effectively in Australia and to ensure public support for the capitalist system, we ought to get the public involved in that process to a much greater extent. In other words, we ought to try to get ordinary Australians to invest more of their savings in the share market. That will not be possible if the share market becomes the plaything of governments, if governments and politicians intervene in the share market and therefore distort outcomes and discourage investment. In relation to this Bill's effect on section 50, I do give my support to the Government, and urge it to support the grandfather clause we are proposing. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. It being after 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106A. Bill presented by Mr Tuckey, and read a first time. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(12.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Today I present a private member's Bill for an Act relating to the payment of commercial accounts payable by the Commonwealth or by an authority of the Commonwealth, of which the short title will be Prompt Payment of Commonwealth Accounts Act 1986. I am pleased to say that the Opposition parties have agreed to support me on this Bill. This Bill has become necessary because governments at all levels now occupy such an important place in the market that the business community, particularly small business, is providing many services to government. This is highlighted by the fact that in 1950 governments of Australia consumed 15 per cent of gross domestic product whereas today the figure is 45 per cent. These figures indicate the extent to which government has increased its financial dealings with Australian business. In difficult economic conditions, prompt payment of accounts is crucial to the maintaining of viability of business. Any small businessman will tell you how important the cash flow is to the success, and often survival, of his business. When cash flows are interrupted by delays from payment of government accounts, other creditors are not sympathetic. The situation becomes both serious and ludicrous when the creditor is that same government which is slow to pay. As government continues to expand its activities into the community with such examples as Medicare and the supply of medicines, the ever-increasing sectors of business and professions are becoming substantially reliant for their income on government payments. It is essential to guarantee that they are paid promptly. The coalition does not believe that the business sector should be involved in providing an extravagant government with interest-free loans by way of extended terms of credit. There is mounting evidence, as this Government gets further into the financial mess of its own creation, coming from business, and particularly the small business sector, of ever-increasing delays in payment of government debts to its creditors therefore causing business to become the unpaid bankers to government. Government is very demanding of the taxpayers and its debtors, as anyone who has had dealings with the Australian Taxation Office, Australia Post, Telecom Australia or the Australian Customs Service will tell you. Not only does it require payment immediately but it invokes heavy statutory penalties in pursuing outstanding accounts. To take but one example, the Commissioner of Taxation, the Government's principal credit manager, is now equipped with a massive armoury of penalties for late payment of even a few days. He can add 20 per cent interest to both the outstanding amount and the penalty. Because of this I, on behalf of the Opposition parties, have prepared this legislation as a major step in overcoming this present unacceptable situation. In stark contrast, the Federal Government has a well-deserved reputation as an extraordinarily tardy payer of its outstanding accounts. Just how bad this situation has become is apparent from the hundreds of representations made to my office since I gave notice in early 1985 of my intention to introduce a Bill to provide for the prompt payment of commercial accounts by the Commonwealth and its statutory authorities. The reasons are numerous and include inefficiency and a sometimes callous disregard by public servants as to the cash flow problems of Australian business. No doubt one of the principal reasons is the dramatic overspending inherent in Keating Budgets which has increased the Federal Government's indebtedness by $20,000m and has seen interest charges to the Commonwealth double to almost $7,000m and in that process move from the fifth highest to the second highest direct expenditure item in the Budget. Clearly there is now good reason for the Government to wish to gain interest-free credit from its creditors. The fact that a private member has to introduce a Bill to provide for prompt payment of commercial accounts by the Government and its statutory authorities is an indictment of this Government. Despite its rhetoric of concern for the problems facing the business community this Government, which is daily faced with the evidence of hardship suffered by honest, hard-working men and women imposed by the very late payment of moneys owned to them by the Federal Government, has done nothing to correct this situation. For this reason, we in the Opposition have taken the initiative to develop a practical and effective solution. Faced with a similar problem, but one of a far larger scale, President Reagan introduced in 1982, and subsequently received Congressional support for, legislation to ensure the prompt payment of United States federal agencies commercial accounts. The Prompt Payment Act, Public Law 97-117, which came into force in 1983, requires federal agencies to pay their bills on time or pay interest penalties on late payments. The executive office of the President, the Office of Management and Budget, reports that prior to the passage of the Act as much as 30 per cent of government bills were paid late. In fact, in the 1983 and 1984 financial years, federal agencies made more than 99 per cent of their payments for goods and services on time; that is, of course, after the introduction of that legislation. Two-thirds of the remaining figure is the responsibility of the United States Defence Department which, because of the special nature of its procurement processes, is a chronically late payer. The United States legislation was based on these premises: It would result in timely payment; better business relationships with suppliers; improved competition for federal acquisitions; and reduced cost to government. I think that particular statement is worth repeating: Reduced cost to government. Quite clearly, business that has the experience of being required to wait a long time for its money makes adjustments in the prices that it is prepared to offer to government and the taxpayer becomes the final person to pay in that regard. I now turn to the individual clauses in this Bill. Briefly, the Bill provides for the Government to pay its commercial accounts on the 25th of the month following invoice or pay interest on the amounts outstanding. Clause 1 deals with the short title of the Bill and clause 2 covers the interpretation of terms used. This clearly defines those bodies which are covered under this legislation and provides a clear definition of a commercial account, due date and enactment, et cetera. Clause 3 deals with the extension of the Act to external Territories. This Bill is to apply to all Commonwealth of Australia departments, statutory authorities and administrations in the external Territories. Clause 4 covers the duty of the Commonwealth to pay each commercial account that falls due in one month on or before the 25th of the next following month. This will allow those taxpayers owed money to be paid and receive any moneys prior to the end of the month. Clause 5 enacts the payment of interest by the Commonwealth on overdue accounts. This clause becomes effective when the Commonwealth fails to pay a commercial account on or before the due date in respect of that account. If this occurs, the Commonwealth is liable, by virtue of this Act, to pay in addition to the amount due, interest on the amount so due, whether it is all or part of the original account. The rate of interest that will be charged is that rate at the time ordinarily charged by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in respect of loans in excess of $100,000. The point I make there is that the Government is generally able to borrow money at a lower rate than that particular cost. But, of course, the businessman-creditor is not able to borrow money at a cheaper rate than that and under these arrangements there will be no profit to the businessman; there will be a penalty to government that is tardy in paying its accounts. There will be no profit to the businessman; it will only offset the interest costs he is bound to incur as a result of having to borrow money to pay his other creditors when he is unpaid by government. All interest penalties will be paid at the same time as the account is paid. Clause 5 (3) deals with litigation and arbitration and it clearly points out that where the Commonwealth or the Government chooses to contest a cost, a charge, levied upon it and there follows litigation, the interest will be payable by the Commonwealth on the arbitrated amount. If there is a settlement in favour of the business person concerned or the business concerned, that settlement will attract interest for the period of time that it has been outstanding from the date on which the amount was first claimed. This, of course, has another effect and that effect is to ensure that public servants and others do not use the course of litigation to delay payment deliberately because if they do so, and they are unsuccessful or even partially unsuccessful, they will have to pay interest on the amount so settled. At this point I feel it is appropriate to quote from a letter I received from a small businessman in Queensland who has written to me concerning this Bill. He says: On the subject of penalties for late payment, we feel that your proposed Act does not present a severe enough deterrent for the public servants. In addition, it is totally inconsistent when viewed in the light of the Income Assessment Act. In other words, the rules of the tax man. He continues: As an initial point, this Act demands payment of group tax payments by private industry employers by the 7th day of each month. There he is comparing it with the 25th day recorded in this legislation. He goes on: Some latitude then appears to be allowed on this requirement up to approximately the 16th day of each month after which the penalty applies. Penalties are then calculated at the rate of 20 per cent per annum. He continues: We therefore submit that requirements deemed necessary for private industry, should therefore form the basis of the minimum requirements necessary to apply to the public servants. Clause 6 determines the date on which a commercial account falls due. This can occur when an agreement is reached by the provider of the goods and services with the Commonwealth and in such cases the account will become payable in accordance with the provisions of that agreement. In all other cases, the account will fall due for payment on the day on which a request, in writing, for payment of that amount is received by the Commonwealth from the provider of those goods or services. Clause 7 clearly indicates the actual time when payment is deemed to have been made. If an account is paid by pre-paid post, then the day on which a cheque or bill of exchange, et cetera, is posted to the person entitled to payment at the last known address is the date on which that account is deemed to have been paid, or, in any other case, on the day on which the amount or cheque or bill of exchange for the amount is delivered to the person or paid as directed by that person. This is certainly more positive than a statement in a recent government tender document which said that the payment is `deemed to have been made when the cheque has been drawn'. I would not like to have to be doing business in that regard and be told that I have been paid because my debtor has, in fact, drawn the cheque. This particular requirement in my legislation certainly clears up that position. Clause 8 deals with the moneys to cover any interest penalties incurred by the Commonwealth in the late payment of its taxpayers' accounts. Any additional amounts added to the original account for interest penalties are considered as part of the original account and therefore must be paid out of moneys appropriated by the Parliament to the relative department, authority or external Territory for the purpose. Authority is also given in this clause for any moneys appropriated by the Parliament for the purpose of the provision of goods or services to the Commonwealth authorities or external Territories to be deemed to be legally available for the payment of interest penalties incurred. This clause has the double effect of making this private member's Bill constitutional as it does not commit the Government to extra expenditure and placing the interest penalty firmly on the respective departmental budget. Late payers will consequently suffer reduced expenditure capacity in other areas. I am sure that may be just the incentive that many departments need to be more prompt in their payment to their creditors. Clause 9 allows for the Commonwealth to receive discounts for prompt payment of its accounts. It will be the duty of the Commonwealth, in calling tenders for the provision of goods and services, to seek to obtain a discount for payment of commercial accounts related to the provision of those goods or services before the due dates in respect of those accounts. There are certain circumstances when the cost to a tenderer of short term financing of costly goods sold to government can substantially exceed the equivalent cost to government and must be included in the tendered price. Clearly the taxpayer should be protected from such additional cost incurred purely to accommodate a lazy public sector. It is not that long ago that a public servant advised a seminar that business should not make offers relating to better discounts for prompt payment as it was just too difficult for them to handle. Quite obviously that is a cost to the taxpayer and should not occur. Clause 10 is the transitional clause of this Bill. It provides that the Act apply to commercial accounts in respect of goods and services provided to the Commonwealth before or after the commencement of this Act, other than those accounts which have been paid in full including those commercial accounts that fall due for payment before, but not yet paid before, the commencement date of this Act. I know that Government members will introduce all sorts of reasons for the defeat of this very important initiative for business, particularly small business. I am hopeful that the first Government speaker I see listed, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), will be prepared to state the genuine case as it relates to the pharmacy industry which, as we all know, has been one of the major providers of interest free funds to the Government. I will be interested to hear his comments; nevertheless, I am expecting to hear such words as: `Well, governments run to strict budgets; clearly, they do pay on time; departments must be accountable for the public purse expenditure; there are strict processes to be adhered to when dealing with the taxpayers' money; all this is too hard to implement'. The Government has become too inflexible in its accounts paying process and it is time that it is forced to make allowance for the prompt payment of its accounts and not continue to offer excuses all the time. On many occasions approval for payment must be given by persons not connected with the realities of business or accounting. Conscientious clerical workers often are unable to receive approvals from paper-shy `other occupation' staff. An example given to me from members of the consulting engineering profession was that they often had very sympathetic accounts staff prepared to pay them but those same accounts staff could not get other engineers employed by government who did not like that sort of work to give the necessary approvals for payment of the account. Some of the excuses used by government departments for late payment of their accounts would be comical if they were not true. The business sector has provided us with a list of the excuses. For instance, some departments claim they have never received the account. There is always the good old answer: `The cheque is in the mail'. Authorising officers are unfortunately on recreation leave, on sick leave, having a flexi-day off, et cetera, or just plain out. The excuse is given that the account is somewhere in the internal mail; the computer line is down; or the form was not endorsed or has an incorrect address upon it. If a businessman rings up the telephone is not answered or the person who answers says: `This is not my problem, I am just passing through' or: `I am sure I paid that account'. There will be a lot of businessmen listening at the moment who have heard all these responses before. The classic was stated in this Parliament in 1985 when the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), in answer to a question from the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) said that the problems `were due to the change over to the Pharmpay system, to repetition strain injuries within that section of the Department and to some industrial troubles'. We are all aware of the problems of repetitive strain injury but that is no help to the people waiting for their payment; it is no excuse for government. The list goes on. This financial year the Federal Government will spend approximately $69,000m or over $1,330m on average every week. Only part of this money goes to trade creditors. But the magnitude of actual money that is returned to the Government for every week's delay in payment of legitimate debts is still clearly substantial. This financial year the Government will have an anticipated deficit of $5,000m. However, government deficits can be manipulated by policy decisions to delay payment and a clear example of this is that the Government cannot at any one time tell anyone how much money it owes to the community by way of outstanding accounts. The cash accounting methods of the administrative government have never listed creditors. This Government expects the business community to do the same, and it is just not good enough. I mentioned earlier in my speech that I had received many letters expressing concern about the late payment of government commercial accounts. I would like to cite a few of these cases so that those opposite can appreciate some of the problems facing those in the outside or real world. First, a small businessman whose debtors include many government departments was three weeks overdue in lodging his group taxation deductions of around $10,000, resulting in a fine of over $400 as a late payment penalty-a rate of nearly 70 per cent per annum. There are many people in the world who would call that usury. Secondly, there is the case of a company which sells many products to government departments on 30 days payment terms and generally has to wait between 60 and 90 days for payment. Thirdly, there is the case of this businessman who writes: I had to get a bank overdraft for the first time to cover my cash shortfall which, of course, means I pay interest due for the Government's bill. Fourthly, another businessman writes: At the moment we are right in the middle of tax payment time-and if we are one day late in paying that to the Government, we are liable to cop a 20 per cent penalty. Fifthly, this businessman writes: Of course, if a business such as mine were to reply to the Australian Taxation Office that we were unable to pay PAYE tax or other tax due because we were still awaiting payment for services rendered to the Commonwealth of Australia, the response would be completely unsympathetic and penalties and interest incurred. Is it not totally unjust that the Commonwealth can withhold payment for services rendered for excessive periods without incurring such interest penalties. It seems to me that our country has become rife with laws for `government' and laws for `the people'. Sixthly, there is the case of a pharmacist who is owed $60,000 by the Department of Health-and this was put to me personally-but who had to borrow $20,000 to pay his income tax. Outstandings owed by the Government were, of course, included in his taxable income. So the debts that the Government owed him he was taxed on and then he had to borrow $20,000 to pay that tax. Mr Wright —Was he owed any money by any other business person or by someone in the private sector? Mr TUCKEY —He was not for the periods of time that government imposes upon the business sector. Might I finish these examples with another quotation which I think clearly highlights the problems facing the commercial world: Quite frankly, the whole process of getting payment out of the Government is a nightmare-one hesitates to accept work from the government departments for this reason. This experience is far from unique. The flow on implications in the commercial world of the Government's inability to pay contractors promptly is horrific and if allowed to continue will eventually cause many small businesses to go under, and the whole commercial process to grind to a halt. I have several clients who find it difficult to pay their outstanding accounts from this office, because, and I quote: `the Government is so slow at paying them'. Only legislation will ensure that the Government's accounts are paid on time. This legislation which I present to the Parliament today will oblige governments-future governments as well as present governments-to pay their creditors on time and is vastly different from promises made on this matter by government leaders at various times which, of course, like other promises can be broken. In Victoria, early in September 1985 Premier Cain issued an instruction that government agencies were to make sure their bills were paid on time. He did that in response to the fact that a small company was being liquidated because it could not survive; it was going broke for lack of cash flow. It was discovered that the Government of Victoria owed it $100,000, and Premier Cain was deeply embarrassed. But after saying that, it was reported in the Press in mid-October 1985 that the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands had hundreds of accounts outstanding from 30 June 1985. So, five or six months after, these accounts were still outstanding and, in fact, those accounts outstanding included failure to pay registration fees for motor vehicles to the Government itself. In late November 1985 a small businessman in Victoria was reported as being owed $12,000 by the Victorian Government-in fact, by V/Line-for over seven months. He was owed $12,000 for seven months. How can anyone run a small business on that basis? So much for instructions and directions! The only answer is legislation and, of course, we have the example of the American legislation being so effective. Literally months after its introduction suddenly the bureaucracy found that it could pay on time. In America 99 per cent of commercial accounts owed by the Federal Government are now paid on time. This Government should support this very worthwhile legislation to achieve this and not try to talk its way out of it. It is as simple as that. If government wants the business sector to pay it on time it is just as reasonable that government pay the business sector on time. This Bill is not draconian. One correspondent suggested that the rules should be the same-the 7th of the month following. We have just made it the 25th of the month so that business people can get that money in their bank accounts before the end of the month. That is very important. I stress that we are not on about promises, we are on about legislation that will oblige our Public Service to meet the obligation or pay the interest that will be incurred by the creditor at that time. The situation is getting worse each year; so it is very important that a decision is made on this serious problem now. Recent inquiries by the coalition parties have identified rising concern by those doing business with government of increasing delays in receiving payment. A New South Wales Chamber of Commerce survey showed last year that government departments take an average of 87 days to pay their accounts. In 1980 it was 63 days. This means that for every year we delay this legislation the length of time for governments to pay their accounts will be extended by five days. In less than three years it will be more than 100 days. Just because a representative of a firm used by the Commonwealth Government in New York gives Australia a triple A credit rating and therefore considers it a very good risk does not mean that the Commonwealth has the right to take the same triple A rating as a licence to delay paying its outstanding accounts. Many government departments appear to do just that. Governments should not need to delay payment because of the reasons that can arise in commercial enterprises. Government runs to prepared budgets and unlike small business has unlimited credit and therefore need not make purchases if the funds are not available. The honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) seemed very concerned as to how other members of business were treating each other. Let me say on behalf of those businesses that frequently decisions are taken in business to purchase a stock line or to enter into certain things that put unexpected pressure on a small business. Maybe the stock line does not sell; maybe another creditor does not come in; and occasionally small business is obliged to delay payment of its accounts because of those sorts of commercial realities. This should not apply to government. Government sets clear budgets, has access to the Reserve Bank of Australia for cash shortfalls and, of course, should not place the orders unless it has a clear indication that the money is available. Government is not in a commercial situation in that regard and it should not take the opportunity of the commercial sector of delaying payments of its accounts. But I do not think these delays occur for those reasons. I think it has become accepted that government is a slow payer and the very people charged with administering those accounts have a very relaxed and very callous approach to those people to whom they owe money. Fairness therefore demands that the Government be made to pay at least as promptly as it demands of its debtors. Only legislation demanding prompt payment or the payment of penalty can guarantee the fairness a democracy can expect. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Leave granted for debate to proceed forthwith. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(1.15) —Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill attempts to ensure the prompt payment of commercial accounts by the Commonwealth Government and statutory authorities and I do admit that there were some timely comments in the speech of the honour- able member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). I will not ask why this action was not taken when the honourable member was in government but the fact that the Budget deficit was then twice what it is now may have something to do with it. Some of the comments of the honourable member were timely, particularly those on Pharmpay. I am very much inclined to agree that Pharmpay is a gigantic flop. Great things were promised of this system. Chemists were to submit prescriptions and these were to be processed by public servants, compared with the system which operated when the national health scheme started, under which pharmacists submitted accounts in full detail and these were later checked. Pharmpay was an attempt by government to process prescriptions but it has been a disaster. I do note with pleasure that some action has been taken as a result. An interim part payment system has been introduced. Pharmacists are paid an estimated 90 per cent of the claim value within 14 days of receipt of the prescription by the Department. The balance is paid when full processing is completed. Unfortunately, now the time taken to process the balance has become unacceptable. Following consultation with officers of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and of the Department of Finance, agreement has been reached to pay the estimated outstanding value of claims for national health dispensing. Payment will be on an average price basis, calculated by using pharmacists' individual claims profile, adjusted as necessary to reflect the 1 December 1984 across the board price increase. In calculating the number of prescriptions payable in the general bundle, a number of items claimed are going to be adjusted to reflect the number of items priced at or below the $4 patient contribution appearing in the pharmacist's claims processed during the previous three months. Payment is going to be made through the pharmaceutical benefits payment system and a statement of account showing the amount paid in each claim will be forwarded at the time the payment is effected. Claims paid under those arrangements will be processed through the Pharmpay system as and when resources permit. Under the system that I have just described, the Government claims, there has been an improvement in the number of calendar days to payment. For instance, in New South Wales the figure is 15, in Victoria 18, in Queensland 16, in South Australia 9, in Western Australia 20, and in Tasmania 16. Veterans' Affairs claims to pharmacists are being processed in all States within the 30-day period. I have briefly mentioned an area where the Commonwealth is having problems in paying accounts. Another is in the area of Veterans' Affairs. It has come to my notice that nurses who are doing work for Veterans' Affairs are waiting up to eight months for payment. Quite a lot of these people are working part time. They are often supporting relatively low income families. Sometimes they are from farming families. I had a ring just today from a farmer whose wife is working as a nurse. These people have been hit by the rural downturn and often wives who are nurses are doing occasional work for Veterans' Affairs. What should we do about it? Before discussing that I believe we should admit that there are areas where the Commonwealth is extremely good at paying accounts. Medicare is an example where doctors have been voting with their postage stamps. I ask honourable members to recall when Medicare first started. The thing that doctors seemed to like least about Medicare was bulk billing, but now bulk billing by doctors has increased by 18 per cent. In Canberra, where there was organised resistance to bulk billing, there has been an increase of 25 per cent. In my own State of New South Wales there has been an increase of 19 per cent in bulk billing by doctors. The situation for Medicare patients where there has not been bulk billing has also been reasonable. The average time between the lodgment and the processing of claims ranges from less than a day for cash to 3.4 days for direct billing-3.4 days between the lodgment of the claim and its processing! No wonder 91 per cent of people surveyed are satisfied with Medicare services. Doctors are experiencing a quicker turn-round and far better cash flow than when they were billing their patients. So the job can be done by the Government. Here we have one government agency, with Pharmpay, unable to cope with claims from some thousands of pharmacists and another under the same departmental banner, that of the Department of Health, the Health Insurance Commission, coping extremely well with 15 million potential clients. Therein may lie part of the answer. I will tell the House shortly why this Bill cannot, in my opinion, be the answer, but the alternatives the Government ought to look at include the Health Insurance Commission and its present record. The Commission could be asked to process payments to pharmacists and to Veterans' Affairs creditors. Another alternative to Pharmpay would be to return to the old system of chemists preparing accounts. A number of pharmacists have told me that they have computers. They would be quite able to submit a printout showing an account and the Government, or authority, could do a thorough spot check of, say, 10 to 15 per cent of their claims to establish the way that it would deal with the individual creditor. I know that there are still many pharmacists who are without computers but it may be possible to have a combination of the involvement of both the Health Insurance Commission and the pharmacist. Certainly there is no excuse for such a long delay in regard to the relatively small number of Veterans' Affairs accounts. Why do I give these alternatives instead of accepting the terms of the Bill of the honourable member for O'Connor? I believe that very few other creditors are locked in as are the pharmacists and nurses that I have mentioned. Very few are quite so required to deal with government as an integral part of their business careers. The Bill covers quite a wide range of people and it is to them, as well as pharmacists and nurses, that the Commonwealth would be required to pay interest to commercial creditors where payment of accounts had not been made within the 25 days following the month in which the invoice had been received. Mr Deputy Speaker, I dealt with the Government as a business operator for decades, rather than years, before I came into this House. I really do wish that my other debtors had been as good at paying their accounts as was the Commonwealth, under various parties in government. The Commonwealth in 35 years was never a bad debt statistic. Some of the customers that we had, including some firms, delayed for a year, sometimes more, making payments. I recall when I first went into business that I had a particular farmer who had not paid after three months. I sent him a letter. He seemed to be very friendly and came in, but he still had not paid after six months, after nine months. After a year had passed he came in-- Mr Ian Cameron —But you hate the farmers. Mr SNOW —I do not hate the farmers. I have been one myself, as the honourable member knows. The farmer after a year, came in with the full cheque. I did a quick sum in my head and worked out that I was getting 33 per cent return for waiting for that cheque and decided not to ask him to discontinue doing business with me. Like plenty of other farmers with whom I did business, I kept him as a reasonable customer. So there are times when we make exceptions. His account was fairly big. I recall well the first one, because I was quite worried about it for a time. It was #400. I believe that it is normal business practice to delay the payment of accounts as long as possible. Along with this, of course, goes the normal business practice to speed up rapid collection of receipts and the honourable member for O'Connor acknowledged this when he spoke about demands for 7-day settlement and that sort of thing. Certainly times have changed since, many years ago, people accepted 30-day, and longer accounts. I believe that the working of the two together has led to some self-correction. The honourable member for O'Connor speaks as if the Commonwealth is an unreliable debtor. I ask him where the collective evidence is to indicate that across the whole spectrum of the millions. Mr TUCKEY —Well, you are a pharmacist. Mr SNOW —I have dealt with pharmacists, have admitted the problem there and have come up with a suggested response. But we need collective evidence to indicate that across the whole spectrum of the millions of transactions each year to which the Commonwealth is a party its general performance is worse than is that of all the other participants in the commercial life of this country. My experience as a business operator was that the Commonwealth, compared with other debtors, was relatively good. So the payment of accounts is not the exclusive province of the public sector, as any business that has ever made a provision for bad debts can attest. Even the slowest payment by the Commonwealth does not become a bad debt statistic. The Bill singles out the Commonwealth and requires it to cushion its creditors from normal commercial risks. The Bill might have more to commend it in logic and equity if it proposed to encompass all commercial debts, not merely those owned by the Commonwealth. I hate to think what would be the reaction of business, of the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Australian Labor Party or the Australian Democrats, if the Bill were to apply to all debts by all engaged in commerce. When a creditor seeks prompt payment from a debtor he or she exerts whatever commercial or legal leverage is available to achieve that end. This Bill would privilege Commonwealth creditors cushioning them from such distasteful tasks-at the taxpayers' expense. There are times when the submission of accounts to the Commonwealth can be a bit mind-boggling for some creditors but statutory provision for this has been made. Finance regulation 55 requires Commonwealth officers to afford to claimants every facility to enable them to prepare their accounts correctly and to obtain prompt payment thereof. Creditors can ask to be told how to render accounts for quick payment. It is not always realised-it took me a couple of years to realise it when I was in business-that you can chase up your account with the Commonwealth. There is sometimes a bit of an attitudinal problem-the thought that `Well, the public servant I might ring perhaps has nothing to lose by making things even worse for me'. That is completely untrue. I found in business, when I tried it, that it was worth ringing and asking for your money. If things are made worse by a public servant, that public servant can get into very real trouble, perhaps from a supervisor, perhaps from a departmental head, perhaps from a member of parliament or a Minister. So no public servant, any more than a business person, can afford to make things worse for his clients by non-co-operation. The honourable member for O'Connor mentioned the taxation system and stated that the tax agency showed little mercy to its debtors, and applied penalties. The taxation system is completely different because the payment of tax is a responsibility not to this Government but to the whole community-to provide its roads, to provide its communications, to provide its hospitals, to provide its schools, to provide its pensions, to provide its defence. If taxes were designed just to collect money for the honour- able member for O'Connor and me, I could understand the comparison. We, and the other often mythical parasites that people talk about, account for only a very small fraction of government spending. Essential government services and activities account for most government expenditure. When we collect tax we can tell all people to bear their community responsibilities within a prescribed time. The people that the Bill talks about do not include all Australians. The relationship between the Government and its creditors is quite different from that between the Government and the taxpayers. I have already proposed solutions for the creditors of the Department of Health and for those of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Most other creditors, when they submit tenders, can include therein a time for payment. Very often when one is in business one makes an agreement with a wholesaler or supplier to pay an account by a certain time. People who tender for government jobs can, in the tender, include a demand that payment be made by a certain date. I will make very briefly one or two points about the Bill. Firstly, it provides for interest liability but makes no express provision for interest to be suspended where there is a dispute. Quite often there can be a dispute between any creditor and debtor about a debt. There is in this Bill no express provision to allow for the suspension of that interest liability where there is such a dispute. Clause 9 states that it shall be the duty of the Commonwealth to seek discounts in calling tenders for goods and services. Experience overseas and in some Australian States, where prompt payment at all cost policies are in place, has shown that the offer of discounts dries up. Suppliers find that they do not need to give discounts, and why should they? Their attitude is more likely to be, `Render the account near the end of the month and you will get paid within 25 days or collect a nice bit of interest'. The Government is like other businesses in one sense. At present some suppliers experience delays. This Bill, if it became law, would create an environment where all suppliers could expect not to be paid before the due date. That could well happen. I wish to make one or two other points. One is that the burden of interest that is paid by the Government is not on the people in this Parliament, not on public service, but on the taxpayer. In other words, the community as a whole is paying a subsidy, in the form of this interest, to businesses. Another point is that reforms are taking place within the Government. I hope and believe that we have learned a lot from the Pharmpay problem. I believe that the Government is genuinely and consistently, by way of increased technology, working towards the more efficient payment of accounts. I am hoping that we have learned from Pharmpay and that better management will overcome that particular problem. I certainly believe that the Government is moving towards a more efficient system of paying its accounts. Accountability is also being worked on by the Government, so that each department will become more accountable for the money that it receives from the public purse. This again should bring about a much better arrangement within departments and improve their ability to pay their accounts. I would say, in conclusion, that the Bill of the honourable member for O'Connor is a timely reminder that there are problems in the payment of accounts in some areas. Pharmpay needs a bomb under it. Let us fix that rather than discriminate against the taxpayers of Australia by giving them different obligations, as debtors, from those of other businesses and those of private debtors. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(1.35) —I have very much pleasure in supporting this private member's Bill-the Prompt Payment of Commonwealth Accounts Bill 1986-introduced by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). I think it is very important that we give due credit to the honourable member for O'Connor for having the initiative to bring forward this Bill. He was a very successful businessman before coming to this place. Of course he understands only too well what it is like to be in business and to have to wait a long while for one's accounts to be paid. I believe it is important that both sides of the House support this Bill. Of course I expect members of the Australian Labor Party to vote for the Bill and, if they do not, they will be showing their disregard for small businesses, farmers and Australians generally. Surely we have been forced to this stage of having to introduce this particular measure. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) asks: `Why did you not do it previously?'. I would put it to him that we are being forced to do it now because of the shockingly high interest rates that all Australians in business have to suffer under this present Labor Government. Interest rates have never been higher in the history of this country-17.5 per cent for amounts under $100,000 and 21, 22 and 23 per cent for amounts over $100,000. To arrive at the real interest rate, we take the inflation rate of this nation-8 per cent-off the interest rate being charged. We are then left with a 12 per cent real interest rate. In 1935, in the depths of the Great Depression, interest rates were not that high, but under this Labor Government, the greatest Treasurer so to speak, we are seeing the most horrific interest rates ever. Yet the honourable member for Eden-Monaro has the gall to come in here and ask us: `Why didn't you do it?'. The coalition parties are doing it because we support the business people and the farmers throughout this nation. Why do Government members think it is that the National Farmers Federation has organised a ring in to this place on interest rates during the last two to three days? I have seen members of parliament on the Labor side rushing around like chooks with their heads cut off, with the phones going flat out. I would say to farmers throughout Australia: `Good on you lads, keep at it; keep those phones ringing; keep those Labor blokes running around like chooks with their heads cut off because that is what they look like here. They do not know what to do.' Mr Wright —They are ringing you here because they cannot get you in your electorate. You are never there. Mr IAN CAMERON —The honourable member for Capricornia says that he represents farmers but look at the farmers. They are all going broke under his Government. It is a disgrace; an absolute disgrace. He should not even be prepared to come in here and speak on this Bill. I guess he is going to speak against the Bill. That is how much he cares about farmers. He could not care less about them. He is going to get up and speak against farmers and small business in his electorate of Capricornia. He is an absolute disgrace to this Parliament. I think it is important to remember also that not only are farmers ringing up but here we are in the absurd position, with the high interest rates and all the other problems, of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) having some Khemlani scheme in the back of his mind whereby he will borrow $1 billion to help out with the housing interest rates and start lending it to people who want to buy a house at a cheap rate. Where is that $1 billion going to come from, I would like to know. I have a question here on my desk that I would love to ask the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) today. I would like to ask him when the farmers are going to be allowed to borrow some of this money that he is bringing in for first home buyers; whether he is going to spread the subsidy to the farmers of this nation and give them a fair go. Why does the Government not bring in another $1 billion for them to give them a hand? The way this Government is running this country and the way the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is running this nation, with the horrific debts we have, is an absolute disgrace. The Government has got itself into this problem and it is talking about borrowing another $1 billion. Good God, as if we have not got enough money borrowed. We are already $20 billion in debt since this Government has been in office. The interest payment is one of the highest items in the Budget. When this Treasurer brings his Budget down in August, the payment of interest alone on our borrowings in this country will be $7 billion to $8 billion. I repeat that it will be $7 billion to $8 billion. That would help to pay these bills that this legislation is about. That would help some of these people who are waiting to be paid by this Government. We on this side of the House believe that it is very necessary to have this Bill introduced. A similar type of Bill was introduced by the United States Government last year and it has been most successful in that country. We saw where the Government there was 30 per cent overall behind in payments of bills and with the introduction of a similar type Bill it has brought that figure way down. It has allowed small business to get on with the job, and really that is all small business wants to do. The aim of this Bill is to help those small businesses that are waiting to be paid by government. Of course with the late payments the Government discourages the private sector. It is meant to be encouraging that sector. We heard the debate on the trade practices legislation here today, covering Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. The Government says it is the friend of the farmers, the friend of small business. What nonsense! If it is as keen as that, it had better support this Bill when it goes to the vote once we have finished speaking on it. It will be shown for what it really is unless it does. Members of the private sector are disadvantaged, of course, if they are not being paid. If they are waiting for funds they cannot keep their businesses in full momentum and they cannot then resubmit and tender on other government contracts. The Bill, of course, is intended to eliminate some of the wasteful and unproductive bill-paying procedures and if possible help to reallocate government personnel around the place. If certain sectors are not operating sufficiently, if the business within the particular department is bad and is not being operated and bills are not being paid, then we should see a reshuffling of some of these personnel so that bills are paid. This Bill will help relieve the administrative costs which small business must bear. Generally speaking, it is bad business. I believe we ought to set the example in government. It is our responsibility. We should see that our bills that are owing are paid promptly and we should set an example to the rest of the country. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro says that we do not have to do that, that government is efficient in paying its bills. If it were all that efficient, we should not be in this chamber with this Bill. The honourable member for O'Connor and the people from his electorate would not be going to the trouble and businessmen would not have been ringing him up and writing to him asking him to bring forward a private member's Bill on this problem if they felt that they were being paid efficiently and quickly. Of course they are not. There are many benefits if the bills are paid quickly. Obviously there would be cheaper goods and services and it would help reduce government expenditure. There would be savings through the lower bids on contracts, et cetera, which I previously mentioned. As I said, in the United States the number of bills being paid late by the Government has been reduced from 30 per cent to practically nothing. Of course, these days the other important aspect is that government is so socialised and this Labor Government is driving it even more quickly and further down that track. The Federal Government has moved from about 20 per cent of the gross national product to nearly 45 per cent in the last 15 years. We are practically 50 per cent socialised in this nation. It is no wonder we are going down the hole as quickly as we are; we are 50 per cent socialised. So we ought to get more efficient. If this socialist Government thinks it is going to survive, it had better get efficient, get its bills paid, get its act together, because people in private business, especially farmers, are sick to death of bearing the burden, including the burden of more taxation. What does this Government do? The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) sits there with a big smile on his face. I must congratulate him on his efforts in communications, et cetera. He has done an excellent job and got a couple of satellites launched. He is not doing too badly. But on the other hand, the farmers are suffering. They are finding it difficult to meet their costs. What is this Government going to do? It is going to turn around and put in more taxation against the farming community-capital gains tax and off-farm investment. This morning we debated legislation concerning BHP. This Government introduced legislation to help BHP diversify its investments but farmers cannot. We cannot go out and earn an income off our farm and write it off against the bills. We have this iniquitous capital gains tax coming up. It is not going to help anybody. All it is going to do is restrict business. It is regressive taxation and a total restriction on business. I have many examples from my own electorate. A St George local concrete supplies business has had to wait three to five months, sometimes longer, for payment from Telecom Australia. Telecom is throughout this country and it is not always the best of payers. But by God Telecom is quick. If a person does not pay his phone bill Telecom will quickly knock his phone off. That is the Minister's Department. This chap in St George was not getting paid but I will tell honourable members what, if a person does not pay his telephone bill Telecom will very quickly come out and put the axe through his cable and knock his phone off. Mr Wright —Oh! Mr IAN CAMERON —That happens. The honourable member for Capricornia knows only too well that if he does not pay his phone bill he will have his phone cut off, with no questions asked; it will be gone. The same thing applies in the State Government area with a person's power bill-no questions asked; bang, no power; that person is left totally in the dark. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 109 as amended for this session, the debate on the motion is interrupted. Motion (by Mr Duffy) agreed to: That the time for the discussion of Notices, General Business, be extended until 2 p.m. Mr IAN CAMERON —Madam Speaker, the great electorate of Maranoa has the town of Roma within its boundaries. A charter company there does quite a lot of work for me and the owner has told me that he has had a lot of trouble, particularly with the Department of Veterans' Affairs, in being paid. He has waited 10 months to be paid by the Veterans' Affairs Department. I ask: Is that a fair go? That is what we are on about. That is what this Bill is on about. We are on about helping people in business and not trying to hinder them. Of course, his business has turned down now. He does a lot of work out in the Cooper Basin and with the oil downturn he cannot afford to wait any longer than necessary for bills to be paid. Mention has been made of pharmacies. The Grace Commission in the United States found that at least 13 per cent of budget outlays could be saved by cutting out waste and inefficiency. If this percentage is converted to the Australian Budget, it could mean a saving of at least $8 billion. The honourable member for Capricornia should take note of that-$8 billion. We are in this place attempting to save this nation $8 billion and he is not going to support it. He is a disgrace to his electorate. When I get back to Rockhampton I will tell them so. I will tell them what a disgrace he is to his electorate. He is not prepared to support this Bill. He should not be here in this House. When this Bill is passed and proves the success it has been in the United States, obviously when we come back into government at the next election we will be prepared to enlarge the Bill and cover the prompt payment of diesel rebates. We are in a position now where with the diesel rebates that this Government turned around and introduced it introduced a whole new red tape regime whereby we have to wait. We have to pay for the fuel, and then we have to wait four or five months to get the rebate back to us. That has to be jazzed up a bit too. That applies to the electorate of Capricornia, too. All those farmers are out there waiting for those rebates. The honourable member should wait until they hear that he is voting against this Bill. He is going to be in trouble. He is going to lose his seat at the next election. He has no hope of getting re-elected. Small businesses are forced to pay high interest, as I have said, and to try to maintain their operating accounts. The Government should be prepared to pay them interest on the outstanding accounts because these days in private business, if a person does not pay his bill after a certain time-30 days, and that period is being brought down even more-business now charges interest on the unpaid account. I believe that government ought to pay people whom it owes money. It should pay them interest on its bills that are outstanding. I have very much pleasure in supporting this Bill, Madam Speaker. I believe it is an excellent Bill. Again, I must congratulate the honourable member for O'Connor for having the fortitude and the foresight to bring this Bill forward. I plead with every member on the Government side to support the Bill when it is put to a vote. We on this side of the House will be most disappointed if that does not happen and I am sure that every farmer, every businessman, every Australian, will feel the same way. I move: That the question be now put. Question put. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Adermann, A. E. Halverson, R. G. Aldred, K. J. Hawker, D. P. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Beale, J. H. Hodges, J. C. Blunt, C. W. Hodgman, W. M. Braithwaite, R. A. Jull, D. F. Brown, N. A. Katter, R. C. Burr, M. A. Lloyd, B. Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S. Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Ruddock, P. M. Connolly, D. M. Sharp, J. Conquest, B. J. Shipton, R. F. Cowan, D. B. Sinclair, I. McC. Dobie, J. D. M. Slipper, P. N. Downer, A. J. G. Smith, W. Drummond, P. H. Spender, J. M. Edwards, Harry Sullivan, K. J. Everingham, P. A. E. Tuckey, C. W. Fischer, Tim Watson, DavidFisher, Peter Webster, A. P. Goodluck, B. J. White, P. N. D. Hall, Steele Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J. Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jacobi, R Shack, P. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Millar, P. C. Blewett, N. Question so resolved in the negative. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It is now 2 p.m. In accordance with standing order 104 as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence of General Business has expired. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his statement this morning that the possibility of raising or increasing the 13.5 per cent housing loan limit was obviously `one of the options' that would be considered by Cabinet on Monday. Does the Treasurer still hold this view this afternoon? Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition is reading more into that than he ought to. Mr Howard —I have a transcript here. Mr KEATING —He can have a transcript of what he likes. The fact is-let me make it quite clear, as I did this morning to anybody who asked-that that is the Government's position. The Government's position has been put often and was put eloquently again yesterday by the Prime Minister-which I, of course, subscribe to. Mr PUNCH —Can the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House of the likely impact of proposals to deregulate the labour market? Mr WILLIS —The House will be aware that under this Government there have been tremendous achievements in the area of industrial relations. This is perhaps summed up best by the fact that the levels of time lost in industrial disputes and real unit labour costs are both at the lowest they have been for 17 years. Those two facts in themselves indicate the success of the policies that have been pursued. Nevertheless, as all members of the House would be aware, the Opposition has been saying that we need to improve greatly on that record by deregulating the labour market. It has been thrashing around trying to put together a policy which would in some way come up with better results than the present Government has been able to achieve. We know that business has been extremely sceptical of the proposals that the Opposition has been discussing with it. Both the Business Council of Australia and the Confederation of Australian Industry have made it clear that they have little time for the policies which have been put forward to them by the Opposition in discussions. Whilst we know that the Opposition has been thrashing around trying to work up an industrial relations policy, it is also of interest to note that it has probably been putting a lot more effort into working up an industrial relations marketing policy. Indeed, it has come to my knowledge recently that the Opposition is putting much thought into a marketing policy so that it can have some chance of not being knocked over in the first five minutes after its industrial relations policy is announced. Recently a document came to me, which I will table later on, headed `Industrial Relations Policy Marketing'. The document, which is to Mr Brown, carbon copied to Mr Howard, is from a Mr David Trebeck who would be known to most members of this House. The document starts off: The period from 4-20 March . . . leaves a useful gap to prepare for a favourable release of the Industrial Relations policy. I would have thought that the Opposition would have needed more than two weeks. It has had three years and got nowhere. At least he can see that it needs a couple more weeks. The document continues: . . . I think you have to be prepared to take a few risks and show the draft to some responsible people who will read and comment on it promptly, and be prepared to react favourably and publicly following release. Carefully selected, the chance of a leak should be small. Here are some categories and individuals. The document then goes on to suggest how various people can be persuaded to make favourable noises about the Opposition's industrial relations policy and which people can be regarded as reliable and not so reliable. Under the heading `political' we see Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who is described as follows: A key ally if favourably disposed (alternatively, will create large problems if he opposes). Mr Howard is planning to visit him shortly. I suggest you liaise with him so that he can take the matter up specifically with Sir Joh. This document is dated 18 February. As we know from the question to the Prime Minister and the answer he gave earlier this week, when Mr Howard went to see Sir Joh he certainly got the rounds of the kitchen. The next person referred to is Robin Gray. The following remarks are made about him: Made some awful comments on the concept of labour market flexibility (on PM the night before the election); now the election is out of the way, he may be more kind to it. Must find a way to at least neutralise him-preferably by one-to-one discussion with you, otherwise by alternative means; no doubt you or Mr Howard or Tasmanian MPs will have ideas; That is really suggesting something. There are various other comments about other people and organisations. The CAI is listed under the heading `business organisations'. The document says: You will no doubt have a reasonable feel for the environment following your meeting with Noakes. I do not doubt that he has a very good idea about the environment after that meeting. The document goes on to suggest that there is some disquiet towards Mr Noakes within CAI and that the Opposition should try to circumvent him and get to other officers. Various other business organisations are listed. The document then refers to individual businessmen. There is a list of potential supporters which does not contain too many surprises, although I note that Mr Kerry Packer has a question-mark against his name. The document contains the names of six persons under the sub-heading `need to neutralise'. They are the heads of six of the major companies in this country. Perhaps I should not name them. Government members-Go on. Mr WILLIS —They are Bill Dix, Sir Peter Abeles, Brian Loton, Chuck Chapman, John Utz and Brian Kelman. Finally, and most interestingly, there is a heading `Media Groups Individuals' under which are listed the names of commentators, editors and journalists. The journalists are divided up among supporters and those who must be neutralised. Mr Hawke —Name them. Mr WILLIS —I will not go through all the names. However, let me say that there are no great surprises amongst the names of the supporters. Let me say that the list of the names of people who are regarded as neutral or opposers is much longer than the list of supporters. I have much pleasure in tabling the document. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer he gave to my first question when he denied having said on the steps of Parliament House this morning that lifting the ceiling was one of the options available to the Government. How then does the Treasurer explain that in answer to the question `Were you in favour of that yourself?', he replied `It is one of the options obviously'? How does he further explain, in the light of his denial to my first question, that in answer to the further question `Will that option remain open to you?', he said `The whole of the housing issue is going to be examined'? Is it not a fact that the Treasurer has changed his mind between 9 o'clock this morning and 12 o'clock as a result of some intervention by the Prime Minister? Mr KEATING —These profound words were dropped on the footpath on the way into Parliament House this morning. It is not much point the Leader of the Opposition reading the translations of these things. I can make it quite clear to him what my position is. I have made it quite clear in the House on many occasions. I have said that the most propitious time for the Government-indeed any government-to consider removing the interest rate ceiling on housing, in what is otherwise a deregulated market, is at a time when the whole general structure of interest rates is more harmonious with the kind of deposit rates which the banks would need to maintain their deposit base-a formula which he very quickly adopted under pressure in South Australia to save his own political hide. But I make it quite clear that, for my part, I will not be bringing a submission to the Cabinet recommending a change in the ceiling. To say that changes in the interest rate ceiling is an issue in public housing finance is not, I would have thought, saying very much. The Leader apparently thinks it is very profound. He is crediting me with something more profound than I think it is. On the same subject, I ask honourable members whether they know who said the following words: I am not going to run away from something that I know to be an economic reality to score some very short-term political point. I am not in the business of doing that. It would be expediency in the extreme for me to simply run away from something that we decided to adopt last year. In a debate on 13 September 1985 on the very same subject, we got a lecture from the Leader of the Opposition about market economics-he was talking about housing-and I said by way of interjection: Let me just get this right. What the honourable member is saying is that we should lift the housing rate ceiling- The Leader of the Opposition replied: `Yes'. He says: `I am not going to run away from it'. Then we find that in South Australia he said: Interest rate controls are counterproductive in the long run but obviously the timing of deregulation is a matter of political judgment. I can accept that a person can believe in deregulation of interest rates but hold the view that it is better to implement that policy in an environment of falling interest rates than with rising rates, as at the present time. Those words have a strangely familiar ring-`it is better to implement that policy in an environment of falling interest rates than with rising rates, as at the present time'. My only comment is that that policy, like the radical wage alternative, like a decent fiscal policy, and like any part of the framework which the Leader of the Opposition dwelt upon in his policy speech at the Press Club last year, has now evaporated in the hurly-burly of political opportunism, a piece of which he continues to display today. Mr GRIFFITHS —I address my question to the Treasurer. Do the December quarter national account figures released today highlight the outstanding success of the economic policies of the Government? In particular, do the figures demonstrate very strong economic growth during 1985 and provide evidence of further and sustainable growth for 1986? Do the figures show that the private sector is continuing to play a major role in the economic recovery and do they confirm that the Government has responded to economic developments with appropriate policy settings? Mr KEATING —I am happy to reply in the affirmative on all three counts. The national account figures released today confirm everything the Government has been saying about the strength of the economy in the first half of the financial year, with non-farm product growing at an astonishing annual rate of 7.7 per cent, with gross domestic product growing at an annualised rate of 6 per cent over the same period, and with demand-total expenditure-growing at an annual rate of 6.7 per cent which, of course, is over double that forecast in the Budget. They also confirm that over that period business investment was running with the projection in the Budget and show a further increase in the profit share and a further decline in unit labour costs. This reveals something about the rhetoric of the Opposition about there being some sort of economic crisis, which are the words used in the matter of public importance coming up for discussion today. It is some crisis when we have a 7.7 per cent non-farm growth! The so-called words of crisis and pessimism coming from the Opposition on the economic outcomes are, of course, absolutely hollow. These figures establish that the Government strategy adopted over the course of this year, including the change in monetary policy in the latter parts of 1985, was absolutely dead right in every respect. Had the Government not moderated demand from this very high level of 6.7 per cent and had it not moderated growth in the economy in the face of a disastrous decline in the terms of trade which is recorded in these figures, the current account deficit would simply be of crisis proportions. The depreciation effect has been working in what has been the most disastrous deterioration in the terms of trade on record, and the records go back to 1949. The massive growth in demand has been sucking in imports. The fact that the exchange rate has been working right through this period has given a tolerable set of accounts in respect of the current account deficit. That gives the lie totally to the Opposition line that a 30 per cent price change does not matter, that markets do not work, that the exchange rate will not work, that the current account deficit will not improve, that a 30 per cent depreciation of the Australian dollar will make no difference to imports and exports. That demonstrates absolutely what a lot of bunkum that is. These free marketeers who supposedly believe in market outcomes and who say there will be no J-curve, that it will be only an L-curve because there is no improvement from a 30 per cent price change, will be proved and have been proved disastrously wrong. With regard to the terms of trade, the ratio of export prices to import prices declined by nine percentage points over the course of calendar year 1985. Had the ratio-the House should listen to this-of export prices to import prices not changed from its December 1984 level the current account deficit would now be running at some $3.8 billion less in annualised terms than it actually is. In other words, the terms of trade are the lowest in the database, they are the lowest on record and they are probably the lowest for Australia since the Depression. Despite that massive deterioration in the terms of trade and the enormous demand in the economy, the J-effect from the exchange rate has held the current account at numbers which have been tolerable. Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —If the members of the Opposition choose to laugh at that, they are laughing at the whole basis of market economics with which they say they have a compatibility in terms of their philosophic outlook and they are laughing at outcomes which every other literate person in the economy will instantly recognise. The fact is that the national accounts today reveal that the Government has a very strong economy on its hands. In the first half of 1985 it was too strong. We were right in moderating it. The Government's interest rate policies have been absolutely and thoroughly dead right. Without them Australia would have a domestic economy totally incompatible with our external position. All I can say in conclusion is that I am happy to answer in the affirmative the question put by my colleague. These figures do highlight the outstanding success of the Government's policies. They do demonstrate the very strong growth in the economy during 1985. They demonstrate that the private sector is continuing to play a major role. They demonstrate again how bereft the Opposition is of any economic strategy, its failure to have a consistent and rational economic strategy. As to developments under this Government's economic strategy and outcomes, they have demonstrated just how wrong the Opposition has been in all of its public statements since last year. I commend to members of the Opposition a reading of the Statistician's figures and a pondering of their future. Mr CARLTON —I refer the Treasurer to the fact that it is now over six months since he introduced his tax package and that not one piece of tax legislation has been introduced during the four parliamentary sitting weeks of this year. Will the Treasurer outline for the benefit of this House and for the benefit of all those taxpayers who are waiting to find out exactly what will be subject to tax when we will be likely to see legislation on the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax, the disallowance of negative gearing and the quarantining of farm losses? Mr KEATING —The answer to that question is probably late in April or early in May for most of that legislation. This is, after all, the largest set of tax changes in Australian history, certainly since the early 1950s. In terms of their detail, magnitude and grasp those measures have to be dealt with with all of the attendant complexity they require. I might add, though, that when I became Treasurer there was virtually no tax policy division in the Treasury and had we even attempted to do anything about tax reform in this country we would have failed because there would have been no bureaucratic support whatsoever. We had to develop, as a matter of urgency, a full tax policy division within the Treasury and the Australian Tax Office because the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Treasurer, could not have cared less about taxation reform and, of course, never cared about all of the cheating and rorting that went on for all of the 1970s until finally the McCabe-Lafranchi and Costigan reports brought them to his attention. Apart from those band-aid measures there was not any capacity in the Federal Treasury to design changes to the Australian taxation system. I must say that the people who are there now doing that work, who have worked tirelessly since January 1985 writing the White Paper, are writing one of the most important documents seen in this country from the Federal Government with a comprehension which will allow it to stand up against any equivalent document in the world. Those same people have had to turn their attention to details of these tax changes, and the Parliament is very much in their debt for doing so. Mr JACOBI —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. What has the Government done to promote the cause of Jews who wish to leave the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Hawker for his question. I point out to him and to the House that the Government has repeatedly made representations to the Soviet authorities on behalf of Jews who wish to leave the Soviet Union. We have done that both bilaterally and in multinational forums. I raised the matter with the Soviet Ambassador in 1983. The Foreign Minister, Bill Hayden, did so vigorously when he visited Moscow in 1984 and I raised the matter again in January of this year when the Soviet Ambassador called upon me. As a member of the United Nations Commission for Human Rights, Australia has consistently taken a strong stand on the issue of Soviet Jews. The Australian statement of 5 March this year to the Commission stressed the need for the Soviet authorities to adopt a more flexible and humane approach to Soviet Jews wishing to emigrate, a fundamental right we believe of all citizens. I might add that while we have noted with satisfaction, as I believe all members of the House would have noted, the release of Anatoly Scharansky, we consider that this should not distract attention from this very vital issue of human rights. We are concerned with reports in today's Press that Mr Scharansky has heart problems following the 9-year ordeal to which he has been subject. I confirm to not only the honourable member for Hawker but also this House and the people of Australia that my Government is committed to maintaining its efforts until real, substantial and continuing progress is made in this fundamental matter of human rights. Mr SINCLAIR —As an introduction to my question to the Prime Minister, I am sure all honourable members of this House will join in welcoming those members of the Multinational Force and Observers contingent to the Sinai who returned this morning to the Royal Australian Air Force Base, Fairbairn, in a C5 Galaxy along with eight helicopters. Given the excellent record and the effectiveness of the Australian element, the support of the governments of Israel and Egypt for continued Australian participation in the MFO and the positive contribution to world peace by both the military staff component and the rotary wing element of the contingent, why has the Prime Minister, to the embarrassment of all Australians genuinely concerned with peace, yet again given in to Labor's Left and withdrawn the Australian element from the Sinai? Mr HAWKE —As is so often the case with members of the Opposition, they are quite incapable of beginning to get anywhere near close to honesty in their representation in regard to important issues. The fact is that we indicated early in the piece that we believed that there were a number of nations which had a capacity to share the burden that we have undertaken in our participation in the MFO. We made it clear that we would not be precipitate in the action that we took on this matter. Indeed, my colleagues who have direct responsibility in this matter, as well as myself, have had discussions with others to ensure that at the time when the Australian contingent came to be withdrawn, after we had played a very substantial role in this important mission, there would be an appropriate, adequate, competent replacement. That is what we have done and to present that situation-this Government had willingly continued for a considerable period the proper commitment undertaken by our predecessors-- Mr Sinclair —You just welshed on a commitment; that is what you did. Mr HAWKE —We have welshed on no agreements but in fact have significantly negotiated to ensure that there would be no hiatus and no absence of proper forces to continue that job. To represent that in the pathetic way as has the Leader of the National Party, I suppose is not surprising. It is what we have come to expect from him. It is no wonder that the Premier of Queensland is currently touting around the National Party trying to dump the Leader of the National Party. But, God forbid us, his replacement, I understand in the mind of the Premier of Queensland, is none other than the honour- able member for Maranoa. Mr KEOGH —I refer the Minister for Social Security to recent statements by a Queensland Government Minister rejecting responsibility for electricity rebates for pensioners in that State. I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the Queensland Government is seriously lagging behind the rest of Australia in the provision of fringe benefits to age and invalid pensioners? Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government is concerned about the hardship this is causing to people on social security benefits in that State? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for his question. The attitude of the Queensland Government to people on social security is a matter of continuing concern to this Government. For years Queensland has trailed well behind the rest of Australia. A study last year carried out at the University of Queensland showed that in the previous financial year the Queensland Government spent more than $10 less per person on the standard package of welfare services than the average for the five other States-$31.71 per person in Queensland compared to $42 in the other five States on average. The problem has been exacerbated by the gross economic mismanagement of the Queensland Government. As a result, Queensland has not benefited from the economic recovery to which the Treasurer referred earlier in Question Time, as has the rest of Australia. In fact, this month, for the first time, there are more people on unemployment benefit in Queensland than in Victoria-111,895 in Queensland versus 111,329 in Victoria, which is an extraordinary result when that is compared with the relative population of Queensland to the population in Victoria, Queensland, a State with less than 60 per cent of the population of Victoria, has more people on unemployment benefit. This can only be put down as sheer bad management. Probably the most callous example of the attitude of the Queensland Government is its attitude to fringe benefits. Let me take one instance, the one to which the honourable member for Bowman referred. Queensland is the only State which provides no concessions at all for the cost of electricity. As a result a recent study shows that a pensioner family in Queensland pays $212 a year more for its heat and lighting than the equivalent family in New South Wales-$504 in Queensland versus $292 in New South Wales. With respect to concessions for car registration and insurance, a Queensland pensioner pays between $70 and $106 more than the equivalent pensioner in Victoria-$203 in Queensland versus $97 to $133 in Victoria. During a time of extreme economic difficulty in Queensland, a time of immense hardship for people on pensions and benefits and people who are unemployed, the Queensland Government has made no effort whatsoever to look after those people. It is amazing to me that the Premier of Queensland has some credibility with respect to being a populist. That credibility appears to be based on an apology, because the most recent action of the Queensland Premier was to fight tooth and nail with the Queensland Government to look after his mate in relation to Lindeman Island development while it is quite clear from these figures that the ordinary pensioners, beneficiaries and low income people in Queensland are being screwed more in that State than anywhere else in Australia. Mr PORTER —I refer the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Health to the information provided by the Minister for Health last Friday in Question Time regarding the case raised by Dr Parker of Newcastle. The Minister advised that contact had been made with a solicitor representing one of the two doctors who had approached Dr Parker in Newcastle. Why did not the Health Insurance Commission officers undertaking this in-house review directly approach the two high income earning doctors who were in the employ of Dr Edelsten? Mr Bilney —They didn't want to get beaten up. Mr PORTER —That might be right. If they were unable to find them, did they request assistance from the Federal Police? If not, why not? Has the Government made a decision regarding a full Federal Police inquiry into this case? If not, when will it? Mr DAWKINS —I will be delighted to refer the question to the Acting Minister for Health. Mr LEO McLEAY —The Minister for Defence will recall correspondence from me and the honourable member for Banks after we visited the Australian contingent of the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai last year. Can the Minister assure the House that the services of the Australian members of the Sinai MFO will be appropriately recognised by the Australian Government? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question and for his representations on this matter which, coupled with representations from many honourable members on both sides of the House, certainly played a part in decisions taken by the Government in that regard. Firstly, I might say that I was delighted to be able to go to Fairbairn Airport to welcome back members of the Australian contingent of the Sinai peacekeeping force because it enabled me to express to them directly the appreciation of the Australian Government and people for the valuable work they performed and in particular to give them praise for the way in which they performed that role. In all ways they lived up to the very high standards of professionalism that have come to be anticipated from Australian armed forces in their service overseas. They earned the admiration of all those with whom they served in the Sinai peacekeeping force and also of those who had to deal with them, such as the honourable member, when he made a visit to their base, and of course the Egyptian and Israeli authorities. As I said, I appreciated the opportunity to make those points to them after they came in. They would be aware by now, as I think most honourable members would be aware, that the Government has decided that an Australian service medal will be created which will appropriately recognise service in bodies such as the Sinai peacekeeping force. That medal is currently being designed. I must say that it has been a matter of extraordinary surprise to me to learn how long it takes to get a medal in place and approved. I think that we could probably build an aircraft carrier in much the same time if we set our minds to it. The processes of approval are extraordinarily complex. Nevertheless, it will be done and when it is completed not only those who came home today but all who served in the Sinai peacekeeping force over the last four years will be entitled to wear it, and to wear it with pride. Mr GOODLUCK —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations would be aware of a distorted media coverage of the Farmhouse Creek issue in southern Tasmania. The Minister would also be aware that that issue, as the Minister for Primary Industry said, concerned workers and the timber-based economy of Tasmania. The Minister would be aware that on 13 March 1986 there were 37 protesters arrested. Is the Minister aware that, of those 37 protesters, 23 were unemployed and three were seasonal workers while 16 came from other States in 1985 and 1986? We have an opportunity here to have a good look at these 37 protesters and to tell the people of Tasmania and Australia that there is a little diddling going on. How can people up a tree get unemployment benefit? How can 16 people coming from other States be paid unemployment benefits to wreck and create havoc to the economy of Tasmania? Mr WILLIS —I was not aware of the details that the honourable member has presented. The question of unemployment benefits is not in my area anyway but in the area of the Minister for Social Security, so he has addressed his question to the wrong person. Mr Hodgman —What about the work test? Mr WILLIS —The work test is not applied by my Department; it is applied by the Department of Social Security. The question should have been asked of another Minister, but let me say in respect of the unemployment situation in Tasmania that I am aware that the unemployment level there is higher than in most other States. That is a matter of concern and I hope that the Government of Tasmania will get its act together and get those unemployment numbers down to something like the Australian average. Mr CAMPBELL —I ask the Treasurer: Is the effective cost of interest higher for home loans than for corporate takeovers? Does corporate borrowing for takeovers effectively crowd out other borrowers whose interest rates are not tax deductible? Mr Tim Fischer —Without notice, Paul? Mr KEATING —Broadly without notice. The honourable gentleman asked whether effective cost of interest was higher for home loans than for corporate takeovers, from which we must conclude that he means `higher than that for the purchase of business assets'. The answer is that the interest costs for the purchase of business assets are of course deductible on the basis that they are business costs or moneys spent in the pursuit of income whereas that is not the case in respect of housing interest payments. I should add that of course those payments which are deductible in terms of business income are taxable in the hands of the lender, whatever or whoever that may be. To the extent that some lenders may have a tax exempt status, that affects the actual cost of the borrowing to the Government. The net earnings to the Commonwealth of interest deductions and receipts in the economy is about $833m a year at the moment. In other words, the Commonwealth is about $800m in front on interest payments and receipts and deductions across the whole of the economy. That occurs, of course, because many interest payments such as housing interest payments are not deductible but are of course taxable in the hands of the lenders. In the case of business these amounts are deductible but they are also taxable in the hands of lenders. They are not taxable in the hands, say, of superannuation funds or State banks. The second question was whether corporate borrowing for takeovers effectively crowded out other borrowers whose interest rates are not tax deductible. Mr Porter —Do you write shorthand? Mr Donald Cameron —Your shorthand is good. Mr KEATING —No, as a courtesy the honourable member passed me the question a few minutes ago. The answer to that question is no. Those borrowings free up equity and debt to be lent and invested elsewhere in the economy which, of course, satisfies other investments. I might add that there is an editorial in today's Australian Financial Review which attempts to throw light on the exaggerations and conceptual confusion which have surrounded this issue for some time now in the media. It is an important editorial in the sense that it tries to focus on the basis upon which interest deductibility is made available in the economy. I am interested to hear so many members of the coalition urging by way of interjection yesterday and today the abolition of interest deductions for the acquisition of assets by businesses. I am sure the business community will be very interested in that view. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer to the reported official protest lodged by his Government with the United States, at the direction of the Foreign Minister, regarding the United States support for the Contra guerrilla movement in Nicaragua. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Soviet Union has provided more than $500m of arms to Nicaragua and that Cuban pilots fly sophisticated Soviet military helicopters in Nicaragua? If so, will he not agree that it is the Soviet Union and Cuba which are directly injecting east-west conflict into Nicaragua and South America? What protest has the Government registered with the Soviet Union and Cuba? Mr HAWKE —I thank my good friend, the honourable member for Kooyong, for his question. I congratulate him on his happy relaxed look, which is perfectly understandable. The honourable member has asked an important question. I understand that officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs have drawn the attention of United States officials to the Australian Government's attitude towards the possible supply of United States military aid to the Contras. That attitude was set out by my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in this place on 18 March and by Senator Gareth Evans in another place on 12 March. Those are the views of the Australian Government. Let me add to that, as I accept the seriousness with which the honourable member puts his question. We have consistently indicated, both at the level of Prime Minister to President and that of Foreign Minister to Secretary of State, that we understand the concern of the United States about any possible destabilisation of the countries in its immediate vicinity. That is a perfectly understandable concern. However, we have pointed out that we do not believe that it is an appropriate response to arms groups and individuals in that situation. Our statements have been consistently put, understood and, I believe, accepted by the United States. It should not be thought that the putting of this view, either by me or by the Foreign Minister, is a strange position, or the expression of some particularly radical or partisan point of view. If any attention at all is paid to proceedings in the United States by honourable members opposite, they would understand that, within the United States itself, there is a very considerable body of opinion-not merely within the party opposed to the Administration but within both parties, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party-that questions that approach by the United States Administration. Mr Peacock —It is not a sop to the Left? Mr Cadman —He has forgotten the question. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr HAWKE —The shoutings and utterances from the other side will not divert attention from the fact that, within the United States itself on a bipartisan basis, there is serious questioning of this policy. That does not detract at all from the propriety of the United States as a whole being concerned about destabilisation in that area. I wish to make clear-and I do not think I need to add to my public record on this issue-my repudiation of the right of the Soviet Union or its surrogates to involve themselves in the region in the way in which the honourable member has specified. I share the position of the honourable member for Kooyong in that I repudiate this intervention, directly and by surrogates of the Eastern bloc, in the affairs of that region. I am sure that that position would have been conveyed on appropriate occasions by the Foreign Minister. I say here and now, on behalf of the Government and, I would think, the overwhelming majority of the people of Australia, that we believe it is in the interests of the United States and, most importantly, in the interests of the people of the region itself that those people be left free of foreign interference and certainly of armed interference from either side so that they can determine their own interests and their own future in such a way that the limited economic resources of the region will be devoted to the advancement of the people of the region rather than being dissipated in conflict. Mr HOLLIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Can the Minister comment on claims by the Opposition's so-called Waste Watch Committee that a large proportion of funds spent under the community employment program represents a waste of public money? Mr WILLIS —I am aware of claims by the Opposition, both in its so-called Waste Watch Committee and by individual members, of supposed waste under the community employment program. Let me say at the outset in repudiating these claims that the CEP has, in my view and in the view of the Government, been a very important program in alleviating the plight of the long term unemployed and other disadvantaged groups. We utterly repudiate the false and misleading statements that have been coming from the Opposition about the community employment program. Let me reply to some of those points. Of all the projects mentioned by the Opposition, both in the Waste Watch pronouncements and in contributions in this Parliament and outside by individual members, a total of 38 CEP projects have been referred to. Various other projects or alleged projects have been referred to and, whatever else they are, they are certainly not CEP projects. There have been 38 CEP projects out of 17,000 approved projects-that represents 0.2 per cent of all the projects that have actually been referred to. Some of the projects that have been criticised have clearly been very good. Let me instance two of those-the crown of thorns project and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Beatbox project, both of which have resulted in considerable permanent employment for the participants after the CEP project has ended. Some projects have been utterly misrepresented by the Opposition. Let me refer to a few of those. First, there was the Australian Capital Territory clowns project, aimed at training clowns in the Australian Capital Territory. Obviously this was something the Opposition felt very close to, but it was too enthusiastic about it because, in fact, the project was abandoned and no CEP money went to it. The Waste Watch pronouncements claimed that the Wollongong Workers Information Research Centre had been funded to organise a conference which was never held. In fact, that conference was held a year ago. Opposition members also claimed that the Wollongong Women's Centre had been funded for an information service, but that most of the funds relating to that project had been spent on a bus. In fact, the bus that the Women's Centre bought was purchased under the Fraser Government's wage pause program, not under the community employment program. Mention of the wage pause program brings me to the point that the Opposition, and particularly the honourable member for Parkes, has complained about expenditure on so-called deviants and radicals. Mr Cadman —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like the Minister to explain to the House whether the funds were spent by the people they were designed to be spent by and for the purpose for which they were provided. Madam SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr WILLIS —I was saying in respect of the wage pause program that there had been accusations about expenditure on deviants and radicals, particularly from the honourable member for Parkes. The honourable member for Parkes seems to think that anyone left of Genghis Khan is a radical, so one has to look at his definition. Those making such accusations should take a close look at the kinds of expenditures that occurred under the wage pause program of the Fraser Government. There we saw funding for the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, obviously a highly radical organisation, and the Trades and Labour Council of Western Australia. FILEF, an Italian organisation, was funded four times under the Fraser Government's wage pause program. The Association for Peace Studies was funded once. The Friends of the Earth organisation was funded twice. A homosexual counselling and information service was funded. Also under the Fraser Government's wage pause program there was funding for a Murray River performing group, a sidewalk circus project to train young people in various performance skills. There was also funding for the Arts Resources Collective in Victoria for travelling clowns. That project has been attributed by various Opposition spokesmen to the CEP. It was not a CEP project; it was a wage pause project. There was also funding for a circus factory performing troupe. If there is to be talk about waste in respect of the CEP and expenditure on radical and deviant projects, I can only say that there is an old adage about those who live in glass houses. Finally, what honourable members say in this place and what they say in trying to attract national publicity often conflict with what they say closer to their home territory. The honourable member for Parkes is no exception to that. In the Parkes Champion Post of 14 March-last Friday-there is a heading `$56,000 for CEP projects, 11 new jobs created'. It reads: Four Parkes projects have received more than $56,000 in Community Employment Program grants, Member for Parkes, Mr Michael Cobb, announced this week. It goes on: Mr Cobb welcomed the grants and said that he hoped that the experience gained by participants would open up longer term job opportunities for them. I can only say that what he says in this place and what he says locally seem to be wildly divergent. Mr Hawke —Madam Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Mr Shipton —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Standing Order 151 states: At the discretion of the Speaker supplementary questions may be asked to elucidate an answer. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to exercise your discretion in my favour as I want to ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to elucidate the answer to the last question asked by the honourable member for Throsby by asking a question, in his own terms closer to home, that is, about the CEP grant made in respect of the Footscray Council swimming pool in his own electorate. I ask for your discretion, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the honourable member for Higgins that the Prime Minister has already asked that further questions be put on the Notice Paper. Mr Shipton —I crave your indulgence, Madam Speaker. I believe that I was on my feet before the Prime Minister did so. Madam SPEAKER —I am sorry, I did not notice whether it was a dead heat. The Prime Minister has closed Question Time. Mr DAWKINS —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to add to an answer to a question asked of me yesterday. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr DAWKINS —Yesterday, the honourable member for Forde (Dr Watson)-- Mr Shipton —I raise a point of order. Madam Speaker, you ruled that I was unable to ask a supplementary question because apparently you saw the Prime Minister rise before me, yet the Minister is able to add to an answer. I am not able to ask a supplementary question under the terms of the Standing Orders but-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The two things are quite separate. The Prime Minister closed Question Time. The Minister for Trade by indulgence is adding to an answer he gave to a question yesterday, and he may proceed. Mr DAWKINS —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am only trying to assist the Opposition, particularly the member of the Opposition who asked the question yesterday. The honourable member for Forde asked a question concerning our trade with certain members of the Association of South East Asian Nations and implied that our trade with them was under some cloud because of the Government's attitude to Vietnam. I stated in my response that I was not aware of the case to which he referred. I have now had the opportunity to make further inquiries and these have confirmed my initial reaction. I want to say to the honourable member for Forde that our trade and trade relations with ASEAN countries are on a sound footing and my Department advises that there has been no suggestion in the region of a boycott of Australian products and certainly no suggestion that the conduct of Australia's foreign policy in the region has any significance for our trade. Indeed, our High Commission in Malaysia reports an increase in sales of Australian goods in Malaysia's retail markets. As Minister for Trade I have given particular emphasis to our commercial relations in the region and I made a point of visiting ASEAN countries soon after my assumption of the portfolio. I discovered that the record of the previous Government in this area left something to be desired since my visits to Indonesia and Singapore were the first by any Australian Trade Minister for 10 years, and to Thailand the first for six years. I am planning to visit the other three ASEAN countries this year. The Australian-ASEAN trade issues were most recently addressed at a meeting of the Australian-ASEAN forum held in Queensland last month, and were dealt with in a positive and co-operative way with all parties anxious to maximise the level of two-way trade. Discussions on trade at the forum followed on from participation by Australia, the first time for a non-ASEAN member, at a meeting last November of the ASEAN Committee on Trade and Tourism. A meeting of the Thailand-Australia Joint Trade Committee was held in Bangkok last month and the inaugural meeting of the Australia-Malaysia Joint Trade Committee is planned for mid-May. I have also written to the new Minister for Trade and Industry in the Philippines suggesting that early consideration be given to convening a meeting of the Philippines-Australia Joint Commission. The Prime Minister of Singapore will be visiting Australia next month and discussions on economic and trade matters will be high on the agenda. Our relations with Indonesia are closer than they have been for many years and I am hopeful that our two-way trade with Brunei can be improved. In the light of the facts, I find it difficult to grasp the motivation for the question asked of me yesterday by the honourable member for Forde, other than perhaps as an attempt to foment tensions and difficulties in an otherwise very satisfactory regional trade environment. In view of the close working relationships that we have with ASEAN countries, it seems that the honourable member was very wide of the mark in his assertions; indeed, just as he was with his assertions that Australia's growth rate is the lowest of any country in the region. Perhaps it is not surprising therefore that the Opposition rejected his claims to be chairman of its economic policy committee. I think it is alarming when a member of the Opposition tries to distort-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister requested indulgence to add to his answer, not to debate the issue. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Madam Speaker, I seek your guidance. It was my intention in a debate last night to raise a matter of gross misrepresentation regarding the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on a wildlife matter. However, it will take some time and I do not want to take up the time of the House now. Can I foreshadow that when we return that matter will be raised? Madam SPEAKER —Yes, certainly. Madam SPEAKER —I present the report of the Auditor-General dated 18 March 1986 upon an efficiency audit of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation task cost management. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General dated 18 March 1986 upon an efficiency audit of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation task cost management; and (2) That the report be printed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973, I present the report of the Law Reform Commission on domestic violence, together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 19 of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969, I present the annual report of the Fishing Industry Research Committee for 1984-85. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to sub-section 57 (4) of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Act 1949, I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for 1984-85, together with the text of a statement-alas, which will have to remain unread-relating to the report. Mr Sinclair —Mr Deputy Speaker, once again on behalf of the Opposition I register our protest that statements are being lodged in this way. Statements are matters which should not be lodged with papers. We disagree with the process and protest most vehemently at their being presented in a way that denies the Opposition a chance of presenting a similar comment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The Manager of Opposition Business has made his point. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 63m of the Audit Act 1901, I present the annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for 1984-85. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report on approved Commonwealth capital works. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Dr KLUGMAN —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Dr KLUGMAN —Following my question yesterday to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) regarding the Wilderness Society's upgrading of accommodation, one Ian Warden, a columnist in today's Canberra Times, says that he was-and I quote: . . . cheered up when Mr Cohen went on to say that he had always imagined that Dr Klugman was a numerate person but that in this case the rental was under and not over $1,000 a week . . . However, Mr Warden had apparently retreated to the wilderness by the time the Minister corrected his answer on page 1596 of yesterday's Hansard, when he said, inter alia: I wish to make a small correction to an answer I gave earlier. I said that the honourable member for Prospect was not numerate in his calculations on the rent. In fact, I was wrong. . . . It was a three-year lease but it was $55,000 a year. I apologise to the honourable member . . . Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Mr Deputy Speaker I wish to make a short personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HODGMAN —Mr Peter Hartcher of the Sydney Morning Herald has done it again. On page 1 of today's Sydney Morning Herald Mr Hartcher asserts that: . . . the Liberal back bencher, Mr Michael Hodgman . . . continued in his attempt to raise doubts about the bona fides of Mr Holmes a Court. He further asserted that I had made `dark hints that Mr Holmes a Court's companies have South African links, in contrast to his statements to a Cabinet sub-committee'. I reject Mr Hartcher's assertions about `attempt' and `dark hints'. I simply stated the truth and proved the facts. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that under the guise of ceasefire the Government of Sri Lanka has largely militarised Tamil regions and has now resorted to airship attacks in highly populated areas and indiscriminate killings of civilians which is seen even by the Indian Foreign Minister as having genocidal tendencies. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to: 1. Intercede with the Government of Sri Lanka to desist from airship attacks and seeking a military solution; 2. To offer refuge under humanitarian and compassionate programs, to Tamils who are fleeing from the violence; 3. Abandon all direct and indirect forms of repatriation of any Tamil who has sought refuge in Australia and grant them meaningful assistance to resettle; 4. As a member of the Commonwealth, persuade the Government of Sri Lanka to pursue a political solution which will allow the Tamils to live in peace and dignity. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling,Mr Grace,Mr Hollis,Mr Kent,Mr Ruddock and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should; pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife,Mr Hunt,Mr Jull,Mr Lloyd and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Halverson,Mr Duffy and Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House of Representatives their concern at any change to the Australian Flag without first holding a Referendum to assess the opinion of the citizens of Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that no change be made to the Australian Flag without reference to the citizens of Australia in the form of a Referendum. by Mr Cowan. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% of Average Weekly Earnings; 2. That the lag time between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pensions would be reduced to one month, and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. by Mr Blunt,Mr Cowan and Mr West. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners respectfully believe that the representatives in Australia of the Africa National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples Organisation should not have to suffer unending financial problems related to the cost of rent, food and clothing, and the maintenance of two small offices run on the most austere basis. Your Petitioners therefore pray and urge the provision of: 1. Official recognition of A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. as the legitimate representatives of the people of South African and Namibia. 2. Financial support to the offices and representatives of the African National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples Organisation to promote the anti-Apartheid cause. 3. Additional financial support for the official representatives of the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. to assist the humanitarian needs of Namibian and South African refugees who are victims of Apartheid. 4. Scholarships for South African and Namibian refugees. These to be provided through the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. education departments. And Your Petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent and Mr Scott. 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 United States Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in January 1983 the Latvian born nursing sister Lidija Lasmane-Doronina was arrested by the Soviet authorities and subsequently sentenced to sixteen years in a strict regime enforced labour camp with an additional three years in exile. She had been charged with maintaining contact with Baptists abroad and for being in possession of a copy of the 1975 Helsinki Accords and of having a list of the Soviet Union's transgressions of them. Since Lidija Lasmane-Doronina was only exercising her rights as guaranteed by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the Soviet Union is a consignator, your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House will intercede with the Soviet authorities on her behalf and so secure her early release. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Labor Government's policy of automatically increasing the A.B.R.D. fuel levy when the C.P.I. increases, perpetrates inflation, increases the cost of goods to country people, reduces the living standards of all Australians, Short changes motorists as the extra funds raised are not spent on roads. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Give Australian motorists a better deal and immediately repeal those legislative provisions that automatically increase the price of petrol when the C.P.I. increase. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of Australia respectfully show their desire that Your Honourable House (the Government) act immediately to raise the Tertiary Education Assistance Allowance to the level of the Unemployment Benefit. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are greatly concerned at: (a) The ready availability of X-rated videos and other pornographic material; and (b) The increased tendency to highlight so many forms of sexual activity in the media without regard to the susceptibilities of the general public; and as a consequence, Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take action to 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications. 2. Require the censorship authority to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes in determining classification and suitability of films and videos to be shown to Australian audiences; and 3. Ensure greater propriety in television productions, local and overseas, telecast to Australian audiences. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: 1. We affirm our belief that, in Jesus Christ, human sexuality is placed in the context of mutual loving relationships and therefore Christians reject any form of pornography which depicts violence against adults and/or children and the economic, physical and spiritual exploitation which is basic to hard-core pornography. 2. We urge the Parliament to prohibit the importation or production of this kind of pornography. 3. We request the Parliament to continue a public enquiry during 1985 to report on the operation of Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 in relation to video tapes and video discs which have been refused classification or classified ``X'' by the Film Censorship Board. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. 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 Hawke Labor Government's productivity-superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's productivity-superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; 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 destabilising 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 representation to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms Fatin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We are concerned that the closure of the Enterprise Migrant Hostel will be detrimental to the long-term settlement prospects of migrants in Victoria as well as detrimental to Ethnic Communities who have settled in the Springvale area. In addition, the long-term development of commerce and industry in the area will be adversely affected. We urge the Government to reverse this decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the lack of a Medicare Office in Wyong is seriously inconveniencing the residents of Wyong Shire. Your petitioners therefore request that a Medicare Office is established in Wyong as soon as possible. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your Petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the Division of Cowper respectfully sheweth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the Federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your Petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hunt. 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 Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: We object to the proposed relocation of the Army Training Facilities to the Central Tablelands of New South Wales where they shall cause interference with the access, environment and resources of the Macquarie River, its tributaries and the catchment of Burrendong Dam. We respectfully request that the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives assembled, will ensure the immediate cessation of all investigations, studies and proposals in the Central Tablelands area which include the Macquarie River, its tributaries and catchment for Military purposes and that the Macquarie River, its environs, recreational resources, historical significance and access along the entire length of the river will be preserved for present and future generations. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the koala declared an endangered species and given the proper protection of the Commonwealth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House declare that the koala may not be exported from this country and that urgent re-vegetation of their habitats be carried out. Your petitioners also humbly pray that Commonwealth Government funds will be made available for research into the disease Chlamydia Psittaci which is killing the koala. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: A. Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 B. Implementing national recycling programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; C. Developing national employment programs to give priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of Australian residents shows that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any form of compulsory identity cards. We believe that the introduction of Identity cards will erode civil liberties; will create an increased risk of invasion of privacy; and will not result in any significant increase in Government revenue. We call on the Parliament to immediately reject any proposals for the introduction of compulsory Identity cards. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in `Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the petition of the undersigned respectively showeth: That the May expenditure savings which introduced funding cuts to children's services will cause hardship to many low and middle income earners. Families relying on these vital services will suffer, as will workers within the industry. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Watson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free and Mr Uren. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of Dawson shows that the proposed Bill of Rights: overlooks basic rights concerning union membership, education, and private property, is a basis for massive intrusion into State responsibilities, establishes a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission with powers similar to a Court but without accepted legal procedures and protections for the accused, and provides no avenue of appeal against decisions of the HR&EOC. The petition further shows that fundamental protection of human rights is already to be found in the Courts, in tolerance, in fair play, belief in democratic institutions, and in support for rule of law. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament will not allow the Australian Bill of Rights Bill to pass into law. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of Dawson respectfully shows that the proposed capital gains tax penalises small business and farming enterprises, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation, will freeze existing investment patterns, and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government will abandon its ill considered capital gains tax proposal. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Hinkler Electorate 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 illconsidered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Hinkler Electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's total disallowance of tax deductibility for entertainment and hospitality expenses will unfairly penalise Australian business and cost thousands of jobs for young and unskilled people. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Abandon its total ban on entertainment expenses and allow tax deductibility for legitimate and necessary expenses. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: This petition of certain residents of the State of Victoria draws the attention of the House to the fact that proposed amendments to the Child Care Act, by reducing operational funding to centres, threaten to destroy the existing high standard of child care. Your petitioners therefore request that there be no changes to current funding arrangements until a full and proper review of the Children's Services Program takes place, which includes full community consultation and tripartite discussions between three levels of Government. by Mr Peacock. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Sutherland Shire and New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional Nuclear Reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will not allow an additional Nuclear Reactor to be established. 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 certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam 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 differences, confusion and resultant paralysis within the Government as to how to resolve the economic crisis. 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)(3.11) —Mr Deputy Speaker, the past two weeks has seen more evidence emerge from within the Government of deep divisions, confusion and conflict over the direction of economic policy than at any other time since the Hawke Government came to power in March of 1983. That evidence is perhaps best encapsulated by the extraordinary performance today of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on the subject of the housing interest rate ceiling. We all remember the headlines of the day before yesterday. The Caucus was in revolt, Neville Wran was marching on Canberra, Graham Richardson was telling the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that he did not have the numbers and the factions of Caucus, in a rare display of unity, were saying to the Government that it must not touch that interest rate ceiling. Yet everybody knew that the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) were locked in a deadly argument regarding the fate of the ceiling. Yesterday the Prime Minister and the Minister for Housing and Construction both came into the House and made it very clear that that interest rate ceiling would stay; but, apparently, because the Treasurer got a bad Press and could not contain his anger, he went off again when he arrived at Parliament House this morning. He is pretty good at that; if he gets a bad Press in the morning he will go over the top when he arrives at Parliament House. I refer to the fascinating transcript of what he said when he arrived this morning. It reveals the venom and the spleen of the Treasurer as a result of the fact that he has been rolled on the question of interest rates. The real hero within the Government this week, the new, most unlikely, strongman of the Government, is none other than the Minister for Housing and Construction. He has had the greatest win of his life because he has rolled the world's greatest Treasurer on the question of deregulating housing interest rates. The world's greatest Treasurer does not like that one bit. This transcript reads: Q. What kind of options will you be looking at between now and then? A. That is a matter for the Cabinet. I am not prepared to discuss them. Mr West introduced a submission a couple of weeks ago which had been deferred and we will bring that on again for discussion. Listen to this: Q. Were you personally disappointed at the rejection of the possibility of raising the interest rates? A. That has never been proposed. It has never been to the Cabinet yet. The Treasurer was still running up the flag for deregulating housing interest rates. But that was his 9 o'clock policy. He had a 12 o'clock Press conference in which he said that he did not say what he is recorded as saying at 9 o'clock. Now he comes into the Parliament and says that there is no way on earth that he was saying this morning that he is still in favour of deregulating housing interest rates. Of course, he still cannot contain himself because he said that, perhaps, if the climate were such that interest rates were falling it might be an appropriate time to deregulate. That little episode illustrates better than anything else over the past couple of weeks the degree of confusion, conflict and argument within the Government about how to deal with our present economic situation. We now have from within the Government no less than seven versions of the correct economic strategy for the Government to follow. The first version we have is none other than the Keating version; the authentic Treasurer's version of how to run the economy. That version essentially says that if we have a 25 per cent devaluation the Australian economy will bloom and Australian manufacturing industry will thrive. The Prime Minister said last year that it would also create 100,000 more jobs. Remember that speech he made in Western Australia? He said that devaluation would give the Australian economy 100,000 more jobs. We do not hear that promise repeated any more. The Government has gone to ground on that promise; no more will 100,000 new jobs bloom as a result of the devaluation. But the Treasurer still sticks doggedly to his belief that the devaluation will give an enormous competitive boost to Australian manufacturing industry. That brings me to policy No. 2-the Button policy. The Button policy, simply stated, is that the Keating policy is bunkum. It says that the J-curve is a lot of nonsense and that whoever invented the J-curve was not an Australian and did not know anything about the Australian economy. That is not a bad frontal rebuttal of the Keating policy. Of course, what the Button policy really says is that our industrial relations climate and our industrial structure are such that the sort of theory advanced by the Treasurer simply will not work in the Australian economic environment. That says something for those who would argue that we can free up the financial system and float the exchange rate but maintain an insanely regulated labour market inside Australia. Senator Button is coming closer than anybody else to the reality and truth of that. Let me move on, because there are five more policies to go. The third version of the Government's economic policy is none other than the policy of good old consensus-the Hawke policy. Simply stated, the Hawke policy is that the Keating policy and the Button policy, which are diametrically opposed, are really one and the same thing; we need not be troubled because we can have our Treasurer saying that 25 per cent devaluation will give an enormous competitive boost to our manufacturing industry, creating 100,000 new jobs and causing everything in Australian manufacturing industry to bloom, and our Minister responsible for manufacturing saying that all of that is bunkum, all of it is irrelevant to the Australian environment. In the grand manner of consensus, Hawke style, both of those theories can be absolutely correct. No wonder, with the Prime Minister making those kinds of statements, that his credibility is becoming so suspect. I move on, because it gets even better. I am delighted to see that the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) is present. I have to say that version No. 4, the Socialist Left policy, might lack rationality, might lack gall, might lack common sense and might lack economic literacy and numeracy, but it is the bulkiest policy of all. It runs to about 85 pages. It is quaintly styled `The Reindustrialisation of Australia'. Forever modest, the honourable member for Calwell does not say that it is an alternative economic policy; he calls it `some suggestions for Government policy, by Dr Andrew Theophanous, member for Calwell'. This is just unreconstructed Keynesian economic claptrap being advanced by the Socialist Left. Not only does the honourable member for Calwell reject the Keating policy but also he rejects the Hawke policy, he rejects the Button policy and, of course, he rejects any kind of reliance on a responsible fiscal, monetary or wages policy. Still the versions of the Government's policy go on. We now get to my old friend the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). He is the chairman of the Caucus economic committee, so he should not be left out of it. Heavens above, if the honourable member for Calwell can have an economic policy we cannot deny that right to the chairman of the Caucus economic committee. What an outrage it would be if the honourable member for Charlton could not have an economic policy. So we come to him. I have a Press release dated 19 March 1986 from Bob Brown, chairman of the Government's economic policy committee. It gets better; he is chairman of not just the Caucus economic committee but the Government's economic policy committee. This is what the Press release had to say, inaugurating policy option No. 5 of the present Labor Government: The Chairman of the Federal Government's Economic Policy Committee has sounded a warning about the likely shift of emphasis from monetary to fiscal measures to correct the continuing adverse current account balance. Hang on; I thought the whole theory of what the Treasurer was on about was trying to bring about some kind of change. I thought what the Treasurer was on about was to take $1.4 billion off some inflated forward estimates of expenditure and to try to take some burden away from monetary policy. I thought that was the whole idea. I thought the honourable member was in favour of lower interest rates, but from what he is advocating there it seems that he wants to screw the economy even more with higher interest rates. If we read on a bit more it gets better. I thought that the honourable member for Charlton had cast away some of the old shibboleths of the Labor Party on economics. I find, to my disgust, that he is in favour of selective import quotas. That is a tremendously enlightened policy! I know Andrew likes selective import quotas, but really the honourable member for Charlton disappoints me very greatly if he is in favour of selective import quotas. Anyway, when we move on to policy No. 6 we really get down to the nitty gritty. The author of option No. 6 is not terribly interested, mate, in any of these economic theories, mate. He is not interested in any of this business about alternative options based on monetary or fiscal policy, mate. He just belongs to that good old New South Wales Labor right wing school that parades under the title `Look after the brothers in marginal seats, mate'. Of course, the sixth policy option of the Government is none other than the Richardson option, which is based upon one very simple proposition: If the Government dares propose to do anything that might for one moment cause it any electoral unpopularity, scuttle that, mate; do not have anything to do with that, mate. That is why we have had Graham Richardson, day after day, going back and forth from the Senate to the Prime Minister's office, waving his finger at the Prime Minister and saying: `You can't do that, mate. You musn't do that. You will lose all your mates down in Sussex Street, mate, if you do that'. So, of course, the great option of pragmatism, the Senator Richardson policy option, is born. We all know that there has been a little bit of a falling out between the Treasurer and Senator Richardson. They are not quite as clubby as they used to be. They are not quite as clubby as they were when they got together and rolled poor old Bill Hayden. They are not quite as matey now as they used to be. They have had lots of arguments. He would not do everything he was told to do by Sussex Street. Of course, the great number cruncher goes to the Prime Minister and says: `Look, forget about all of this economic theory. Forget about the economy, the balance of payments and any of the consequences of your policy. Forget about the fact that housing finance is drying up. For heavens sake, don't do anything that will annoy the voters'. That gives us option No. 6. The final option for the Government, and the one that I really think encapsulates more than anything else the dilemma that the Government has, is none other than the Micawber option; in other words, this Government really is waiting for something to turn up to solve its economic difficulties. In reality, we have these seven options. The Government is waiting for something to turn up. It has been warned by the Opposition for almost 12 months now that unless it alters its policy of relying on high interest rates it will produce the economic downturn that is borne out by the national accounts figures that were released today. I find it passing strange, even with the exaggeration of this Treasurer-this highest taxing, highest spending, highest debt Treasurer that Australia has ever had in peacetime-that he could ignore some of the warning signals contained in today's national accounts figures, that he could ignore the fact that real unit labour costs in the December quarter rose by 2.8 per cent, which is the highest rise since the March quarter of 1982 and has wiped out many of the gains on that front made over the past 12 months. He has ignored the fact that inflation, as measured by the price deflator, has accelerated over the year to the September quarter to 8.9 per cent from 8 per cent. He has ignored the fact that, notwithstanding the devaluation, export volumes declined by 2.7 per cent while import volumes rose by 3.5 per cent. He has ignored the fact that business investment has made no contribution to growth. He has ignored the fact that the major contribution to growth in the December quarter is the coup de grace as far as the Treasurer's examination is concerned-none other than that good old refuge for a Treasurer who is looking for an argument, that is, the statistical discrepancy. If we were to take that away we would have a situation in which growth actually declined by 0.5 per cent in the December quarter. Yet this man-this biggest spending, biggest taxing Treasurer-comes into this House and asks us to believe that the national account figures demonstrate that his precious, beloved, endeared J-curve theory is really working. I think these national accounts figures demonstrate the validity of John Button's words, which were that the J-curve theory, beloved of the Treasurer, in reality is bunkum and has no relevance at all to the economic environment of Australia. They show that over the last 12 months the Treasurer has demonstrated either a massive deceit of the Australian public or a massive incompetence, or a graded combination of both. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.26) —One thing my mate here has done is to clear the gallery. I understand why that has happened; I have never heard such an empty, shallow, more useless speech. No wonder there are long, glum faces behind the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). They have a long wait ahead over there. They will be there for a very long time. They will be able to come in and listen to these little treatises by the honourable member for Bennelong for many years to come. The stupidity of the proposition that has been put forward is evident in its wording: The differences, confusion and resultant paralysis within the Government as to how to resolve the economic crisis. It refers to `the economic crisis'. What do today's national accounts figures reveal? They reveal that the non-farm economy grew at an annual rate of 7.7 per cent in the first half of this financial year. That is what the Opposition calls a crisis. There has been 7.7 per cent non-farm growth and the Opposition calls it a crisis. That is unbelievable. This must be the only major party in a parliament such as this in the Western world which would call that sort of strength in the economy an economic crisis. One understands the desperation of the Leader of the Opposition, clinging as he is to the last threads of his leadership, to come in and try to make the most of any statement uttered by a Government member. The fact of the matter is that the economy has been running very strongly and the national accounts figures reveal that. They reveal that demand has been running strongly and that the whole economy has been running strongly. The whole basis of the proposition is phoney and fraudulent because there is no crisis. The biggest problem that Australia and the Australian Government have had to deal with has been an abundance of growth. What always amuses me about the Leader of the Opposition is that he keeps parroting this stuff about how the J-curve is not working. He says the J-curve theory is bunkum. I would like to hold him to those words. He endorsed a view that the J-curve theory is bunkum. I indicated today at Question Time that, had the terms of trade not deteriorated in the way they had over the last year, Australia's current account deficit would be $3.8 billion, on an annualised basis, the better. Therefore, the exchange rate, or the J-curve effect-the depreciation effect-of a price change on the dollar, has been working to hold the massive deterioration in our export earnings through the terms of trade and to hold the line while being swamped by this massive domestic demand in the economy. Despite that, we have had tolerable current account outcomes, which must prove conclusively to any interested observer that the J-effect has been working right through calendar year 1985. Of course, it is slower in some industries than others. One of the industries in which we have seen the first effects of it and early effects of it is the tourism industry, which responded almost instantaneously to the changed competitiveness of Australian tourist destinations vis-a-vis those overseas. The Liberal Party is, after all, the party that supposedly believes in market outcomes. It is the party that has been telling us to let the market rule. Its members are the people who are now saying that a 30 per cent price change in the Australian dollar will not affect imports or exports. They are saying that there will be no effect and that the J-curve theory is bunkum. Let the business community out there-the leaders of Australian business; the people who are running enterprise in this country-understand what the alternative government's view is of the market process and the exchange rate. If this were left to the coalition, the exchange rate would be massively overvalued, as happened right through the 1970s and 1980s with the attendant destruction of manufacturing industries and the loss of export markets and Australian export competitiveness and import competitiveness. The coalition had no wages policy-it rejects having a wages policy-and it had no anti-inflation policy. Its only policy was to make imports cheaper and keep pressure on local prices. The result was that our import competing industries were ripped to shreds and our export markets were lost. This Government came along and floated the exchange rate and it has been responsible for a massive change in the dollar. The Government has facilitated that change by way of a reduction in wages, through the discounting arrangements which will come up in the April 1986 national wage case, to guarantee that the price effects of the depreciation will be locked out of the inflation rate. We have done that to restore the competitiveness of Australian industry to its highest level in living memory to deal with probably the biggest trade crisis since the Great Depression. What do members of the Opposition have to say about that? They say that the J-curve theory is bunkum. While ever members of the Opposition hold those philistine views, while ever they try to espouse market outcomes and then abuse the market and abuse this Government for seeking to have the market operate effectively, they will be left where they deserve to belong-on their backsides in opposition. I always marvel at the Leader of the Opposition-the person who was running around saying that one is better to be right than popular; the person who had an economic policy; the rationalist who juxtaposed himself for what he alleged to be the irrational economic policies of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). In a speech at the National Press Club last year, which became his campaign speech, two weeks before he defeated the honourable member for Kooyong for the leadership of his Party, the Leader of the Opposition laid down the great structure for the place he would take government policy were his Party to be elected to government. He said that his wages policy would be a radical alternative and spoke about that subject being the most important economic battleground that Australia will enter over the next five to 10 years. What has happened? Within five or six months he slid back to the position of being shown the door by the Business Council of Australia when he ran his nutter proposals in front of it about wages outcomes and about the great economic battleground. The members of the Business Council understand what all this talk about the economic battleground means. It means that they fight the John Howard fights to the last drop of their blood. They understand that they are out there in the front line facing the unions. Members of the Business Council have had their profits restored for the first time in 15 years. They are not going to be consigned in the little general's army to face the Australian Council of Trade Unions. They are not about to fall for this furphy about a deregulated wages market. They understand what that means-it means that profits will be slashed. Members of the shadow Executive were not even politely shown the door at the Business Council meeting on 3 February. What has happened to the great nirvana of a deregulated labour market, the great reason for the Leader of the Opposition's existence as Leader, the next great deregulatory cause? We find he will not now be reducing wages after all. He says that there will be no sweated workshops for him. The only wage flexibility he has is upwards. The Business Council understood that. It understood that the only wage flexibility was upwards and that is why it gave him the downwards sign at the meeting. The Leader of the Opposition would make a cat laugh. No doubt he was the basis of some mirth at the Business Council meeting. But what do we find when the truth comes out? When asked, the Leader of the Opposition says: `Oh no, we are not going to have a sweated workshops policy. No, we are not going to have wage flexibility'. The Opposition said that the whole point of it was to reduce wages in areas which could not afford the wages. But that is out. The only movement now is upwards. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), said the other day: The overwhelming bulk of wage fixation will continue to be done through the Arbitration Commission. We would see the Arbitration Commission having the major role and a slight gradual step at the side for voluntary agreements. Then the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), said: Obviously we will continue with the centralised wage fixation system as far as you can see into the future. So that is it. Where is the radical alternative? Where is the great economic battleground which will last five to 10 years? It is gone, like any semblance of a decent fiscal policy is gone. The fact is that the current Opposition has no coherent economic policy; it has no anti-inflation policy; it has no wages policy; it has no fiscal policy; and it has no structural policy to run the Australian economy. Every business man and woman in the country knows it and that is why they will leave honourable members opposite firmly in opposition. The Leader of the Opposition says that the floating exchange rate is incompatible with a regulated labour market. That incompatibility is demonstrated in the average weekly earnings figures for the year to September. The figure for Australia is 4 per cent; for the United States of America, 3.9 per cent; and for Japan, 3.8 per cent. In other words, this so-called rigid labour market is running as flexibly as supposed by the most flexible labour markets in the world, even with a floating exchange rate. But what is the outcome in Britain, the conservative nirvana? What is the outcome in Britain under the supposed free markets of Thatcherism for the same period-the year to September? It is a wages growth of 9 per cent. This should be compared with a 4 per cent for Australia, 3.9 per cent for the United States and 3.8 per cent for Japan. That shows what utter rubbish and nonsense are the Leader of the Opposition's remarks about a deregulated labour market and a floating exchange rate. The fact is that this Government is getting the aggregate wage flexibility. It is not possible with the British craft union structure in this country, organised trans-industry, to get outcomes between industries which are markedly different. It is because of that that the accord was born and it is because of that that the accord flourishes. To suggest that we can do without the accord is to suggest that we cannot run a decent anti-inflation policy. Indeed, without the accord, the market outcome at the moment for wages would be immeasurably higher than that which is being obtained under the accord. The fact is that the Government's policy settings this year have been totally correct. As the Government pictured in October, the economy was running far too strongly in terms of the massive decline in our trade terms. As I indicated, there has been a $3.8 billion deterioration on a terms of trade basis on an annual rate over the course of the year with which the exchange rate has had to cope. It could not possibly have coped if we had had demand running too strongly. We have turned the wick up on interest rates to moderate that demand. Without that, Australia would have a crisis in its external accounts. Therefore, the strategy has been entirely appropriate. We are doing something fundamental about rebalancing the economy, about having a better secondary structure and a more efficient primary export sector. We have put two big policy instruments in place to do it. The first was the float to allow the exchange rate to fall to a competitive level; and the second was the accord to give us wage outcomes comparable and competitive with those of the people we trade with. Those two things and a decent fiscal and monetary policy will allow Australia to see a renaissance of its secondary structure, the rebirth of Australian industry and manufacturing, competitive opportunities for Australian traders in the rest of the world and, of course, a better import competing performance by the manufacturers and service sectors of this economy. When that happens the Australian economy can truly look forward to a long sustainable period of growth which this Government is determined to give it. Yet no such forethought and no such conceptual thinking was ever in the minds of these intellectual hobos who attack us for having some inconsistency-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. We have had a ruling from Madam Speaker regarding the use of personal imputations. I have given a warning. It is not necessary. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —There is no point of order. Mr Tuckey —I will put you on notice. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will withdraw that reflection upon the Chair. Mr Tuckey —I do not believe that was a reflection on the Chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will withdraw. Mr Tuckey —I will withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Good. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —I will withdraw but I still do not believe it is a reflection on the Chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will withdraw unconditionally. Mr Tuckey —I have. I am entitled to my opinion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor knows that the rules state that a member must withdraw and not add a rider at the end of the withdrawal. Mr Tuckey —I withdraw. Mr KEATING —This Government has a framework for its economic policy; the Opposition does not. The national accounts figures today confirm yet again the correctness of the course of the Government's policies. I feel sorry for the honourable member for Bennelong and the honourable member for Mackellar for having no policy framework and feeling lost in the broad area of the Australian economic debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Before the debate is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the Trade Practices Revision Bill 1986. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(3.43) —The Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill 1986 and the Trade Practices Revision Bill 1986 before the House are an important part of the commitment of this Government to the development of uniform consumer protection legislation throughout Australia. This Government, working with State and Territory governments, is determined to facilitate the achievement of uniformity by making the Act a suitable basis for mirror legislation elsewhere in the Commonwealth. Uniform legislation throughout Australia is essential if we are to provide consumer protection. The differences in conflicts between legislative provisions in force in the various jurisdictions can pose real problems for business and cause confusion on the part of consumers. By promoting uniform consumer protection legislation throughout the Commonwealth, it is expected that the cost of compliance for business and, ultimately, the community will be reduced. On 15 March 1962, J. F. Kennedy made a speech to the United States Congress announcing the four rights of consumers. Twenty years later, on 15 March 1982, the President of the International Organisation of Consumer Unions, Anwar Fazal, proposed that from 1983 that day be marked as World Consumer Rights Day. Since President Kennedy's speech to Congress, the four rights have been extended to include a further three rights. These rights are: The right to safety; the right to be informed; the right to choose; the right to be heard; the right to redress; the right to consumer education; and the right to a healthy environment. World Consumer Rights Day is a day for reflecting upon achievements, deciding directions for future action and expressing solidarity with consumers elsewhere in the world. This Government has a determined policy in consumer affairs, and a committee of the Australian Labor Party which deals with consumer affairs will be visiting South Australia and Western Australia in the very near future to consult with consumer bodies in those States and to let them know of the Government's commitments. South Australia has a proud record in consumer affairs. Protection for consumers who purchase used cars and for tenants are particular areas of which it can be proud. Much of the existing South Australian legislation was introduced by the present member for Makin (Mr Duncan) when he was Attorney-General in the South Australian Dunstan Government. Mr Ronald Edwards —That was good legislation. Mr SCOTT —It was excellent legislation, and it stands as a benchmark in some respects. That consumer legislation is still being vigorously pursued by the present Attorney-General, the Hon. Chris Sumner. Consumer protection is a matter of great interest in the community. This is evident in the popularity of various television programs such as the Investigators and other programs. They have exposed dishonest dealers who are a disgrace to the business community as well as to the consumers of Australia. While protecting the proper privacy of citizens that must be adhered to, there is value in exposing those other dishonest rip-off merchants. With responsible exposure such television programs do provide a good and proper service for the consumers in Australia. While on this matter of investigations, not necessarily television investigations, I wish to raise a current matter relating to an operation in South Australia that perhaps needs some investigation. I refer to a very big promotion by Club Mildura Ltd. The operation included a promotion held at one of Adelaide's very large shopping centres-the mall of the Marion shopping centre. Customers were invited to fill in their names, addresses and telephone numbers on a form. They were given a tear-off slip and the completed form was then placed in a bin, with other forms to be drawn out in a lucky dip. Customers understood that the draw was being held for a prize of two days at Mildura, and other lesser prizes. A few days after a customer had filled in a form, that person was contacted by phone and told that he did not win the big prize but had won a prize of $60 worth of petrol. The caller went on to ask whether the customer owned a video recorder. The caller then said that a man would call at the customer's home at 8.30 on the following night. That person called at the home of the customer with a video recorder and for the next one and a half hours showed a video film of Mildura and Club Mildura. This was a one and half hour promotional sales pitch, but a sales pitch aimed at what? Only when the customer asked what it was all about did it become clear. For the laying down of $5,000, the customer would be entitled to two weeks every year at Club Mildura or could select to go to Perth, Sydney or Queensland, but that person would have to find his own way. It appeared that there were similar operations in those other States. The customer asked whether he had in fact won a prize but was told: `Oh, no, you have not won a prize'. Apparently, the salesman had called because the customer had ticked a square in the box on the form to be filled in to take part in the lucky dip. It appeared that the $60 worth of petrol was to drive to Mildura in the event that the customer won the first prize or in the event that the customer purchased the $5,000 part in Club Mildura Ltd. The customer said that he would have to think about it and the salesman left, leaving a card bearing the name Des Haarsma, Time Share Marketing Pty Ltd, incorporated in South Australia. It was located at suite 4, 145 O'Connell Street, North Adelaide. Its telephone number was 267 4400. Attempts to obtain more information have met with very little success. A gentleman answered at the address given. He said that the registration through the Victorian Lands Office was in place and that legislation in all States to cover this type of deal was also in place. However, contact with the South Australian Consumer Affairs Division said that there was unlikely to be legislation because Time Share Marketing was not registered in South Australia. The Office said that it was so new that it did not think there was suitable legislation in any State. Where these operations are in several States it needs Federal Government legislation to cover and protect consumers. In the case referred to above it is interesting to look at the potential revenue. At $5,000 for each customer a two-weeks stay per year will give a potential revenue of $135,000. It appears that the property continues to be left in the control of the sellers. I believe that this is just one other area where consumers need protection that will come from Federal legislation. In the past we have had exposure of some of the various other problems in the consumer area. A group known as the Video Victims purchased a contract which included a package of movie swaps, library membership, complimentary films and free gifts and, in many cases, the maintenance on that equipment, only to find that later on the contract had been purchased by a finance company on a promissory note. This situation-cases have been drawn to the attention of this House-occurred where the company which supplied the video and the equipment went out of business so there were no more movie swaps and no more maintenance, but there were still bills to be paid to the finance company at a much higher interest rate than had been indicated earlier. Again, this is an area where consumers need, deserve and should get the protection of legislation through this Federal Parliament and mirrored in the States. The other matter that is increasingly becoming a concern for the community is that of plastic money and electronic banking. I am concerned, as are some of my colleagues, that there have recently been reports clearly stating that the customers whose cards were lost or stolen were liable for their daily limit of up to $500 a day and that they would also have to pay for the burden of technical failure of computers in financial institutions. While I was in the bank in Adelaide the other day one of the tellers touched the accounting machine and through the static in his body wiped the machine out and it was down for several minutes. I do not know the full implications of that kind of situation if the wrong type of machine were touched, but it is rather frightening that all of those records could, in fact, be wiped. There have been numerous instances where people have complained about wrong accounting debits and credits. This legislation will touch a number of areas. Hopefully the support of all State governments will be forthcoming. The amendments will be seeking to deal with such things as a new prohibition on unconscionable conduct by a company in connection with the supply of goods or services to a customer. This may apply, for example, to contracts that impose onerous or extremely unfair obligations on the consumer. In the earlier case I referred to, one can see that type of amendment being extremely helpful. There will also be a wider definition of consumers to include purchasers of commercial vehicles and purchasers of goods and services worth up to $40,000 which is an increase of that amount. A wider range of transactions will now be covered by the Act. It will also provide a new power for the Trade Practices Commission to enable it to take representative actions on behalf of named consumers who suffer loss through a breach of the Act and also new provisions dealing with unsafe goods. They incorporate the existing powers of the Attorney-General to ban the sale of unsafe goods and include a new reserve power to enable the Attorney-General to order a supplier to recall unsafe goods. From time to time companies, including car companies, have recalled products. It is to be welcomed that we are now entering into a more enlightened age where the manufacturers realise that it is in their interests to recall vehicles that have eventually shown defects. But I think the matter needs a bit more tightening up. There was a defect in that none of the recalls were ever registered formally with the relevant department. I believe that that is also something that has been taken on board and is likely to be provided for in either the Act or the regulations. I commend the Bill to the House and hope that the Opposition will see that the Bill is not totally aimed at protecting consumers, but there is a great deal there for the business community. If businesses have satisfied customers, the businesses will prosper. Businesses that operate in a proper manner should have nothing to fear from this legislation. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(3.58) —If honourable members had read the quotation on their desk calendar this morning, which I am sure is supplied to all desks in Parliament House, they would have read this gem: Plain truth will influence half a score of men at most in a nation or an age, while mystery will lead millions by the nose. It is the mystery of the missing motives of the Government's actions in pursuing the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill which is leading all Australians and this Parliament by the nose. It must be unique in the Western world democracies that a government, and a head of government, will move legislation in this Parliament to favour one person, a friend, in the matter of a current business transaction as large as the takeover of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. I put it to this House that if Margaret Thatcher in Britain or Ronald Reagan in the United States were sponsoring legislation for a friend to take over the biggest industry in the United Kingdom or General Motors, it would be a matter of great international scandal and all newspapers would have as their banner headlines the parliamentary disruption that would surely follow such a disreputable and scandalous move. Here, unfort- unately, the public have not been alerted and most certainly are being led by the nose. It is a move which stinks of the machine politics of the Labor Party in New South Wales. It has every odour of those machinations whereby from week to week we get fixes and incidents of manipulation with regard to Labor interests. There can be no greater Labor interest in this Bill than to have a friend installed as head of the board of Australia's largest company. It is the politics of the gutter that the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) should interfere in this way. What are the motives of the Government? Too little has been made of that question. Where has it been asked? What are the motives of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the main strategist behind the New South Wales machine? Why is the Government taking a hand in giving BHP to Mr Holmes a Court? What is its reasoning? What is in it for everyone? What is in it for someone? Those questions require answers. In light of previous statements by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) that there must be declarations of interest in relation to electoral matters and in relation to members' interests, what about some honesty and some revelations in regard to the connection between Mr Holmes a Court and this Labor Government. What political consultations have taken place between Mr Holmes a Court and the Prime Minister and Mr Keating? How much has Mr Holmes a Court given to the campaigns of Labor in the last 10 years, for instance? It is a matter of great importance to Australia in assessing the motives of Labor in this matter. I suggest to the Special Minister of State that he has an obligation, set on his shoulders by his own statements in this House, to reveal what has transpired in the corridors of the Labor Party and in the Ministers' offices. There is a very large national interest in the proposal to take over BHP. Hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars are invested in the so-called steel plan, the survival plan for the steel industry in this country. It is very material to taxpayers as to where that money will go if BHP is taken over by Australia's most notorious share raider. I put this to House: What will happen to the steel production centres of Australia if they are taken over by a person who has shown his previous values always to be the value of the dollar? Will the centres of Whyalla, Port Kembla and Newcastle proceed or will they be sold? Who will know? Will the steel industry in Australia be closed? Will we have imports substituted for the present Australian production? These are questions which no one in this House can answer negatively or positively. Of course, that is a demonstration of the foolishness of this move, the desperate dereliction of duty to the Australian public. In my State of South Australia we still have large scale benefit proceeding from the developmental program of Sir Thomas Playford, a program carried out proudly and busily for over 30 years, and the last thing South Australians want is for that development and the industries based on it to be prejudiced by an unfortunate take- over of BHP. The last thing that the electors of South Australia want to know is that their future is in doubt because of the action of this Parliament. I will put some questions to Labor members of this House. Can the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris) say to the people who own homes in his electorate and who have jobs in the steel industry that their jobs will be as secure after this vote on this Bill as they were before it? Can the honourable member for Cunningham, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), say to his electors that their jobs will be as secure after his vote as they were before it? Can the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) say to his electors who work in the Mitsubishi car plant in South Australia that their jobs will be as secure after his vote as they were before it? Can the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) say to the people of Whyalla that he is as certain that the steel works will be maintained at Whyalla after his vote as he was before it? Can the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan) say to his electors who have jobs at General Motors-Holden's Ltd at Elizabeth that their jobs will be as secure after his vote as before it? On every occasion the answer is that they cannot. They are unable to give that assurance. That is the test of the scandal and the smell surrounding this move by Labor in office. There is not the slightest doubt that those honourable members who represent those Labor districts can return to their seats and say to their electors that, if Mr Holmes a Court is successful in taking over Australia's largest company, he will put a capital price on every one of their jobs; they will be valued in his books and will have a price on them. When it pays him to sell a job, he will sell it. That is the truth about the influence of this Bill on employment in Australia. There has been a lot of nonsense talked about the market. The fact is that the market in general has no principles and no politics. It seems self-evident that it has no politics when so many of my colleagues are going to sit with Mr Hawke and Mr Keating. I hope that it will not be politics that brings them together. But there are principles which surround the market and it is those principles which we in this place and those in other parliaments in Australia affect. The market by itself, uninhibited, is simply self-interested. It cannot, for the sake of society, exist in a jungle. It has to be properly harnessed and of a standard that we impart to it. I do not blame people for making use of every legality they can to operate in the market, but, if it is wrong, those who operate in it are not at fault as long as they are on the right side of the law; it is our fault. The basis of liberalism is, of course, free enterprise, but it is free enterprise which operates not in a jungle but in a series of fair markets and with certain incentives. It operates on occasion in sectors with widely supported intervention. The wool industry, the wheat industry and the depressed sugar industry are three agricultural sectors which benefit from very wide intervention in the market-place. Mr Goodluck —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I just wish to assist my colleague. The microphones have gone off, as has the broadcast. You might like to stop the clock and continue it again later. Mr STEELE HALL —Is that permissible, Mr Deputy Speaker? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —I will consult the Clerk on this issue. The clock will be stopped. Mr STEELE HALL —Thank you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I draw the attention of the House to the fact that we do not know how long it will be before the power is restored. In these circumstances I ask the honourable member for Boothby to resume his speech. He can be assured that Hansard will be taking down his comments. Mr STEELE HALL —I do not find that satisfactory, Mr Deputy Speaker, because my remarks are not being broadcast within the House. I am not seeking an outside audience-I cannot insist on that-but I think I should have the full use of the House sound reproduction system. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I appreciate that. However, I believe that we are now back on the air so the honourable member may proceed. Mr STEELE HALL —I request that I be allowed an additional two minutes should I require them because there was a hiatus during my time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Yes, that will be permissible. Mr STEELE HALL —I had started to speak about the markets when the sound system was disrupted and I can only hope that the imperatives of my remarks were the cause of the breakdown. When I was interrupted I was saying that we, in this place and in the parliaments of Australia, set the rules which govern the fairness and the principles of the market and that liberalism has its base in free enterprise. This free enterprise does not operate in the jungle, but operates in fair markets with incentives. Free enterprise is involved in an area in which there is widely supported intervention-in the wool industry, the wheat industry, the depressed sugar industry and in the secondary industry area in the motor vehicle plan. I suggest that no one in this House would like to see those interventions discontinued. In relation to those plans and to the general operation of free enterprise, the issue of monopoly is of vital consequence. For that reason, this Bill was introduced and this section of the Act was altered in 1977. It was altered to reduce the impact of the section on mergers and takeovers, but the section as it was adopted then was enthusiastically adopted by the then Minister who is now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). In 1977, he said of this section: I believe that the right balance has been struck in the merger provision. He went on to say how the degree of merger control had been reduced and added: However, we believe that some degree of surveillance should be retained to avoid undue concentration of industry and that the balance which is now struck by the proposed new section 50 achieves that objective and gives to the Act a far more realistic and far more suitable merger provision. I say to the House that, if it were necessary then to have controls on takeovers of monopolies, it is manyfold more important to have them now when takeovers are more frequent. In this question, we have now arrived at the gates of the biggest company in Australia. I support what my leader did in 1977 and it is unfortunate that I cannot support him here today. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who was the shadow Minister at the time, also made some instructive remarks at that time. He said that the Labor Party believed that mergers should be looked at. He went on to make the point by saying: We on this side of the House- that is, the Labor side- do not bury our heads in the sand; we recognise the need to continually look at mergers in industries. That was a mutual expression in 1977. I point out that there are more mergers now and we have arrived at the biggest possible merger in Australia, so the need for an inquiry is more urgent today than it would have been in 1977. The national interest must be served by an inquiry. I say this of the Senate, the other place, where the most important decision will be made about this matter: I regard the Senate with a great deal of affection, having served there for three years in two terms of Parliament. I make this plea to all senators to have regard to their responsibility, first of all on this issue as representatives of their States and to take the view that the national interest, which is divided into the various State activities, will be better served if this Bill is rejected. I make that plea as a representative of South Australia and with the fear of the consequences for my State if this Bill is carried. Will there be one steel price around Australia? Or will there be a millgate price for steel which will raise the price in South Australia by $20 to $30 per tonne? That is the sort of thing that I want to safeguard against. It is the uncertainty of that which no one in this House, on either side of Parliament, can answer. I turn now to the question of monopolies and political power. Politics is about the power to implement policies and principles. Power must have a base and the Australian Labor Party has an enormous base on the union movement. That is a base which is often obtained by unfair and foul means politically in that there is compulsory unionism which drives employees into unions and there are compulsory levies, whether the members of the unions happen to support one side of politics or another. That is an enormous power base. In looking at the real politics of the question, it needs to be said that the Liberal Party's base is essentially that of free enterprise. It is a natural alliance of ambition and hope for this country that we should be allied with the free enterprise industries and associations of Australia. There is not the slightest doubt that the strategists of the Labor Party long ago set out to destroy the power base of the Liberals in industry. They have started and already have in hand significant plans to do that. The Special Minister of State makes no secret of his ambitions in that regard and his first effort was to insist on and have carried in this Parliament the necessity to declare contributions to political campaigns. The second major issue is running now-that is the issue of what amounts to a national superannuation scheme which will be so framed as to increase the power of unions in the industrial scene and to significantly reduce the power of management in industrial matters. I come to the third area that Labor is arrogantly reaching into, and that is the boardroom of companies such as BHP, which Labor knows is philosophically aligned to our side of politics. It is a deliberate strategy with political motives. This Bill is not here to give personal advantage to any members of the Labor Party when they retire into some cosy job in this company; it is here to give political dominance to the Labor Party-that is the objective. I very much regret that so many Liberals cannot see this attack on the Liberal power base which is so open to those who consider it. I consider it the most regretful and hurtful move if we consciously, as a Party, trade in a political friend, say, an organisation that agrees with our free enterprise attitudes, for a political enemy who is a friend and a financial contributor to the Labor Party. That would be the height of stupidity; it would be fundamentally stupid. The current section may be criticised because it has some faults in application, as the Minister who introduced the Bill stated. It cannot, however, be supported that this section will be deleted from the statute books without a proper remedial clause being put in the relevant legislation. It should be kept as a safeguard until the proper legislation is in place. It is unfortunate and it is with great regret that I cannot vote with my Leader in his declared position on this matter. I find this the most scandalous move, the most gutter-like tactic that this Government has yet been involved with. There has been nothing like it exposed in this House since the Khemlani loans affair and the Iraqi breakfast. This Government is asking this Parliament to legislate on behalf of one man during the currency of a takeover bid. It would not stand up to international examination. (Extension of time granted). I finish with a necessary statement. I am sorry that I cannot vote with my Leader, but he cannot lead me to vote against the national interest, he cannot lead me to vote to lower or destroy the power base of the Liberal Party and he cannot lead me to vote against the interest of my constituents. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(4.23) —Clearly, this is a debate of major national significance. It is a debate which is exercising the minds of those opposite. It is a debate which is exercising our minds on this side of the House. I guess individual Australians might wonder why a debate about Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd is taking on such a form and why we in this place are taking such pains to deal with the question of BHP. Colleagues on this side of the House are concerned that we should be dealing with the proper aspects of economic management. I guess for a lot of people in the community their only contact with BHP would be when they see the commercial for BHP in its sponsorship of 60 Minutes and the Sunday program on Channel 9. One can understand that. However, if one lived in Newcastle, Wollongong or Whyalla one's acquaintance with BHP would be more direct. Colleagues on the Government side of the chamber will be making some strong statements with respect to BHP and I look forward to hearing those comments. We have heard the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) and we have heard him reflect what really is a major dilemma for the Opposition at present. The Opposition is stuck with that position. What is its policy to be with respect to BHP and to a number of other matters of economic management? I guess, if one were listening to this broadcast or viewing it, or is in this place, one would be able to discern that there are considerable divisions opposite. Mr Hand —BHP is a supporter of the Liberal Party. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As my friend the honourable member for Melbourne has indicated, the honourable member for Boothby has made it clear that BHP is a supporter of the Liberal Party. I think we and the Australian community should recognise that BHP and others have long had close associations with the Liberal Party. They have only learned to realise in recent times that that association was unproductive because there was not sufficient quality in the Liberal Party to make that investment of money worth while in any sense. The divisions opposite are quite substantial. They are divisions between the market outcomes people, the economic dries, those market interventionists-I guess the honourable member for Boothby and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) would put themselves in that position-and members of the National Party of Australia, who are the agrarian socialists. The public is well aware of those divisions and it is not productive to go charting those except to remind the public that when they listen to a debate of this kind the Opposition will show its divisions. It shows its divisions in this place on a regular basis whether it be on wages policy, taxation policy, or industry policy. We have no doubts about that. I believe that it will pay the appropriate electoral price. I propose to deal with three aspects in this debate. First, I would like to talk about the Trade Practices Act with respect to consumer protection. Secondly, I would also like to talk about the Trade Practices Act with respect to the matter of football and football competition. There are some relevant areas there that I believe we ought to deal with. Thirdly, I would like to turn to the question of the BHP-Holmes a Court debate that is exercising the minds in the community, in the financial Press and in this place. The first matter I deal with is the important area of consumer protection. I say to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is at the table, that important contributions have been made to our committee discussions by people from the consumer protection area. I would like to thank them for their patience and their ability to give us some very good advice on consumer protection. It is a matter that concerns a lot of people in this country, especially people in the Government. There are some areas in the Trade Practices Revision Bill 1986 that are important. Clauses 23, 25, 26, 29 and 33 deal with areas that I consider to be important. In relation to clause 23, which deals with unsolicited goods, I would like to focus specifically on a couple of cases of concern in my electorate. One is that it has become a practice for people to solicit advertisements in journals of some spurious reputation and then to bill small businesses for those advertisements. Very often the small business is unaware that it has agreed to place that advertisement, and very often, of course, the placing of that advertisement is quite unproductive. I draw to the attention of the House a journal called National Handicapped News which has an address of Post Office Box 1801, Southport, Queensland. It is interesting, and my colleagues might note, that many of these shonky enterprises are in Queensland. Mr Hand —Many things at the government level are shonky in Queensland. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As the honourable member for Melbourne said, many of the things at the government level in Queensland are shonky; certainly there are many shonky enterprises. The National Handicapped News comes from Queensland. It is of great concern because there are many reputable journals and many important issues in relation to handicapped people that we ought to be addressing, but here we have a journal that has a circulation around the Gold Coast. However, it solicits advertisements in Western Australia, Victoria and other areas where there is no chance of anyone ever reading those advertisements purchasing goods or services from those areas. I have, in my electorate, a particular academy that was, in fact, billed for $155. I have the invoice here. The people at the academy are not clear that they ever agreed to place such an advertisement. They certainly did not realise that the circulation would be so limited and they certainly did not realise that in effect they were participating in what amounts to a fraudulent activity. I indicated in a previous speech in this chamber that there was another journal called the Australasian Engineer which sought, equally fraudulently, to take funds from a plumbing business in the area of Karrinyup in the electorate of Stirling. Again, the small business person was somewhat unknowing in the sense that he could not recall ever having agreed to take out such an advertisement. The only thing he became aware of was that he got an invoice from this company. When we phone these people we find that they are running about 25 or 30 different journals under different names. Their office is a rather mobile office because if anyone tries to visit them, they are never there. The National Handicapped News is one, and the Australasian Engineer is another. There was another one which my colleague from Victoria mentioned-the Moorabbin Cheltenham Ex-servicemens Club which was putting out a journal and similarly ripping off people in Western Australia. For example, my colleagues would be interested to know that a place in Broome in the north-west of Western Australia, in the Kimberleys, had placed an ad in this journal. I wonder whether Bruce Ruxton is aware that such activities are going on under the mantle of the Returned Services League and whether such fraudulent activity was being undertaken. I believe it is of no credit to such good organisations as the RSL, or to other appropriate handicapped organisations, such as the Australian Council for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled or any of those organisations. These are fraudulent activities which seek to rip off consumers. This Bill, clause 23 in particular, deals with that matter. It also deals with other aspects which are important, such as misleading conduct in relation to employment. People would be aware that often ads are placed which state `apply for a job'. It turns out that it is not a job at all. There is bait advertising. Ads are placed in newspapers to encourage people to buy certain goods and it turns out that those goods are not for sale. There are many other aspects, such as harassment and coercion which are dealt with in clause 29, and the assertion of the right to payment for unsolicited goods or services or for making an entry in directory which is dealt with in clause 33. Again, that covers the sort of material I am dealing with. What we find under legislation such as this is that we can provide substantial protection for consumers. They need that protection because, as is the case in the area of tax avoidance, there are many people who are prepared to participate in fraudulent schemes of this kind. I turn now to clause 15 which covers the old section 45 of the principal Act relating to contracts, arrangements or understandings restricting dealings or affecting competition. This is the football area that I referred to. It is a matter of concern for people who follow the various football codes that from time to time players are poached, coerced or in some way stolen by alternative clubs. What that results in, of course, is a loss of support for the club. Mr Hand —It was done to Maurice Rioli. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —My friend the honourable member for Melbourne mentions Maurice Rioli. Many other players are similarly coerced. What happens is that the followership of the particular club suffers and so does the financial position of the club. Under this provision all of these frivolous legal cases are being developed. The great growth industry in Australia is amongst sporting lawyers who seek fundamentally to rip off clubs and players with spurious cases under this restraint of trade provision. I might add they also have a capacity under common law for similar restraint of trade action. There has been an approach by the Victorian Football League, which has said: `How about we use this section to try to stop that area of activity and exempt football?'. My response is that that is the wrong way to go. The appropriate way to go is to do what everyone else does in relation to their work-that is, to get an appropriate settlement before an industrial tribunal. As was decided in the 1979 Federal Court case of Adamson v the Western Australian National Football League and others, a footballer is an employee and a club is an employer. What ought to happen is that the VFL and other associations and clubs in Australia should place in the contracts of players a clause which says that in relation to a dispute for provision of services, that dispute should be settled before an appropriate industrial tribunal. Two things would follow. First, the disputes would be settled readily and, secondly, one would find that the costs would be kept to a minimum. Imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, how many footballs and football jumpers one could buy for juniors in Australia if one were to put $100,000, which is what some of these cases cost, into such endeavours and to keep it out of the hands of the lawyers and the courts. It is an unproductive activity and it is something that we ought to avoid. My colleagues from New South Wales would have seen similar depredations of their clubs in relation to these activities of clubs and players getting into a dispute. Mr Hand —Do they play football in New South Wales? Mr RONALD EDWARDS —They call it rugby league. I would add that the same sort of circumstances arise. What we in this place ought to be doing is saying to these football codes that if they want to stop this rampant activity in which players and clubs get into expensive litigation, the way to stop that activity is to use the appropriate industrial tribunals, to register the contract before the tribunal, so that they can then use the settlement procedures of the tribunal. It is quick, easy and inexpensive. I add that I know honourable members opposite have trouble with the conciliation and arbitration system. It has been very effective and is well recognised for its equity, fairness and common sense. We have great faith in it. I am sure that the football codes around the country would benefit from such an arrangement. Mr Cleeland —They will learn. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Honourable members opposite, as my colleague reminds me, will learn that this is the appropriate way in which to proceed. The response in the trade practices area and the response of the VFL, I believe, is to say that we ought to be looking at the appropriate conciliation and arbitration arrangements to deal with it. Let me now deal with a third item which is the BHP case. The BHP case does expose one major problem. When one relies upon what is called a market outcomes philosophy, in other words, if one leaves everything up to the market, it can give the impression that governments have no say or no interest in determining what might happen in relation to industrial or market matters. That can be a major issue. It is one that those opposite ought to address because I do not think they have thought it through. We on our side have. When we talk about market outcomes we recognise that there is a role for the market to play. But there is also a role for the Government to play. In relation to the BHP-Robert Holmes a Court duel, this Government asked a series of questions of the contending parties-the existing BHP management and Mr Holmes a Court. The Government was able to satisfy itself that in terms of jobs there would be no involuntary redundancies. In particular, I believe the future of industries in Port Kembla, Newcastle and Whyalla has been assured, whether Mr Holmes a Court or the existing BHP management controls the company. My friend the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) will contribute some comments about his electorate and the role that BHP plays in his electorate. Clearly, BHP has an interest in Hastings. I know that the honourable member is concerned that employment viability is maintained there. This Government is sure of that. We would not have taken the position that we have unless we were sure of that. The Opposition is unsure of where its members stand, let alone such sophisticated questions as jobs. In regard to the steel industry plan, this Government brought down the steel industry plan. It is a matter of some concern that it is a major plan in relation to jobs and investment. We as a government also have an investment in that steel industry plan. We have been assured that both the BHP management and the Holmes a Court management would ensure the viability of that steel industry plan. I turn now to the question of taxation implications. There has been great debate about this subject. There has been great debate about whether there would be a revenue loss from the Holmes a Court bid in that he was raising money and the interest payments on that money would become deductions against revenue, from the point of view of tax. I add that whether the bidder is Mr Holmes a Court or any other bidder, that arrangement exists. We need to deal with the substantive arrangement of tax law and the capacity for institutional investors such as superannuation funds to be exempt from tax. That is the general question to be addressed. With regard to the specific question in relation to the Holmes a Court-BHP battle, we can give the community an assurance that there will not be any substantial tax loss. This Government has been concerned to protect the tax revenue and the tax base from that point of view. I turn to the question of asset stripping. I believe that a legitimate question that we ought to ask in this place is: Was Mr Holmes a Court going to be funding his takeover attempt for BHP by stripping assets from BHP? We have been given assurances, and we as a government have confidence that those assurances will hold, that the BHP bid will not be funded through an assets stripping exercise by Mr Holmes a Court. This relates to the question that the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) has dealt with-that is, the relationship between the Australian Labor Party and Mr Robert Holmes a Court. I am concerned to say very clearly that there is no covert financial relationship. If one reflects upon the recent record, Mr Holmes a Court and the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Burke, were involved in what may have amounted to litigation over matters before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. That hardly represents the actions of people who would be likely to engage in covert financial activity. I think we ought to make it clear that in relation to Mr Holmes a Court's bid we have the possibility of getting in this community some aggressive, competitive management. BHP needs it. The country needs it. I have no qualms with respect to Mr Holmes a Court's qualities as a major manager. Coming from Western Australia, Mr Holmes a Court has been involved in activities in that State in which his style of management has resulted in improved corporate performance. We ought to place that on the record. We also ought to place on the record that this Government has been quite concerned about these issues that I am dealing with-the question of jobs, the viability of the steel industry plan, taxation implications and asset stripping. I believe that we as a government have satisfied ourselves that all those issues have been dealt with. I know that there is dissatisfaction in the Opposition, and that dissatisfaction is so profound that the splits that have lain beneath the surface have now surfaced. We will see them in this Parliament, and that is an appropriate place in which to see them. When talking about the BHP issue and the future from the community's point of view, it is important to emphasise that, were it not for the viable steel industry plan brought in by Senator Button and this Government, we would not have had a steel industry to talk about. The performance of the Liberal and National parties when in government was such that the steel industry was rapidly disappearing off the map. We cannot have the rate of redundancies that we had in the steel industry; we cannot have the problems that they allowed to emerge. We would not be having a debate about the steel industry if their policies had continued. We have been able to introduce a plan which has given some guarantees to the community on the viability of the industry. No involuntary redundancies is one issue on which we have had guarantees. It is all right for those opposite to come in and thunder and shout about what they would and would not do, but we have only to remind the community that their recent record shows that they were not capable of putting together comprehensive economic management. The only thing they were capable of doing was making a mess of the economy. We have set about sorting out that mess. We have been able to do a number of things and in the context of this debate we have satisfied ourselves that those important national objectives have been dealt with. I know that many of my colleagues on this side will be speaking in the debate and raising issues of concern to their electorates. I conclude by referring to section 46, which deals with the role of monopolists and oligopolists. I believe that there is concern on the mergers front about an increasing oligopoly. We have seen mergers in the area of the retail trade, including those involving the Coles and Myer companies and, in Western Australia, the takeover of a local store, Boans Ltd, which has not resulted in improved market performance. The local shopping centre of Karrinyup has experienced a decrease in competition and a decrease in employment flowing from that because there has not been the same amount of money spent on advertising, on marketing. We have seen a decrease, and that has not been healthy. I believe that we ought to be maintaining an ongoing review of merger activity, including whether or not all takeovers are in the best interests of the economy. I have spoken about what I believe are important issues-the consumer protection issues, which we on this side are conscious of; that the Trade Practices Act does not represent the most effective way of dealing with disputes in football; and that we have satisfied ourselves as a government that, on the questions of jobs, investment, taxation and the viability of the steel industry plan we ought to be saying `Let the market determine the outcome'. From my point of view, it will not concern me greatly if Mr Holmes a Court emerges as the victor. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(4.43) —We on this side of the House are very interested to see members of the Australian Labor Party come into this place portraying the attitudes which we have heard and which no doubt we will continue to hear as this debate proceeds. It makes me wonder what people such as Curtin and Chifley would feel were they to look at the legislation that is being introduced by the ALP today. The ALP purports to be saying that we should let the market forces determine what is going to happen with the takeover of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. We in the Opposition make absolutely no apology for saying that governments should play as small a role as possible in the management of the economy. I quote the words of Barry Goldwater in a speech made on 21 October 1964, when he said: A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. It is unfortunate that those opposite tend on so many occasions to insist upon imposing on the people of Australia bigger and greater degrees of government control. It is therefore refreshingly different, refreshingly interesting, to notice that the ALP is taking a free market approach in this legislation. I would be very surprised if that approach has the full and wholehearted support of certain members of the group opposite in what the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) affectionately calls `Moscow corner'. Some government members claim that the Opposition is divided on this issue. Certainly alternative points of view have been put, but Labor is completely split down the middle. In the ALP there is the left guard, the right guard, and perhaps even the mud guard; but, somehow or other, those various differences have been papered over and the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has introduced for cognate debate two Bills-the Trade Practices Revision Bill and the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill. Of course, there are no specific powers in the Constitution to enable the Commonwealth to legislate on consumer protection or trade practices. There has been, since 1901, a varied history of attempts by Commonwealth governments to assert power in these areas. The first attempt was made in 1906 and that was struck down by the High Court of Australia in the Huddart Parker case. That dissuaded governments from pursuing consumer protection for many years, until 1965 when there was a further effort to pass a trade practices Act. However, the principal Act which the Bills before the House seek to amend was brought in in 1974. It is a very complicated, very substantial Act which seeks to protect consumers and other persons in this country. We on this side of the House reject the suggestion by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), that the National Party of Australia is an agrarian socialist party. Nothing could be further from the truth. We also reject any assertion, any suggestion, that the National Party Government in Queensland is anything other than the excellent government that it is. It is interesting to note that, if the opinion polls are right, the National Party Government will be re-elected in the election to be held later this year. Mr Cleeland —With 37 per cent of the vote. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! I remind the honourable member for McEwen that he is interjecting from out of his seat. Mr SLIPPER —I hope that the honourable member observes your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. The editorials and various newspaper reports on this legislation should be considered because newspapers have a habit of being able to distil off the attitudes of various parties. I quote from the editorial of the Australian Financial Review of 4 March 1986, headed `The BHP farce'. It stated: The political debate over the future of BHP has degenerated into a farce . . . So it has, because our eyes have been assaulted by what we read in the newspapers and our ears have been assaulted by what we hear in regard to the ducking and weaving by the ALP on this issue as it has agonised over the approach it should take. The Melbourne Herald editorial of the same date, 4 March 1986, and headed `Hawke Gambit declined', stated: First there was Robert Holmes a Court's so-called Clayton's bid for BHP . . . Now we have an encore by our Clayton's Prime Minister-who is again proving that his style is increasingly about messing around before eventually going to water (and in this case leaving his Treasurer high and dry) . . . There's no touch of the Clayton's about Mr Hawke's willingness to abandon prepared positions under pressure. And there's nothing of the Clayton's in Mr Hawke's willingness to duck and weave in the tradition of the great Sugar Ray . . . Honourable members would know that my colleague the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) often mentions Sugar Ray, who has some connection with his electorate. The Age editorial of the next day, 5 March 1986, was headed `Making sense of the BHP fight'. I quote: The appointment of a ministerial committee to look at the attempted BHP takeover reveals a Government floundering between conflicting desires. It wants to be seen to be concerned . . . but it also wants to avoid meddling with the market . . . Such a compromise outcome is not surprising given the apparent difference of opinion on the matter between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. The editorials proceed. The editorial in the Launceston Examiner, a newspaper well known to my colleagues from Tasmania, also dated 4 March 1986, is headed `BHP background', and reads: After a good deal of ducking and weaving over the past week, the Federal Government yesterday ruled out an inquiry into the proposed takeover of BHP . . . Similarly, Laurie Oakes, on the national Today show on 4 March 1986, questioned the credibility of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It is very interesting to note the words of Laurie Oakes on this occasion. He said: It's a flaw in Mr Hawke's leadership make up I think that he sometimes rushes out and makes decisions, makes commitments, makes statements without first sounding out his Cabinet colleagues. The greatest and most dramatic example of that was a little over a year ago with the question of MX missile tests where Mr Hawke had made a commitment to President Reagan without telling anyone in the Labor Party and once word leaked out Mr Hawke had to back off very quickly. This if you like is a smaller version of that MX missile crisis. So we find that the Australian Labor Party is twisting and turning between its ideological approach and the present attitudes of the people who lead that Party. I have mentioned before that it is amazing that the ALP today is taking a free market approach-a free market approach, I might add, which we on this side of the House applaud. Of course, I intend to support the amendments to be moved by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), who has gone into these matters very thoroughly and has come up with proposals which would vastly improve the legislative approach advocated by the ALP. I would, however, draw the attention of the House to the concern of certain professionals in relation to interpretations of amendments to section 74 of the Trade Practices Act. I quote from a telex sent to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) and also Senator Evans by Dr David Lindsay, President of the Australian Veterinary Association. I wish to express my extreme concern on behalf of the Australian veterinary association over interpretations which have been placed on proposed amendments to section 74 of the Trade Practices Act relating to warranties for the supply of services. According to some media interpretations the amendments would, if enacted, lead to unlimited liability regarding the outcome of services provided based on the client's expectations even though such expectations may have no scientific basis. The veterinary profession cannot believe that such an outcome would be intended by the proposed amendments, especially with regards to professional services provided in the biological sciences area. The provision of professional veterinary services is affected by a number of variables including post consultation care, the incidence of infection, bioavailability in relation to drugs and so on. These and other complicating factors will affect the outcome of a professional service and frequently result in differing prognoses for similar procedures. Veterinarians make a prognosis on the mean expectation, biovariation will result in as many cases doing better as do worse than expected. It has been suggested that the provider of the service may have to explicitly limit the claims with regard to the outcome and that such limited liability will need to be explicitly acknowledged by the client. This is patently ridiculous and could result in a withdrawal of many services/procedures and a loss of faith on the part of clients. Whilst officers from the Attorney-General's Department are at pains to point out that this is not the intention of the amendments-we feel that mere clarification during the committee stages would be insufficient to prevent frivolous and vexatious cases being brought before the courts. We are not aware of the provisions of the Act's Interpretation Act being applied in respect of third readings or committee stages. For this reason we urge that clause 38 be amended to clarify the intention of the changes and to prevent any unnecessary action being contemplated by those who may be affected. I believe that other professionals in our community have similarly expressed concern about the approach adopted in these amendments. I hope that the Attorney-General will take into account the fact that the veterinarians, surveyors, architects and engineers are worried by the situation in this area and, hopefully, will consider it and be prepared to consent to amendments accordingly. The left wing of the ALP insists that we should be controlled by government from the cradle to the grave. Mr McVeigh —We don't believe in that. Mr SLIPPER —We certainly do not believe in that, as the honourable member for Groom quite correctly points out. It is interesting to note, before I conclude, an observation on government which was made by John Sharp Williams in his book on Thomas Jefferson. I quote: My reading of history convinces me that most bad government has grown out of too much government. We do not apologise to the people of Australia for our intention not to interfere with market forces. Why should we make value judgments about who should control BHP? What right do we, as members of this place, have to deprive the shareholders of BHP of the opportunity of determining the approach which they intend to take? To interfere with the market-place in that way would be a gross denial of the rights and responsibilities of those people who hold shares in BHP. I believe that the people of Australia will support the proposed amendments of the honourable member for North Sydney, the future Attorney-General of this country. I have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever in saying that I completely lend my backing and support to the shadow Attorney-General, and indeed my colleagues in the Opposition in this place. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(4.56) —The reasons for the reconsideration of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1984 in the form of the two Bills currently being debated-the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill and the Trade Practices Revision Bill-have been adequately addressed by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech and by speakers on this side of the House who have preceded me in this debate. Suffice it to say that this Government will not permit the disarray of the Opposition and its confused-one could say hypocritical-attitude towards the operation of the free market in this country to stop this important and necessary legislation passing through the Parliament. Australian businesses and Australian consumers alike are waiting for the additional protection which the Trade Practices Revision Bill, in particular, will afford them. It is certainly a prerequisite for consumer safety in this country and the Government's commitment to its introduction is commendable. Many honourable members on this side of the House are involved in the consumer movement at some level and are interested in matters relating to product safety and consumer protection generally. As the convenor of the Cowan Price Watch group I have strengthened my links with the consumers in my area and have provided them with an opportunity to express their legitimate complaints and concerns on a range of consumer issues. Although comparative pricing of food and other essential items is a major part of the group's activities, many of its members take an equally keen interest in product safety and trade practices. My own concerns in this area go back over many years. Like most parents, I was awakened to the hazards of certain toy products when my children were very young. While government cannot legislate to prevent someone giving one's child a homemade, hand-knitted doll with button for eyes-which many an alert parent has had to remove prior to allowing it as a plaything for a child-it can, and indeed should, stop commercial manufacturers from making and selling items which pose a potential and recognisable danger to children and/or other consumers. For instance, it is now common knowledge that some toys contain sharp steel spikes as an integral construction component. Obviously these spikes could be harmful to a child and no parent would purchase such a toy if aware of the nature of its construction. It is only when the toy is broken, however, that the spike is revealed. Honourable members will be aware that few toys, even those which are deemed by the manufacturer to be so, are in fact indestructible-where there is a will there is a way and children often possess considerable will when the toy in its designed form is no longer of interest to them. Other toys are made from substances which are poisonous or contain unsterilised liquids which provide suitable environments for harmful bacteria or amoeba. Many more products utilise materials which pose a very real danger if swallowed by a child. Contrary to popular belief, not all such products originate overseas. It is difficult for many of us to think that Australian manufacturers would not take every care to ensure the safety of their products. I am sure that the vast majority of them do, but it is the remaining minority that concern me because of the risks they incur and the harm they cause. I am frequently amazed at the delinquency of such people in relation to the design and manufacture of children's toys and playthings. They seem to overlook-I cannot credit that they would ignore it-the inquisitiveness of children. To break a hard plastic rattle is easy for a healthy child-even when intentional destruction is not the goal. Once broken, the toy may present an interesting array of coloured beads, or similar objects, which beg investigation. At a certain age, the most natural action for a child is to place such objects in its mouth. This test of matter is a natural part of the learning process of children. What a tragedy if such an enquiry on the child's part should result in death by choking. What parent, under such circumstances, would not blame the manufacturer of the product and the governments which permitted such unsafe goods to be sold as toys for the nation's children? Mr Ronald Edwards —We get a rash of them every year before Christmas. Ms JAKOBSEN —As the honourable member says, there are a lot around Christmas time. I am convinced that the only obstacle to the levelling of such blame by more parents whose children have suffered injury, disfigurement, or worse, is their own overwhelming, and often unreasonable, feeling of guilt and responsibility. They cannot shake the belief that they should have supervised their child better. They shoulder all of the blame themselves. However, other parents know that total supervision of any child is impossible. Accidents do happen, with or without supervision. Objectively speaking, there is little that anyone can do to prevent accidents which result from an excess of exuberance or a lack of experience. What we can try to stop is the sale of products which, through faulty design or unsafe components, actually cause more accidents. I, for one, am not prepared to bear the guilt of unnecessary or avoidable injury to children or adults in our community, let alone be held to be indirectly responsible, through inaction as a Government member, for the death of a single child through misadventure in the normal course of play. I therefore seek to improve the laws which currently govern the sale of goods in this country through the introduction of the Trade Practices Revision Bill, with its important implications for the strengthening of legislative provisions for consumers, this Labor Government has again illustrated its commitment to this area also. As the Attorney-General pointed out in his second reading speech, in circumstances where there is an imminent risk of illness or serious injury, he will be able to make a recall order without delay under the terms of this legislation. The recall of unsafe products requires Federal Government legislation of this type because at present the laws differ from State to State and a ban on a product in one State does not necessarily prevent its subsequent, or concurrent, sale in another State. I am aware that many industries have established voluntary procedures for the recall of unsafe products. However, it is necessary to provide mandatory recall powers which can be used when the voluntary procedures break down, or where they have not been adopted by manufacturers in a certain field. Voluntary codes of conduct in the area of product safety cannot stand alone. Without government regulation as an alternative, the voluntary code cannot be expected to work, except to disadvantage the honest and alert supplier or manufacturer in competitive terms. The ordinary manufacturer in Australia has nothing to fear from this Bill. Where products are properly designed and manufactured in the first instance, with appropriate consideration being paid to safety aspects of the product, the Bill will not affect them. On the contrary, it will provide those manufacturers with a more fair set of circumstances in which to operate their businesses. If their competitors fail to take the necessary steps to ensure the safety of a rival product and are thus able to make the item available at a lower price, there is a reasonable chance of that competitor falling foul of the legislation should the product's safety be brought into question by concerned consumers. Prevention of abuse of trust is part of what the Trade Practices Revision Bill is about. Consumers trust manufacturers to ensure that the products they buy are safe. They also expect the products to live up to the claims made of them by the manufacturer. Unfortunately, this trust has sometimes proven to be misplaced. Hopefully, the Bill will provide the necessary incentive, or disincentive, for industries adequately to underwrite their own products in safety and performance terms in the future. I am very pleased that the Trade Practices Revision Bill also includes an amendment to enable the Trade Practices Commission to seek and obtain redress on behalf of people who have suffered loss or damage as a result of the conduct of a corporation or a person in breach of its consumer protection provisions. As honourable members will be aware, this clause will particularly assist those people who might be prevented from pursuing a legitimate action because of the high cost of the legal fees involved, even in a one-off case. The involvement of the Commission on their behalf may enable some of these people to gain redress. Contrary to the claims of some honourable members opposite, the aim of this legislation is not to seek to regulate the way in which firms conduct their businesses; rather, it is to enable businesses to make their decisions in a free but fair market situation. As the Attorney-General pointed out earlier in this debate, the Trade Practices Act performs an important role in ensuring that the maximum benefits are obtained through the efficient allocation of resources. It also protects the interests of consumers and reputable businesses. I say again: It is not anti-business but it is proudly pro-consumer. I congratulate the Minister on his commitment to this essential legislation and commend the Bills to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.08) —The Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill 1986 is corrupt legislation which I will not support. It reflects no credit on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or his Government whose motives are, at the very least, curious and, at the very worst, highly suspicious. There is more to the Hawke socialist government-Holmes a Court axis than meets the eye. Quite frankly, I think this unexpected and unholy alliance stinks! Why would a political party-the Australian Labor Party-whose platform is sacrosanct, and the most sacred plank of which is the `socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange', resolve overnight to hand Mr Holmes a Court the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd on a silver platter, and then caucus and bludgeon its hapless back bench into acquiescing in this unsavoury decision? Why would this Prime Minister and this Hawke socialist Government deliberately move to change the rules of the game-in the middle of the game-handing an advantage worth millions and millions of dollars to a so-called `baron of big business' who is supposed to be the sworn enemy of everything the Australian Labor Party says it believes in? Stealing the clothes of Liberal philosophy is one thing, but this is so ridiculous that it must, of necessity, raise the highest suspicions of the Government's true motives. I do not conceal the fact that my suspicions-as much as a barrister and one of Her Majesty's counsel-are most definitely aroused. I repeat that there is much more to this extraordinary affair than meets the eye and time will prove me right. Only one of two alternative verdicts is open to the jury of the people of Australia in this the biggest trial ever in the history of Australian business, industry and commerce. Either the Hawke socialist Government is the most incompetent and inept administration ever to occupy the treasury benches of the Commonwealth of Australia, or, alternatively, its members are the most scheming, deceitful and duplicitous bunch of horse traders in the long history of Australian politics. It must be one or the other. I now present the case for the prosecution, in this trial in the highest court in the land, the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. The indictment is simply stated: Conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation and obtaining substantial financial benefit by false pretences. Section 50 of the principal Act, if left in place, would enable, if not ensure, that there would be a Trade Practices Commission inquiry into the Holmes a Court takeover bid. That is a fact, and no one can gainsay it. What this Bill, the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill, is designed to do-it will achieve its objective-is to ensure that there will be no Trade Practices Commission inquiry into Mr Holmes a Court's raid on BHP. Now why, I rhetorically ask, would the Hawke socialist Government wish to achieve that objective? Why would the Hawke socialist Government, committed to making Australia a socialist republic, stamp on and extinguish forever a Trade Practices Commission inquiry into this corporate raid? I refer to an inquiry, which would inevitably elicit the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Why does this Government, the Hawke socialist Government, which claims to be the champion of freedom of information, move so ruthlessly and with such calculated persistence to ensure that there will be no freedom of information for 180,000 BHP shareholders, 60,000 BHP employees and 15 million Australians? We should remember that the much beleaguered taxpayers of Australia are putting up $350m to support the Big Australian under the steel industry plan approved by this Parliament and enshrined in the law of Australia, the statutes of the Commonwealth. Why does this Hawke socialist Government, which pretends to uphold and support the due process of law, move to render worthless an injunction currently issued out of the Federal Court by one of Australia's most respected and distinguished judges, Sir Reginald Smithers? Surely even this Prime Minister and this Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) know full well that that injunction, lawfully issued by the second highest court in the land, is simply not worth the paper it is written on if this amendment is passed through the Parliament. Why is the Hawke socialist Government doing this? Mr Holmes a Court must be laughing all the way to the bank. He simply cannot believe his good fortune-or is it good fortune? My first exhibit is an unrepudiated and uncontradicted account of something which transpired when the Government's own inquiry-the fabulous committee of seven-was sitting in deliberation before proceeding to ultimate judgment. As everyone knows this ministerial committee of seven was the brainchild of none other than the Prime Minister. It was said to comprise the intellectual cream of the Hawke socialist Cabinet, which we are repeatedly told has the greatest array of talent ever assembled in the history of Australian politics. Mr Holmes a Court, during his appearance before this incredible tribunal, was asked a very simple question; namely, whether he had any business links with South Africa. His reply was indeed most illuminating. Mr Holmes a Court is reported as having said that, apart from having lived as a child in South Africa, he had no links at all with it nor did any of his companies. I now propose to analyse that answer in some detail, and I invite honourable members to recall the repeated pontifications of the Prime Minister, the Hawke socialist Government-and Moscow corner thereof-on South Africa. Either the fabulous committee of seven was sublimely incompetent, or it deliberately chose to ignore vital evidence in order that it could bring in a decision which was cooked. I now ask: Why did the Hawke socialist Government, through the committee of seven, fail to pursue in greater detail the fact that Standard Chartered Bank Ltd, with its massive South African connections, was providing the line of credit for Mr Holmes a Court's takeover bid of BHP? Why did the Hawke socialist Government fail to acquaint itself of the fact that Standard Chartered Bank, via its investment company Standard Bank Investment Corporation, owns 39 per cent of the Standard Bank of South Africa? Why did the Hawke socialist Government choose to overlook the fact that the Standard Bank of South Africa is one of the Republic's big two commercial banks and that South African funds coming into Australia are treated by the Foreign Investment Review Board in exactly the same fashion as funds from anywhere else? Why did the Hawke socialist Government not question Mr Holmes a Court about the fact that as at 10 January 1982 the South African giant, the Anglo-American Corporation, using the pseudonym Wallaby Nominees Pty Ltd, held a 15 per cent interest in Mr Holmes a Court's company, West Australian Onshore Oil, and was at that time the second largest shareholder in West Australian Onshore Oil, with 7,498,000 shares, second only to Mr Holmes a Court's Bell Basic Industries Ltd? Why did the Hawke socialist Government fail to obtain precise details from Mr Holmes a Court as to how this major South African shareholding in one of his companies came about and how and in what circumstances this shareholding by Wallaby Nominees Pty Ltd was terminated? Why did the Hawke socialist Government choose to overlook the fact that Standard Chartered Bank had overlapping directors with Anglo-American-namely Mr Gavin Relly and Mr Chris Saunders-and that both these directors had recently visited Australia? Why did the Hawke socialist Government fail to probe Mr Holmes a Court as to whether or not he has established a substantial corporate relationship with the South African-owned, but Bermudan-based, Mineral and Resources Corporation? Honourable members will hear a lot more about this in the time that lies ahead. Why did the Hawke socialist Government fail to inquire of Mr Holmes a Court whether there was any South African-owned, but Bermudan-based, component in his BHP takeover bid. Why did the Hawke socialist Government fail to insist that Mr Holmes a Court disclose to the committee of seven, and through it to the people of Australia full details of all undertakings between Mr Holmes a Court and his bankers as to the assets and cash flow of BHP? I do not know Mr Holmes a Court. I have never spoken to him in my life, but the above are just a few of the questions which any responsible government should have put to Mr Holmes a Court in the national interest. Were these questions put? If not, why not? But there is still more to come. As everybody knows, I am just an ordinary backbencher of the Australian Parliament. Is it to be argued that the enormous resources of the Commonwealth of Australia were less than the resources of the member for Denison and that is why this incompetent government could not even start to scratch the surface, the surface which a Trade Practices Commission inquiry would not have scratched, but would have harrowed and ploughed? Why does the Hawke socialist Government wish to kill the Trade Practices Commission inquiry in a manner strikingly similar to the way it brutally killed the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Painters and Dockers Union, even when Labor Premier Cain of Victoria was prepared to grant that crucial Commission a substantial extension of its working life? I now turn to more recent events-some as recent as 24 hours ago-and I ask again why the Prime Minister and the Hawke socialist Government are so hell-bent on making sure that this proposed Trade Practices Commission inquiry is killed at birth. Why did the Hawke socialist Government fail to obtain from Mr Holmes a Court full and detailed disclosure of the then state of play of pending charges of violation of the United States anti-trust laws with reference to his bid for a stake in Asarco Inc., whose involvement with Mount Isa Mines Holdings Ltd would be well known to any first-year apprentice accountant in this country? Why did the Hawke socialist Government fail to obtain disclosure from Mr Holmes a Court as to how it came about that he failed to obtain advance clearance from United States federal anti-trust regulators for his opening market purchase of a 13 per cent stake in Asarco Inc? Why did the Hawke socialist Government fail to ask Mr Holmes a Court whether he intended to pay a massive fine of $US450,000-$A636,480, which is not chicken feed, even to Mr Holmes a Court-and to seek court approval in a federal court in New York for a settlement under which, upon payment of $A636,480, the US Government would drop other similar charges? I emphasise the word `charges'. Why did the Hawke socialist Government choose to ignore the fact that there are many in Australia who believe that there are striking similarities between the Holmes a Court anti-trust Asarco Inc. bid and the opening salvos of the present BHP takeover raid? Why has the Hawke socialist Government failed to obtain positive, iron-clad commitments from Mr Holmes a Court-I ask all honourable members to attend to this because it is a vital point-that there will be fair dealing and even-handed treatment between all the shareholders of BHP, both corporate and individual, the little people of Australia who have invested in BHP, and that under no circumstances will one group of shareholders get a benefit over and above that available to other groups of shareholders? This incompetent or conniving Government has not even ensured that there will be even-handed and equal treatment of all BHP shareholders, leaving the door open for corporate shareholders to receive preferential treatment and to receive a benefit not available to the little people of Australia, the 180,000 Australians who believe that BHP is a national institution. These little people of Australia are not protected by the Hawke socialist Government and the question I ask is: Why? At best it is incompetence; at worst, connivance and conspiracy. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) adverted to this point: Why even today has the Hawke socialist Government failed to obtain a positive commitment from Mr Holmes a Court as to the maximum level of encumbrance he intends to place upon the assets of BHP to finance his takeover bid? We have heard all these statements that Mr Holmes a Court will not strip assets, but I want to know why the Government has not at least insisted that there shall be a level of encumbrance which shall not be exceeded. If one has the choice of having shares which are encumbered to the extent of 10 per cent, or shares that are encumbered through the assets to the extent of 75 per cent, I do not think many people would take terribly long to make up their minds. This Government, which claims to be a pursuer of those who avoid taxation, has been delinquent in its dealings with the Holmes a Court takeover bid. Why has this Government failed to obtain from Mr Holmes a Court an iron-clad assurance that he, Mr Holmes a Court, will not utilise any tax evasion or tax avoidance facility to enable him to execute satisfactorily his proposed takeover raid on BHP? Before the Government says that that would be an unworthy intrusion into the market-place, let me remind this House that I stood in this Parliament in 1983 and praised this Government for the steel industry plan which it brought in. My speech is on the record. But this involves a commitment of $350m of taxpayers' money. We have now a monopoly which is protected under an Act of Parliament and which is subsidised by the Commonwealth of Australia. This delinquent, incompetent, conniving and conspiring Government did not even extract from Mr Holmes a Court the details of his proposed taxation operations in the takeover and commitments that they would not involve either a breach of Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act or any loss of revenue to the Commonwealth of Australia, the taxpayers of which are putting up their hard cash to support BHP. My resources are inadequate, but if I can bring to the attention of this Parliament matters such as I have in the last 18 minutes, I have to ask the question: Why were these matters not brought to the attention of the Parliament by the Hawke socialist Government? Was it so incompetent that it did not find them out, or did it find them out and then decide to turn a blind eye? Why do we have a government acting totally contrary to its political colour, its platform and its basic raison d'etre? If this had been done by a conservative government, as the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) said, the papers would be running headlines up hill and down dale. Everybody is puzzled and everybody is concerned, but nobody knows the answer. In the middle of that the Government has torn up the Trade Practices Act and prevented the very inquiry by the Trade Practices Commission which could elicit the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It follows from what I have said that there is no way known that I will vote to support this corrupt and unprincipled legislation. As I have said before, and I will say it again, the day the Parliament sees the honourable member for Denison voting to support legislation such as this is the day when the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) will see little pigs flying around in the sky. Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare that the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill 1986 is an urgent Bill. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, speaking to the motion- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! The honourable member for Denison knows that there cannot be a debate on the question of the guillotine. The Special Minister of State has declared that the Bill is an urgent Bill. Question put. That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J. Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P,Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. 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. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E. Howe, B. L. Uren, T. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Willis, R. Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McVeigh, D. T. Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M. Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C. Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Rocher, A. C. Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Conquest, B. J. Sharp, J. Cowan, D. B. Shipton, R. F. Downer, A. J. G. Sinclair, I. McC. Drummond, P. H. Slipper, P. N. Edwards, Harry Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hodgman, W. M. Gorman, R. N. J. Shack, P. D. Blewett, N. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(5.36) —I move: That the time allotted in connection with the Bill be as follows: For the second reading until 9.45 p.m. For the Committee stage until 9.50 p.m. For the remaining stages until 9.55 p.m. Without taking up the time of the House, I point out that I notified the Opposition that it was our intention that the whole of the day would be set aside for the debate on these Bills and that it was the Government's intention to complete the debate today. I am just giving notice to the Opposition, by moving this motion, that that is what we intend to do so that the adjournment debate will come on at a quarter past 10 as originally planned. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business)(5.37) —It is interesting that in this place members of Parliament rarely get adequate opportunity to talk on matters that are sensitive and significant, and the main purpose of this gag is not to enhance debate on a measure but to ensure that there is not debate on the measure. The second thing that is particularly interesting to us is that the Government seems quite intent to rush through a piece of legislation not in the form in which it was originally put to the Parliament but by a subterfuge. We now have two Bills, not one, before the House. We were quite content to continue debate on the one Bill. It is the Government that has rushed it through. Mr Wright —Got you worried? Mr SINCLAIR —I am never worried, my friend. I think it really quite remarkable that the Government is taking this step in such a way that it is going to push through a measure which we believe overall-for there are two measures involved-adds to the intrusion of government into the regulation of business. We on this side of the Parliament are concerned that government is inhibiting the opportunities for business to survive. It is very important that the community at large understand that the comprehensive package is designed to restrict competition in business and to inhibit the way in which business functions in these tough economic times and is not designed to enhance the freedom of the market-place. There are two Bills, one of which is particularly regressive. We on this side of the House are concerned about those regressive measures which add to the interventionary capacity of the Trade Practices Commission. We are disappointed that the Government is not prepared to allow a free, open and continuing debate on that matter. In the circumstances of taking up the time of the Parliament, I do not intend to continue to debate this matter other than to say that the Opposition strongly opposes the introduction of a guillotine at this time. A division having been required and the bells being rung- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I remind honourable members that interjections made during a division may not be covered by absolute parliamentary privilege. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J. Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. 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. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann,, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McVeigh, D. T. Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M. Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C. Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Rocher, A.C. Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Conquest, B. J. Sharp, J. Cowan, D. B. Shipton, R. F. Downer, A. J. G. Sinclair, I. McC. Drummond, P. H. Slipper, P. N. Edwards, Harry Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hodgman, W. M. Gorman, R. N. G. Shack, P. D. Blewett, N. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Declaration of Urgency Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(5.46) —I declare that the Trade Practices Revision Bill 1986 is an urgent Bill. Question put: That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J. Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. 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. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann,, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McVeigh, D. T. Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M. Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C. Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Rocher, A. C. Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Conquest, B. J. Sharp, J. Cowan, D. B. Shipton, R. F. Downer, A. J. G. Sinclair, I. McC. Drummond, P. H. Slipper, P. N. Edwards, Harry Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hodgman, W. M. Gorman, R. N. J. Shack, P. D. Blewett, N. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(5.54) —I move: That the time allotted in connection with the Bill be as follows: For the second reading until 10.00 p.m. For the committee stage, until 10.05 p.m. For the remaining stages until 10.10 p.m. I move this for the same reasons as I gave in relation to the first Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(5.55) —I propose tonight to cover some aspects of the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill 1986. I do so principally because, as most honourable members would be aware, I represent an area which has been affected in the past by decisions made in the corporate boardrooms of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. Of course I am referring to the Illawarra region. Mr Hollis —A great region. Mr MARTIN —A great region, as my colleague the honourable member for Throsby says. He also represents that area. Like him I represent a very large number of workers, the little people to whom perhaps honourable members opposite were referring earlier. These are not the people, however, who have shares in BHP. These are the little people, the workers, some of the 10,000 workers whom BHP sacked in an 18-month period back in the 1980s before this Government came to the rescue with the steel industry plan. I will canvass that in a moment. It is quite interesting to hear some of the comments that have been raised on the other side by those in the Liberal-National Party area and to see the divisions that obviously exist and come to fruition. It is not only those brave people on the other side who have declared their position that they would vote in opposition to their leaders, but also there are quite a number of others over there who declared publicly and privately views that are dissimilar from those held by some honourable members opposite. Of course, we on this side of the House do not have that same problem. What we are talking about here in respect of this Bill is an agreement-it was some months ago when this was first brought before this House-that this Bill should go through. Interestingly enough, when it was done and encompassed in the one Bill no objection was raised out there in the wide community, no objection was raised in the boardrooms of BHP, no objections were raised in any other corporate sector of our society, but rather they were quite happy with it. Why not? Everybody is saying `BHP, the big Australian, this great organisation that has a sound organisational sense, has been able to cope with its own destiny in the past'. If it has been able to do that I ask why it has allowed the Bell Resources group to get into a position where it is trying to take it over. If BHP is such an organisational genius how did it let the steel industry run down to the position it got into? I am very pleased to see that some of my colleagues who represent steel regions are here tonight. We have the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) and the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris). I am sure that they would quite readily agree with me, as they do represent steel regions, that there was a problem. If it were BHP's corporate programming that had allowed the industry to run down, surely that must also say something for its management practices that allowed such a takeover to start and get it so excited. Quite frankly, I cannot believe that in recent days we have seen so many socialists emerge from the boardrooms of BHP. What have they done? Have they said: `We will see the market place work this thing out'? No, they have not. What they have said is that they will run to the Government and see what can be done. Go to the Government! This is supposed to be the Big Australian, the big enterprise everybody holds up as being the champion of free enterprise in Australia. Have they tried to work it out themselves? No, they have not. I read about it in the Australian today. I think they have given up on the Government. They have now been traipsing around the Opposition halls in this place trying to get some support. Mr Lee —They are getting desperate. Mr MARTIN —They are getting desperate, as the honourable member for Dobell said. I cannot understand it. In the 1980s we saw in the Illawarra region for example a situation where the steel industry had been allowed to become non-competitive. It had been allowed to do so for a number of reasons, not the least of which had been some of the investment decisions or non-decisions made by BHP. For one minute I would not suggest that BHP has not made a contribution to this country, because it has. It has made an enormous contribution to the steel cities of Newcastle, Wollongong, Whyalla and others. But it has made that contribution on the basis of what is the best way to reap the profits without necessarily thinking about the future. In the case of the Illawarra what this meant, of course, was a massive infusion of manpower at the expense of looking further ahead, looking at its competitive position, looking at capital substitution and trying to see how it might best compete on the world market. When the realisation suddenly came that they had to do something about it, the options were unfortunately very clear to those people now occupying the boardrooms of BHP. Those options quite simply involved sacking and retrenching workers in the steel industry. In Wollongong it meant between 8,000 and 10,000 workers-depending on whose figures are used-were given golden handshakes, retrenched, gotten rid of through natural wastage or just given the old fashioned heave-ho so that BHP could cut back in some of its problem areas, particularly in the wages area. When this started to happen there was an outcry in the steel regions. There was an outcry in the Illawarra. There was an outcry in every media outlet. There was an outcry from the South Coast Labor Council. There was an outcry from the steel industry unions. There was an outcry right across the board. What do we see now? People have short memories. What we see on the south coast is a banner headline in the Illawarra Mercury which states: `Government Abandons the Big Aussie'. This newspaper kicked the industry to death some years ago when people were being retrenched. I commend the newspaper for the fact that it has been working hand in glove with the various levels of government to try to turn around the Illawarra region. Two years ago it was gripped by recession, and it has now been turned around. This has been brought about through the efforts of government at the various levels and certainly with the help of the local media. Yet now they seem to be suffering from memory lapses. It is important to give some consideration to BHP's past performances. I have said that it is my opinion that BHP, in particular in the Illawarra region-I dare say also in some other parts of Australia-had, because of a lack of foresight or an inability to look at capital substitution in its steel producing areas, found it necessary to make some very hard decisions. It was only through the efforts of this Government in putting together a steel industry plan, a tripartite arrangement that saw the union movement, the Federal Government and the company working hand in glove for the betterment of our country, that we saw some positive steps being made. Those positive steps are there. I commend BHP for the role that it has taken. That role has been to inject a massive infusion of capital. The capital infusion in the Illawarra region, at the Port Kembla steelworks, has been massive. The company has installed the most modern equipment. Unfortunately, it has closed down some of the steel making areas. But its substitution of capital has allowed productivity to increase. That, of course, has been as a result of the working relationship with the steel unions and the ability of those unions to get behind the steel industry plan that the Government put together. Of course, our Government has played a role in that process. Our Government has injected funds totalling in excess of $300m into the steel industry plan around Australia. Because of the tripartite agreement we have seen the steel industry turned around. Again, it was because of some of the decisions that were made, the results of which should have been foreseen, that the steel industry actually got in that position. I am also concerned about some of the comments that have been made about the importation of capital from off-shore to pay for this takeover bid. It is quite interesting to hear people talking about the Big Australian in this regard because the Big Australian has borrowed in excess of $4.2 billion off-shore to finance itself, but was there any complaint at that stage by honourable members opposite or those in the business community who say that we should investigate BHP? What about the $1 billion that it needed to raise to buy a copper mine in Chile and the extra money that was needed to take over the Utah holdings? Were any concerns expressed then? Of course, one might take that a step further and say: What about some of the other takeover bids that are present in the market-place today? If one looks at the Australian Financial Review on a Monday, it lists all the takeovers that are presently being examined. There are massive examples of this activity. What about the attempt by Brierley in New South Wales to take over the Australian Gas Light Company? What about the proposal by Equiticorp Holdings Ltd to take over Australian Consolidated Industries, which is probably the second biggest takeover bid in Australia's history? Has anybody said: `Good God, we should go to the Government. We must have an investigation into that company'. Has that been done? What do I hear? I hear nothing because in the wider community people just do not care. I will take that a step further. Honourable members have talked a lot about philosophical concerns with takeovers and whether the market-place should be the master of its own destiny. As I said earlier, I represent a number of people who work in the steel industry. I can state categorically here and now that not one steel industry worker in my electorate has contacted my office to express concern about what is proposed in regard to the Bell Resources Ltd attempted takeover of BHP. I repeat: Not one constituent, not one worker from the steel industry, has done so. The unions, on the other hand, certainly have contacted me. The concerns of the steel industry unions have been made known to the Government not only by me but also by my parliamentary colleagues who represent those areas. They are well defined concerns and I have sympathy for them. Of course, what the steel industry unions are concerned about, as they rightly should be, is the long term job security of the members that they represent. They know from bitter experience in the south coast area and in the Newcastle area what can happen to a community when things do not go right for a major company. As has often been said in the case of Wollongong and also to some extent in the case of Newcastle, these are one industry towns. If something goes wrong with that industry the effect is felt throughout the community. That is their worry and their concern, and rightly so. That concern has been expressed and views have been put to the Government. But it is my contention that those views have been taken into consideration. Both BHP and Holmes a Court have given assurances regarding the steel industry plan and the level of employment. Let us face it. We have a steel industry that has now become viable once again. It has become viable because of the steel industry plan. It has become viable because productivity has increased. Our ability to compete overseas has also improved. As long as those conditions continue, job security will be assured and it will be of paramount concern. If assurances have been given to this Government that the steel industry plan will stay in place, surely that overcomes some of those concerns-indeed, most of the concerns-that have been put forward by other people. It is interesting that BHP is being shown as being the Big Australian, the big caring Australian, and is being portrayed in the media as the virgin waiting to be raped by the black knight. That is a total misrepresentation, in my view, of the situation. Mr White —Are you against BHP? Mr MARTIN —I have already indicated to the House tonight that I believe that BHP has done a particularly excellent job in responding to the Government's initiatives through the steel industry plan. I have also indicated tonight that it is my belief that BHP has contributed greatly to the development of this country, not only through the steel industry but also through its resources arm. I do not stand back from that statement. I commend BHP for its initiatives in Wollongong at present, with which I am more familiar than the other steel cities. I am equally concerned that BHP has had warnings for a long time that problems existed within its own corporate structure. It is no good, when those problems are identified, for it to run to a government and say `Bail us out', because on its past record I do not believe that such action is warranted. I would like to say something about the proposal that is before us tonight and some of the views that have been put by honourable members opposite. Quite frankly, I cannot understand why people get so excited when there are so many examples, as I have indicated, of other companies involved in takeovers. That is the market-place at work. That situation has existed for a long time. Just because there is some magical feeling about the name of the Big Australian, BHP, there is no reason to suspect that therefore it is in some privileged position. If it is a fact-I think it is a question that is worth pondering once again-that those people in control of the boardrooms of BHP have been doing such a tremendous job in the past, if they have been carefully looking at the market and assessing what has happened, why have they allowed this situation to develop? I also ask those who have been saying that there should be an inquiry into BHP and the Holmes a Court takeover whether they are now saying that there should be an inquiry into Robert Holmes a Court simply because BHP has conducted a series of corporate raids on the shares of Bell Resources to try to offset this takeover bid. What are we seeing here? Are we seriously suggesting that a government should interfere with those two companies which are the big boys in the market-place? They are the big people and they are able to handle themselves. I suggest that such interference is not correct. I suggest to the House that the corporate socialists who have emerged in BHP are really barking up the wrong tree in respect of this request that they have been running up the flagpole now and again. It is just not on. This Government has acted responsibly by looking at the questions involved and gaining assurances from both parties. It has gained extensive assurances that have satisfied, as has been clearly demonstrated in this House day after day, the best collection of Ministers this country has ever seen. So why should we dispute those assurances? There is ample evidence to suggest that people in areas such as the Illawarra and Newcastle will not be disadvantaged by the proposals currently being examined, by this so-called attack or corporate raid by Homes a Court's Bell Resources group. There is no suggestion that they will be disadvantaged. It could very well be that a far better management structure in the BHP boardroom could come out of this. It could very well be that the benefits that flow to areas such as the Illawarra and Newcastle will be far greater than the current benefits of the industry and it may well be that there will be no need for further government intervention in the form of steel industry plans simply because the people out there in the corporate sector are able to look after their own affairs. To say that this Government has not intervened previously and should intervene now is a nonsense. I reject some of the comments made by those on the other side and I commend the Bills to the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(6.12) —There is obviously a fair degree of cohesion between the parties in regard to this legislation, but there are some intriguing aspects of the attitude of the Government. The honourable member for Mac- arthur (Mr Martin) says that he has not had any representations in his office. That is because nothing has happened yet. He and other members on that side of the House should go back to their electorates in the steel areas and explain the attitude that the Government has taken, and explain particularly the indecent haste with which this legislation has been brought in, why it has been split and why tonight an important issue like this is being guillotined through this House. We have before us tonight two Bills, the Trade Practices Revision Bill and the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill. It is an interesting commentary on the Labor Government that one of them is a deregulatory Bill and the other is highly regulatory. In one we have a government going out of its way to clear the decks for a takeover by Holmes a Court and, in the other, we have 53 pages of regulations. The question that keeps arising during this debate-it has not been addressed or answered, certainly not by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech; and I hope that he will address it when he sums up-is why the Government is going out of its way to smooth the path for Holmes a Court. Why does it not take up the amendment that we are going to move, of which it is no doubt aware, and insist that this takeover bid go ahead under the rules as they were when the bid was first lodged? The Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill will ensure that section 50 of the Trade Practices Act will not apply to transfers of monopolies. It will ensure, if it goes though unamended, that there will be no Trade Practices Commission inquiry. That, in itself, is fair enough. Where a monopoly exists and there is no competitive edge one way or the other, we agree that that provision should go through. It is a perfectly reasonable proposition and one that the Opposition supports. Minimum interference in business, where there is no national interest involved and where there is no lessening of competition, is very much part of our philosophy. We have been consistent in that support. We supported this provision when it went through this House in November last year, we supported it in the Senate last week, and that is the philosophy we support today, provided that it is carried with an amendment which says that the rules should not be changed half way through. Our position on this matter is rational and consistent. The amendment we propose is very important because it will ensure that the rules under which the bid was lodged are not changed before it is finalised one way or the other. A takeover bid by Holmes a Court was commenced some weeks ago. We simply want that attempt to be finalised one way or the other under the rules as they were at the time the bid was lodged. We do not understand-I certainly do not understand-why the Government is rushing into this today. It is true that if our amendment were carried Holmes a Court and Bell Resources Ltd could certainly withdraw their existing offer and presumably lodge a new one in due course. Whether they do that is their affair. We are concerned that everything should remain as it was, remain stable; that the rules are not changed half way through. I hold no brief for either of the main protagonists in this very important duel. I take a position of strict neutrality. But, as I have said before, we are at somewhat of a loss as to why the Government should go in to bat for Holmes a Court. If it wants to protest its innocence and say that it is not favouring either party, I would have thought it would have been in its interests to support the amendment we will be moving, to maintain and demonstrate publicly that it is strictly neutral in this matter. During this debate some views on what might happen should the takeover succeed have been expressed. I think that those honourable members who have expressed such views have expressed genuine views. I understand their concerns. This matter should concern us all because it could affect the industrial capacity of this country in due course. God knows there is little enough of that. Our manufacturing industries have been moving overseas at a rate of knots for some years. It certainly could affect the steel producing capacity of this country as well as its coal interests, thousands of jobs and the future of whole towns. We understand those concerns; they are very real. I understand that both Holmes a Court and the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd have given assurances to the Government-the honourable member for Macarthur put great stress on those assurances-but those assurances are not guarantees. No one is in a position to be able to guarantee in this sort of corporate world what will happen tomorrow. We simply do not know. It is worth making the point that, had the Bill passed through both Houses last November, this bid would have been free to go ahead without any threat of inquiry. Some people would regard it as fortunate and some as unfortunate that the timing is such that this major takeover attempt has been caught up with legislation that had the support of both sides of the House. There can be no assurances that either BHP or Holmes a Court will continue with things as they are. Boards change; people change; attitudes change; conditions change. For example, if we look at the conglomerate that is BHP today, there is no doubt that some members of its Board would like very much to get rid of their Ok Tedi responsibilities, because I do not think they can claim that that project is a success. They may well do that in the future. Some of BHP's coal mines are probably less than profitable. What will happen to the steel industry in due course no one can guarantee-neither BHP nor Holmes a Court. So, there cannot be any guarantees down the track. The other point I should make is that the BHP record of management has had its ups and downs. In 1983 some $350m of taxpayers' funds was promised to that company to help it out with its restructuring operation, which I am glad to say has been successful. As far as I know, that $350m was not used. In fact, I understand that the figure was something like $70m. Its steel operations have now become profitable. What I am saying is that there is no reason why BHP should be protected from a takeover; in fact, as the honourable member for Macarthur rightly said; a takeover may well improve its performance. On balance, I believe that monopoly transfers should not be subjected to Trade Practices Commission inquiries, but I repeat that in this case Bell Resources Ltd should be able to proceed under the old rules. It is an accident of timing that we have this Bill before the House at the very time that this takeover is proceeding. In the normal course of events, the Bill would have been an Act at the time of the takeover and the takeover would have proceeded. I turn briefly to the Trade Practices Revision Bill. This, of course, is more like a traditional Labor Bill. It has some 53 pages, full of regulations, placing not one but several impositions on business. There have been some impassioned speeches by honourable members opposite who, I think, have shown a genuine desire to protect consumers-and I respect that-but at what expense? Are we going to keep on regulating and regulating in this country, as we have done-perhaps under governments from both sides of politics-for many years now, imposing more and more controls on business, with the net effect that thousands and thousands of businessmen each year simply give up? The area I represent on the Gold Coast is simply littered with businessmen from around Australia who have given up. They have made enough to lead comfortable lives. They have retired early because the impositions and interference in their businesses have simply led them to believe that the game is not worth the candle-the effort does not produce the rewards. They have given up. Here we are going to load another 53 pages of regulations on the business sector. God knows, it is bad enough; the balance of trade figures should convince anyone that what we should be doing is lifting those impositions from the business sector so that we can improve our balance of trade and encourage business and our exporters. The trouble is that it has become too difficult for business. There is too much red tape, too many union demands, too much taxation. On top of that, if the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government have their way, we will see a further imposition by way of superannuation, because of the spurious productivity claim, dumped on business. What a joke that will be. What is going to happen-I am not encouraging this-if this superannuation claim is dumped on the businessmen is that a lot of them simply will not pay. The Attorney-General must know that. Businessmen have said that publicly. They are ringing me, and I expect other members, and saying `We don't care any more. We are simply not going to pay that 3 1/2 per cent superannuation'. In conclusion, I say again that we have two very interesting Bills here, indicating a complete dichotomy in the Government's attitude. One is a Bill which is clearing the way, without any inquiry, for the Holmes a Court bid for BHP. I believe, as do other members on this side of the House, that that bid should proceed under the rules which existed when that bid was lodged. The purpose of our amendment to this legislation is to enable that to happen. On the other hand, we have a Bill which will impose yet more regulations on the business sector. I would have thought that in these difficult economic times anyone in his right mind would have been adopting the attitude that the last thing we want is more regulation. What we should be encouraging is less regulation to get business to expand, to improve our balance of trade and to put people back to work. We will resist that Bill for all we are worth. Mr GRACE(Fowler)(6.25) —Let me start by saying that the Trade Practices Act 1974 which was introduced by the Whitlam Government was one of the greatest initiatives of that Government. Certainly it has had some faults-of course, it is not perfect-but it was a start to ending a large number of business malpractices that were taking place in the market-place. It has pioneered the way for the legislative attitude in the field of consumerism and business practices that has been adopted. In the time available to me I wish to address my remarks to the consumer side of the Bills before us, the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill and the Trade Practices Revision Bill. Since the election of the Hawke Government we have clearly shown, both to the consuming public and to the suppliers and manufacturers, our strong commitment to restoring the efficiency and validity of Australian industry. The Government's sound economic management has proven this commitment. The Trade Practices Act plays an important role in ensuring that the maximum benefits are obtained through an efficient allocation of our natural resources, as well as protecting the interests of the consuming public and reputable business. Let us look at clause 5 of the Trade Practices Revision Bill, which seeks to amend section 4B of the Trade Practices Act. It is pleasing to see such an amendment. It certainly is welcome. Over the past eight years inflation has bitten deeply into the $15,000 which has been the limit. The Green Paper circulated by the Government proposed an increase in the monetary limit to $200,000. In submissions to the Government on the Green Paper it was indicated that this limit of $200,000 represented an undue intrusion into commercial transactions. Raising the limit to $40,000 certainly will overcome the inflationary effect on the current limit of $15,000. Honourable members opposite certainly would be familiar with the term `inflation'; it was mainly their efforts in pseudo economic policy making which gave this country double digit inflation and forced many small businesses to the wall. This undoubtedly will restore the protection that is given to the consumer and small business purchases by the Act. At present there are enough businesses in the market-place which have no regard for the consumer. These businesses willingly bait consumers, leading them to believe that they are on a good thing and should stick to it. It is sometimes amusing to watch current affairs programs such as Willesee in Sydney and see the way in which those programs highlight unscrupulous dealers who take great delight in ripping off the general consuming public. It does not stop there. The Government has seen the need to provide protection for people such as truck owner-operators whose businesses are directly affected by the dependability of their vehicles. This provision was included in the amending legislation at the recommendation of the national road freight inquiry. I am certain that many of my constituents will be pleased to learn of this amendment because, in my electorate of Fowler, a large number of people depend on their vehicles for a livelihood. I turn now to proposed new section 65F, relating to the recall of unsafe products. This proposed new section empowers the Minister to recall unsafe products, although already the Act provides for the banning of unsafe products. We must consider those products that already are in the market-place-products that are in the hands of consumers-and are unsafe. This proposed new section would allow the Minister to order a supplier or manufacturer to recall unsafe products from the market-place and for purchasers to have recourse to repair or replacement. There has been some criticism of 65F because it supposedly imposes a mandatory recall power and would unduly trespass on suppliers' rights and liberties. Of course, that is totally untrue and without foundation. This power will be used only where the industry based recall procedures do not exist or where the voluntary recall system is unsatisfactory. A further step in the right direction which proposed new section 65 takes is that the Government will ensure that the rights of the supplier or manufacturer are protected. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr GRACE —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I was referring to proposed new section 65F. The Bill provides for a conference, if so requested by the suppliers, before the Trade Practices Commission, before any recall order can be issued. That is another step towards the consensus attitude of this Government and a step away from the confrontationist attitude of the Opposition. Therefore, any criticism is totally false, although I point out to the House that the Minister has the power to recall without conference any product from the market-place in the case of extreme emergencies, which is only fair to the consumer, and is a power to which no reasonable manufacturer could object. Let us look at proposed new section 52A, which is headed `Unconscionable conduct'. The insertion of this new provision prohibits a corporation in connection with the supply or possible supply of consumer goods and services from engaging in unconscionable conduct or practices. At present there are enough shoddy Mickey-Mouse watch salesmen acting on behalf of large corporations which, without hesitation, use undue influence through the media to obtain their goals. Let us also look at the small companies which seek to deceive the general consuming public, in particular, car dealers who turn back speedometers on vehicles they have for sale, therefore deceiving the consumer as to the wear and tear that a vehicle has undergone. Those honourable members who stand up in the House and lecture us that proposed new section 52A is a further business regulation, at a time when the Government is committed to reducing regulations, are really out of context and out of touch with the electorate as a whole. Perhaps, they are completely out of touch with the electorate. I might add that that point is quite relevant to the Opposition. One has only to look at the popularity polls to see the evidence. This proposed new section will in no way hinder those in our community who are respected, trusted and valued by the general consuming public. It seeks to help consumers to retain their basic rights to protection from unscrupulous dealers and unconscionable conduct of some operators in the market place. It is largely consistent with the New South Wales Contracts Review Act of 1980 which, I point out to the House, has been generally accepted in the community at large as a further way to protect the consumer. Having dealt with the consumer protection aspects of the legislation, let me now address matters of concern to big business, namely, the amendment to section 46 of the principal Act, to be found in clause 17 entitled `Misuse of market power'. To have a competitive economy we require efficient and effective business, both large and small. While large enterprises may have advantages of economies of scale, there are many occasions when large size does not mean in itself greater efficiency. The amendment to this section intends to lower the threshold for a corporation from `a position substantially to control a market' to `a substantial degree of power in a market'. One has only to look at the recent concentration of merger activity and the increasing trends towards concentration of industry. The Government does not wish to impede desirable rationalisation, but we wish to make sure that any misuse of that power for anti-competitive ends, as a result of such increasing concentration, is adequately covered. As I have just stated, there seems to be quite a lot of activity on the merger front. Lately we have seen the Coles-Myer, the Woolworths-Safeway and the Bond and Castlemaine-Toohey mergers. They therefore demonstrate the increasing concentration in Australian industry and, accordingly, an increase in the number of firms with substantial market power. There have been numerous complaints by small business that large firms are engaging in anti-competitive price discrimination. Honourable members opposite come into this chamber and try to lecture this Government on how it should be helping and protecting small business but, at the same time, they have no regard for the large companies which practise price discrimination, refusing to sell goods so that the small companies can compete with them. It seems that honourable members opposite want two bob each way, or they do not seem to understand that this Government is not anti-small business at all. By lowering the threshold, which is currently too high, the amendment will ensure that those who practise the misuse of market power are caught. That is something that will aid small business, not hinder it, as some honourable members opposite claim. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr BURR(Lyons)(8.05) —The Trade Practices Revision Bill represents a disgraceful episode in Australia's history. Legislation is being passed by the Parliament in an attempt to cover up the details of the most significant company takeover this country has ever seen. If this Bill is not passed, the Trade Practices Commission will be required to investigate the bid by Bell Resources Ltd to take over Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. On the other hand, if the Bill is passed, no inquiry will take place. Hopefully an inquiry would expose many of the factors that are presently not known to the Parliament or the public. The question that must be asked is: Why is the Government prepared to take the extreme action of passing legislation in order to cover up the details of this takeover? A significant public interest is at stake. BHP accounts for 8 per cent of gross national product. The company directly employs 60,000 people and has 180,000 small shareholders. BHP is the lifeblood of Newcastle, Wollongong and Whyalla. It controls some of our major national resources, including Bass Strait oil and North West Shelf gas. A successful bid will add substantially to the country's overseas borrowings and could also affect our balance of payments. The Government has invested many millions of taxpayers' dollars to stabilise the steel division of BHP. I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that clearly there is a public interest at stake. The question I put to the House is: Why is the Government playing its part in this cover-up of these details? There is very strong suspicion that a backroom deal has been done between the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and Mr Holmes a Court. If a deal has been done, what is the Government getting out of it? What is the Australian Labor Party getting out of it? Is it fair to place the future of so many Australians in jeopardy on the basis of a secretive backroom deal that is now being covered up by legislation by this Parliament? Mr Hodgman —It is a criminal conspiracy. Mr BURR —I agree with my colleague the honourable member for Denison. There is a great deal that we do not know about Mr Holmes a Court's bid and that is why an inquiry should be held. Let us look at some of the facts that we do know. The bid is not aimed at the 180,000 small shareholders; it is directed at the 30-odd large corporate shareholders who hold sufficient shares to allow Mr Holmes a Court's bid to succeed. Mr Hodgman —That is what I said. Mr BURR —That is quite right. I agree with my colleague the honourable member for Denison. Bell Resources has an asset value of about $1,000m. In order to finance the takeover, Bell Resources intends to borrow $2,000m and the figure could go as high as $2,500m. In other words, it will be borrowing at least twice the asset value of its own company. Presumably most of that money will come from overseas. As my colleague the honourable member for Denison has already stated to the House, there is a grave suspicion that much of that money will come from South Africa. In order to repay the borrowings, Mr Holmes a Court appears to have only two options; He can divert $2,000m of future BHP profits to repay the loan, in which case it is quite obvious that that money will be lost as future capital investment in Australia, or he can sell off some of the more profitable sections of BHP, such as Bass Strait Oil or North West Shelf gas. However, if the profitable sections of the company are sold off, that could well leave the remaining sections of the company in a financially unstable position. I ask: Where would that then leave the communities of Whyalla, Wollongong and Newcastle? The Prime Minister has said that certain guarantees have been extracted from Mr Holmes a Court to protect the steel division, but if the company becomes financially unstable I put it to the House that the other sections of the company which employ the major section of the work force could very easily become financially unstable. Mr Hodgman —What are the Labor members doing to protect them? Mr BURR —I value that question from the honourable member for Denison. I will come to that in just one moment. I put it to the House that perhaps there is a third option; that is, simply to leave the debts outstanding and continually pay the interest charges. But if that were to happen it might well involve giving a measure of control of our largest company and the resources it controls to the South Africans, or to some other foreign interest. I put it to the House that that would definitely not be in the best interests of this country. With all of these questions outstanding, we, as a parliament, simply do not know the answers. I believe that as a parliament and as Australian citizens we have a right to know these answers and they should be exposed through the process of an inquiry by the Trade Practices Commission. Mr Hodgman —Why are they covering up? Mr BURR —I agree with my colleague for Denison. Why is the Labor Government covering up? What deal has the Government done with Mr Holmes a Court? Can any Labor member answer that question? What deal has been done behind closed doors with Mr Holmes a Court? We on this side of the House would like to know. I am quite certain that all the workers of BHP and all the small shareholders would like to know. The one thing that does seem clear is that Mr Holmes a Court and the shareholders of Bell Resources stand to make an enormous profit while the 180,000 small shareholders, the workers of BHP and the entire population of Australia stand to be the losers. I cannot understand why the Labor members of this House who represent the people of Newcastle, Wollongong and Whyalla have not been more outspoken in trying to protect the interests of the constituents. Have they been conned by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, or are they privy to the backroom deal and realise how much the Australian Labor Party will be getting out of it? Their stony silence on this most significant issue should give their electors no cause for comfort or confidence when the next election is held. I put it to the people who live in those cities that when the next election is held they should look very closely at how their local representatives voted on this issue. The democratically elected parliament and government have the ultimate responsibility to protect the public interest. Acknowledging that responsibility, the Fraser Government made provision in the Trade Practices Act for inquiries into monopoly takeovers. It is now an irresponsible Hawke Labor Government that is moving to remove that requirement for an inquiry. This is not being done to protect the public interest in any way; it is being done to fulfil the undertakings given by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in a secretive backroom deal. It gives no security to the workers, their families or many other people who depend on BHP for their livelihood. It merely gives a commercial advantage to one of the Prime Minister's business tycoon mates. I remind my friends on the other side of the House that it is not the workers of Australia that this Prime Minister is pitching his game to; it is his own business tycoon mates. This is not being done in the interests of Australia. In fact, the national interest demands an inquiry. There are so many unanswered questions in this whole sordid affair that mere common decency and responsibility should cause the Government to allow an inquiry to be held. The Treasurer claims that the market-place is adequate to sort it all out and presumably protect the public interest. But is it sufficient to protect the public interest? In this case, the market-place may well deliver a huge profit to the Bell Group shareholders, but our foreign indebtedness would increase substantially, the future of the workers would be placed in jeopardy, there would be prospective heavy losses by the small shareholders and there would be no additional wealth-generating capacity in this country. Is that the way in which the market-place should work for the public good? I question that to all members of the House. It is obvious that the Labor Party is now drawn from the wild extremes of economic theory, from extreme socialism to laissez-faire. Perhaps Sir Robert Menzies was conscious of the extremist position that the Labor Party would adopt when he said: The choice is not between extremes. The choice is between socialism and laissez-faire on the one hand and enlightened liberalism on the other. I am delighted to say to the House and to the nation that I represent that enlightened liberalism. Sir Robert Menzies was even more specific in his famous speech on the forgotten people when he said: Individual enterprise must drive us forward. That does not mean that we are to return to the old and selfish notions of laissez-faire. The functions of the State will be much more than merely keeping the ring within which the competitors will fight. I ask all the House to contemplate on that forward thinking quote of Sir Robert Menzies. I will also quote Malcolm Fraser. He realised the same point when he opened the 1980 South Australian State Liberal Conference. He stated: The Government is fundamentally committed to a private enterprise economic system. In saying this I am not, of course, talking about the completely unrestrained `Robber Baron' form which capitalism sometimes assumed in the nineteenth century. The Prime Minister is committing the very sins that Sir Robert Menzies warned us of in 1942. He is introducing laissez-faire policies into this Parliament. He is ignoring the interests of the forgotten people, the people whom Sir Robert Menzies described as middle class. He is now governing to protect the interests of his rich and powerful mates. Unfortunately, the Government has the numbers to force this matter through the Parliament. Madam Speaker I put it to you and to the House that if this Bill is passed it will be a sad day for the parliamentary institution. It will be a disgraceful episode in Australia's history. Those who have been involved in allowing this deceitful abuse of privilege should hang their heads in shame. Mr DUBOIS(St George)(8.19) —Tonight I rise to support the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill because it is another step towards building a better, fairer and more equitable society. This Bill will correct the problems that have become obvious over the 10 years since the Trade Practices Act was introduced by a previous Labor Government. I am amazed that there are so many people who are prepared to bleed for the Melbourne establishment. They plead the case- Mr Hodgman —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member has been rehearsing that line. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Hodgman —I think it is a very untrue thing to say. Madam SPEAKER —Sit down, please! Mr Hodgman —Just hold on a moment, Madam Speaker. With the greatest of respect, I am entitled to be heard on a point of order. I take exception. I do not bleed for the Melbourne establishment. I complain about what you are party to. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. He has no point of order. Mr Hodgman —Madam Speaker, I am sorry, with great respect, you didn't- Mr Peter Morris —Name him. Mr Hodgman —She is not your puppet. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister for Transport will keep out of this. If the honourable member for Denison takes exception, I will hear him. Go ahead. Mr Hodgman —I take the strongest exception to the remarks of the honourable member. I spoke about the matter earlier this evening. The honourable member has rehearsed it as a calculated insult to say that I am a supporter of or bleeder for the Melbourne establishment. I am not. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member was not mentioned when the honourable member got up. Mr Hodgman —He was referring to me. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. He does not have a point of order. Mr Hodgman —Well, I think that is very unfair. Madam SPEAKER —And he will not make aspersions on the Chair. Mr Hodgman —I think that is very unfair. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member is repeating his aspersions upon the Chair. Mr Hodgman —Madam Speaker, he has made a deliberate slur. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Denison that, if he keeps this up, I will name him. I call the honourable member for St George. Mr DUBOIS —This Bill will reinforce and extend the protection afforded to consumers. It is an essential element in restoring our nation's economic health. Income earners who have exercised restraint in their wage increases cannot be expected to tolerate abuses in the market-place by those who should and must exercise price restraint. The prices and incomes accord demands of all of us that we delay self-gratification for our ultimate collective benefit. Our record in economic management has been applauded by all sections of the community. Consumers and businesses recognise that there must be some regulation against unscrupulous practices to ensure a fair go for all and a more efficient allocation of our resources. The Government recognised the need to improve the protection that the Trade Practices Act gives to consumers and to businesses. It consulted the community, and the outcome of those extensive consultations is incorporated in this Bill. These improvements reflect the input of a wide and diverse range of interests from business, both large and small, from trade unions, from consumers organisations and from individuals. Those businesses that are enterprising and want to prosper in a healthy economic environment will welcome the Bill. Those who seek to manipulate the market to the unfair disadvantage of their competitors and consumers will be disappointed that their practices will be outlawed. This Bill will amend the definition of `consumer' to benefit not only consumers but also small businesses. Small businesses face the same problems as consumers when dealing with large companies and the new limit of $40,000 is a positive step in ensuring that they are not disadvantaged in their business dealings. Truck owner-operators will also be covered. This is another example of how this Government is looking after small businesses and protecting them from unscrupulous practices. Farmers will also benefit. This Bill will prohibit misleading representations about the availability of service and spare parts needed to keep their expensive machinery working. I know that this step will be welcomed by farmers. Some three to four weeks ago I received a number of telephone calls from farmers in south-western New South Wales all complaining about the standard of representation they have suffered at the hands of their National Party member of parliament. They had had to resort to ringing Labor members of parliament in the cities to get some facts. Their inquiries to their National Party members of parliament got them nowhere. They were not told by their local members of parliament what was happening. Instead, they were given the same tired, old scaremongering nonsense from the Nationalist manifesto. So disillusioned are these farmers that they have now abandoned the National Party altogether. The majority of them agreed that they have made a big mistake in voting for the National Party candidate at the last election and they are looking forward to the next election so that they can correct their mistake by voting for the Labor candidate. The rural community realises that it is the Labor Government that really cares about the well-being of all Australians. The Bill provides that traders will not be allowed to advertise that goods are made in a certain country if in fact they are not. Many consumers prefer to buy Australian-made goods because they are of a high quality and they like to do their bit towards keeping jobs and profits in Australia. I welcome that provision in the Bill that covers the recall of unsafe products which are in the hands of consumers. Consumers will be protected from unsafe goods not only on the shelves but also after they are purchased. The majority of companies and industries in Australia have established procedures to recall and rectify unsafe products. However, this Bill will ensure that consumers are protected against all such unsafe products and that they are alerted to the investigation of products suspected of being unsafe. These reserve powers will be exercised when those companies fail voluntarily to recall their unsafe products. The export of products not complying with Australian consumer protection standards will be prohibited. Consumers in neighbouring developing countries will come to appreciate the benefit of buying Australian-made goods. I was particularly pleased that the Trade Practices Commission will be able to obtain redress on behalf of consumers. Consumers are often reluctant to take action against large or even small companies because the cost of court action is often not worth it. Their individual losses may not have warranted expensive litigation. Recently we have seen many people lose their money after investing in so-called trusts. What a great misuse of the word `trust'! Some have resulted in a tragic situation where investors, confidences have been betrayed and many have lost their life savings. These consumers will also be protected under the provisions of this Bill. I welcome the protection given to consumers who do not fully understand the terms and conditions of some sales due to their disability. Some documents are complex and there are consumers whose literacy or lack of understanding of the English language is such as to prevent them realising the meaning of such terms. There are a number of people in St George who have recently arrived in Australia. They do not fully understand their rights when purchasing goods. They are particularly vulnerable to the sharp practices of certain individuals and companies taking advantage of their difficulty with English. They may have come from countries where there are no consumer protection laws at all. They have no idea of what consumer laws are. So we have to publicise these laws to protect them not only from unsafe products but also against unfair and fraudulent contracts. There are other provisions in this Bill which have been adequately explained by my colleagues. This Bill is another example of this Government's giving everyone a fair go. It will strengthen the protection that consumers now enjoy. It will allow businesses to provide their customers with safe products at the lowest possible price. It will encourage competition by outlawing anti-competitive features from business activities. I commend the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for introducing these changes and for his concern for the well-being of all Australians. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.28) —As we all know, we are tonight debating cognately two Bills which once formed one Bill. We are well aware why that has occurred. Nevertheless, we must first consider-and this might not get agreement from either side of this House-that we are dealing with Bills and not with a takeover. It is about time that both sides of the Parliament woke up to that fact. As I understand the situation, these Bills were brought into the Parliament last year. As I recollect, they were considered in November and passed this House. As I recollect, at that time the Australian Democrats were telling everybody that they were the best thing since sliced bread, that they were good and that they agreed with the legislation lock, stock and barrel. If anyone thinks that that has special reference to the manufacture of tools or machinery, he is quite right because amongst the Australian Democrats is a man called Siddons. I have seen him bring into this Parliament a law for industrial democracy. What did industrial democracy mean for him? It meant special tax deductions for his company, Siddons Industries Ltd. In fact, he had in place a particular form of industrial democracy which he mirrored in his legislation. When it came to the tax deductions which he offered as the carrot for this operation, he intended to be the first cab off the rank. Then, suddenly, he saw himself and the business establishment with which he had been associated for years as being under threat. What did he do? He convinced his colleagues that there was something nasty about this legislation which, back in November, he thought was all right. Let me say that I do not recollect ever having had any serious conversation with anybody from the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd in my life or any sort of conversation with one Robert Holmes a Court. Recently I received a phone call from a lobbyist suggesting that perhaps I should talk to one of those groups; it does not matter which one. My answer was that under no circumstances would I put myself in the position of having my commitment and my opposition to this legislation compromised by talking to some people who just happened to appear on the scene after certain events had taken place in this Parliament. The reality is that on our side of politics we took a very clear position on this legislation right from the beginning. Prior to its introduction in this place last November we said that we did not like it. If anyone thinks that I have any sort of hindsight in this regard, I point out that at that time I spoke opposing this legislation as a package. Nevertheless, the policy of the Opposition parties was clear: We knew where we were going; we said that we were opposed to the legislation because we thought there was more bad than good in it and that our efforts in that respect would be to attempt to defeat the legislation. If, as it became obvious, that was not to be the case, we decided we would have other arrangements, including the option of sending the legislation off to a Senate committee. I thought that that was an extremely good proposal because with my contacts with the small business community I was well aware that there was great support for certain sections of the Government's proposals which the Opposition, nevertheless, felt were very regulatory. Personally, I was hoping that the Senate committee might find some middle ground in that area. Let us remember what one very interested group is on about. That group is the fuel retailers. They are concerned about their treatment by the fuel companies. Most of that is the responsibility of the fuel companies, but on the other hand those companies happen to have a very good ally-it is called the Transport Workers Union. Collectively the companies and the union are knocking the small, independent fuel retailers all over the place. A previous government passed laws to give independent fuel retailers and those properly leasing company sites the right to buy fuel wherever they liked, to get it at the right price and presumably to sell it to the consumer more competitively. That law is imposed on the fuel companies, and the retailers were hoping that this legislation that the Government has brought forward would help them somewhat. The fact of life is that the fuel companies threw their hands in the air and said: `We cannot do what the law provides because the Transport Workers Union will not accommodate us; the union refuses point blank to deliver Mobil fuel to a BP site' and so on. That is straight out co-operation between the trade union movement and big business-big business, big union-to their mutual benefit. The loser is the small businessman. To the degree that clause 22 is concerned with unconscionable conduct-and it applies to leases and other treatments about which I have had concerns drawn to my attention recently-those small retailers saw some benefits. Personally I was very happy that one of the solutions might be to get this legislation to a Senate committee where it-the legislation, not the companies-could be properly reviewed by the committee. However, the Democrats did not think that was a good idea at the time either until suddenly Senator Siddons decided that there should be some great national interest in this subject, mainly the future welfare of his company and those of some of his close associates in business. But that is not what the legislation is about. The third option that the Opposition considered was this: We thought that, if we could not defeat the Bill and if we could not get it referred to a Senate committee, we must try to amend the most objectionable aspects of it as they related to our philosophy. When we took that decision, section 50 (2c) was not a clause that offended us. In fact, we said that that section was deregulatory and sensible and quite obviously it set out to identify the obvious. The obvious was that, if one has a monopoly which purely changes ownership, that monopoly is no better or no worse than it was before. So we thought that that was fine. That was the position that we took in this place last November. The interesting thing about it is that since then we find that a Mr Holmes a Court on behalf of Bell Resources Ltd made a partial bid for BHP on 4 February and a full bid on 17 February. This occurred literally months after the legislation had passed this place. When that occurred, suddenly we all thought that we were talking about a different piece of legislation. Suddenly it became different. Of course it is not different; it is exactly the same piece of legislation. In fact, by far the majority of honourable members in this place thought that section 50 (2C) was an extremely sensible amendment to the Trade Practices Act. What is all the rubbish about in this place today? Honourable members have stood here today claiming that we should now make the rules on the run. They have suggested, in simple terms, that every time some large company within the Australian structure gets some sort of takeover offer we should come here and change the law, that is, if the company concerned can get a few members of parliament on side. There is only one factor relating to the proposed takeover and that is whether the legislation should be changed during the process of a bid. We have a very interesting situation here. We all know that the legislation passed the House of Representatives in November and I guess had the Government seen it at the time as a matter of great urgency-and it did not-it could have passed the Senate the following day. Then all the questions that have been posed here today would have been non-existent. But in fact the legislation did not pass the Senate in November. Because the Opposition felt that it should support its basic philosphy of opposition to retrospectivity-and this Opposition has shown a dedication to that philosophy throughout this Government's term of office-it felt that that should be reinforced with a grandfather clause so that it was clearly understood whom the rules affected. The Opposition comes here tonight with that same grandfather clause and it is up to the Government to decide, because it has the numbers in this place-in fact it has been said by the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) that justice resides in numbers in this place-whether it will support the proposal of the Opposition which clarifies the position as to when the rules apply. I believe that the grandfather clause amendment should be accepted. That is the way that we see this matter. Let me repeat that this special Bill, which is aimed at ensuring that section 50 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 does not apply to certain acquisitions, must be seen in isolation. It must be seen as a piece of legislation. It must not be seen as a piece of legislation that is pro-BHP or pro-Bell Resources. It must be seen as a piece of legislation that must serve the Australian community and Australian business for many years to come. Any other suggestion is foolish and wrong and must be accepted as creating a situation in which this Parliament would be used as part of the takeover defence mechanism of all future takeovers in Australia. How often would we find ourselves in this place debating the rights and wrongs of Bill Smith and Jack Jones in their current attack on each other-or attack and defence? Quite clearly that is not what we are on about tonight, and quite clearly it should be removed, irrespective of our feelings on the rights and wrongs of this takeover. This is not what this particular Bill is all about. I just hope that the Parliament wakes up to that-as a parliament, not as a party. We will be the laughing stock of Australia if we start to see legislation in process suddenly having special meaning to a single takeover. I speak very strongly about that in that regard. We just have to get it. In referring to the Trade Practices Revision Bill about which the Opposition has grave reservations-and I really think the Government should have them too-I have heard the Prime Minister on occasions suggest to business that he is a deregulator. All round me I see more and more regulation coming to us. I see regulation by way of the Sex Discrimination Act, I see action by way of affirmative action. I see regulation by way of the growth of the Human Rights Commission. I see the situation under the Sex Discrimination Act where people can no longer decide finally to whom they might let their home. The final right for that resides with Canberra bureaucrats. I see that sort of thing being imposed on us day by day. I find it an absolute farce for the Government to suggest that it has a commitment to deregulation and making life easier for the business sector. I think it was brought to the attention of the Parliament on one occasion that somebody wanted to set up a float plane business in Queensland and was confronted with 135 licence applications. There is no doubt about it, this makes it worse. I listened to the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) this morning who told us all sorts of horrible things that this particular legislation could address. It occurred to me at the time that really what he was saying was that the Australian people are so dumb that only our Parliament can save them. If that is the case-in some instances it is-would it not be better if we looked at consumer education as compared to consumer regulation? Is it not a great pity that all those honest business people in the world-we know that there are 625,000 employers in Australia employing five people, and probably 620,000 of them are very honest business people, trying to do their best-they got to carry all these burdens to compensate for the fact that the average citizen has not been given an education at school or elsewhere which tells him that not everybody in the community is honest? The honourable member for Capricornia gave us reams about these horrible people ringing up and selling advertisements one does not want. No one knows more about that than I. I have sat at the end of the telephone time and time again. Okay, they also ring up, mind you, and say `I represent the so-and-so trade union'. They do. They say: `I have got a contract from some trade union to produce a magazine'. They are all poorly circulated and poorly read. If one is not smart enough in business, having been caught once-we all fall for it once-to know about those phone calls, I must question whether one should be in business. I fell for it a couple of times and I soon found out about that. We say that we have to create a law to protect people from that. If one pays the cheque, take it from me, there is not much protection you can get. If one cannot see the difference between a fake invoice and and a genuine one there is not much protection the law will give. We will have the law and it will be used every now and again by some sharp operator, and out there in the real world people will go on paying these things. I thought the honourable member for Capricornia just went too far. He even told us about one case where a poor pensioner was robbed by people who sprayed her house silver. He then went on to tell us that the police caught them and made them give the money back. Why do we need more laws if the police can do the job anyway? Fraud is fraud and we do not need the aid of consumer legislation to deal with that. That is the other side of the matter that we have grave suspicions about. In my view we would have done much better had we looked at that. I know there are clauses in this Bill that refer to the trucking industry. There is probably nobody in this Parliament who has had closer or broader associations with this industry than I. I am well aware of and I have experienced shoddy workmanship and other things. I have looked at the proposal, at the cost, which in those days was about $4,000 to do up an engine, and said to myself `Litigation is not worth while. The lawyers would get more than that. I have the odds of 8,000 to four and that does not happen to be a particularly good bet when I have to prove all these problems'. Therefore I have copped it. I do not think that is a good idea. In fact, I have correspondence on the record where I have tried to convince the State Attorney-General at that time, Mr Medcalf, that perhaps the Small Claims Tribunal should have a wider role so that there could be less costly enterprises. I have since had numerous complaints about the operations of the Small Claims Tribunal in Western Australia and discovered that that tends to have difficulties. I am also aware that there are organisations and certain manufacturers that have put together their own peer group. They have put that peer group together so that they can judge their own industry. Why cannot the trucking industry be encouraged by governments to do just that, so that repairers have a sign up that says that they are a member of a particular association? Then if anyone is dissatisfied with the repairs done he can appeal to that association and it will give him justice and he can trust it. Those are the sorts of things that we should be heading for, not that type of situation as it goes. I thank the House for the opportunity to say these few words, but most importantly let me remind the House that we are now dealing with two pieces of legislation, we are not dealing with the Bell takeover of BHP; we should not be talking about it, irrespective of our feelings for the country, our State and our electorate. This legislation was brought in in the absence of that takeover. It was brought in for what the Government believed were good causes. It was opposed by members of the Opposition selectively who thought it was bad and increased regulation. It must be judged in that light, and if the Australian Democrats, the Liberals, the National Party or the Labor Party want to keep talking about the rights and wrongs of BHP or the Bell Group we are in a lot of trouble because we will be back every fortnight to resolve another takeover and I am opposed to that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(8.47) —in reply-I will try to keep my remarks as confined as I can because we are going to have a Committee stage debate. I do not often agree with the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) but I must say that on this occasion what he says is very accurate to the situation that is before the House at present. It is a pity that his colleagues on his own side-some of them anyway-did not understand the nature of what we are about here. Mr Hodgman —That is offensive. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, without being offensive I make the point that there has been a debate about a takeover. Mr Steele Hall —That is because you had all the private talks. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —The honourable member does not have the floor. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I would be grateful if I did not have the interruption because in fairness- Mr Hodgman —But you invite it when you make insinuations. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I invite it in the sense that I start to praise a member of the Opposition for being able to talk to the Bill as against others who talk about a takeover. I say that in fair terms because this Trade Practices Revision Bill was before the House and passed last November without anybody saying anything about section 50. Let me make it very clear. Nobody said anything about section 50 at that stage. That is the reason why the Government now is in a position of having to bring in two Bills, to separate the original Trade Practices Amendment Bill into what is called the Trade Practices Revision Bill, to which there is still objection from the Opposition, and the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill, to which apparently there is some objection. But I understand from the debate generally in the Senate that the Opposition supports that measure even though the Australian Democrats do not. To that extent, it gives me a chance to make the point that we are having, as usual, a number of difficulties in the Senate trying to look at what would be the will of Parliament in terms of legislation. Immediately I am reminded of a matter that I must advert to which has not been raised here but has been raised in the Senate by Senator Vigor who is proposing an amendment to the Trade Practices Act. The amendment would require, apparently, a corporation acting as an agent to disclose to its principal any interest it may have in a particular transaction, including whether the agent is itself a principal in relation to that transaction, or whether the agent is also acting for another principal in relation to the same transaction. The Government is not convinced that there is a problem in the area, as is stated by Senator Vigor, or that the Trade Practices Act is necessarily the appropriate legislation. We are seeking examples from Senator Vigor of some manifestations of the problem. However, rather than having further con- fusion about this legislation, if there is a problem we will certainly investigate it. We are anxious to ensure that any legislative action taken by the Commonwealth does not conflict with any existing State or Commonwealth regulation of particular agency relationships, and to seek the views of business and consumer groups and Commonwealth and State authorities. We are anxious to establish the magnitude of the problem to see whether there should be any amendment to the Trade Practices Act. I give an undertaking that the Government will investigate the problem addressed by Senator Vigor's amendment. A report will be prepared within a period dealing with any problems arising out of conflict of interest of agents and suggesting possible solutions. That might help the debate in the Senate. The issue, though, is what has happened here this evening. I advert firstly to the Trade Practices Revision Bill. Again, we are arguing the question of product recall and the provisions in the Bill itself. I emphasise again that the Bill is related to the question of safety of people whose health is likely to be affected or who may suffer injury. There have been instances of that happening. Therefore, the whole concept of having what is called mandatory recall is to protect people in the community. It will not be an onerous position, but people have been affected in the past. There is the example of pool skimmer boxes not being recalled, even though they did harm children, and therefore urgent action was required. There are other examples where the suppliers cannot be identified. In fairness to what the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has said, the Bill includes a new section 65s which requires the Minister within two days of the publication of the proposed order-admittedly, it might be placed in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, which nobody reads-to give some notice to the supplier as well as put it in a newspaper. I make that point because that has been an amendment. In some cases, of course, we are not able to do that. With regard to public comments on product recall, the honourable member was critical of that on the basis that inadequate public discussion had taken place. I am advised that the White Paper was only issued in June 1985, but there have been discussions with industry and consumer groups on this matter since 1980. It is not a new matter. It is important that these matters be introduced, as I have said before, so that we give some satisfactory redress to people in areas in which there will be a danger to health or likelihood of injury, particularly to children. Also, the honourable member for North Sydney suggested that the Law Council of Australia's concept of having an ex parte order would be satisfactory. We do not think so. We said that on the previous occasion. Any decision that we make in this area is subject to judicial review. That applies to section 65J and section 65M of the Act. We do not have what is called an unreviewable discretion. These sections generally provide for a conference before the Commission before any final decision is made. There was comment in the Senate that the Commission was an independent, experienced body whose opinion should be respected. We agree with that assessment. A review by the Commission also has the great advantage that it is far less costly than having litigation and would lead to a satisfactory solution of the matter. Again, I make the point that the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act applies where the Minister may fail to take into account matters of relevant consideration. I think that was the position that we stated on the previous occasion. It is still the position. I now refer to some other matters that were raised. The honourable member for North Sydney said that we were getting too much regulation. Of course, we are trying to make the point that we are talking about normal protection which in many cases the law would welcome. The honourable member for North Sydney says that many groups have objected to the Bill since its introduction. We make this point: Whilst there has been criticism of the Bill, the Law Council has never said that it objects to the Bill as a whole. Many of its drafting suggestions have been used and incorporated in the Bill. Small business certainly praised the strengthening of section 46, but it wanted something done about section 49. Yet when that matter was proposed in the Senate, the Opposition voted with the Government. The Australian Petroleum Agents and Distributors Association was mentioned as wanting a special provision which, in effect, would have made petroleum distributors' contracts with oil companies subject to unconscionable contract provisions. When this was proposed by the Australian Democrats in the Senate, the Opposition voted with the Government. So the Opposition on those occasions was clearly of the mind that what the Government had suggested was appropriate. I make that point in answer to the suggestion that there was no consultation or understanding of what we are about. The question generally was raised of business and how it approaches the problems of present day difficulties in the market. Let me make this point in reply to the suggestion that this is an anti-business position: Private actions, primarily by businessmen seeking to prevent competitors from using unfair business practices, have grown rapidly since the Trade Practices Act was enacted in 1974, when six such actions were taken. Honourable members should bear in mind that these were taken by business people. There were 100 taken in the last year by business people on the basis of unfair practices. That is a pretty good indicator of acceptance in the community of this type of legislation. The great majority of business commentators on the Green Paper acknowledged the important role of protecting the public. I think we all agree with that. There was a criticism by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) of section 52a, the prohibition of unconscionable conduct. He said it will introduce considerable uncertainty. That section has been in State Acts for a number of years-in New South Wales for six years. It has not caused a plethora of litigation. Indeed, in public comments received, many business groups and individual firms have indicated that they could accept the proposed prohibition if the section's ambit was restricted, as it has been, to consumer type transactions. The people involved in that sort of consultation were the Australian Retailers Association, CRA, IBM and the New South Wales and Victorian chambers of manufactures. It needs to be said that this Bill certainly received a fair amount of exposure before it was introduced into the Parliament. The honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) raised the concerns of professional groups with regard to the amendment to section 74. It may, he said, increase significantly the liability of people engaged in professions. Of course, basically the answer is that it relates to warranty. For example, one cannot necessarily say that because one is a professional person one will be liable. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) would acknowledge that he might lose a case now and again in the courts, but one would not say he was negligent. Mr Peacock —No, absolutely not. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is right, and one would not say that about medical personnel, particularly if a patient dies. But the issue at the moment is that we would need to look at skills. If a building falls down, we might think there is some problem with the design of it. I am reminded of the Greaves decision in the United Kingdom in 1975 where that happened. That decision stated that there was an applied term that a warehouse designed by a structural engineer would be fit for storage and transportation where that purpose had been known and it was clear that the building was needed for that purpose. If one talks about the liability that would apply should something go wrong, that is a normal thing. All that the amendment does is re-emphasise the present position of a breach of warranty, negligence or matters of that nature. My colleague the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) was concerned about football clubs being ripped off under section 45, which deals with restraint of trade. Mr Peacock —He is quite right, too. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No doubt he is. This happens to be the law on this point. We do not have the problem in New South Wales, where we play a different type of football. The point is that it is not a trade practices matter. The problem comes under common law restraint of trade, which is a State matter. `Services', under the Trade Practices Act, does not include the performance of work under a contract of service, and football players have been held to be performing work under a contract of service. I hope that that satisfies my colleague. Mr Peacock —It does not satisfy the VFL. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That would be very difficult. We then come to the real nub of this issue-that is, why does the Government want a transfer of market dominance provision? It is to ensure that the provisions that originally applied in the Trade Practices Act-which was passed without comment-still can be passed. It is acknowledged that since the time that legislation was introduced there has been a takeover offer, or an offer by Mr Holmes a Court's company for half of the remaining shares. Let me say, firstly, that Mr Holmes a Court, as anybody else in the market could have done, has gone in and bought 20 per cent of the shares. Nobody objects to that. Then, under the National Companies and Securities Commission Act, if there is to be a purchase above the 20 per cent threshold an offer has to be made. That has happened now. Certainly the BHP Board is fighting that takeover offer. In money terms the offer is substantially above the present market value of BHP shares. I am also aware that BHP has taken action in the Victorian Supreme Court, saying that the takeover offer prospectus is not adequate or sufficient. That matter is still before the Court and I am not able to comment on it. It is worth while mentioning that, as the honourable member for O'Connor and many others are aware, this legislation is in no way related to that matter. The idea of altering section 50 was the subject of the Green Paper of February 1984. It was circulated on the basis that where we have a transfer of a bare monopoly it is inappropriate to have an inquiry such as that which has been suggested here. Section 50 currently prohibits acquisitions which result in or strengthen the power of the acquirer to control or dominate a market. This test relates to the structure of a market, not the conduct in that market. Under the existing provisions some acquisitions-for example, those which involve a bare transfer of monopoly power-do not reduce the level of competition at all but still fall within the provisions of section 50. If the section were to be strictly applied in this way it could have the effect of reducing business efficiency and performance by rendering entrenched managements immune from the threat or stimulus of possible takeover. It is noteworthy, therefore, that the Trade Practices Commission has publicly declined to intervene in cases of bare transfer of monopoly power on the basis that competition is unaffected. That is a clear statement of the position from as far back as February 1984. What did BHP say about that at the time? In a letter to the then Attorney-General it said: As drafted, the proposed new sections overcome an anomaly in the present section in that they will not apply to `bare transfers of monopoly power'. BHP supported it. Let us get this very clear: There is no suggestion of the Government doing something special about this takeover. It is clear cut that that has been our position. One can understand-it is now a matter of knowledge-that the directors of BHP are entitled to do whatever they like to try to stop the takeover, but they have to persuade their shareholders not to sell their shares to Mr Holmes a Court. That is the position. It is as simple as that. I do not think we ought to have this extraordinary, inflammatory language about it having something to do with a special deal done by the Government. It has nothing at all to do with the Government in that sense. It has been our considered position that a bare transfer of monopoly power does not affect competition. That is the point-it does not. As honourable members would know, there has been plenty of agitation from our supporters, particularly the trade union movement, on the basis: What will the Government do about stopping the takeover, not from the point of view of the shareholders but from the point of view of employee's jobs? Mr Hodgman —That is right. They are on the right track, too. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is a matter of judgment. The Government has to use its discretion in these matters. We cannot go into the market-place and say: `We do not think the takeover is a good idea. All you shareholders had better stay where you are. Even though a number of you can continue to sell your shares to whomever you like, you cannot sell them to Mr Holmes a Court any more. He has enough'. The big institutional shareholders should be asked what they think of that proposition. I do not think they would be very satisfied with that sort of extraordinary conduct, which has been put forward, admittedly, by only two or three members of the Opposition this evening. It certainly is not a commonsense attitude to a market. Section 50 refers to acquisition. At the moment those who disagree with the Government are talking about a takeover offer. There is no acquisition until the offer is accepted. That is the other point we want to make. We have not changed the rules of the game; in fact, the rules of the game, in the terms of those opposite, would not even apply until such time as the takeover offer had been accepted. In other words, we have to talk about an acquisition; we cannot just talk about this offer. Section 50 contains a prohibition on acquisitions, not on takeover offers. Many other people can still go in and make takeover offers for BHP now. That is the position. Those honourable members who have been arguing in this way-this applies to the Opposition's grandfather amendment as well-do not really understand the nature of takeover offers. They are a matter for the market-place. The market will make that judgment. At the moment I want to make the point that nobody could really be satisfied that they could go ahead with a takeover offer if we were to say that this provision would apply to the takeover offer; in other words, as soon as the offer comes in we will get the Trade Practices Commission to have a look at it. That is the offer, not the acquisition. That is where I think some honourable members opposite have failed to understand the nature of this legislation. Mr Hodgman —You and the New South Wales Government have been changing the rules since Adam was a pup. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It would help the debate if the honourable member concentrated on the Bills and not on himself. The issue at the moment is the nature of the position whereby a person who has been allowed to acquire a large percentage of shares, quite legitimately and as a number of others have, has decided to make an offer for another portion of shares in the open market. The point I emphasise-surely those in the Opposition will understand it-is that the shareholders do not have to accept the offer. That is the first point. (Extension of time granted) The grandfather clause now proposed, I am reminded, could also apply to a current bid by Equiticorp Holdings Ltd for the ACI company, which could well be a bare transfer of the dominant position of the Pilkington glass company. Therefore, in this case we would again be able to say that the bidder is not able to go ahead with the takeover. I make the further point that, if the law is not changed-we want it to be changed, but if it is not changed-at present that particular bid in technical breach of section 50 cannot go ahead because at present we have an injunction in place. The Opposition knows that, and I say in answer to the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) that one would not think we would be taking out an injunction if we were not anxious to uphold the law as it is at present. Let us get rid of the suggestion that this section was ever intended to lead to an inquiry into takeover offers or into the steel industry. That is not its function. The idea was to see whether there would be any lessening of competition in the market. We cannot do any better than improve the position from the point of view of monopoly transfers, because monopolies occupy the market. Further, in this particular case, in the Steel Industry Authority Act-an Act passed by this Parliament-we guaranteed BHP a minimum of 80 per cent of the Australian market. There is no suggestion of competition there. In fact, we pay bounties-that is, taxpayers' money-to this corporation to guarantee that it keeps up the steel industry. That is a very significant aspect from the Government's point of view. Naturally the Government was concerned. Understandably the Government asked a few questions about the arrangements for the future and about undertakings, and responses were given. It is not the Government's function to go in and say: `We don't like you but we think the others must be all right because they are there'. Decisions are not made on that basis, and a majority of the Opposition, to its credit, agrees with that. That sums up the reason why we are debating this matter again. Quite frankly, if the Senate had done something more intelligent than it did and had it dealt with the Bill last year when the Bill was before it instead of saying that it did not feel inclined to go ahead with the legislation, we would not have this problem. The Bill would have been in law by now and what has happened this year would not have been the subject of continual debate or of all the problems that now seem to be being dragged in here on the basis that the Government is doing something it was not supposed to do. At all times the Government has said that a bare transfer of monopolies is sensible and that the law should allow it to go ahead. BHP supported that and wrote accordingly. Understandably, the directors of BHP are fighting tooth and nail to keep out a competitor for their board seats, and they are entitled to do so. We are not involved in that argument. We are involved from a community point of view and from the point of view of what is in the national interest. It is understandable that in Great Britain, which has what is called a fair trading appraisal, such a proposal can be looked at on the basis of what is in the national interest, whether there will be a foreign takeover which might obliterate an industry. We have satisfied ourselves that that will not happen in this case. An undertaking has been given that the steel industry will be maintained; we are talking about not only the steel industry but also the coal industry and other industries. A lot of people are involved in all those industries. The shareholding is very substantial. There is a large number of small shareholders, as there is a large number of major shareholders. It will be left to the market-place to determine what they do and whether Mr Holmes a Court can continue with his offer will be a matter for the Victorian Supreme Court to determine. I reject completely the suggestion that something untoward has happened. This Bill is the same as the one that was introduced last year. Had it gone through the Senate as it should have done last year, none of these suggestions of undue influence would have arisen. It is very clear that one of the problems Mr Holmes a Court faces is continual litigation. We must ask how long he will be able to bear that strain-that is a matter for him to determine-because a substantial amount of money is involved in this case. Having said that, the Government has answered the arguments that have been put here. I would hope that, honourable members having been persuaded by what I have said, there would be no need to pursue the proposed amendments. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —The question is that the Bill be now read a second time. All those in favour say aye, against say no, I think the ayes have it. Mr Steele Hall —The noes have it. A division is required. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I hear only one voice. Mr Steele Hall —Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that my dissident vote be recorded so that my opposition to this measure will be known publicly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not know that there is a procedure for recording that, but it will appear in the Hansard record. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.14) —The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), at the end of his wind-up of the cognate debate, directed his attention to the amendment we propose to move to the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill and demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the way in which takeover offers, or indeed offers of any kind, operate. He said, as though it was the end of the argument, that section 50 of the Trade Practices Act, which is what we are concerned with here, applies to acquisitions. So it does. If we read section 50 we see that it is perfectly plain that it applies to acquisitions, but how does one acquire shares or assets or anything else? One makes an offer, and it is the offer that is the commencement of the acquisition. If one does not make an offer for shares in the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd or Pilkington ACI Operations Pty Ltd or anything else, one's prospects of getting those shares are damn poor, one might think, so let us go back to the basis of this. We propose to move a very simple amendment and the Attorney-General has provided another reason for that amendment being necessary; he has told us that there is another offer, presumably a Part A statement, that might be affected by that amendment. All we have said, and we have said it all along since this controversy arose, is that where transactions commence under an existing state of the law the law should continue to apply. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has said, the rules of the game should not be changed mid-course. Suppose there was a takeover offer in existence which was commenced by a Part A statement-a Part A statement must be registered under the acquisition code before offers can be sent out. If after that Part A statement had been registered, irrespective of whether the offers had been sent out, the law was made more onerous so as to make existing offers far more difficult, or indeed so that existing offers did not comply with the law, would anybody here, even some of those lately made converts to market economics-those who exist, at least for the time being, on the other side of the chamber-suggest that that was fair? They would say: `No, of course that is not fair; you can't change the rules in that kind of situation'. What we are looking at here is simply the reverse position, and that is the reason why we propose this amendment. On behalf of the Opposition, I move: Clause 3, page 2, at the end of proposed sub-section (2C) add ``, unless, in the case of an acquisition of shares, a Part A statement within the meaning of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act 1980 or of a corresponding law of a State or Territory in respect of that acquisition of shares was lodged with the National Companies and Securities Commission in accordance with that Act or such a law before the day on which the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Act 1986 received the Royal Assent''. There is nothing particularly novel about that. It seeks the maintenance of the existing rules which apply to transactions that have been initiated under a certain state of the law. It is sensible, in our view it is just and it should be applied. Let us be quite plain about this. People who commence takeover offers under one state of the law cannot assume that the law will be changed to suit them, even if a Bill is before the Parliament and has passed through the House of Representatives. No doubt it is a commercial judgment which is made by those who are involved in registering in Part A statements, but that is a commercial judgment and no more. In our view, the rules should not be changed. We maintain the position that we have maintained from the outset. Our amendment, if accepted, would maintain those rules in respect of Part A statements which have been lodged, and that would apply whether it is in regard to the offer for BHP or in regard to the offer for the Pilkington glass company, which the Attorney-General referred to, or in regard to any other offer whatsoever. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(9.20) —I want to speak on clauses 2 and 3 as the Bill is being taken as a whole. Then I wish to address some remarks to the amendment moved by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). As I said this afternoon, the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill is corrupt legislation which I will not support. I have to say again that it reflects no credit whatsoever on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or this Government whose motives are at the very least curious and at the very worst highly suspicious. There is far more to the Hawke-Holmes a Court axis than meets the eye at present. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I remind the honourable member for Denison that it is out of order to impute motives to people. I am not suggesting that the honourable member has done so, but it seems as though he is getting close to the mark. I ask him to bear that in mind when he continues his remarks. Mr HODGMAN —In response to the point of order, Mr Chairman, I was saying in the second reading debate- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The Chair does not make points of order; the Chair can provide guidance. Mr HODGMAN —I understand that, but, Mr Chairman, if I believe that legislation is corrupt, I believe that I have the right to express that in this Parliament. This legislation is corrupt. One of the most corrupt aspects of it is clause 2. Although my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney did not direct his attention to this clause, it provides: This Act shall come into operation on a day to be fixed by Proclamation. The original legislation that was brought into the Parliament, as the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is at the table, will remember, provided that the Act would operate as from 1 January 1986. We now have a situation in which if the legislation, contrary to my wish and my vote, passes this Parliament, it will come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation. That date will be fixed by His Excellency, the Governor-General in Council. The Executive Council which will advise him is precisely the same Hawke socialist Cabinet which has gone along with this legislation which I have contended and will continue to contend is corrupt, dishonourable and, in my view, bordering on criminal conspiracy. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark. Mr HODGMAN —What remark? The CHAIRMAN —It is unparliamentary to suggest that the Cabinet has bordered upon criminal conspiracy. Mr HODGMAN —Mr Chairman, I ask to be heard on that point. I said during the second reading debate, and I respectfully submit that I was permitted to say, that this whole legislation involves conspiracy. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The Chair has asked the honourable member, for the purpose of the debate, to withdraw that statement and then to continue with his remarks. That might be the easiest way. Mr HODGMAN —I can withdraw it and simply repeat what I said in the second reading debate; namely, that this legislation is based on conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation and the obtaining of substantial financial benefit by false pretences. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member also knows that he cannot continue the second reading debate. Mr HODGMAN —I am just reminding the House of what I said during the second reading debate to make the point that if any further proof is required of the corruption that I allege, it is the fact that the date of commencement of this Bill is to be left in the hands of the Executive. The whole point I am trying to make is that this legislation has been brought into this House by the Executive for the purpose of assisting one of the bidders for Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. The only person who can gain any benefit from this proposal is Mr Robert Holmes a Court. The Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister had the opportunity to answer the 21 questions that I put to him in my speech during the second reading debate; yet he has not answered one single question. In asking those questions I was not ashamed to say quite bluntly that I was concerned about what I saw as blatant corruption and blatant collusion between the Government and a prospective bidder, a corporate raider, in respect of whom the Government's timing could not be more fortuitous than it is. The Government is now bringing into this Parliament a Bill which it is not even game to tell the people of Australia, BHP, or Mr Holmes a Court, its friend and comrade in arms, when it will come into effect. I ask: What is the reason for this change, Mr Chairman? It is a question that you, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Hawke socialist Government cannot avoid. When the Trade Practices Amendment Bill was first introduced it was intended to apply from 1 January 1986. I say to the Attorney-General that the Bill that he has brought in here tonight has an undefined date, a date to be fixed by proclamation. He has been invited to answer 21 serious questions. He has squibbed the lot. I now invite him to stand up in this House, if this Government has any honour or any decency, and tell us on what date the Government intends to proclaim this legislation. If he does not, I will rise to speak again on this clause and say a few more things. It seems obvious to me, with respect, that the Attorney-General has been left out of the deal between Hawke and Holmes a Court because, quite obviously, he did not know anything about it. Judging by the tenor of his remarks a few moments ago in closing the second reading debate, he was clearly left out. I come to section 50 of the principal Act. Clause 3 of the Bill proposes an amendment to that section to prevent at any price a Trade Practices Commission inquiry into this shabby, sordid and, I suggest, quasi-criminal transaction which is going on in front of us. You, Mr Chairman, have been in business for many years in your own right. You would not sit in silence and refuse, as the Attorney-General has refused, to answer the questions which I have raised about Mr Holmes a Court being fined in the United States of America. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Denison should not state that the Chairman has been involved in business in his own right or in any other right. The honourable member should stick to the debate and take cognisance of the fact that the Chairman's role is to be the arbiter, not to be part of the debate. Mr HODGMAN —I am sorry, Mr Chairman, but I thought you would pick it as quick as a flash. You have been around, Mr Chairman; we all know that. I thought you would have picked it up as quick as a flash that, short of the Labor Party abandoning everything for which it has ever stood and putting on the clothes of Liberal philosophy, this is so ridiculous that it is in ordinary dinkum Australian terms hot. The Government has had a cooked-up inquiry by the seven fabulous Ministers-the intellectual cream of the finest front bench that Australia has ever seen, according to the Prime Minister. Either they have deliberately chosen to ignore what has been put in front of their very eyes or they have been so damned incompetent that they could not find it out. I do not believe that there was incompetence; I believe that there was conspiracy and collusion. I believe this is a positive legislative Act to advantage a predator-raider and I believe, frankly, that there is more in it than meets the eye. Let me come right to the point that I raised, to which I have had no answer, about what the Government thinks about this great man, Mr Robert Holmes a Court, being fined the sum of $US450,000. If honourable members want the amount in Australian dollars, it is $636,480. That is not peanuts, Mr Chairman, even in the ranks of the Labor Party these days. A fine of $636,480 was imposed in the United States because of a corrupt and unauthorised takeover bid of Asarco Inc. which, as I said, everybody in Australia knows is linked and linked directly with Mount Isa Mines Holdings Ltd. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister why he has not answered the direct question I asked as to why he and his colleagues failed to ask Mr Holmes a Court to give the details of how he failed to obtain advance clearance from the United States federal anti-trust regulators for his opening market purchase of a 13 per cent stake in Asarco Inc? Did the Deputy Prime Minister know about it? If he knew about it why did he not probe it? Was he in on it? What is the reason for his failing to take this point? The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Denison will withdraw the last remark. It is most improper to suggest that anyone was in on anything. Mr HODGMAN —I am sorry, Mr Chairman; that is the whole thrust of my remarks as to why this legislation is corrupt. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Denison is being asked by the Chair to withdraw his last remark. Mr HODGMAN —All right. I will pass on to the next one. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member is being asked to withdraw that remark. Mr HODGMAN —I withdraw, and I move on to the next question. Why did the Deputy Prime Minister fail to find out whether Mr Holmes a Court intended to pay the fine of $636,480 in order to persuade the United States Government to drop other charges pending against him? Why did the Deputy Prime Minister not come into this Parliament and tell the people of Australia that the Government was dealing-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REITH(Flinders)(9.30) —The controversy surrounding this legislation has wrongly centred on the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd takeover by Bell Resources Ltd. I suppose that is natural and understandable in a set of circumstances such as this which involve the component parts of the national debt, tax, the characteristics of ambition, power plays, high finance and an issue which has taken us across to some American courts and back across to South Africa. In fact, it is an issue that has comprised everything under the sun except sex. Interestingly enough, it does follow a typical pattern for this Government because whilst it embraces one measure, the measure immediately before us, the package which has been the subject of cognate debate contains many measures which are bad news for Australia and bad news for business in this country. It is a bit like the human rights legislation-it sounds all right superficially but, of course, contains many elements which are, in fact, a different reality. It is a bit like affirmative action encompassing the principle of equal opportunity in employment, which is a prospect and a principle which I readily support but which, in effect, is a cynical vote-getting exercise for the Government. It is a bit like consensus and the prices and incomes accord in that superficially everybody is working together and everything is hunky-dory, but the reality, as masked by the public relations of the Government, is one of a deliberate policy of high interest rates which are ruining farmers, small businesses and big businesses, and home owners and home buyers in my electorate. The first point I want to make absolutely clear in regard to this Bill is that we in the Opposition, faced with what is unquestionably a complex situation, have been bending over backwards to ensure our neutrality in regard to the BHP-Bell takeover fight. That is why we have said all along that the Bill should not apply to current situations-in other words, the rules should not be changed in the middle of the game. We have been absolutely consistent about that and we have stuck by the two other principles outlined by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard)-that he would remain neutral between Bell and BHP and that the decision about BHP's future should be left to its owners, the shareholders. In the event of our amendment to prevent a change of the rules in the middle of the game being defeated by the Government, we have no choice but to decide the matter by reference to first principles. That means that we will be voting for the Government's Bill. The call for Government intervention is without substance and it has been clouded by all sorts of red herrings. The interventionist argument keeps confusing the concepts of ownership and monopoly power. If one supports free enterprise, the basic commitment is to ensure a framework within which market forces can operate. Monopolies on either the supply or the demand side of the equation distort the market and the people who suffer are the consumers who have to pay higher charges and put up with inadequate service and whose right of freedom of choice is denied. It is not the ownership of a monopoly that is relevant in this case; it is the exercise of that monopoly power. That is what this Bill is all about. A Menzies Liberal Government introduced the sort of trade practices legislation that we have today and my support for the thrust of anti-monopoly provisions is part and parcel of my support for free enterprise. Competition is to ensure the most efficient allocation of resources. If that is just economic jargon to those who might be listening tonight, let me put it this way: It ensures that we do things and organise ourselves in the most efficient way to maintain our standard of living and to work to increase our standard of living and the standard of living of every Australian. The interventionists say that this situation is somehow different because taxpayers' money is involved. If that argument is right, it is an argument for greater intervention in the market because BHP is not the only one which has benefited by having access to the public purse. In fact, the steel industry plan and the array of controls we already have over the steel industry are an argument that we should not add to those controls by allowing legislative provisions to remain on the statute book. Let us not forget that the situation has developed specifically not because of the legislature, but because of the interpretations of the Act by Mr Justice Northrop in the Ansett case, decided in 1978. I refer honourable members to the words of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech: Prior to 1977, the Act did not affect bare transfers of monopoly power . . . There was no public discussion at the time the Act was amended in 1977 to suggest that it should cover such situations. However, a decision by a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia held that the section extended to bare transfers. I have not been elected to adopt a more interventionist line than the Australian Labor Party. If we intervene on this issue we are simply setting a course, a direction, for more and more intervention. For one who thinks we have enough government intervention already in this country, there is no way known that I will be accepting an interventionist argument. If we are going to get this country out of the economic mess that it is already in-let us have no doubt that it is getting worse-we have to stick to our principles as a party and the country has to support us. I know that it will support us when we move, in government, to free up our economy both in the labour market and in the capital market. In simplistic terms, if someone wants to buy an asset, whether it be a company, Utah's coal interests in Australia, a new office block or a division of a big company, it is up to the owners of that asset to make the decision. Politicians ought to keep their noses out of it. If there are tax implications, let us talk about the tax laws. If there are other aspects and arguments, let us talk about them within the confines of those issues, not within the confines of a proposal, which is put by some, of a one-off intervention in regard to the particular circumstances currently prevailing. I make two other points. I have been very concerned at the attitude that the Australian Democrats have taken on this whole issue. We have seen the Democrats take an attitude in regard to Australian bases which is at least parallel with, if not further to the left of, the Socialist Left on ANZUS. We have seen the Democrats violently anti-American on uranium. We have seen them take a leftist position on woodchips. On this issue, for the cynical purpose of gathering votes wherever they can across the country, they have lined up as they have done. The basis upon which the Democrats came into Australian politics as a party-keeping the two major parties honest-belongs to the past. Their attitude in this matter leaves much to be desired. Clause 2 of the Bill states that the Act shall come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation. I find that interesting because, in the end, the clause vests a discretion in the Government as to the date upon which this matter will be finally resolved. I look forward with interest to that day. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(9.39) —This debate and this topic perhaps have been a catalyst for many other issues which perhaps have not been canvassed as widely tonight as they should have been. If anything, the issues of the last few weeks display the vacuum that exists in the Australian legislative structure for the change of ownership of major or strategic companies. Unlike the United States of America, we lack anti-trust legislation. Unlike England, we lack a monopolies commission which can have Elders IXL Ltd, referred to it. Basically we have the Trade Practices Commission, whose aim and function have been to maintain competition. The continued existence of section 50 of the Trade Practices Act is in itself an anachronism because the transfer of bare monopoly power is not the issue we have been confronted with in recent weeks regarding Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. The issue is the absence of a forum so that the Australian public-including parliamentarians-can understand what is involved and what it means. If an inquiry of the kind proposed by legislation were to go ahead, who would define the public interest and how? How would we establish, without precedent, without legislation and without procedures, how that would occur? The fact is that we cannot. Mr Hodgman —Why are you opposing the inquiry? The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Denison will cease interjecting. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —I have long said that an inquiry by either the Trade Practices Commission or the Steel Industry Authority would be inadequate for the kind of need that is raised. What we are facing is the transfer of major or strategic companies. We lack a capacity to examine that. I urge on the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and will be urging on my Party in the months ahead that there is a need to fill that gap so that any transfers of major or strategic companies are examined and understood and analysed in terms of public awareness. Mr Hodgman —Why do not you vote for an inquiry tonight then? Mr ALLAN MORRIS —Because an inquiry by the TPC has never been the answer. Another aspect that comes in is the lack of understanding, both publicly in the Parliament and in the media, of the corporate tax structure of Australia. It is clearly an area of absolute expertise, but I have yet to read anything that I believe to be authoritative. Today's Australian Financial Review editorial was interesting in the macro sense and in the best of all possible worlds sense. If all things that prevailed in that editorial were true, what it said may be the case. I do not believe that is the case. I do not believe the actualities in any way relate to the theories. What we actually need in this country is a capacity to analyse and understand what the implications are of a major company or major industry being transferred; it need not necessarily be a big industry but perhaps one that is strategic to national interest, national defence or something similar. What members of the Opposition have failed to understand to some degree in this debate is that with the introduction of foreign banks, which they accept and support, we introduce additional factors into the Australian corporate sector as to ownership, as to source of funds and as to how they relate. All those factors are relevant and important, but to say that we as a Parliament should suddenly turn back to before November last year and re-program the whole system because of one thing that has emerged, I think would not be appropriate or fair. To say that there should not be public awareness is in fact not to say that. I publicly call on the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, Mr Holmes a Court and all other parties involved to make public all the information they presented to the Ministers and to make the public at large aware of the ingredients. There is no form available for a proper inquiry, but there is no reason why the information should not be available. Mr Beale —The Government could set that up. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —If the honourable member could tell us the legislation under which the Government could have an inquiry other than a royal commission, I would be grateful. The fact is that there is not. Mr Beale —The Government can set up an inquiry instead of referring it to the gang of seven. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —I think the honour- able member's newness in the chamber is prob- ably indicated by his statement. The fact is that both BHP and Bell Resources Ltd can make public all the information they believe is pertinent. For the shareholders that would be a great benefit. For the public it would be a great benefit. Further, I think that the Government, members of this House and the members of the other place should look very hard at the lack of appropriate machinery in Australia. It is no good crying after the milk has been spilt. Those opposite had seven years in government. They degutted the TPC. The public interest clauses that were within the Trade Practices Commission legislation are no longer there. The degutting of the Trade Practices Commission by the previous Government was indicative. I am quite convinced now that, if the Opposition is so strong on this, we will be seeing in the months ahead a concerted approach by both sides of the Parliament for machinery that will allow us to ensure that any transfer of major companies in this country is better understood and examined by some form of inquiry. Dr WATSON(Forde)(9.45) —In the very short time available to me, I would like just to address one or two fundamental issues in the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill. I basically rise to support the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) and, I guess, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). Of course, the fundamental principle involved in this Bill is that interference in the capital market to prevent the transfer of ownership of firms, even existing monopolies, is fundamentally incompatible with a market based economy and fundamentally incompatible with a capital market. Public corporations and public companies are significant social inventions. They control a large proportion of our wealth. Those companies must ensure that the assets they control are used most efficiently. They do this every day of the week. They buy buildings; they sell buildings. They buy equipment; they sell equipment. They sometimes buy divisions and spin off or sell divisions. A company is required, as market conditions change, to change its bundle of assets. The faster firms adapt to changing circumstances, the greater the efficiency of the organisation, the greater the efficiency of the market and, therefore, in the longer run, the greater our gross national product, the higher our living standards and the higher our unemployment. Mr Slipper —Isn't that free enterprise? Dr WATSON —That is free enterprise. Of course, it is no difference with larger bundles of assets and services; that is, the firm as a whole. Capital markets exist to reallocate financial resources in the economy, to ensure that all the assets in the economy are used most efficiently. The control of companies has been a major problem, or at least an academic problem, since the development of the first corporations. There is no doubt that managers are the decision makers in organisations, with the shareholders the risk takers. How shareholders control managers is a particularly interesting question. Sometimes they do it by specific contracts through the appointment of independent auditors. Sometimes they do it through the appointment of boards of directors. Sometimes they do it by hiring managers with specific contracts with respect to profits or whatever. But the ultimate protection for the shareholders is the ability to sell their shares, to transfer the control of the corporation from themselves to other parties, to transfer control of the corporation or company to another party that thinks it might be able to use the assets more efficiently. The effect of regulations restricting takeovers is simply to inhibit the ability of shareholders to sell their shares. It does in fact increase the riskiness of holding shares. In fact in the longer term, if one increases the riskiness of holding shares without at the same time increasing the benefits one can derive from holding shares, one will have less capital invested in the economy. All the evidence that I know suggests that the higher the cost of takeovers-for example, by putting in inquiries delaying the takeover-the less likely takeovers are to be initiated and therefore management of any corporation that is being helped by an inquiry or something like that can in actual fact use the resources available to it less than optimally. The argument for takeovers is very simple. The only relevant policy question is whether takeovers are value increasing; that is, the greater the increased benefits to society, the greater the costs. The overriding implication of the economic theory of takeovers is that these transactions are value increasing. On average, the combined values of two firms after a takeover are greater than the pre-acquisition values. This implication has been tested not only in Australia but in other parts of the world. One Australian who is a professor of the Australian Graduate School of Management at the moment, Professor Peter Dodd, did an excellent thesis in the United States of America on exactly this issue. As the honourable member for Flinders suggested, if one has a problem with a monopoly and if one is concerned that monopolies exist in our society, one has to look at the reasons that monopolies exist. When one wants to deal with a monopoly one does not adopt the procedure of restricting the transfer of monopoly in the capital market. In fact, to be as efficient as possible, to maximise our gross domestic product and employment, we must allow managers of monopoly to suffer the same consequences in the capital market as any other organisation. That is the fundamental issue in this Bill. I support the shadow Minister and the Attorney-General. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 9.50 p.m., the time allocated for the Committee stage of this Bill has expired. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Spender's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F. Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC. Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Hall, Steele Watson, DavidHalverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J. Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. 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. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Gorman, R. N. J. Shack, P. D. Blewett, N. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! It being past 9.55 p.m., the time for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is: That the report be adopted and that the Bill now be read a third time. Mr Hodgman —On a point of order: When the result of the division was announced I immediately returned to my place to vote no. The Chairman left the chair and I understand was therefore unable to accept it; but, in accordance with the Standing Orders, I want my vote of dissent recorded. The Standing Orders provide for it. The fact is that the Chairman got out of the chair before members could get back to their place, as the entire Press Gallery saw. I ask for my dissent to be recorded in accordance with the Standing Orders. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —The honourable member's dissent will be recorded in relation to the question of the adoption of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 March, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. M. Ruddock) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth. R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H.Dawkins, J. S. Mildren, J. B.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S.Free, R. V. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L.Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Hayden, W. G. Staples, P. R.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C.Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Shipton, R. F.Downer, A. J. G. Sinclair, I. McC.Drummond, P. H. Slipper, P. N.Edwards, Harry Smith, W.Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M.Fisher, Peter Goodluck, B. J.Tuckey, C. W. Hall, SteeleWatson, David Halverson, R. G.Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M.White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Wilson, I. B. C. Gorman, R. N. J. Shack, P. D.Blewett, N. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The time allotted for this stage of the Bill has expired. Mr Spender-Well, that is a bloody farce. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The question is-- Mr Sinclair-Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Can I have your assurance that the amendments which have been circulated in the name of the honourable member for North Sydney will be incorporated in Hansard-- Mr Spender-Thirteen pages. Mr Sinclair-Because the guillotine has been applied they will now not be able to be presented to the Parliament. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The Leader of the National Party of Australia knows that there is no provision for doing that. There is no point of order. Mr Spender-Well, what are we going to do with them-burn them? The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member for North Sydney is aware that the amendments have been circulated. The honourable member for North Sydney is also aware that earlier today times were set for the guillotining-- Mr Spender-By the Government, yes. We have no prospect of doing anything about it. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member for North Sydney is aware of the situation. Bill agreed to. Question put: That the Bill be reported without amendment. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D, P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.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. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C.Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC.Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N.Fife, W. C. Smith, W.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele Watson, DavidHalverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Gorman, R. N. J. Shack, P. D.Blewett, N. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported without amendment. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being past 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Young-Madam Speaker, I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question now is: That the report be adopted and that the Bill be now read a third time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo) —I present the eighth report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Publications, which has been sitting in conference with the Senate Standing Committee on Publications. I understand that copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.23) —I want to mention to the House tonight the establishment of the `Weary' Dunlop-Boon Pong Exchange Fellowship. This fellowship honours all who died on the Thai-Burma railway in World War II and acknowledges by way of tribute those doctors and other medical staff who overcame appalling conditions to provide help to desperate men in brutal circumstances. It also recognises the remarkable humanity shown by many Thai people who did what they could to help, despite the appalling person with risks involved. The Fellowship is named after two men. The first, the late Boon Pong, who subsequently received an Order of the British Empire award in recognition of his courage and humanity, was necessarily a shadowy figure who in the guise of a river trader smuggled in money and life-saving drugs to prison camps along the Kwai River. Many who survived never knew how much they owed to his steady heroism, nor would have those who in sickness fought for life but did not survive. The second to be mentioned is Sir Edward Dunlop, universally known as `Weary' Dunlop. The well-known writer Donald Stuart wrote of Sir Edward: He gave us of his strength; a lighthouse of sanity in a universe of suffering and madness. Sir Edward's good works were not limited to the Second World War. He subsequently served as a Colombo Plan adviser in India, Sri Lanka and, fittingly, Thailand. When over 60 years of age he led a surgical team in South Vietnam. He also served as President of the Australian-Asian Association. In all his various roles `Weary' Dunlop has sought to build understanding between peoples. This Fellowship, while honouring the memories of the past, is nevertheless dedicated to furthering the aims so conspicuously associated with `Weary' Dunlop. Sir Edward Dunlop has achieved great recognition and status for ex-servicemen's organisations. We know that sometimes those organisations come under criticism for the remarks of individuals within them. Nevertheless, this is a classic example of the great work that is capable of being done, and in fact is being done, by ex-servicemen generally and ex-servicemen of the nature of `Weary' Dunlop in particular. In this connection the Royal Australian College of Surgeons has agreed to establish and maintain a medical exchange fellowship between Australia and Thailand supported by funds raised by former prisoners of war and their families, friends and any others who may choose to contribute. I appeal to members of this House and the public at large to consider making a contribution to this Exchange Fellowship. I might add that it has set out not to make demands on the public purse, but it has set a goal of some $100,000 to assist in this venture. I commend to all honourable members-I suspect that it may be a tax deduction, but whether it is is not material-to make inquiries and contribute to this marvellous concept which will further relationships with people of a country who assisted our prisoners of war in times of great stress. It goes without saying that I commend this Exchange Fellowship to the House as a worthy example of the kind of quiet, dignified and fine work done by Australian ex-servicemen and women. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.28) —It was in 1969 that Ann Roberts, the distinguished Townsville ballet teacher, established the North Queensland Ballet and Dance Society. The Society quickly attracted enthusiastic and talented local teenage dance students. A thriving interest in dance rapidly developed. Auditions were held each year for aspiring dancers. Successful applicants had their talents fostered. Some became successful professional dancers in lands as far away as England and Germany. For the others it was a wonderful outlet for their creativity and enthusiasm, for the Society enabled them to develop dance technique and advance their potential as amateur dancers. For the main productions each year, professional part time directors and soloists were brought up from the south. The Society went on tour to other north Queensland centres such as Cairns and Mackay, and to the north-western centre of Mount Isa, more than 1,000 kilometres away. The enthusiastic volunteer dancers and staff gave willingly of their time. The tours would occur over a weekend and sometimes they would sacrifice a day off work or school to ensure the success of the tour. Such were the beginnings of the North Queensland Ballet and Dance Society-a band of genuine dance enthusiasts, disciplined, guided and inspired by the remarkable Ann Roberts. In recognition of the excellence of its work, the Society soon attracted grants from Federal and State governments and private sources. In 1973, the Federal Government made its first grant to the Society. One thousand dollars was awarded to the Society towards production costs of Act II Giselle, Aurora's Wedding and On the Beach. Soon, the Society employed a professional director full time, and a small number of professional dancers became resident with the Society in Townsville. It was then time for the legal structure of the Society to be formalised. The North Queensland Ballet and Dance Company Ltd was incorporated. Popularity of the company's performances soared. The company decided to acquire a much higher profile with an increased emphasis on mobility. The emphasis would henceforth be on contemporary dance. The appointment of Cheryl Stock, a distinguished choreographer, as the company's new artistic director was to establish the company, now known as Dance North, as the most successful contemporary dance company in Australia based outside a capital city. With her arrived a wealth of dance and choreographic talent. The year 1985 offered some of the most exciting contemporary dance seen in north Australia. During that year, works by Cheryl Stock, and the distinguished guest choreographers, Garth Welch, Jacqui Carroll and John Salisbury, enabled Dance North to offer exciting, enjoyable and extremely watchable contemporary dance. John Salisbury's exotic tropical ballet Birds of Paradise was a favourite with all audiences. It is a timeless, poetic work. Dance North, as a regional touring company, spent much of its 1985 season on the road. It has brought to audiences in northern Australia a wonderful cultural experience. It has maintained at all times standards of the highest order. From Darwin to Alice Springs, from Rockhampton to Atherton, at schools, at pensioners' shows and in the work place, in country halls and in the only hotel in a remote country town, Dance North has brought to the people of that part of Australia what the Australia Council has described as some of the best contemporary dance in Australia. Dance North is a model for other regional dance companies in Australia. It is now the recipient of substantial funding from the Federal and State governments. I speak of Dance North tonight not only because it has chosen to establish itself in Townsville but also because by its pursuit of excellence it has enriched the cultural lives of thousands of young Australians. Dance North has brought great credit to Townsville, Queensland and Australia. It has entertained; it has been a leading communicator of social issues and human relations. Indeed, it has enthralled and it has attracted some of the best, the brightest and the most talented young north Australians wishing to express themselves as dancers. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.33) —Tonight I bring to the Parliament two speeches written by students in my electorate who have been visiting Canberra this week as my guests here in the Parliament. I would like to commence with the contribution of Lean Alchin, who is Head Girl at New Norcia Catholic College and who is a resident of Parabadoo, in the electorate of Kalgoorlie. She tells us this: The Victorian Plains Shire- in which New Norcia is a town- has no sizable town within its boundaries and this is what makes it unique. The Shire offices are situated at Calingari, mainly because of its centrality. Although this is so the policeman still lives in New Norcia. The Victorian Plains has a high yield wheat and sheep area. New Norcia was founded in 1846 by Dom Rosendo Salvado and Dom Joseph Serra. Seventeen years after the arrival of the settlers of the Swan River Colony, a small band of Benedictine monks arrived in the Victorian Plains to establish a settlement for themselves. They would not have known that their primitive bush community would grow to become the focal point of a pastoral empire in the 1880's and a monastic and educational centre in the twentieth century. At one stage there were five schools situated on the land where New Norcia Catholic College stands. The initial school, however, was an orphanage for aboriginal children. Due to the increase of the white settlers two catholic boarding schools were opened: These being St Gertrudes college, opened in 1908 and St Benedicts college which opened in 1912. These remained as two separate colleges until 1973 when they joined together to make the first co-educated boarding school in Western Australia. By doing this they formed Salvado College, named after the honourable founder. Salvado College was run under a College board and the New Norcia monastery until the end of 1985 when it became New Norcia Catholic College. It is now run by the Good Samaritan Sisters. The school embraces major influences of development in providing a religious, metaphysical environment, a social environment, and a school environment. A psychologist or a sociologist would generally isolate or distinguish these influences, here, they are blended together. The evaluation of the students adjustments are not easy. One must remember that it takes time, skill and effort to fit into a well organized boarding house. . . . . New Norcia is a small timeless place that brings nothing but peace and a lot of hard work. The spanish buildings that stand where ever the eye can reach are beautiful peaces of work designed and built by Dom Torres. Although a lot of money is needed to restore these historical buildings it is surprising how lovely they are after all these years. I also have a speech from Alison Gault, who is a student at and Head Girl of Geraldton Senior High School. She talks about Geraldton in Western Australia in the following terms: As you probably all know Geraldton is a port town of some 25,000 people located some 400 kilometres north of Perth . . . The Port of Geraldton is basically concerned with the export of grain and mineral sands form its surrounding districts. Our Primary Industry does not however, stop at the shoreline. Our lobster catch is exported to Japan and the United States and is worth approximately sixty to eighty million dollars annually to Australia's export income. I add that last night many members of the Opposition parties enjoyed some of those crayfish at a fish evening that we had. The speech continues: Our Regional Technical College where many lobster fishermen study for their sea going certificates is the first technical college in Western Australia to invest in a purpose built Fisheries Training Vessel, which will be used by the fishing and seamenship students. This college also offers a wide scope of studies for our community, ranging from socially related to hi-technology subjects. The town of Geraldton caters for a wide range of activities. A vast selection of sporting clubs and some excellent cultural venues are promoted. Our theatre has a reputation for being the finest outside the Metropolitan area, and our art gallery allows us to view some of the greatest works in Australia. Geraldton Senior High School is a school of excellent standing. While traditionally senior teaching staff tend to be in transient, our school is unique in that our Principal has been at the school some eighteen years. This factor being one of many that has given the school a sense of stability, continuity and its high reputation. Along with the rest of Australian secondary schools the retention rate of our students continues to increase. In order to cater for the wide range of abilities, interests and ambitions of the senior students, Geraldton Senior High School offers a range of 33 subjects in years 11 and 12 . . . In the case of our boarders some return to their hometowns for employment. It may seem surprising that a government school should include boarders but for the past 47 years Geraldton Senior High School has catered for boarders from its hinterland and from the northern parts of Western Australia. Two hostels exist on campus and each year they accommodate 150 to 160 students. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(10.38) —On Sunday, major rallies for peace will be held in all major cities in Australia. These rallies are being held when there is more hope of international agreement on disarmament than there has been at any time for 15 years. The major reason for hope is the Reagan-Gorbachev summit held in Geneva last November. That summit did more for international security than any other event since the signing of the anti-ballistic missile treaty in 1972. The summit changed the rhetoric of international relations. Mr Reagan has moderated his former extravagant comments about the Soviet Union and Mr Gorbachev seems to be approaching disarmament negotiations with a new seriousness. At the beginning of this year Gorbachev sent a detailed set of proposals to the United States of America for a three-stage movement towards complete disarmament by the year 2000, including halving the number of Soviet and American arms that can reach each other's territory. President Reagan's response was to say that he was very grateful for the arms control proposals, which was a striking change from the usual United States condemnation of the Soviet Union for posturing or propaganda purposes. United States officials said they were taken aback by the comprehensive nature of the Soviet initiatives. The change in the tone of political rhetoric is important because it must be followed by concrete achievements, or the leaders' credibility will be threatened. Their agreement to meet again later this year and in 1987 puts strong pressure on their governments to reach agreement on some of the crucial issues so that they can point to results which give substance to their claims to be committed to disarmament. One of Gorbachev's initiatives has been a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing since August last year. He announced last week that the Soviet Union's testing moratorium would be continued indefinitely until the next United States test. Reagan, however, responded simply by offering to demonstrate new monitoring equipment to Soviet observers when the next United States test is conducted. It is impossible to perceive this other than as a means of avoiding a test ban. The importance of a comprehensive nuclear test ban is that it would strongly constrain the technological escalation of the arms race. It would prevent the testing of many new types of weapons. Without a CTB, disarmament would be more difficult. While the United States Administration is opposed at present to a nuclear test ban, there is strong support in Congress. On 27 February, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution by 268 to 148, despite the opposition of the Administration, calling on President Reagan to resume nuclear test ban negotiations. A similar motion was passed by the Senate by 77 to 22 late last year. Such support from within the United States political system gives hope that eventually the Administration will change its policy. Even if Reagan does not, it is quite possible that the next President will be influenced by such strong support to recommence comprehensive test ban negotiations. One United States objection to a CTB has been that sufficiently accurate verification techniques are not available. However, scientists consider that the technology is now sufficiently sensitive to quickly establish an adequate monitoring system. Australian seismic stations and a central monitoring system in Canberra are already operating and ready to contribute to a global verification network. One approach to mobilise more political and public support and media attention for a CTB would be by calling an amendment conference of the partial test ban treaty. If a third-that is 38-of the signatory countries supports an amendment conference, it must be called by the three major nuclear powers. This provides an opportunity for countries which supports CTB to require that negotiations take place. While opposition to a test ban amongst nuclear weapons states could block formal adoption of an amendment, it could not forestall the convening of an amendment conference. A resolution supporting this proposal was passed 121 to three with 24 abstentions at the United Nations General Assembly in November. An amendment conference could provide a unique political setting to begin to overcome opposition. The vast international opinion favouring a CTB would have an outstanding forum in which to state its case. The fairness, verifiability and urgency of a CTB would be demonstrated before the entire world. Despite these signs of hope there has not, however, been any major concrete achievement from the recent change in the climate of super-power relations. Therefore, it is crucial that all of those people who want to stop the arms race continue to take whatever action they can to keep pressure on national leaders. The huge public demonstrations- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(10.43) —Before coming into this place I used to have a fairly low opinion of the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney General (Mr Lionel Bowen). I think that opinion was probably influenced by some of the statements I have seen made by him. I would like to quote one comment from the Primary Industry Newsletter dated 20 June 1983 in which Mr Bowen was quoted as saying: . . . it is about time the rural producers of this country woke up that if we decided to import wheat or import sugar, pineapple juice or citrus juice, we could do without the lot of them because we can get it cheaper somewhere else. Being somebody with some concern and care about the rural community honourable members will understand that that comment influenced my opinion. Having been here now for over a year I must say that the Attorney General has impressed me with the way he conducts himself in this House, the fairness with which he answers questions and the very able way in which he presents his cases. However, I am afraid that yesterday he tended to blow the lot as far as I am concerned because in answering a question without notice which I asked him, he went back to what I would regard as his old ways. The thrust of the question I asked regarding the Bill of Rights legislative package was: . . . will the Attorney-General give the people of Australia the opportunity to express their opinion of this vital and dangerous legislation at a referendum? If not, why not? I think that is a perfectly reasonable question and one which the people of Australia could have expected to have answered. The Attorney-General's basic answer was: It is about time that the honourable gentleman woke up to the fact that he is in the national Parliament. I am quite aware of that. I continue: Australia has national obligations. We have to set an example to those around us. That cannot be done if we follow what the honourable gentleman has suggested. I submit, quite strongly, that my suggestion that the people of Australia be given the opportunity of expressing their opinion by referendum on what is really a most important issue is something that can be and should be implemented. I am very disappointed that the Attorney-General did not answer that question. He seems, like many of his Labor colleagues, to have some sort of obsession with the Queensland electoral system. I think they should be reminded and all of Australia should be reminded that the present Queensland electoral system was introduced by a Labor government. Members of the Australian Labor Party are always happy with the rules when it suits them, but when it starts to go against them that is when they want to change the rules and that is what they are doing with their obsession about the Queensland electoral system. It is worth while making a brief comparison between Queensland and New South Wales. In the 1984 New South Wales election the Wran minority Government had a total primary vote of 48.75 per cent; in the 1983 Queensland election, the National Party had a two-party preferred vote of 53.3 per cent. If we are going to talk about gerrymanders we should look at New South Wales too because the New South Wales quota is 34,170 votes. Of the Australian Labor Party's 58 seats, 38 are under the quota. If we are going to be fair dinkum about gerrymanders, let us look at New South Wales too. A typical example is the seat of Oxley, which is mainly in my electorate of Cowper, where the number of electors is 43,468 compared with the quota of 34,170. Broken Hill is 17.69 per cent under the quota. I want to get away from the Labor Party's obsession with the Queensland electoral system because the real issue is the Bill of Rights. The Minister talks about fear that we allegedly are generating. I ask the Minister why he is frightened to let the people of Australia have a say and express their opinion at a referendum. Why has the legislation been rushed through with minimal public discussion? It is an important and vital package of legislation. This package of Bills will affect every man, woman and child in this country for decades and centuries to come. I hope that somebody-there are not too many, I guess-with some authority in the Labor Party will heed this request and suddenly think perhaps in the small hours of the night to let the people of Australia decide for themselves and give them a referendum. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(10.48) —In Tuesday's Melbourne Sun a quarter-page advertisement headed `Interest rates are too low' was placed by the Victorian Farmers and Graziers Association. The text of the VFGA advertisement read as follows: Some politicians say that interest rates are not a major problem for Australians. Some politicians say that interest rates are not really affecting the average Australian. We say those politicians are wrong! We say that interest rates are not only affecting farmers but also small and large businesses as well as every home buyer. Why not talk to a politician if interest rates are affecting you? Join Australian farmers, business people and home buyers and telephone or telegram your message today! In bold capital type, the VFGA advertisement then lists the names, addresses and telephone numbers of five Ministers of the Federal Government, two senior public servants and eight Federal members of parliament, of whom six are Government members and two are Liberal members. I raise this matter because I am one of the Federal members of parliament who were listed in that advertisement and because I believe the advertisement to be inaccurate and grossly misleading. The advertisement clearly implies that the politicians listed are unconcerned by high interest rates and, in fact, a number of farmers who have responded to the advertisement and contacted my office have been led to believe by the advertisement that the politicians listed support and, indeed, tacitly advocate, high interest rates. For my own part, I place on the record that I have never advocated high interest rates, and in common with the vast majority of members of this House, nothing would please me more than to see interest rates fall to more reasonable levels. As a member who has about 3,000 farmers in my electorate, with whom I maintain regular contact, I also emphasise that I am well aware of the very serious impact of high interest rates on farmers and small businesses in country towns, particularly in the wheat growing areas. Whilst the VFGA leadership is perfectly entitled to lobby members of the Government to achieve better policies for its membership, I believe that it also has a responsibility to remain non-partisan and present both sides of the story to its membership. In this respect, I note that the VFGA advertisement in question appeared only a matter of days after farmers benefited from a 10c per litre reduction in the price of diesel fuel, saving wheat farmers in my electorate between $3,000 and $6,000 per annum, and closely followed last week's decision by the Federal Government to release a further $25.7m of loan funds via the rural adjustment scheme. A fair and objective assessment of the Government's record in the rural sector over the past three years also shows that inflation has been reduced from more than 11 per cent to less than 8 per cent; the rate of increase of farm costs has fallen from an average of 12.3 per cent under the Fraser Government to 7 per cent under the Hawke Government; industrial disputes in Australia are at their lowest level for 17 years; the float of the Australian dollar has produced net benefits of more than $1.5 billion for Australian farmers; and, finally, tariffs, which effectively represent a tax on exports, are being reduced in the steel, motor vehicle and computer industries. They have already been reduced on grain harvesters. A reduction in tariffs on imported farm chemicals has also been foreshadowed. Earlier in March, I spent three full days in my electorate, solely devoted to talking to farmers, small businesses and local government councillors in the Wedderburn, Charlton, Donald and St Arnaud areas of my electorate. In each of these areas, the impact of declining farm incomes has now moved well beyond the farm gate. Retrenchments and closures not only are becoming increasingly common amongst truck and farm machinery dealers and service stations, but also are occurring in hardware shops and retail stores. All members of this House representing metropolitan electorates need to be aware that there are serious economic problems in the rural sector which must be addressed. While I believe the Government's policies for the rural sector and for country people to date have been sound and responsible and of benefit to the vast majority of country people, I would like to make it equally clear that much more needs to be done. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.53) —The then Prime Minister of Britain, Neville Chamberlain, on his return to England from Hitler's Germany in October 1938, spoke to the nation about peace. His words have rung down the years since. Chamberlain said: I believe it is peace for our time . . . peace with honour. As we all know, the following year there was war. World War II began because Britain and her allies were weak, because they were vulnerable. In a sense, they invited war. Because Hitler had no honour, peace became an impossible dream. This year, 1986, is recognised as the International Year of Peace and next Sunday is celebrated by Christians around the world as Palm Sunday. But Palm Sunday has taken on a new meaning for many. Next Sunday there will be Palm Sunday peace marches in Melbourne and elsewhere around Australia. If everyone who desires peace marched, the processions would be endless. There would be no spectators, only marchers. Many Christians will march-and why not? After all, Christ is acknowledged as the Prince of Peace. However, many of the people who will march under the Palm Sunday peace banner are agnostics and atheists. Many are committed communists and left wing radicals. They do not believe in our kind of society and work ceaselessly to overturn it. More ominously, they are heavily involved with organising Palm Sunday peace marches. As the RSL has rightly pointed out, peace organisations frequently stand for disarmament by the West alone. They stand for the closing of American bases in Australia; they stand for stopping the visits of nuclear-powered ships-mainly those from our strongest ally, the United States. Many of these organisations therefore stand for weakening the free world, making the West vulnerable and inviting the so-called `peace-loving' Russians to impose their notions of freedom and peace. In a well researched book, Operation Peace Studies, the author, Pat Jacobs, carefully studied the groups involved in the campaign for peace. He found that a network of activists from the Communist Party of Australia, the Socialist Party of Australia, the Socialist Workers Party and the International Socialists had set up a number of front organisations. Among these are the Australian Peace Committee, the Nuclear Disarmament Co-ordination Committee and the Campaign for International Co-operation and Disarmament. Unfortunately, the kind of peace these organisations offer is that practised by Russia-in the USSR itself; in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and the Baltic states, in fact in all those countries tainted by world communism and its obsession with world domination, by peaceful means or otherwise. On Tuesday of this week I saw a full page advertisement in the Australian. It appears this had been placed by the Soviet Embassy in Canberra. I say `appears' because in a box in the advertisement it is stated: Full text of Mikhail Gorbachev's report to the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is available on request. Please write to the USSR Embassy 78 Canberra Ave., Griffith, Canberra ACT 2603. The timing of the advertisement was indeed fortunate. It dealt mainly with the Russian line on peace and obviously it was timed to coincide with the lead-up to the Palm Sunday peace marches. The following two sentences in the advertisement captured my attention. Firstly: The modern world has become much too small and fragile for wars and a policy of force. and secondly: Socialism unconditionally rejects war as a means of settling state-to-state political and economic contradictions and ideological disputes. Those two sentences reminded me of Afghanistan and the bloody war being waged there by Russian troops. It reminded me of Russian tanks in Hungary. It reminded me of the millions of people who have lost basic freedoms, who know no true peace-not because of what Russia preaches but because of the kind of peace that godless country actually practises. Finally, I should like to confirm where I and other members of the Liberal Party stand on the critical issue of peace. We urge both deterrence and disarmament. We oppose the principle of disarmament of the West alone, as advocated by communists and the Labor Left. We believe that the Australian-American alliance is essential for our security; we believe in fact in `peace through security'. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(10.58) —I want to bring to the attention of the House an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 18 March, which gave details of a study carried out by Professor Stuart Rees of the Department of Social Work at Sydney University. This study was based on a survey of 128 patients who considered they were reluctant victims of the actions of procedural surgeons during their strike in 1985. Details of this study were also published in the quarterly magazine Consuming Interest, which is a publication of the Australian Consumers Association. What is this study showed is that some patients with life threatening or permanently impairing conditions either went without treatment-or were put under pressure to pay for `private treatment'. The insurance status of the patient turned out to be an important factor in deciding whether people were diagnosed as either an emergency case requiring immediate care or a less critical case for which treatment could be postponed. This action was carried out by just a minority of specialist doctors, but this minority not only saw the integrity of the whole medical profession called into question; it resulted in hospital specialists being recently awarded $119 an hour, an increase of over $64 per hour since April 1985. While the doctors are celebrating their victory, the costs to the community in New South Wales alone will be in the vicinity of $50m per annum. These costs will undoubtedly bring about increased taxes, increased hospital charges and a diversion of already scarce health resources. The result of this also acts as a slap in the face for all other workers bound by the constraints of the prices and incomes accord. Last week in this House, the Opposition raised a matter of public importance in which it attacked Medicare, blaming it for the fact that so many Australians who are in need of hospital treatment are being denied access to a public hospital bed. This recent study of 128 patients clearly showed just who was denying access to those patients during that period. Professor Rees, who analysed the results of the study, said-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on 8 April 1986. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Cadman to move- That this House deplores and finds repugnant the policies of the Government of Poland which have resulted in an increase in the number of political prisoners and calls on the Polish Government to- (1) reinstate those rectors, vice rectors, deans, assistant deans or institute directors forced from prestigious tertiary institutions since the introduction of changes to tertiary education in July 1985, and (2) cease its violation of the Helsinki Accord of Human Rights and re-establish academic freedom in Poland and calls on the Australian Government to- (3) protest to the Polish Government in the strongest terms at their large scale sacking of academics from Polish universities and tertiary institutions, and (4) request the United Nations to seek redress of such barbarous practices by a Government which has already subjugated the free unions of working men and women and which is now refusing the freedom of intellectual pursuits. Mr Braithwaite to move- That this House- (1) expresses its concern over the balance of payments crisis currently facing this country, which has been exacerbated by the policies of the current federal Labor Government, and (2) calls on the Government to allow a full debate on this issue. Mr Braithwaite to move- That this House- (1) condemns the Government for its role in exacerbating the current rural crisis in Australia, and (2) calls on the Government to allow a full debate on this most important issue. Mr Braithwaite to move- That this House- (1) condemns this Government and its policies for their flagrant disregard for Australia's small business community, and (2) calls on the Government to allow a full and wide-ranging debate on this issue. Mr Braithwaite to move- That this House- (1) notes the level of interest and inflation rates in Australia, as compared to our major trading partners; (2) expresses its condemnation at Government policies which have raised and sustained these rates, and (3) calls upon the Government to allow a full and open debate on these matters. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 20 March 1986: Customs Act-Notice-1986-No. 2. Excise Act-Notice-1986-No. 2. Public Service Act-Determinations-1986-Nos. 7, 10. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1082) Mr Tuckey asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 May 1985: (1) Is it a fact that the first part of the Insurance Agents and Brokers Act was implemented on 1 January 1985 and the second part of the Act will come into force on 1 July 1985. (2) Is it a fact that the regulations associated with the Act will not be completed within the Act's timetable of full implementation by 1 July 1985. (3) If so, will he consider deferring the final enactment date for this Act so that regulations satisfactory to the industry can be implemented. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) Part I, Part II (other than sections 10 and 12) and Part IV (other than section 37) of the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984 came into operation on 25 June 1984, the day on which the Act received Royal Assent. Part III, which relates to the registration of brokers, came into effect on 1 January 1986 following the development of the associated regulations, which were the subject of consultations with the industry, and the establishment of a suitable administrative structure. It is intended that action to proclaim the remaining sections of the Act, viz. sections 10, 12 and 37, will be sought as soon as it is considered practicable. (Question No. 1456) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What advertising campaigns and research studies have been conducted or commissioned by the Minister's Department since March 1983. (2) Did any other Government agencies advise or co-ordinate any of these campaigns or research studies. (3) If an advertising agency or market research firm was used (a) what was its name and (b) what amount was it paid. (4) What was (a) the cost and (b) in the case of advertising campaigns, the split between agency fees and actual campaign costs for each campaign or study. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In answering this question, an advertising campaign has been taken to mean a sustained period of advertising or one involving substantial cost, with advertising directed towards one central issue. In accordance with advice from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, `research studies' may be interpreted to mean market research studies and opinion polls. Promotion of National Tree Program and Greening Australia (1) Television community service announcements promoting the National Tree Program and Greening Australia. (2) No. (3) (a) Doug Holden and Associates; (b) $1,735. (4) (a0 $17,513-total cost; (b) $1,735-agency fees; $15,778-campaign costs. The Community and the National Collection (1) Research survey-`The Community and the National Collection-Self-help through Greater Involvement'. (2) Yes. Australian Archives; Australian National Gallery; Australian War Memorial; Museum of Australia; National Library of Australia. (3) (a) Morgan (Roy) Research Centre for National Opinion Polls; (b) $13,000. Two consultants were also employed: Ms G. Appleton-$4,200; Ms R. Hoskins-$19,696. (4) (a) $36,896 (cost shared on an approximate 40:60% basis between the National Collecting Institutions of the Advisory Committee on National Collections and the Department); (b) N/A. Art and Craft Marketing (1) Market study by the Victorian Meat Market Craft Centre to determine the feasibility of marketing high quality art and craft at international airports. (2) No. (3) (a) No; (b) No. (4) (a) $23,000; (b) N/A. Introduction of Unleaded Petrol (1) Public attitude survey on the introduction of unleaded petrol in Australia. (2) Yes. The Department of the Special Minister of State advised on the preparation of the project brief and on the selection of a consultant. (3) (a) Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls; (b) $44,000. (4) N/A. (Question No. 2069) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What amounts have been paid to Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their companies, or principals of their companies, for services rendered to the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control and for what purposes in each case. (2) What amounts have been paid to each of these people or companies for (a) travel allowance, (b) air fares, (c) accommodation costs, (d) hire car expenses and (e) any other expenses incurred. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based in part on information provided by the authorities within the Communications portfolio, is as follows: (1) No amounts have been paid by the Department of Communications to Mr Phillip Adams. Since 11 March 1983 the Department has paid three amounts to the Company Monahan, Dayman Adams Ltd of which Phillip Adams is a principal, as follows: (i) $21,165.56 was paid on 27 May 1985 for the placement of radio advertisements concerning multicultural UHF Television; (ii) $303.50 was paid on 16 August 1985 for the placement of radio advertisements concerning a two-way radio licensing campaign; (iii) $312.00 was paid on 17 September 1985 for the placement of radio advertisements concerning unlicensed radio operators. No amounts have been paid by Australia Post to Mr Phillip Adams. Australia Post has paid since 11 March 1983 a total of $5,272,863.85 either to the company Monahan, Dayman Adams (MDA), MDA Yardley Logan or to MDA's agents for product, marketing and media planning, research, copywriting, art and design, audio visual, merchandising, printing, public relations, sales promotions, advertising services and placement of advertising. Approximately 25% of the total amount paid to MDA is for its services. The remaining 75% is paid by MDA to companies or organisations which have undertaken work such as advertising or printing etc. for Australia Post. Telecom Australia, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) and the Special Broadcasting service have no record of paying any amounts to Mr Phillip Adams, his company, or principals of his company, for services rendered. Neither the Department nor any of the Authorities within the Communications Portfolio has any record of paying any amounts to Mr Rod Cameron, his company, or principals of his company, for services rendered. (2) Australia Post records show that of the total amount referred to in (1) above, the following amounts have been paid in respect of: (a) travel allowance-nil (b) air fares-$17,426.84 (c) accommodation costs-$8,759.08 (d) hire car expenses-$818.11 (e) any other expenses-nil The Department, Telecom Australia, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia), and the Special Broadcasting Service have no record of paying any amounts to Mr Phillip Adams, Mr Rod Cameron or their companies under the categories listed. (Question No. 2306) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) What was the expenditure by the Minister's Department and Authorities under the Minister's control on public relations in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85. (2) What was the nature and subject of the public relations expenditure. (3) Was outside assistance obtained for public relations, if so (a) who provided the assistance, (b) what payments were made, and (c) why was the assistance sought. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Expenditure on public relations activities in 1983-84 was $670,664.42 and in 1984-85 $647,449.05. Included in that expenditure are amounts of $149,189 (1983-84) and $157,434 (1984-85) for salaries in respect of those staff in the Department's Public Affairs Branch who devoted a proportion of their time to public relations activities. Many other officers, especially Heads of Mission and diplomatic and consular officers at overseas posts, undertake varying degrees of public relations activities eg. public speaking engagements. It is not possible to assess the actual time that these officers spend on activities of a public relations nature. (2) The nature or subject of the Department's public relations expenditure during 1983-84 and 1984-85 was as follows: (a) staff salaries (see comments above) (b) publications, which included the following: `Backgrounder' Australian Foreign Affairs Record Documents on Australia's Foreign Policy Treaty Series Departmental Annual Report Australian reports on UN activities Diplomatic and Consular lists `Newsletter' (ACIAR) `Partners' (ACIAR) Total cost $318,000 (1983-84) and $340,000 (1984-85) (c) Media consultants and advertising to publicise new passport issuing requirements. Campaigns were conducted to publicise the new requirements and procedures for the changes in passport procedures resulting from the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking recommendations which were implemented over a twelve month period commencing in July 1983. (d) Australia Japan Foundation activities in Japan. (3) Yes, as set out below: Assistance provided by (payee) (a) Amount paid (b) Purpose of assistance (c) $ 1983-84 Doyle Dane Bernbach... 1,080.00 Production of advertising materials for new passport requirements and procedures - do -... 837.00 Advertising (as above) Neville Jeffress... 437.74 Newspaper Advertising of new passport application requirements and procedures Fortune Communication Holdings Ltd... 60,667.48 Shooting and Editing film in conjunction with new passport procedures Doyle Dane Bernback... 13,806.66 Newspaper Advertising associated with new passport requirements and procedures Watson Ferguson... 86,104.02 Passport Application Information Leaflets Omnicon... 1,818.00 Video Tape Dubbing Doug Holden & Assoc.... 540.00 Marketing and Passport Commercials to advertise new passport application procedures 165,588.42 1984-85 Australian Law News... 1,550.00 Advertising new passport requirements and procedures Doyle Dane Bernbach... 169.24 - do - I.H.J. Advertising... 5,167.66 Posters & Booklets associated with new passports requirements and procedures - do -... 548.00 Passport Publicity - do -... 30,417.14 Artwork for pamphlets and posters advertising new passport application requirements and procedures Alpha Offset... 451.56 Film for advertising new passport procedures Blake & Hargreaves... 781.66 Produce passport posters for advertising new passport procedures Monahan Dayman Adams... 23,379.49 Radio Advertisement associated with introduction of new passport procedures I.H.J. Advertising... 150.62 Passport Dispensers Monahan Dayman Adams... 42,007.68 Radio Advertisement associated with introduction of new passport procedures 104,623.05 Outside assistance concerning public relations was also sought in respect of the Australia Japan Foundation's (AJF) activities in Japan 1983-84. Assistance provided by (payee) (a) Amount paid (b) Purpose of assistance (c) $ UNICOM Consultants Incorporated 1984-85 UNICOM Consultants Incorporated 37,886 44,892 To produce newsletters and brochures, to set up conventions and to assist in organising AJF's program of events eg. media and Cultural activities in Japan (Question No. 2418) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 14 November 1985: (1) Do the (a) Government and (b) Australian Broadcasting Corporation support the system of D notices and has the Government any plans to change or abolish the system. (2) Does the Government support the view of the Deputy Chairman of the ABC, Ms Wendy McCarthy, expressed on the ABC program Hypotheticals on 26 October 1985, that the ABC Should be prepared to ignore D notices if it thought it was very significant and in the public interest that the prohibited matter should be published. (3) Is such a statement consistent with ABC policy. (4) Does the Government expect commercial press and broadcasting organisations to adhere voluntarily to D notices when the Commonwealth's national broadcasting corporation states that it is prepared to disregard D notices. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The D-Notice system is a voluntary system which outlines subjects that bear upon defence of national security. The media is requested to refrain from publishing certain information about those subjects. The Government supports the D-Notice system and has no plans to change or abolish it although individual notices are reviewed regularly. (b) The ABC adheres voluntarily to `D' notices and will continue to do so. (2) I am advised by the ABC that the views expressed by Ms McCarthy were in response to a hypothetical question and cannot be regarded as ABC policy. (3) No. (4) See above. (Question No. 2592) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: (1) How many postal items have been destroyed (a) accidentally and (b) wilfully or negligently by Australia Post, its employees and agents over the past 5 years. (2) Was any undelivered mail destroyed during or as a result of the recent New South Wales postal dispute. (3) Has the backlog of mail caused by this dispute been cleared and delivered; if so, when were the last items delivered. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, from information provided by Australia Post, is as follows: (1) (a) Mail has been destroyed accidentally as a result of incidents which are beyond Australia Post's control, such as fires, floods, rail accidents or vandalising of street posting boxes. Australia Post would not know the precise number of articles destroyed by such incidents but it can state confidently that the number is minimal in relation to the volume of mail handled which is more than 3,000 million articles per annum. (1) (b) During the five year period, 1 July 1980 to 30 June 1985, Australia Post delivered successfully some 15,000 million articles. In the absence of detailed records it is impossible to state with any certainty the number of articles that have been wilfully or negligently destroyed by Australia Post, its employees and agents over the same period. On the basis of a small sample, covering only part of the period, however, it is estimated that the number of articles lost would not exceed 100,000. It might be noted that during the same five years, some 9.4 million mail articles have been destroyed at Dead Letter Offices because the information they contained was insufficient to enable them to be delivered or returned to the sender. (2) No mail was destroyed as a result of the recent New South Wales postal dispute. (3) Yes, the backlog caused by this dispute has been cleared and delivered. Most mail centres were cleared by 5 November 1985 but the city delivery centre was slower to recover and the last items delayed by the dispute were not delivered until 25 November 1985. (Question No. 2785) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 28 November 1985: (1) Is the Minister committed to the provision of television programs on both VHF and UHF. (2) Is it expected that, by the early 1990's many television stations will be broadcasting on UHF. (3) Will he agree to the request of the Special Broadcasting Service that its transfer to the UHF band be deferred until other television broadcasters are allocated to that band. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) No. The temporary SBS channel 0 VHF facilities were originally established to provide an interim service, primarily designed to publicise the permanent services which have always been available on UHF channel 28. The Sydney channel 0 service radiated only one tenth of the power of the other VHF stations (2,7,9,10); while in Melbourne the service radiated in a directional pattern covering Melbourne only at two fifths the power of the other stations. The channel 0 VHF services could not be made to operate to the normal standard of Sydney and Melbourne stations. Because channel 0 reception is very susceptible to electrical interference, many viewers received a low grade service. It was not practical to transmit at the level of power required so that channel 0 gave an adequate service to Sydney and Melbourne. Transmitting towers could not accommodate the large antennas required at these frequencies while higher-powered transmissions from Sydney or Melbourne would have caused destructive interference to other services operating on channel 0. SBS television is presently available only on UHF in all twelve areas which now receive the service (14 when the Perth and Hobart services commence shortly). Only Sydney and Melbourne have had the limited benefit of the temporary channel 0 service. I originally provided 16 months notice of the intended closure of channel 0 and this was later extended by 12 months. Ample notice of the closure of Channel 0 had been given and no long-term benefit could be obtained from further extensions. Extending the Channel 0 service would have encouraged public investment in channel 0 facilities, at a time when we are encouraging people to invest constructively in UHF receiving equipment which, will provide crisp clear pictures unaffected by electrical interference. (Question No. 2814) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What action has been taken by the Minister's Department since March 1983 to ensure that career opportunities for Aborigines and Islanders are increased to a level not less than the ratio of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population to the non-aboriginal population. (2) How many Aboriginal and Islander employees were employed in the Minister's Department at (a) 30 November 1985 and (b) 31 March 1983. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department's Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Program, submitted to the Public Service Board on 1 October 1985, includes a plan for Aboriginals. Under the Public Service Board Equal Employment Opportunity Guidelines No. 3, an Aboriginal person is a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he/she lives. The broad objectives of the plan are: (a) to increase recruitment of Aboriginals into the Department, with the aim of achieving 2% Aboriginal staffing within five years; and (b) to develop means for Aboriginals in the Department to develop skills and experience to enable them to pursue careers in the Department and the APS more effectively. (2) (a) 31 Aboriginals were employed under the Community Employment Program on a project conducted by the Department throughout the National Tree Program. (b) Nil. (Question No. 2841) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What percentage of domestic air travel undertaken by representatives of the Minister's Department is undertaken on (a) TAA and Air Queensland (b) Ansett and its airline subsidiaries, (c) East-West Airlines, (d) commuter aircraft and (e) charter aircraft. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) 56% (b) 42% (c) 1.8% (d) and (e) 0.2% These percentages relate to the 1984-85 financial year and are based on actual cost rather than number of trips undertaken. (Question No. 2887) Mr Tickner asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Are all prisoners in goal who have a right to vote in elections for the Federal Parliament, effectively able to exercise their right to vote. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Sub-section 184 (1) (j) of the amended Commonwealth Electoral Act, introduced by this Government in 1983 and proclaimed in 1984, provides that any elector who, by reason of imprisonment, is precluded from attending at a polling booth to vote has the right to apply for a postal vote. Alternatively, under s.185 (1) (d), prisoners may apply to be registered as general postal voters. Thus, apart from the disqualification from enrolment of people convicted and under sentence for an offence punishable by imprisonment for five years or longer, there is no legislative impediment to prisoners exercising their right to vote. The Electoral Commission has, however, identified a practical problem some prisoners may have in maintaining their enrolment. In some States, prisoners are moved from goal to goal at frequent intervals. Thus their enrolments, if maintained at their goal addresses, quickly becomes out-of-date. Alternatively, they may never satisfy the one month residential qualification for enrolment. The Commission has recommended to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform amendments to the Act to resolve these difficulties. The Commission is not able to assess whether prisoners are, in all cases, informed of their voting rights and given the opportunity to apply for, and receive, postal votes. At the 1984 elections, dissemination of enrolment and voting information and of postal vote applications was coordinated by the various State prison authorities in all States except Western Australia. In all cases, the authorities were given detailed procedural instructions. Once postal voting certificates and postal ballot-papers had been provided for eligible prisoners, it was the general responsibility of the authorities to ensure compliance with electoral procedures. (Question No. 3120) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: How many New Zealand citizens are in receipt of each category of Australian social security benefit. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The numbers of New Zealand citizens in receipt of Australian pensions and benefits are not known, as citizenship is not a test of eligibility for pension or benefit and is not disclosed on the claim form. (Question No. 3143) Mrs Kelly asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: What are the latest developments in proposals for the introduction of legislation relating to compensation for repetitive strain injury including graduated return to work? Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: My Department is currently conducting a wide ranging review of the existing system for compensation of Commonwealth government employees. Among other things, it is examining the deficiencies highlighted by the RSI Task Force Report, including the concept of graduated return to work. However, because any legislative change has ramifications for all compensation recipients, it is necessary to examine changes related to RSI in the broader context to ensure no further anomalies arise. Two important aspects of the review are rehabilitation and the interaction between occupational health and safety and compensation. Both of these issues are central to many of the recommendations of the RSI Task Force. It is hoped that new legislation reflecting this focus can be introduced this year. (Question No. 3154) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Which manufacturers are considered to be suitable suppliers of light armoured vehicles of the M113 type. (2) What is the estimated lead time required for procurement in the event of an urgent need to increase the number of the vehicles. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Possible suppliers of additional M113 vehicles are: FMC of the US which developed the M113 and which is still producing these vehicles; BMF of Belgium which is currently producing a Belgian variant of the M113 under licence from FMC; and OTO Melara of Italy which has completed production of an M113 derivative but which might be expected to resume production for further orders. There are several other manufacturers around the world of vehicles with broadly comparable capabilities to our M113s and there is a wide range of other tracked and wheeled armoured vehicles with different capabilities. The Honourable member might consult Jane's Armour and Artillery for such a wider list. Given sufficient lead time to establish certain specialised capabilities, several Australian companies could manufacture M113 type vehicles under licence in Australia. (2) Procurement lead time for additional vehicles depends on the type and nature of vehicles and their purpose (eg, second-hand M113s might be an option in some circumstances); the level of Australian industry involvement, and the need to establish specific manufacturing capabilities in Australia. (Question No. 3169) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: Is he able to say what was the average (a) salary or wages and (b) amount of overtime paid to workers in the grain export terminals in Australia during the last 3 years. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. The authorities which operate the grain export terminals are the responsibility of the States concerned. (Question No. 3205) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 February 1986: (1) Did Australia vote in the United Nations Security Council on 30 January 1986 to support a resolution condemning Israel for alleged violations of the sanctity of the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem. (2) What were the alleged violations. (3) What was the text of the resolution. (4) How did other members of the UN Security Council vote on the resolution. (5) If Australia supported the resolution, does this conform with the undertaking made to the Australian Jewish community by the Prime Minister in October 1983 that Australia would be cautious and avoid voting with those countries seeking to delegitimise Israel on UN resolutions containing one-sided anti-Israel elements. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. Australia voted in favour of a draft resolution in the Security Council on 30 January 1986 which expressed deep concern about `the provocative acts by Israelis, including Knesset members, which violated the sanctity of the sanctuary of the Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem', and strongly deplored such acts. (2) The provocative acts of individual Israelis referred to in the resolution arose out of visits to the site on 8 and 14 January 1986 by members of the Knesset Interior Committee and others. Some of the Israelis concerned had, among other things, sought to pray and were accompanied by television cameramen in violation of the conditions for such visits. (3) The text of the draft resolution follows: The Security Council Taking note of the letter (S/17740) from the Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Morocco, current Chairman of the Group of the Members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, and the letter (S/17741) from the Permanent Representative of the United Arab Emirates, current Chairman of the Arab Group, addressed on 16 January 1986 to the President of the Security Council, Reaffirming that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem and, in particular the need to protect and preserve the unique spiritual and religious dimensions of the Holy Places in the City, Recalling and reaffirming its resolutions relevant to the status and character of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular resolutions 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July and 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, the consensus statement made by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980, and 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, Strongly deploring the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, Deeply concerned at the provocative acts by Israelis, including members of the Knesset, which have violated the sanctity of the sanctuary of the Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem, 1. Strongly deplores the provocative acts which have violated the sanctity of the sancturary of the Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem; 2. Affirms that such acts constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, which could also endanger international peace and security; 3. Determines once more that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that the policy and practices of Israel of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East; 4. Reiterates that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem and in particular the `basic law' on Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith; 5. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to observe scrupulously the norms of international law governing military occupation, in particular the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and to prevent any hindrance to the discharge of the established functions of the Supreme Islamic Council in Jerusalem, including any co-operation that the Council may desire from countries with predominantly Muslim populations and from Muslim communities in relation to its plans for the maintenance and repair of the Islamic Holy Places; 6. Urgently calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to implement forthwith the provisions of this resolution and the relevant Security Council resolutions; 7. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the present resolution before. (4) The draft resolution was rejected in a vote of 13 in favour (Australia, Bulgaria, China, Congo, Denmark, France, Ghana, Madagascar, Trinidad and Tobago, United Arab Emirates, USSR, United Kingdom, Venezuela), one against (United States) with one abstention (Thailand). The negative vote of a permanent member constitutes a veto. (5) The decision that Australia vote in favour of the draft resolution was taken in light of all the facts of the situation. It was at the insistence of Australia and some other Western members during negotiations, moreover, that the draft resolution contained no suggestion that the Israeli Government was responsible for the incident. The draft resolution in no way called into question the legitimacy of Israel's existence. (Question No. 2502) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister, provide grants to organisations operating in the ACT. (2) Do such grants have a requirement that any organisation so funded be registered under the ACT Association Incorporation Ordinance 1953; if so, what steps are taken by the Minister's Department to ensure that the funded organisation has complied with the Ordinance before any grant is made. (3) Does the Minister's Department or statutory authority carry out a search of the register at the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission. (4) If the search discloses a failure to comply with the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance, what steps are taken to ensure that the matter is remedied by those responsible for administration of the Ordinance, or the incorporated association. (5) Have all incorporated associations within the ACT funded by the Minister's Department or statutory authority complied with the Ordinance requirements for lodging particulars of financial affairs and balance sheets annually. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 1. Yes. Grants are given to an organisation, being a body corporate as defined under the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976 for eligible expenditure incurred under that Act. 2. No. 3. No. Proof of being a body corporate under the IR&DI Act is accepted upon inspection of the appropriate Certificate(s) of Incorporation. 4. Not applicable. 5. Not applicable as it is not a requirement of eligibility under the IR&DI Act. (Question No. 2687) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 25 November 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an advertisement in The Australian of 30 October 1985 in support of the Builders Labourers Federation, in which it was stated that the advertisement was supported by the (a) Abortion Counselling Service, (b) ACOA Rank and File Committee in Defence of Trade Union Rights, (c) ACT Shelter, (d) ACT Squatters Union, (e) ACT Youth Accommodation Group, (f) ACT Youth Forum, (g) Beryl Women's Refuge, (h) Campaign against Repression in the Pacific Area, (i) Canberra & South East Region Environment Centre, (j) Canberra Youth Refuge, (k) Chile Solidarity Committee, (l) Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Turkey, (m) Committee in Solidarity with Central America, (n) Interchange Community Youth Support Scheme, (o) Jobless Action, (p) Jobline, (q) National Landrights Now Committee, (r) Photo Access, (s) Philippine Action Support Group, (t) Rape Crisis Centre, (u) Reachout, (v) Schools Against the Bomb, (w) Southern Africa Support Campaign of Australia, (x) Soweto Mobilisation Committee, (y) Students Against Apartheid, (z) Staff of Public Radio 2XX, (za) Toora-Single Women's Shelter, (zb) Women Against Racism and (zc) Trade Union Rights Committee. (2) Do any of the listed organisations receive financial support or grants from the Minister's Department or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister. (3) If so, has the Minister's Department or statutory authority received or searched the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission register for annual financial accounts and balance sheets of each organisation receiving funds. (4) Is each grant conditional upon (a) the submission of audited annual accounts and balance sheets and (b) a commitment to use the funds for the purpose for which the grant was made. (5) Does each grant permit use of funds contributed for political advertisements; if not, what checks have been made or will be made to ensure that the advertisement was not paid from grant funds. (6) Has each organisation receiving funds evidenced a capacity to raise money either in the past or in the year in question for its own purposes. (7) Have further applications for financial support been received or are likely to be received from each organisation; if so, will a check be made to ensure that the conditions of earlier grants have been honoured. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) to (7) Not applicable. (Question No. 2769) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 27 November 1985: What is the location of each public telephone equipped for making ISD calls within the Electorate Division of Lowe. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission is as follows: There are twelve public telephones in the Electoral Division of Lowe with ISD access and they are situated at the following locations: Two at Post Office, Drummoyne-202 Victoria Road. One at Corner Thompson and Broughton Streets, Drummoyne. One at Corner Wilsley Street and St Georges Crescent, Drummoyne. Eight at Post Office, Strathfield-41 The Boulevarde. (Question No. 2819) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 29 November 1985. What percentage of domestic air travel undertaken by representatives of the Minister's Department is undertaken on (a) TAA and Air Queensland, (b) Ansett and its airline subsidiaries, (c) East West Airlines, (d) commuter aircraft and (e) charter aircraft. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: % (a) TAA and Air Queensland...51.0 (b) Ansett and its subsidiaries...46.2 (c) East West...2.8 (d) Commuter Aircraft...0.0 (e) Charter Aircraft...0.0 100.0 (Question No. 2926) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Does the Government prohibit customer equity in mineral export projects to ensure the maintenance of arms length relationships in the terms of pricing of mineral exports. (2) If this rule is not universally applied, in which current or proposed mineral export projects does customer equity exist and what is the extent of this equity. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Government does not prohibit customer equity from mineral export ventures. Customers equity can bring both costs and benefits to the Australian community, and the Government's approach has been to try to minimise or eliminate the costs while retaining the benefits. Benefits of customer equity participation may include increased efficiency in production and distribution, and better market access and availability of finance. Where the customer provides markets of finance not elsewhere available, or only available elsewhere on dearer terms, and where the venture does not displace another more economically efficient venture, foreign customer equity participation can result in net benefit to the nation. The main potential cost of customer participation is probably the scope for non-arm's length pricing. The Government has three main avenues available to it to combat the effects of non-arm's length pricing, namely, taxation, export control, and foreign investment approvals. (2) The Government does not compile information on foreign customer equity in mineral resource projects on a systematic basis. Information in relation to equity participation in major new projects is listed in the Bureau of Industry Economics' annual `Survey of Major Manufacturing and Mining Investment Projects'; customer equity is not, however, identified separately. (Question No. 2927) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Has any public review taken place of the scale, character and likely economic, social and environmental consequences of particular mineral resources projects since March 1983; if so, (a) who conducted each review, (b) when was each review conducted and (c) into what industries was each review conducted. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a), (b) and (c)-The resource industries where specific public review have been undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act are: Industry Project Public review of draft EIS Review authority Uranium Ben Lomond uranium proposal, Queensland (Total Australia Ltd) 14 November 1983-27 January 1984 Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment Mineral sands processing Monazite processing plant at Eneabba, WA (Allied Eneabba Ltd) 30 April 1985-24 June 1985 Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment EIS's directed since March 1983, but not yet completed or subjected to public review are: Silica sand mining Shelburne Bay silica sand mining project, North Queensland (Toyomenko Australia Ltd/Pacific Mining Ltd) Minerals sands mining Shoalwater Bay mineral sands project, Queensland (Murphyores Inc) State environmental assessment procedures usually require mineral resource projects to be subject to a process of public review. In addition to the above reviews of specific projects the Commonwealth has undertaken a major review of the uranium industry generally. Between November 1983 and May 1984, ASTEC conducted an Inquiry into Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle under the personal direction of the chairman, Professor Slatyer, at the request of the Prime Minister. The ASTEC Inquiry was a integral part of the Government's uranium policy decisions which were announced in November 1983. The report was tabled in Parliament in May 1984 and the Government's response to its twenty-five recommendations was announced in May 1985. The Australian Coal Consultative Council (ACCC), a body established by the Commonwealth in November 1983 and consisting of representatives of State and Federal Governments, coal companies and unions, has undertaken reviews of several major aspects of the coal industry through its National Research Group (NRG). Specifically, the NRG was requested by the ACCC in October 1984 to report on the situation prevailing in the NSW southern and south western coalfields, including factors influencing the viability of operations and prospects for the industry in these areas. To assist in the study, the NRG, by public advertisement, invited written submissions on matters within the terms of reference supplied by the ACCC. Responses were received from 22 interested organisations, community groups and individuals and these were taken into account in the preparation of the report of the NRG. The NRG has also studied, and published reports on international factors affecting the market for Australian coal; social and economic implications of new mine developments; the development of Australia's underground coal reserves; and the international competitiveness of the Australian coal industry. Two further reports into 1985 industry costs and prospects for the industry to 1990 are in preparation. While these six studies did not entail submissions or reviews by the general public, the structure of the ACCC and its National Research Group ensures that the main parties with direct interest in the coal industry (companies, unions, government) are directly involved in the studies. (Question No. 2929) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Does the Commonwealth have power over and title in the 3 mile territorial sea. (2) Is it possible for the Commonwealth to regain any power it might have lost and by what means could this be done. (3) Does the Commonwealth have ultimate responsibility for the administration of off-shore mining. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) With the proclamation of the Coastal Waters (State Title) Act 1980, the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act 1980, the Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Title) Act 1980 and the Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Powers) Act 1980 on 13 February 1983, the Commonwealth vested title in and legislative power over the 3 nautical mile territorial sea to the States and Northern Territory. This action was taken by the previous Government to implement Commonwealth and State/Northern Territory Government agreements under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS). This legislation does not preclude the Commonwealth from legislating with respect to the territorial sea. (2) The Government considers the Commonwealth clearly has the constitutional powers to legislate to exclude the States/Northern Territory from any role beyond the low water mark and there would be no legal obstacle to the unilateral variation by the Commonwealth Government of the current arrangements under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement. The Government is of the view that title over the territorial sea should not have been transferred from the Commonwealth by the previous Government. However, the arrangements which were entered into as part of the Offshore Constitutional Settlement have been working satisfactorily and for this reason the Government does not intend to take action at the present time to regain title to the territorial sea. Nor does the Government intend to alter the current powers legislation. This approach will remain dependent on the continued satisfactory operation of the existing arrangements which will be kept under review. The question of resuming title may be reconsidered by the Commonwealth should any of the States or the Northern Territory not be prepared to continue acting in ways compatible with the national interest while exercising powers obtained under the OCS. The Prime Minister has recently conveyed this decision to the State Premiers and the Northern Territory Chief Minister. (3) Under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements, offshore mining inside the outer limit of the territorial sea is subject to State/Northern Territory jurisdiction. Offshore mining beyond the territorial sea is subject to Commonwealth jurisdiction. The Commonwealth and the States/Northern Territory have agreed, as part of the OCS arrangements, to seek to maintain common offshore mining codes as far as is practicable. The Commonwealth's offshore petroleum legislation is jointly administered by the Commonwealth and the States/Northern Territory with the ultimate responsibility for key decisions resting with the Commonwealth Minister responsible for the offshore resources legislation. A similar arrangement will apply to the Commonwealth's offshore mining legislation when proclaimed. Special arrangements exist for resolution of any disagreements between the Commonwealth and the States/Northern Territory. (Question No. 3196) Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 14 February 1986: Has the Government agreed to provide financial assistance for the construction of a motor racing circuit in Canberra. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No funds have been allocated to the construction of a motor racing circuit in Canberra through programs administered by my Department.