Wednesday, 9 April 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 8 April, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Builders Labourers Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill 1986 concurrently with the Builders Labourers Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986. If there is no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(10.01) —Madam Speaker, we agree with that course being followed, that is to say, both Bills should be debated at the same time because they both deal with the one subject, namely, the deregistration of the Builders Labourers Federation. If there were ever a cause which should have unanimous support it must be the deregistration of the Builders Labourers Federation, a union which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has described as having shown complete disdain for the law. I must say that it is a matter of regret that not all members of the parliamentary Labor Party apparently share that view. I understand that at the Labor Party Caucus meeting yesterday one of the two gigantic splits that emerged related to that measure. My understanding is that there were 31 members- Mr Donald Cameron —How many? Mr N.A. BROWN —Thirty-one members of the Labor Party Caucus said that they would not go along with this strong measure to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation. So it would seem that a new faction in the Australian Labor Party has emerged. We have, of course, the right wing and the left wing, the middle Left, the middle Right and the up-down factions. Now we have a new faction which must be described as the Norm Gallagher faction. Despite the fact that the Builders Labourers Federation has acted outside the law, despite the fact that the glorious leader of these factions, the Prime Minister, has described this organisation as having complete disdain for the law, despite the fact that the Builders Labourers Federation has acted in a manner that can only be described as that of an industrial outlaw, there are apparently 31 members on the Government side of the Parliament who do not believe, even at this late stage and even after all the evidence that we have heard over the last 10 years, that the Builders Labourers Federation should be deregistered. The Australian people should understand that there is within the Labor Party a group of extreme left wingers who are so extreme and so wedded to the cause of extreme left wing unionism that they are not even prepared to support their own Government's measure to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation. That point should be made very clearly right at the outset. It must also be said that we on this side of the Parliament support these two measures; that is to say, we support the deregistration of the Builders Labourers Federation. There is no need in the course of this debate for me to go over the sad and sorry history of this extreme trade union. It has branded itself as an industrial outlaw. It has not been prepared to work within the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission except on those occasions where it suits its convenience to do so. It has paid no respect to the courts of this land, although it is prepared to use every legal technicality available to it to frustrate the proper workings of the system. It has shown no regard for the expansion and development of the building industry. It has no regard whatsoever even for individual members of the union, whom it rules with an iron fist. It seems that it has no regard for the welfare of anyone other than the great and powerful union itself. The history of the Builders Labourers Federation in this country over the last 10 years is such that one cannot come to any conclusion other than that it should be branded as an outlaw, it should be excluded from all the proper workings of the conciliation and arbitration system and it should be brought to an end. At the least, the Government has produced Bills, which are before the House today, which will deregister the Builders Labourers Federation, but it is not doing that properly. It is not doing it with all the full vigour that it could adopt. The Government, in this legislation, is not really giving any guarantee to the building industry or to the Australian public that the Builders Labourers Federation is finished forever. What it is doing is deregistering the BLF and saying that it cannot apply for reregistration until a period of three years has expired. So the Government is putting the BLF out of business but it is putting it out of business for only three years. What the Government is doing is laying the foundations that will enable a sleeping Frankenstein to wake up in three years, regather its strength, gather its money together again and go on the same path of industrial rampage as it has followed and engaged in over the last 10 years. We say that if the Government wants to put the Builders Labourers Federation out of business it should do it properly and do it permanently. We will be moving an amendment to the effect that a period of at least 10 years should pass by before the Builders Labourers Federation is able to apply for reregistration. We simply do not think that it is good enough to put the Builders Labourers Federation to sleep for three years and allow it then, after three years, to get up, as I said, like some sleeping Frankenstein, and go back into business where it left off three years before. If the Government were serious about this matter and if it had its heart in it it really would do whatever it could do within the limits of Commonwealth power to put the BLF out of business forever. It would not simply exhaust the limits of Commonwealth power; it would go further than that. We hear a lot about the great renaissance of the Australian Labor Party and how it now has Labor governments in every State except Tasmania, fortunately, and Queensland, fortunately. There are Labor governments everywhere else and State governments have powers where the Commonwealth parliament does not. If there is a limitation on the powers of the Commonwealth completely to pull out and destroy the Builders Labourers Federation, root and branch, the Federal Government should go to those State governments whose position is consistent with its political position and say to them: `Look, we have a limitation on our Federal power, but you, the State parliaments, can act. As State parliaments you can really put the BLF out of business. You can deregister them State-wide as well as federally. You can dissolve the association which will remain after the deregistration is completed'. The Federal Government should say: `You, the State governments, have the power to dissolve the organisation and to distribute its assets amongst the members'. We say that the Federal Government should go to the State governments, at least the Labor States, and say to them: `You, the State governments, should exercise that power' so that there is no doubt that at the end of the day the Builders Labourers Federation will be completely out of business and its assets will not be kept in reserve so that the present hierarchy of the BLF can go on with its campaign of industrial lawlessness as it has over the last 10 years. Rather by the full use of Commonwealth and State power the BLF will be put out of business. Its assets will be distributed amongst the members of that organisation and it will be at an end. We say without any qualifications that the result of this legislation, although it will deregister the BLF federally, will be that it will not bring the BLF to an end. We say that if the Government is serious it is about time that it woke up. It is about time that it used the full force of Commonwealth power and it is about time that it went to the States and told them to do their part too. If it does not do that, the Builders Labourers Federation will be back in business, with Gallagher and his goons in control, in three years. The building industry will suffer because of them as it has suffered over the last 10 years and nothing will have been achieved. So that is the first criticism that we make of these two Bills. The second criticism we make of these Bills is this: We draw the attention of the Australian people to the lacklustre and hamfisted way in which the Government has handled this whole business from the day on which it came to government, from that sorry day when it was elected as the Federal Government of this country. It should be understood, if I can develop that point a bit further, that the evidence against the Builders Labourers Federation is not something that has just appeared on the horizon in the last few months or in the last few years. The evidence has been accumulating over the last 10 years. Ten years ago, the Builders Labourers Federation was an industrial outlaw. For the last 10 years it has engaged in industrial lawlessness. It has engaged in thuggery. It has engaged in terrorism and it has engaged in doing everything it possibly could to bring the building industry to a halt. It has been the most powerful force in this country to prevent the expansion and development of the building industry, which is a large employer and a large repository of investment in this country. As I say, that is not something which has just emerged over the last few months or the last few years. It is something which has been gathering force in this country for 10 years. The former Government faced up to its responsibilities. In 1981, the Fraser Government, when the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) was Minister for Industrial Relations, took action. It instituted deregistration proceedings against this union in the Federal Court. That case was proceeding at the time of the Federal election in 1983. But when the Hawke Government came to power, what was virtually its first act? What was at the top of the agenda of the newly elected socialist Government? It was to stop the Federal Court proceedings against the BLF. One of its earliest acts as a government was to apply to the Federal Court for an adjournment of those proceedings so that it could enter into yet another sweetheart deal with the BLF to give the BLF more time to live, to allow it to go on with its campaign of industrial lawlessness. That is exactly what the newly elected Hawke Government did. Eventually, at the end of 1983, it withdrew, as a government, from those proceedings in the Federal Court in their entirety. What was the result of that action? The result was that the employers were left there and had to go on as best they could, but without the support and encouragement of the Federal Government, without the Federal Government's resources, without its evidence, without any assistance whatsoever. Is it any wonder that the employers eventually had to withdraw from those proceedings? Is it any wonder, we ask, that the employers simply could not go on with that case when the rug had been pulled from under their feet by the Labor Government? That is the real reason why the BLF is not deregistered today. That is the reason why for the last four years the BLF has been able to engage in its continuing campaign of industrial lawlessness. It is the fault of the Government because it had a chance in 1983 to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation. It fluffed it. It pulled out because of extreme cowardice and because it does whatever it is told to do by the trade union movement. We say that the Government's behaviour at that time was discreditable. We say that the Builders Labourers Federation continually has run rings around the Government from the very day that this Government came to office. But it was worse than that. The proceedings in the Federal Court were terminated because the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and the Prime Minister got what they regarded as undertakings from the Builders Labourers Federation. If they had had an ounce of common sense, they would have known that those undertakings were not worth the paper they were written on. Honourable members should listen to what the Government said in 1983 to express its feelings on the evidence it had in 1983 of the conduct of the Builders Labourers Federation. The Government in a Press release in 1983 stated: In the Government's view a sound basis had been established for the industrial stability in the building industry; that the Builders Labourers Federation had submitted a comprehensive undertaking to the court in relation to its future industrial activity; that it recognised its obligations as a registered organisation . . . that it reaffirmed its undertaking to make no extreme claims outside the national wage procedures; that it confirmed its commitment to abide by the terms of the Building Industrial Agreement. The Minister went on to say: . . . the recent industrial record of the industry has been greatly improved and the way is now open for a sustained period of industrial peace. Mr Carlton —It sounds like Chamberlain at Munich. Mr N.A. Brown —As my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar said, it sounds like Neville Chamberlain coming back from Munich and saying: `Look, I have done a deal with the devil, but at least I have got peace in our time'. A government which in 1983, on the evidence it had then, was prepared to accept an undertaking of that sort from the Builders Labourers Federation was either crooked or stupid. One can put one's money on whatever side one likes; it was either one or the other. It is because the Government was either crooked or stupid that the Builders Labourers Federation in the past three years has been on the rampage, doing everything it can to destroy the livelihoods of building workers and builders and to frustrate the proper workings of the conciliation and arbitration system. If we have a problem today with the Builders Labourers Federation it is because of the present Government's doings in 1983 and for no other reason. If the Government had done the right thing, it would have gone on with those proceedings in 1983 and by now the Builders Labourers Federation would have been well and truly deregistered. Let us give the Government whatever credit is due to it, which is not very much. At least at this late stage it has introduced legislation to deregister the BLF, but let us put it into perspective and condemn the Government, as it should be roundly condemned, for the hamfisted way in which it has conducted this whole matter from the very day on which it was elected to government. The Government has allowed the Builders Labourers Federation to run rings around it and to make fools of it. It has allowed the Builders Labourers Federation to do everything it can to frustrate and restrict the building industry, to prevent it from expanding and developing, and it has allowed the Builders Labourers Federation to become one of the major forces of industrial lawlessness in this country. It should be said without any qualification whatsoever that that situation has arisen as a result of the Government's actions. Mr Tim Fischer —There are only two of them there. Mr N.A. Brown —It is not surprising that only two of them are in here, for the simple reason that only yesterday 31 members of the Labor Caucus- Mr Slipper —How many? Mr N.A. Brown —Thirty-one, as I understand it, voted against this legislation being introduced. In other words, the Government put up the legislation to the Caucus and 31 members of the Caucus said: `Even after all this evidence of industrial lawlessness, we are still at the behest of the unions to the extent that we will not support this legislation to deregister the BLF'. Let us look at the list of valiant warriors who are prepared to go into battle for the Government in this debate. There is a long list of Opposition members who are prepared to speak, yet from the Government we have someone with the somewhat ignominious name of Punch. I suppose that is appropriate for this particular issue. Mr Slipper —What about Judy? Mr N.A. Brown —I do not know where Judy is, but we then have the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) on the list. Two valiant warriors out of the Government ranks are prepared to go in and do battle for the Government on this legislation to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation. When one looks at the further history of this matter, the Government's record is even more tarnished. Last year the Government introduced another Bill to make a fast track system of deregistration of the BLF. For the past 12 months or so we have been through the flim-flam of a long, drawn out case in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, with hundreds of witnesses, thousands of pages of transcript and enormous costs mounting up every day. Eventually, on 4 April-a very momentous day-the Government got a favourable decision from the Arbitration Commission. What happened on 4 April? Was the Government prepared to go on with the proceedings it started under the 1985 Building Industry Act? No, not at all. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations issued a Press release on 4 April, which said: `Well, we now have to introduce new legislation;'. If it is necessary to have specific legislation to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation, why was it not done months ago when the Government first came to office, when all the evidence mounted up against the Builders Labourers Federation? The Government waited until we had gone through the whole business of these proceedings in the Arbitration Commission in the past several months, at great expense, and then said: `Thank you very much for your decision, Arbitration Commission, but we will not use it at all. We will introduce yet another piece of legislation to deregister the BLF'. It gives us very grave cause for concern as to just how serious the Government is about deregistering the Builders Labourers Federation. I ask honourable members opposite to look at the evidence. The first thing is that when they come to government they have proceedings on foot to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation. They terminate those proceedings. Secondly, they introduce a further Bill in 1985. They use that Act to the full extent of its provisions. They get a favourable decision and, having got a favourable decision, they then give up and say: `We do not want to use that law any more. We want a new law'. So here today we are back with two more Bills. Those Bills, of course, seek to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation but tell us nothing about what is going to happen with this organisation in the States. They tell us nothing about what is going to happen to its assets. They tell us nothing about what the Government is going to do about its office bearers, the present group of people running the Builders Labourers Federation. We are entitled to believe, on the evidence we have been given so far, that the Government is quite happy for the present hierarchy of the Builders Labourers Federation to continue the same course of industrial lawlessness. That is the only conclusion we can reach on the evidence. If there is a different conclusion we should be reaching, it is up to the Government to tell us. That history is very discreditable and the Government should be condemned for its whole lacklustre performance. I come again in some more detail to the question of the assets of this organisation, because it is not enough simply to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation. It is a very wealthy organisation: It has assets of some $4 1/2m, as I understand it, and an income of something over $6m a year. What is going to happen to those assets? I do not know whether the Government has really turned its mind to this to any serious extent. I asked a question of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations about this yesterday. I must say that the most charitable thing that one can say about his answer is that it was very half-hearted. What the Minister said about the assets of the Builders Labourers Federation was: . . . the Government has a constitutional limitation of a very substantial nature in respect of anything it- the Government- could do in relation to the assets of any union insofar as it seeks to deregister that union because once a union is deregistered the Government has no control over that union as an unregistered association . . . there will be no capacity for this Government to control the assets of the Builders Labourers Federation except in relation to the Federation's operations in the Australian Capital Territory. That is thoroughly unsatisfactory. Here is an organisation which the Prime Minister himself says has shown complete disdain for the law. It is an organisation which will now be let loose. It will not be supervised by the Arbitration Commission in any sense at all. It has very substantial assets, and we know from the point that I made yesterday that apparently $1.5m is being carried in bags around Melbourne by Mr Gallagher and four of his active supporters. What is happening to that money? Where did it come from? Why was Mr Gallagher going to a bank to collect $1 1/2m in cash? Is this property of the union which is being improperly appropriated? Is he taking it away without any right to do so? Is it properly supervised by the union? What is going to happen to it? Is it going to be distributed to the members? Does the Government care tuppence about what happens to this money? On the present evidence it would seem that the Government does not care tuppence about what happens to the assets of the Builders Labourers Federation. It is not simply that they are the assets of the organisation; that money belongs to the members. It must be distributed to the members, and it is up to the Government to make sure that it is. It was a complete cop-out by the Minister yesterday simply to say: `Of course, there is a problem so far as the powers of the Federal Government are concerned. There is a doubt that the Federal Parliament can legislate to deal with the assets of this organisation'. To that we simply say this: `There are State governments that do have powers. You in the Labor Party form governments in some of those States. It is up to you to use State powers, through your colleagues in the State governments, to ensure that the assets of the Builders Labourers Federation are not scattered to the winds and dealt with improperly or illegally. It is up to you to make sure that those assets are returned to the members. Nothing else will satisfy us'. We say that that is a very serious situation. It is a serious situation for two reasons: First, because of the large sum of money involved; secondly, because we are not satisfied with the Minister's brush-off yesterday as to the limitations of Commonwealth power in this matter. That is a very important matter about which we have not been told enough by the Government and about which there is an obligation on the Government now to take very firm action to ensure, first, that the assets of the union are distributed to its members and, secondly, that everything possible is done to prevent this union simply hiding the money away, by moving it overseas or doing anything else improper with it which would enable it to regather its strength and simply go on with the same well-financed campaign of industrial lawlessness that we have seen so much of over the last 10 years in this country. A second aspect arises so far as money is concerned. I refer to the building unions superannuation scheme. The Government has not told us anything about that. So far as I know, that superannuation scheme does not depend on the union being registered. If we believe what the Government says the organisation will be a much weaker body. It will not be registered. So what will happen to the assets of that superannuation scheme? What will happen to the ordinary building workers who have an entitlement to benefits under that superannuation scheme? Are those workers being protected? We have not been told by the Government whether they are being protected or not. If we go by the Government's record in this whole sorry saga we can come to the conclusion only that the Government either does not care or has not done anything at all to protect the interests of the beneficiaries of that superannuation scheme. These are points that must be made, despite the fact that we support the legislation. We support the legislation because the case against the Builders Labourers Federation is simply overwhelming. It must be deregistered. There is no justification for its continuing to take part in the conciliation and arbitration process in this country. The union has outlawed itself and it has no right whatsoever to expect any of the privileges of a union registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. However, we say that the Government can claim no credit for the sorry history which has been displayed in this matter from the very first day on which this Government was elected. Further we say that there are a lot of unanswered questions which we will be pursuing here and elsewhere. We have already said that we will be moving an amendment so that the Builders Labourers Federation will not be able to apply for reregistration for 10 years. We say it is simply not enough to put the union out of business for three years. It must be for at least 10 years. We say that the Government has fallen down on the job and has failed in its responsibilities insofar as the assets of the union are concerned and insofar as the entitlements of ordinary members of the organisation are concerned. The Government deserves no credit for what it has done. It stands condemned because of its bad history in this whole matter. From the very beginning of the life of this Government it has never had its heart in the deregistration of the Builders Labourers Federation. It has continually turned a blind eye to the excesses of that organisation. Now, at the end of the day, when at long last it has taken some very positive and definite action to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation it does it in an incomplete way. It tells us nothing as to how the assets of the organisation will be dealt with, nothing about what will happen to the office bearers of the organisation and nothing whatsoever about how the organisation will be destroyed root and branch in the State industrial systems, as well as the Federal system. It is no answer at all simply to say that this is a matter for the States and that it and other matters should be left to the States. There is a very heavy obligation on the Government now to take prompt action and to take these matters up with the State governments to ensure that this union is put out of business permanently. Madam SPEAKER —Did the honourable member intend to move an amendment? Mr N.A. Brown —Madam Speaker, I intend doing that at the Committee stage. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.30) —When I see the Eureka flag, the distinctive banner of the Builders Labourers Federation, flaunting itself from cranes and tall buildings I think how appropriate it is that the BLF should have adopted this as its emblem. The truth is that, far from being the genesis of the union movement in Australia, the Eureka stockade was a demonstration of middle class greed and self-interest. The leaders of the Eureka stockade did not give a damn for decent ordinary folk, yet they were prepared to use them for their own aggrandisement. This is a formula that could well fit the secretary of the BLF. For example, Peter Lalor, who was hailed as a patriot defending freedom, was born in Ireland, the son of Patrick Lalor, a wealthy landowner and member of parliament. The registry of the Victorian Parliament shows that Peter was a conservative member of that Parliament for 14 years. He never showed any consideration for the underprivileged and Norm Gallagher demonstrates those very same traits. Norm Gallagher is quite prepared to see the interests of workers trampled in the pursuit of his own aggrandisement and that of his henchmen. Everyone should realise that the laws of our social relationships are as immutable as those of science. `As ye sow, so shall ye reap' is not just a cliche; it is a formula for living. For many years building workers were exploited and shamefully treated. This was fertile ground for the development of a militant union. Gallagher has taken the BLF beyond the pale, not because of any deep concern for injustice, real or imagined, but out of sheer and naked greed and egomania. We should ask ourselves how this happened. It did not happen by accident or stealth. It happened because it was aided and abetted by the builders and developers who were just as culpable, just as greedy and just as uncaring about the fibres of our national integrity as was the leadership of the BLF. We sent Norm Gallagher to gaol for taking bribes, but we cloaked with quasi respectability the people who paid the bribes. Let me give honourable members the scenario of Gallagher's operation. He would enter an agreement with a developer that his project should be completed on time and for a predetermined cost. Gallagher would then make sure that his union delivered this result, while causing the maximum chaos on other sites until he got all the builders and developers to pay. At this stage, of course, he would go back to the first developer and up the ante. Belatedly the builders and developers have realised that one does not get rid of the Dane by paying the danegeld and they have now come to the Government for protection from a monstrosity which is very much one of their own creation. Let us not pretend that there was not mutual benefit for both parties in this arrangement. The only loser was society as costs were driven up and productivity was driven down. I have been listening to the sickening diatribe of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) in this House and I realise how little has changed. With affected piety he has condemned the BLF for attacking the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, yet he is one of those who are leading the charge within the Liberal Party to do exactly the same thing. The prices and wages accord is under challenge from Gallagher and from the Liberal Party. They are intellectual allies and in many ways the same sort of people. William Schwenck Gilbert, one of the philosophers for whom I have a regard, once observed that `things are seldom what they seem'. In society today this is becoming self-evident. For instance, one sees Bill Hartley posing as some doyen of the Left when it is quite apparent from his actions that he is an agent of the CIA. No other conclusion so well fits the facts. The same can be said of honourable members opposite. Let us take as an example the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper)-`Boots'-who has all the hallmarks of an operative for the KGB as he tends to denigrate and make ridiculous any argument or any sensible position of the Right. On the other hand, Norm Gallagher is not political; in a sense he is more honest because he is patently a thug. But let us not forget that he was aided and abetted in this by the people who now crave the protection of the Government. Deregistration of itself will prove nothing. Deregistration without the support of the union movement will achieve nothing and will, in fact, make things worse than they are at present. One of the great achievements of this Government has been to get on side the other unions and to get them to recognise that the antics of the BLF, in its extortion activities and in the trauma that it has caused society, go beyond what is reasonable and brings discredit on the entire union movement. It is because this Government has been able to get the unions on side that deregistration can now proceed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition cavils about the money, which gets back to my original point of how close the similarities are between the Opposition and the BLF. The Opposition worries about this mere mess of pottage. What is going to happen to the paltry few million dollars in the superannuation fund, when the real problem is the deregistration of the BLF to bring some stability back to the building industry. the Government will achieve this. If the other unions seek to gain the membership of the BLF, three years is ample time for them to achieve that. I have been concerned at the attitudes put forward by some honourable members from this side of the House. I think they demonstrate, and I say this with all honesty, that hypocrisy is not just the province of the Liberal Party. People have said to me that they are concerned that we are reducing the status of law, that somehow there should always be an avenue of appeal to the High Court of Australia. I do not accept this. I believe governments have to make these decisions. I am personally concerned about the readiness of governments of all complexions to leave decisions to the High Court. I have no great regard for lawyers, and in the machinations that would go on in this forum the beneficiaries, of course, would be the lawyers. I believe the Government has to act in this manner to cut off the avenues of appeal that would otherwise have been available to the BLF. After all, I see a series of royal commissions that in many cases have made a travesty of common sense. I think the people of Australia will also recognise this, for there is in society a common sense which transcends political affiliations. People will recognise that there is nothing sinister, nothing fascist, in the Government's attitude and that it is acting responsibly in the interests of society as a whole. I believe that with the deregistration of the BLF, if we do get support from the States, and I have some concerns here, we can bring stability- Mr McGauran —Which States do you have concerns about? Mr CAMPBELL —The States which concern me are Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, if the honourable member must know. I would say that the BLF in those States appears to have been a marginally more responsible union. I could cite some instances in my own State. Mr Rocher —A very narrow margin. Mr CAMPBELL —I think in this day and age we work on narrow margins. There is a very good chance that we can get some stability back into the industry and that we will see the return of the stability that is necessary for ongoing development. It is simply not good enough for the people opposite to carry on as though they had the solution. The truth is that they were not in a position to deregister the BLF; they were not in the position to do it simply because they did not at that stage have the support of the union movement. When Gallagher was sent to gaol it was a testament to what I would call the lack of judgment of the courts. I have no doubt that Gallagher was guilty-as guilty as the people with whom he colluded, as guilty as the people who paid him the bribes-but by sending him to gaol when the equally guilty parties were treated much more leniently the view was raised in society that he was somehow being ill-treated, that he was somehow receiving an injustice. This set back the fight against the BLF quite considerably. Similarly, had the Liberal Party ever had the nerve-that is debatable-to move against the BLF without the support of the union movement it would have been a disaster and a debacle of gigantic proportions, for without other unions agreeing to provide cover for these people there could have been no effective deregistration, and it would simply have turned a renegade into a renegade completely beyond the law. I do not see how that could have been to the benefit of society, or in fact to the benefit of anyone except the BLF. That, of course, is not to say that it is an action that the Opposition would not have taken, for the truth is that it really does not understand. It is really saddening that this is the case, for the details have been laid out time and time again. It is just unfortunate that the Opposition seems, like the Bourbons, incapable of learning anything new. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.40) —One could be forgiven for harbouring suspicions about the timing of and the need for this legislation, the Builders Labourers Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill and the Builders Labourers Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Bill, however supportable will be the end result. Whether the building industry should have had to suffer the scandalous behaviour of the Builders Labourers Federation for the past two years is extremely doubtful. Since the Hawke Government came to office over three years ago it has, at least in its first two years, done more than any institution or individual to keep alive the BLF. Some may have forgotten that a hearing of an application to have the BLF deregistered was well under way when this Government was elected. What happened? Within a matter of months this Government, which seeks now to portray itself as squeaky clean as well as strong and unequivocating in its approach to BLF outrages, made sure that that hearing was abandoned. So much for the new-found strength of character the Government would have us all believe it has, as if it is any more believable or unequivocating now than it was when it was first elected. Led by the Jubilation T. Cornpone of Australian politics, this Government could not wait to cave in to the BLF and the Australian Council of Trade Unions three long years ago. It scrubbed the Fraser Government's initiative to bar by deregistration the BLF. Given the commitment of the incoming Hawke Government, which it now self-righteously parades, this measure could have had its effect before the end of 1983. Instead, this Government actively encouraged a continuation of the outrageous behaviour of the BLF by pandering to it through successive acts and actions at the behest of its masters in the ACTU. First it cancelled the substantially part-heard case before the Federal Court of Australia. In doing so it exposed to massively debilitating retaliation those building industry employers who had sworn out hundreds upon hundreds of affidavits. The Hawke Government bought off both employer organisations and the BLF by meeting the costs of those parties, probably to the tune of the best part of $1m. It paid massive sums for legal costs incurred, not just by employers but by these terrible people it now proclaims should be deregistered, the BLF. It bought them off, and it is as simple as that. Once the employer groups saw there was to be no working relationship with this Government they could not wait to cut their losses, to take the money and run. Not so lucky were those individual employers who suffer to this day the consequences of their preparedness to swear affidavits and to give evidence at that hearing. They suffered and those who survived continued to suffer to an extent that simply meant a succession of more and more demands, because until relatively recently there was a decided lack of sympathy and political fortitude in the ranks of this Government. Although tempted to the philosophically apathetic approach of better late than never, that is simply not good enough. That would smack too much of the Hawke-led ACTU approach to industrial upheavals. Does not any honourable member remember the techniques? Under the presidency of the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the game plan of the ACTU was to let crippling behaviour run its course and then, and only then, the great white hope would emerge from wherever he might be hiding in those days and play out the rather pathetic role of universal healer. An extension of that mentality is what this legislation is all about. Can there be any other explanation for this Government's belated, deliberately belated, approach to the excesses of the BLF? Of course there cannot. Back in 1983 and in early 1984, at the same time as the Hawke Government was buying out employers and the BLF, it was actively doing a deal which was deliberately planned to subvert its own wage guidelines as set out in its accord mark 1. Through the agency of ex-Commissioner Vosti a deal was contrived between the Government and the building trades unions, among which was-guess who?-the BLF, to curry political favour for the Government from those unions in the run-up to the 1984 general election. When the whistle was blown on this contrivance, when the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission refused to give its seal of approval to the infamous building industry recovery procedures allowance-the BIRPA-because it was clearly outside the scope of the Government's own guidelines, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) did not let it rest there. Oh, no; he personally approved a non-contributing superannuation deal for the building industry, the cost of which was to be-surprise, surprise-approximately the same amount and definitely to replace the building industry recovery procedures allowance, then so recently unacceptable to the Commission. It is more than interesting to note that the Commission then decided that superannuation was not a matter for its deliberations but that it can now, less than three years later, hear a claim mounted by the ACTU for an identical scheme for all industry. It is such convenient changes of its own attitudes and rulings which will see the Commission bound to strive for both responsibility and consistency under a future coalition government. One of the by-products of the Minister's BIRPA stunt is that on top of the ensuing superannuation impost on building employers is the very real expectation that the 3 per cent national claim is to be on top of-that is in addition to-the building industry scheme which gave birth to the proposed national scheme. Unlike in other industries, building employers can confidently expect to be paying something in the order of $25 a week per employee if the national claim is successful, and that is just for starters. The Minister's shenanigans with the failed BIRPA, successfully converted to a building industry superannuation fund, is the genesis of the national productivity-cum-superannuation claim by the ACTU. The Minister made it plain way back in 1984 that that would be the situation and I never cease to be amazed that the likely consequences took so long to sink into the collective minds of employers. Perhaps it is because employers, like so many in the building industry, see the odds are so stacked against them under this alliance of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the ACTU and the Hawke Government. For its own tardiness, the Government deserves special condemnation. Can there be any doubt that the well-being of building industry employers is not uppermost in the Government's thoughts in seeking deregistration of the BLF? If there is, dwell for a moment on some of the treatment being meted out by this Government and its departments to building contractors, particularly the treatment administered by the Department of Housing and Construction-the DHC-and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations-the DEIR. Part of the lure for building industry employers to go along with the Government's belated plans to deregister the BLF was a promise of easier relief under contracts let and administered by the DHC. Extensions of contract periods were to be granted for industrial action attributed to the effects of the decision to prosecute deregistration of the BLF. The quantum and validity of claims for extensions of time were to be vetted and agreed to by the DEIR and the DHC prior to notice of approval being given to the contractor making the claim. At the same time, claims for certain site costs incurred by contractors arising for the same reasons were to be met by the Government. As with so many of this Government's promises, there is little evidence that it is honouring its undertakings to grant either extensions of contract periods or claims for reimbursement of site costs. It may be that such claims will be approved eventually in whole or in part. However, what is happening is absolutely no way for the Government to go about honouring its debt for the help it has received from contractors in the deregistration hearing. In far too many cases the DHC is sitting on these claims without approval being given after months and months. The Government's contractors have risked their economic viability on government and other current works to do the bidding of the Government and are not even given the partial comfort that prompt approval of claims would afford. There is a great gap between the promises to its contractors and the Government's performance in this as there is in so many other matters. Remember that these same contractors were under threat of losing future government contracts if they did not toe the Government's line, if they did not resist the sometimes irresistible demands to pay the 3.8 per cent national wage case increase denied to the BLF members by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. After waiting a respectable period for the Government to show its true colours, most contractors other than perhaps some in Sydney ended up paying. They paid their builders labourers the 3.8 per cent and everything else because Mr Bill Kelty of the ACTU told them privately that they should. This was directly contrary to the line being peddled by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. To avoid the scrutiny of Government departments, some contractors developed what can only be said to be ruses. Many did not even bother to do that despite the blandishments of this Government and they paid up front. One of the ruses referred to adds yet another term to the vocabulary of practitioners in Australian industrial relations. I refer to the term `unworked overtime'. This describes the practice of paying for overtime not worked, calculated to be equal to the 3.8 per cent increase which everyone pretends is not being paid. Contractors respond to the subterfuge of this Government in kind, and why should they not? Bill Kelty said they should. The Government showed by its actions that it did not really care. It was thought that a couple of idle threats would suffice, if made publicly to a limited gaggle of fawning media representatives. It was a case of forgetting the building industry and concentrating on placating the ACTU and the ALP's Left, a formidable 31 of whom yesterday opposed this legislation in Caucus. No one expects the Government to keep its promises any more-that is, no one other than the ACTU. A deal is not a deal under this Government unless it is a deal with the ACTU. Never mind a lack of commitment to employers to handle their claims expeditiously. After all, there is some embarrassment for the Government, which threatens building contractors with blacklisting if they should have the temerity to do deals with the BLF. Building employers know it was this Government that found itself in backroom deals with the BLF. Was it not the Hawke Government which arranged the contrivance called BIRPA and, having failed, led the charge into a building industry superannuation scheme? Is it not this Government that connived in the payment of last year's 2.6 per cent national wage case increase to BLF members, contrary to a decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on Commonwealth construction projects, including the new and permanent Parliament House? The Government having set the pattern then, it is hard now to be too critical of employers who have paid that increase and the subsequent 3.8 per cent increase. They were, after all, following the example of this increasingly discredited Government. Employers in Queensland, Tasmania and South Australia will be only too aware that they will have to suffer the excesses of the BLF in those States regardless of the passage of this legislation. The BLF will continue to exist in those States and actively operate by virtue of registration in State jurisdictions. That will happen unless State governments other than those in New South Wales and Victoria have a change of mind and pass similar complementary legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Whip is under my wing. He has made some sort of arrangement with the Government Whip that we curtail our speaking time. I conclude by saying this: Given what has passed under this Government, eloquently outlined at short notice by my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), there is little left that the Government can do by way of redemption. These Bills, with the amendments foreshadowed by the coalition parties, have our support, but that support is conditioned by the concerns mentioned and by the well-earned criticisms we have levelled at the Government. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(11.56) —With all due respect to my colleague the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher)-I honestly believe that he believes what he has just said-I find it absolutely astounding that any member from the other side of the House could come into this chamber and accuse this Government of doing nothing, or at the very least doing too little too late, about the Builders Labourers Federation. It is absolutely amazing that that line of thought should be offered by honourable members opposite. For seven years they did nothing about the BLF, just as they did nothing, or did too little too late, about their mates in the tax dodging industry. While they sat around and watched that industry develop they also sat around and watched the BLF's bully tactics grow in strength and they did nothing about that either. There was a very clear parallel of inaction from honourable members opposite when they were in government. It has to be said that the action taken today by this Government in introducing the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill is necessary. I am sure that no one in the House questions that. On the eastern seaboard of this nation the Builders Labourers Federation has become a blot on the face of trade unionism and can be suffered no longer. This Government, with the active co-operation of the trade union movement, has restored this country to economic growth and now offers to put this country on the threshold of economic greatness based on industrial peace. Yet we have several flies in the ointment. We have, of course, the newly founded Australian Federation of Employers, whose members, like the marxists in our society, seem to preach industrial chaos and conflict almost as an end in itself. But the BLF, which seeks to confront and fight at every opportunity and which has sought to use tactics completely beyond the pale of the trade union movement and the norms accepted in the 90-year history of the labour movement, cannot and will not be suffered any more by this Government. What we are saying is that, as the trade unions are the traditional base of support for the Labor Government and for the Labor Party across Australia, we will not suffer a bad apple in the barrel. We will not suffer a black sheep. We will clean up the trade union movement were it needs to be cleaned up. In that respect, the BLF is to go. There are a number of reasons for doing that. We cannot allow the prices and incomes accord that has given this country so much in such a short period to be threatened. It cannot be rent asunder by anyone on the employers' side or on the union side. That would deny the national interest. The actions of the BLF in seeking to go outside the constraints of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, with tactics abhored by the rest of the labour movement, are in stark contrast with what is required in the national interest. I think it is significant that much of what the BLF did in earlier years has been completely ignored by honourable members opposite. The honourable member for Curtin said that this all could have been done in late 1983 if only the Government had acted by taking some supposed course of action which has not been specified by the Opposition. I draw the attention of honourable members opposite to the report in 1982 of the Winneke Royal Commission into the Activities of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation, which stated with regard to the BLF: These tactics find no support or condonation in any industrial legislation in this country. The conduct not only exceeds the bounds of industrial propriety but, in many instances, plainly transgresses the criminal law. In many, if not most, instances, demands are made accompanied by threats. Those threats are frequently implemented and the implementation has gone far beyond financial loss and has involved damage to property and persons . . . The result has been to place the BLF in a unique position-a position of being above the law. As early as 1979, Norm Gallagher was quoted as saying on behalf of the BLF: . . . but undertakings cannot be for ever and ever . . . we are not going to be held to an agreement for ever and ever. The history is there for all to see. Instances of what the BLF did and what it was about are scattered across the Fraser years. Yet those opposite could not bring a result to the table of this Parliament. They sat on their hands and produced nil. We on this side of the House will today bring about a result that not only is the right result but also in years to come will be seen in the labour movement to be demonstrably fair and proper. Mr White —You could have had it three years ago. Mr PUNCH —As the honourable member is catcalling, it is probably true that such action could have been taken at a marginally faster rate, but at what cost in the years to come? If those opposite should ever end up on this side of the House again, and I say to them that it will be a long time between drinks, fellows, under their present Party format, the Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill provides that at no future time will they be able to derive any precedents from what this Government has done. It is true that this Government has taken a slightly longer route. We have gone through the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and therefore provided a precedent so that no action will be able to be brought against an industrial unit or persons in this country by a dictatorial government simply outlawing them. It will have to go through the proper conciliation and arbitration processes. In other words, if we are seeking to preserve and enhance the conciliation and arbitration system in this country, which, incidentally, honourable members opposite have stated they would like to tear down, and which is working better now than it has at any time in our history as a nation, we must be seen to be consistent and take those who are the outlaws of that system before that system and have them pay the penalty under its jurisdiction. I refer to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That is what is being done. It is important not only to produce a result that honourable members opposite could not produce but also to produce a result that down the years will be seen to be demonstrably fair and demonstrably proper. This legislation gives the lie to those opposite who say that this Government is in the pocket of the trade union movement. It shows that renegades who seek to rent asunder what is in the national interest will not be tolerated. More importantly, honourable members opposite do not seem to want to know that it is the labour movement itself that has sought to be rid of the leadership of the BLF. I draw a very clear distinction here between the broad membership of the BLF and the people who lead it. I have a sneaking suspicion that it will not be too long before the average builders labourer will be much happier under the coverage of any one of a number of other unions. Opposition members seem to deny that the New South Wales Trades and Labor Council unanimously, on a joint Left-Right ticket basis, expelled the BLF. It threw them out of the union movement, out of the industrial labour movement, in the biggest State in this country. They seem to deny the fact that Labor State governments have played a critical role all along in supporting us, as a Federal government, in doing something about the BLF. What, if anything, did State Liberal governments do about the BLF? There was a lot of posturing, for sure. The truth is that I believe it suited those opposite to have the BLF. All the massive destruction and the like in the building industry caused by the BLF gave the Fraser Government a whipping post. It said: `We will do something about the BLF. We will be tough. Just don't hold your breath if you are in the building industry'. It suited those opposite to have Norm Gallagher around. It suits those opposite to have the likes of Norm Gallagher visiting people's lounge rooms by way of the television set every night on the 6 o'clock news, because Norm Gallagher is the ugliest possible face of unionism that we will ever see in this country. He places the union movement in disrepute in a way which no one else has probably done ever before in the history of this country. It suits those opposite to be able to paint members of the union movement as being like Norm Gallagher when it is the union movement which seeks, as I say, to be rid of him. When those opposite lecture us about the BLF, I suggest-as is the case in regard to issues ranging from economics to wages policy, across the spectrum-they should take a good hard look and ask themselves what they did about it when they were in government. What constructive thing did they do about the BLF when they were in government? More importantly, they should ask the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who was the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and the Treasurer in those years, what he did about the BLF. The previous Government sat on its hands and did nothing. I support the legislation and commend it to the House. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(11.08) —The Opposition supports this legislation, with the reservations as outlined by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, and shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown). A number of components of the contribution by the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) need answering. The first and most amusing aspect of his speech was that he said: `This legislation is necessary. No one doubts that'. No one on this side of the House doubts that this legislation is necessary. I suggest that the honourable member should look to his own colleagues to see whether they are as committed to the deregistration of the Builders Labourers Federation as the Australian community expects. After all, I am led to understand-and I stand open to correction by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in his reply-that 31 members of the Labor Caucus at the Caucus meeting yesterday opposed this legislation. That is an extraordinary number of Government members who do not wish-and there is no other interpretation-the BLF to be deregistered. This is especially highlighted when one considers-again, we rely for this information on media reports as well as disgruntled members of the socialist Left-that 28 members of the Caucus opposed the lifting of the housing interest rate ceiling for new home borrowings. So 31 members opposed the deregistration of the BLF and only 28-three less-opposed what they considered to be discriminatory measures against new home buyers. The honourable member for Barton should not, in a pompous, smug and self-satisfied way, try to pretend-and that is all it is, a pretence-that the Government is united behind the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The second furphy that the honourable member tried to propagate was that the previous coalition Government did nothing about the BLF. As every member of this House would have been aware, or ought to be aware, the previous coalition Government commenced deregistration proceedings in 1981, led by the then Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. Ian Viner. Who stopped the deregistration proceedings that the previous Government started in 1981? Mr Blunt —Not this Government? Mr McGAURAN —Of course it was this Government. The first thing it did on achieving government in March 1983 was to stop that deregistration process. So all the work that had been undertaken, the process that had been advanced by March 1983, was completely wiped out. The success of the BLF in using legal tactics had delayed the proceedings and made it such a drawn-out process. But the honourable member for Barton or any other Government member who tries to pretend that the previous Government was not committed to dealing with the industrial thuggery and the corrupt practices of the BLF is telling a clear untruth. The third matter that the honourable member for Barton tried to convince us of was that although the present Government has taken a slightly longer route to deregistration proceedings, it is nonetheless the best route. A slightly longer route! If the present Government had continued the deregistration process that we had commenced, this matter would have been dealt with a long time ago and a great deal of suffering by a great many individuals would have been avoided. Any small business that has suffered in the time since March 1983 ought to consult the calendar and calculate that the deregistration of the BLF could have been completed long ago. Why did the Government cancel that previous deregistration process when, after all, the track record and practices of the BLF were beyond doubt, beyond any question? One has only to consult the judgments of Justices Joske, Smithers and Franki, as reported in the Federal Law Reports 1974 at page 356, which details the practices of the BLF. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that at that time the Master Builders Association of New South Wales had applied for the deregistration of the BLF. One can work through that judgment, long and considered though it may be, to find out that the BLF, as long ago as the early 1970s, was engaging in totally unacceptable, corrupt practices. I will read one paragraph from the judgment, which comprises many pages, to highlight that point. Justice Franki stated: There are many instances of attempts to intimidate employers and their staffs by violence and threats to both person and property, and frequently these were accompanied by efforts to force employers to give an undertaking not to call police in the event of trespass or violence. Indeed, it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that, particularly in New South Wales, the officers of the organisation endeavoured to create a fear of the dire financial or other consequences which could result from the failure to bow quickly to the BLF's will. Why this Government should have taken what the honourable member for Barton admitted to be a slightly longer route when we know it is a far, far longer route than had been necessary, given the nature of the BLF, escapes us, other than to say that the stranglehold of the trade union movement over this Government is beyond doubt. We have reached an important stage in the consideration of this legislation. I am very uneasy about a number of aspects of it. I believe that we cannot afford to be in any way complacent about achieving our objective, which is the deregistration of the BLF. The Victorian State Minister, the Hon. Steve Crabb, appeared in the media and said that there is no question that the BLF is finished. To my mind that is a complacent exercise which he may well rue. But one must consider that whenever the Hon. Steve Crabb speaks on this matter he has one eye on the leadership of the Labor Party. His appearance on the front page of the Sun newspaper last week, wearing a hard hat, with a gorilla in a stranglehold, I thought was an incitement and likely to add to the exhortations of the general secretary, Norm Gallagher, to the rank and file to hold firm. If the general secretary is able to hold the rank and file in a display of solidarity, it will be far more difficult for us to wipe out once and for all the influence of the BLF. We know that the BLF members are talking about either moving in a block to another building union and thereby controlling that union and having the BLF under another name or setting up common law contracts with builders to retain the BLF as an unincorporated association. They are the two arms of attack that the BLF is presently considering. It ill behoves either Federal or State Ministers to seek to make political capital out of the deregistration process simply to further their own personal ambitions. One has only to look at either the judgment handed down by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, headed by Mr Justice Ludeke, on 4 April or the statement of income and expenditure of the BLF to know that there is no doubt at all that it is a reprehensible body which has an utter contempt for the rule of law. One could draw on numerous examples in the decision of Mr Justice Ludeke to show that the BLF leadership has nothing but a contempt for the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the trade union movement, the elected representatives of the public and every person in the Australian community who adheres to and is bound by the laws of this country. In a judgment of some 66 pages the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission documented the behaviour and conduct of the BLF going back to the mid-1970s. It is a sorry saga of violence, corruption and the breaching of agreements which were supposedly binding at law. It is a weakness of our industrial relations system that the BLF has been able to get away with this for so long. It is a matter which the Opposition needs to take into account in the drafting of any industrial relations policy and, when in government, industrial relations law. One could also look at the statement of income and expenditure of the BLF to see that the leadership betrays its own members. The corruption is not just against the building industry but also is against the rank and file. If one looks at the expenditure one sees, interestingly, that the Australian Labor Party in 1983 received a donation of only $1,957. In 1984 it jumped up to $12,717. One can only speculate, but I certainly do not wish to make suggestions as to why that 600 per cent increase should have occurred. The expenditure item for general expenses, T-shirts, badges, staff amenities, bank fees and cleaning was almost $13,000. That is a lot of T-shirts, badges, cleaning and staff amenities. The classic item is shop stewards' commissions and expenses of almost $33,000 in 1984. Does that mean that shop stewards received a commission? On what basis? How is that explained away? Salaries of elected officials-this is the clincher-for 1984 were almost $360,000. If one goes through the statement, one sees that there are a number of questions about how the BLF leadership dispensed the contributions of the rank and file. The Government has advised the Opposition that the time will be limited on this debate. To allow our colleagues the opportunity to contribute, we have voluntarily cut back on the amount of speaking time. It is interesting to note that there are only two speakers on behalf of the Government. There are any number of speakers from the Opposition who wish to make a contribution, yet the Government still seeks to limit the time for debate. Mr Blunt —Where is the left wing? Mr McGAURAN —No members of the left wing are here; none of the 31 members who voted in the Caucus yesterday against proceeding with this legislation are here. The Government is clearly sensitive about this legislation. One could cut the air with a knife, such is the tension, not just because of the BLF deregistration but also because of other issues such as the strategic defence initiative, home loans and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) having slashed assistance for the rural sector. The Government is engaged in a cat and mouse game with its members. I say in conclusion that the Opposition stands ready to support the Federal Government or any State government which is genuinely committed to deregistration of the BLF; hence our support for this legislation. From our reading and summary of the legislation, given that we sighted it only late yesterday afternoon, we do not think that this legislation is guaranteed to achieve its objective. If the Government were more committed or had a better track record in this matter, we would be more assured. I say to the Government that we will be watching very closely the enactment of this legislation to ensure, on behalf of every law abiding Australian, that the BLF is once and for all put to rest. Mr BURR(Lyons)(11.23) —I would like to be charitable and think that the Government is fair dinkum in putting forward this legislation, but I cannot bring myself to accept that it is fair dinkum. My colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) has pointed out already the number of Australian Labor Party members who are in the House supporting this legislation. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is at the table and one back bencher is here, and only two speakers from the Government side are supporting this legislation. Where are the rest of the Labor Party members? Why are they not supporting this legislation from their Government? As the honourable member for Gippsland has pointed out, clearly there is serious division of opinion about this legislation within the ranks of the Australian Labor Party and it is for that reason that we on this side of the House are convinced that the Government is not fair dinkum in bringing forward this legislation. Let me show why the Government is not fair dinkum with this legislation. Why did this Government, when it took office in 1983, scrap the deregistration proceedings that had been brought forward, under the Fraser Government in 1981, by the then Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Viner? Why was it that the Government scrapped those proceedings? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) has pointed out already that quasi-assurances that had been given by Mr Gallagher and the Builders Labourers Federation were dispensed with immediately by this Government. One cannot trust the Builders Labourers Federation or Mr Gallagher. Why was it that the present Government accepted those commitments when it knew that they would be broken? Why was the Government not prepared to take its own decisive action in this matter? Why was it that it passed over the responsibility to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and asked it to make the decision? It was only after the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission had brought down an extensive judgment pointing out all the ills of the Builders Labourers Federation that the Government was forced to act. Why was the Government not prepared to act on its own merits? Even now the Government has not come to grips with all of the ills of the Builders Labourers Federation. No provision has been made to distribute the assets of the Builders Labourers Federation, as my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has pointed out. What is going to happen to the $4.5m of assets? Where is that going to go? What is in those bags that Mr Gallagher is now carrying around Melbourne? Does he have $1.5m buried at his shack at the beach? What has happened to all that money and what will happen to it in the future? No provision has been made for the distribution of those assets to the members of the BLF, where they should rightly go. What about the possibility, which seems to me a very clear possibility, of present members of the Builders Labourers Federation infiltrating other unions and simply perpetrating the same acts in the name of another union? No thought has been given to that, and no thought will be given to it by this Government. Clearly there is a very close working relationship between this Government and particularly between certain members of the Australian Labor Party in this place and the Builders Labourers Federation and other left wing unions. Clearly the message has gone out from the left wing unions that those left wing members of this place are to do all they can to protect the Builders Labourers Federation. No other reason could be given as to why 31 members of the Australian Labor Party voted against this legislation in their Caucus room. I believe that the Government can be proven not to be fair dinkum about this legislation because the only action that it is now being forced to take is to put through legislation to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation-no other action is being taken. We have to recognise that the real problem is not the Builders Labourers Federation or its existence but the lawlessness and thuggery practised in this country under a union banner. No action is being taken to prevent that lawlessness from being perpetrated in future or to prevent that thuggery from being perpetrated in the name of another union. I point to the huge headlines in the Sun newspaper of two days ago, Monday, 7 April: `Kill threats in BLF fight'. These are the tactics that the BLF now adopts and in the past has been prepared to adopt. The article states: Police are investigating death threats made to three union officials likely to be involved in dividing BLF membership. About 200 rank-and-file builders labourers have reported threats of violence in the past few months. Two hundred rank and file members have reported threats of violence to them and their families. To continue: One rival union official was told: `If you sign up any of our members you'll end up in a pine box'. This is the type of action that the Builders Labourers Federation is prepared to adopt and has always been prepared to adopt. Further, the article says: . . . police have been told officials flanked by three or four heavies have been walking onto sites and threatening members- that is, members of the BLF. What is to stop those same people simply signing up with another union and perpetrating those same acts in the name of another union-not necessarily the BLF? No action is being taken by this Government to prevent that from happening. The real problem is the lack of protection that this Government offers to individual members of unions against the heavy-handed thuggery and standover tactics of union officials-and do not let us limit that comment to the BLF. This Government is quite prepared to tolerate the closed shop syndrome. It protects it by legislation. It protects it with encouragement. That type of action, the giving of a right to a union and a union official to which they are not entitled or which society is not prepared to extend to them, perpetuates itself in the form of extreme actions being taken by this union and other unions. I believe that, were this Government fair dinkum, it would be seeking to protect the civil liberties of workers and those who are members of unions, but no action is being taken to protect the civil liberties of any person on a work site. This Government says that those people are to be treated in the way in which unions or union officials choose. Because of that, this Government has been prepared to tolerate the criminal activity that is perpetrated in the name of unions. What action has the Government taken to ask the Federal Police to investigate acts of criminal thuggery or any other breach of criminal law? I am not aware of the Federal Police being asked to investigate any activity of a criminal nature perpetrated in the name of a union, and I have asked the responsible Minister on previous occasions why he had not asked the Federal Police to investigate, but nothing has been done. One can assume only that, with the Federal Police not being asked to investigate acts of criminal thuggery, the Minister and the Government sanction that action. I can draw no other conclusions. We on this side of the House support this legislation, albeit we think that it is weak legislation, that it is intemperate, that it is all too late and that the action to deregister the BLF instigated by Mr Viner should never have ceased. We go along with this action to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation because clearly the union has no place in the industrial scene in Australia. We go along with that, but we on this side of the House believe that we must go further. We cannot simply deregister the Builders Labourers Federation and think that that will put an end to all the problems on the industrial scene. It will not. We on this side of the House want an end to all standover tactics, no matter who perpetrates the action and no matter in the name of which union. We do not want shop stewards or union officials demanding that people join a union or take any other action that an individual does not voluntarily wish to take. But the Government is not doing anything to protect the rights of individual workers to make up their own mind. We want to encourage greater harmony at the work place, but there is no way that we will have greater harmony at the work place while we allow these criminal acts and these standover tactics to be perpetrated in the name of unions, whether it be the BLF or any other union. We want criminal thuggery outlawed. Clearly the community should demand that criminal thuggery in the name of unions be outlawed, but no action is being taken by this Government to have the Federal Police investigate those acts or to have any person prosecuted if that person happens to be a union official even if acts of criminal violence are committed. No action at all is being taken. The most important factor is that we want the civil liberties of workers protected against these standover tactics perpetrated in the name of unions. We believe that every person should have the right to choose whether to join or not to join a union, that each individual should have the right to decide whether to go on strike or to take industrial action and that it is up to each individual to make a personal decision. Should they decide not to go along with what the union officials demand, their right to choose should be protected by law. Unfortunately this Government is now in power, but it is only by governments passing laws to give protection to those civil rights and then enforcing them, regardless of whom they might be enforced against, that we can expect to have a better climate in the industrial relations field. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(11.35) —It is a refreshing opportunity to get to speak on this very important Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill, which this Government has dallied with for some considerable time, and understandably, because it has had considerable difficulties in its Caucus as to what it should do. Some 31 members of the Government's Caucus do not agree with the legislation introduced into this chamber. Undoubtedly there is an urgent need for this Government to come to grips with industrial lawlessness in Australia. Time and again we have examples of trade unions throughout Australia regarding themselves as beyond the law, of trade union officials who know they are immune to common law procedures because of the use of thuggery and the intimidation of employers throughout Australia. As has been acknowledged by members on the Government side, the Builders Labourers Federation has been a prime example of industrial thuggery and lawlessness in Australia. This Government has not had the courage previously to come to grips with the union. This Government discontinued the action of the previous Fraser-Anthony coalition Government to deregister the BLF. This union, which is the epitome of lawlessness and thuggery in the industrial movement in Australia, could have been deregistered considerably earlier had this Government had the courage to go ahead with the deregistration procedures initiated by the previous Government. I believe that the people of Australia would have been served a lot more adequately had this Government been prepared to stand up to the factions that exist within it, had it been prepared to say that this union is beyond the pale, that its leadership and office bearers have no regard for common law, no regard for common decency, no regard for the interests of their workers, and that they should go. The Government should have been prepared to persist with the deregistration procedures initiated by the coalition Government when it was in power. Instead, what have we had? We have had a history of this union going to the brink and coming back and this Government allowing it to do that. This Government has not had the courage to address this problem. Only when finally backed into a corner has the Government taken the initiative and had the courage to introduce legislation that will effectively deregister the BLF. There are some major flaws in the legislation the Government introduced yesterday. One of the major flaws concerns what the Government will do with the assets of the BLF. Yesterday in this place my friend and colleague the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), raised the question of $1.5m worth of cash that officers of the BLF picked up from a bank in Melbourne. That cash was put into a brown paper bag, colloquially speaking-probably it was put into a couple of sugar-bags-and put into the back of a car which disappeared around the corner. Where is that $1.5m, which represents membership subscriptions contributed by members of the BLF? Quite frankly, the average member of the BLF wants to work as a builders labourer. He is not really concerned about the comings and goings of the office bearers of that union. He is interested in working, earning an income and supporting his family, making the best income he can using the skills he has as a builders labourer. Of course, that is not the attitude of the BLF. Really, the BLF is the hired mercenary and thug of the industrial movement. It is prepared to forgo the best interests of its members in order to advance its own particular interests. In the legislation brought in by the Government no provisions has been made to safeguard the assets of the members of the BLF. What is going to happen to that cash and the other assets that the members have contributed over the years? I am told that the BLF has some $4 1/2m in assets. What will happen to those assets? What provision is this Government making to provide for the return of those assets to the people who have contributed them? What will happen? Will the existing office bearers of the BLF take that money in cash, in sugar bags in the back of a car, and distribute it amongst themselves? What procedures will this Government adopt to account for the assets of that union? How are we to be assured that the office bearers of that union simply will not transfer their membership into another union, take it over and employ the same tactics they have employed within the BLF? Quite frankly, this legislation should have been introduced some time ago. Preferably, the Government should have persisted with the previous Government's measures to deregister the BLF. This Government has not addressed some of the fundamental problems that arise because of the tactics and attitudes of the officers of the BLF. Notwithstanding that, we on this side of the House are keen to see this union dealt with and we are prepared to support the legislation. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.40) —The Builders Labourers Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill comes to this place in the clothes of government concern for the gross misbehaviour of a trade union against its employers and the welfare of the industry, namely, the building industry. The history of this union attacking the welfare of its employers, its fellow workers and the industry has been well documented and has existed for a long time. The Fraser Government and other governments had taken action against this union time and time again. Let us get something straight about the difference between the efforts of those previous Liberal-National Party coalition governments and the present Government. The previous Labor Oppositions and the Australian Council of Trade Unions always opposed any actions taken by the coalition governments. We heard an honourable member this morning saying that the big difference between coalition governments and this Government is that this Government gets things done. Let me say that it is very much easier for the Government to legislate in the industrial relations arena when it has the support of the Opposition in parliament and, as has occurred, most unusually on this occasion, when it has the general support of the trade union movement through the ACTU. The support we are giving compares very well with the stated attitude of the Secretary of the ACTU, Mr Kelty, who has admitted that the $40 a week metal trades increase was not really sought for the welfare of his members and workers but as a strategy to bring down the Fraser Government. The great change we see today is the Opposition saying to the Government: `We agree. We have taken action previously to get rid of this rogue union'. Let us get something else straight about these new found responsibilities in industrial relations. The changed attitude of the ACTU and, in particular, the changed attitude of the Labor Council of New South Wales and consequently its servants here in the Hawke Labor Government, have resulted not from the BLF attacks on the welfare of the industry and of other workers in the industry but because the BLF got too aggressive at body snatching. It entered into frequent, almost daily, disputes over award coverage. It got too greedy. It wanted too big a slice of the cake. There is no better example of that than the dispute at our great Melbourne Cricket Ground over the attempt to put up lights in order to give people in that town the benefit of night cricket, night football and other night sporting events. It was that body snatching by the BLF which offended the ACTU. It was those attempts to push aside other unions and expand the role of the BLF that caused the New South Wales Labor Council to expel the BLF. It was not because of the BLF's scandalous treatment of employers, not because its national secretary was gaoled for accepting bribes, not because many workers were disadvantaged by this arrangement, but because other union leaders suddenly found their own little nest being attacked and naturally they called on the Government to do something about it. Let us not think that there is great honour and glory for the Government in what is happening here today. Having supported the legislation, I must say clearly that we still see it as tokenism. It is tokenism because the Federal law has little power in comparison with the power of the States in the area of registration of and awards for unions. As we understand it, Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania are not going to act legislatively to deregister the State branches of the BLF. In particular, that has been very clearly stated in my State of Western Australia. The Government there will go along with the union. Just how effective can this legislation be when the union has that sort of operative base? Apparently, having four States which will be legal bases of operation for the BLF and possibly only two States in which legislation will be effective in deregistering it at a State level, we will have a deregistered association still able to retain its funds and its assets. It will still be able to continue to construct its new headquarters in Melbourne. Great fanfare was made recently when the BLF bought a very expensive piece of real estate there, ready for its reinstatement in three years time. That is a relatively short time in the history of the union and certainly not long enough to allow other unions to pirate sufficient numbers of its members. We are all well aware that this union has never worried too much about the law; it has been prepared to rush to its protection where it saw an advantage in doing so, but basically it was prepared to operate outside the law by strongarm tactics and other means of stopping work. Why will that change under this arrangement? The BLF operated so well outside the law, to what extent has it ever needed the protection of the law? That is particularly so when one considers that the union will still have the protection of the law in four States. Admittedly, the two larger States propose to take action. However, this Government could have at least shown that it was fair dinkum by including in this legislation a sensible means of protecting the funds of the union members in the Australian Capital Territory, where it has constitutional power to install a receiver or receiver-manager or something of that nature to protect the funds of the unionists. Let us remember that this is the time of the year when union members are paying their dues, hence the movement of moneys recently. There are many employees, workers, members of the BLF who would choose not to pay that money if they had any choice, but it is now the price of the right to work in the building industry. That applies not only to wage earners, but to sub-contractors as well. Some of these people have just paid six months in advance and this legislation facilitates the right of those workers to join other unions. The only certainty of all that is that the new union will not let them join on credit from the BLF; it will expect that money to be paid again. Presumably these people, who are now members of a deregistered union, will not be able to use their BLF tickets to get work, so obviously they will have to pay again. Why should there not be a facility in this legislation, at least in the Australian Capital Territory, to enable those people to get their money back and use it to pay the new union? Why is there not some legislative move to force the BLF to transfer the money to the new union of the worker's choice? Why is there not some promise in the second reading speech that the Government will negotiate with those States that intend to legislate to deregister the BLF with a view to proposing some receivership arrangement to ensure that this rogue union cannot continue with its financial base and that the welfare of its members, who have contributed that financial base, will be protected? As I have said, this is not a law about protecting industry or workers. It is a law about protecting other union leaders who, too, have become terrified of the BLF and its methods of expanding its membership and its right to coverage on many work sites. Those are the reasons why this legislation will not work. Other members have pointed to the BLF's superannuation funds. Who will administer those in this period of vacuum? It is time that the Government, which is telling the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that it should direct wage increases in wage claims before it into superannuation, and particularly into union controlled superannuation funds, answered this point. If in the future some of these unions develop into rogue unions what steps will be taken over the superannuation contributions, remembering that we are now talking about the retirement security of people? Quite clearly it is also time that someone told us why contributors to union schemes will also have to be union members. Why should they have the burden of an extra 50 per cent of their superannuation contributions being paid out in wasteful fashion in union membership? That is a substantial cost and one that we can do without. In my role in protecting small business let me say that small business people tell me frequently how often successful sub-contractors in the building area have suddenly thought that they could take the step into big time construction. The list is miles long of those successful business people who took that step and who went broke when they entered that particular arena because of the activities of the BLF. In that regard we welcome any step that takes that rogue union out of circulation, but I personally have substantial doubts that what the Government is doing here today is more than tokenism. I believe that we will see an active BLF deregistered but still operative and very fit and willing to re-enter the fray in three years time as this legislation provides. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(11.52) —It is very interesting for the people of Australia to see this Government at last bringing the Builders Labourers Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill into this House to deal in some way with the BLF. It is also interesting to note that in the newspapers of this country it was pointed out this morning that 31 members of the Australian Labor Party Caucus refused to endorse even the limited action which is being taken now by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). It is amazing that some members of this House are prepared to support a lawless union, a union that has done more to undermine the building industry than any other union in the history of this country. In fact, the BLF has been a walking disaster for the trade union movement and it is useful to look at the activities of this union and see the results of unbridled union power being exercised absolutely ruthlessly for many years. Graffito in the Daily Telegraph some years ago claimed that there were only two good unions-the Mothers Union and Rugby Union. The Mothers Union is, of course, a well-known organisation for mothers in the Anglican Church. I would not go as far as Graffito but I must say that the way in which the BLF has operated in this country has pushed many people in the direction of believing that unions must be pulled up, that they have too much power and that they must recognise that they are not the elected administration of this country. It should be noted that when the former Fraser-Anthony Government was in office it instituted deregistration proceedings for the BLF. It is interesting that 5 March was the third anniversary of the election of the Hawke Government and the fifty-third anniversary of the accession to power of Hitler in Germany. When the Labor Government came to office it took steps to stop or delay the deregistration proceedings. Why did it want to protect the BLF? This is the question that the people of Australia are asking the Government. It was illuminating to see in this morning's newspapers that there were members of the ALP's left wing who wanted to give the BLF yet one more chance. How many chances does the BLF need? How many chances should it get? We in the National Party say absolutely that the BLF has had far too many chances to date and that this country, whose economy is going down the chute at an unprecedented rate, can no longer tolerate the BLF or any other union wishing to act in a lawless and unacceptable manner. The legislation before the House deregisters the BLF but very disturbingly it gives that union the right to reapply for registration, once more to become part of the industrial system, in just three years. Is this firm action by the Government? Of course not. The Government is simply giving the BLF a gentle slap on the wrist. This charade will be obvious to all Australians because people of all political persuasions have had enough of the BLF. People know what a terrible union it has been; they know that it has been undermining the Australian economy. When this Government came to office in 1983 it managed ultimately to stop the deregistration proceedings and it actually claimed that the BLF would thenceforth operate within the system. The Government was prepared to give the BLF another opportunity. So the Government must take complete blame for the disruption, the lawlessness and the absolute criminality of this union over the past three years. It is all right for the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to come in here and say that enough is enough, that the Government is now taking action. The Government is taking action but it is a case of being too little too late. What is going to happen when this union is deregistered? What is going to happen to its very substantial income, approximately $6m a year? What is going to happen to its assets, over $4m? There have been reports in the newspapers that the BLF withdrew $1.5m from the Commonwealth Bank in cash last Friday, the day that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission handed down its decision. What is going to happen to this money? We do not hear any firm and decisive answer from the Government. In fact, it is not serious about this legislation. We request an explanation about this matter. I am certain that the people of Australia will join us in demanding an explanation from the government on this matter. The Minister, in reply to a question yesterday from the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), mentioned that the Government does not have the constitutional power to take further action against the BLF. Many of the mainland State governments-unfortunately for the people in those States-are presently Labor governments. It is only the three shining lights of the Australian federal system, the Queensland and Tasmanian governments, National and Liberal respectively, and the Northern Territory Country-Liberal Government, which are showing the lead. I might add that, were the Minister serious about trying to remedy this lack of constitutional power, he would talk to his ALP cronies in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. I am quite certain that the Queensland Minister, Mr Lester, the Tasmanian Minister and the Northern Territory Minister would be prepared to come to the party to make sure that there was a co-operative effort by all governments in this country so that the destruction, thuggery and lawlessness of the BLF was brought to a close once and for all. Mr Norm Gallagher is not very concerned about this legislation. The Newcastle Herald yesterday, quoting Mr Gallagher, reported: `But Life goes on,' he said. The union would continue to function as a good, competent organisation. We certainly would not concede or admit that the BLF has in any way operated as a good, or competent organisation, and Mr Gallagher himself has said in the media that these Bills do not achieve what the Minister claims they are going to achieve. What a sham this legislation is! This Government has not grasped the nettle the way that it should. I draw the attention of the House to a speech I made in this place on 23 August last year. I referred to the legislation which the Labor Party brought before the Parliament at that time. I said: The Building Industry Bill 1985 did not provide for the deregistration of the BLF; it merely said that there was a possibility of deregistration given certain circumstances. Mr Rocher —I remember your saying that. Mr SLIPPER —That is correct. I appreciate the honourable member's support. Mr McGauran —You have been proven right. Mr SLIPPER —I have been proven right. When the Arbitration Commission brought down its determination on 4 April meaning in effect that the union ought not to continue in existence, did this Government operate in accordance with the 1985 Bill? No. It said: `We are not going to take any further notice of that. We are going to drag yet more legislation into the Parliament to seek to deregister the BLF'. So what was the Government doing last year? Why was it avoiding the issue? Why was it seeking to protect the BLF in that way? I am quite certain that all honourable members on this side of the House share my concern over the Government's inactivity over the BLF. It is all very well for it to trumpet and claim that it has in fact solved the problem of lawlessness which we have seen over the past 10 years. The Government, by failing to proceed with the deregistration proceedings instituted by the Fraser Government, has been responsible for three more years of lawlessness, and this union has been permitted to run riot throughout the country. We must give some limited credit to the Government for taking this action, albeit too little too late, but also we must condemn the Government for the way in which it is refusing to take on board the matters raised by Opposition members. The Government has given the BLF carte blanche since it was elected to office in 1983. It has permitted the union to run amok in its reckless way, destroying projects, bringing undone tremendous building proposals which would have benefited Australia considerably. Over the last 12 months we have seen matters concerning the BLF raised in the Arbitration Commission. No doubt extensive amounts of money would have been spent on those legal proceedings in the Arbitration Commission. What do we have to show for that very expensive process? The Minister came into this place and stated in effect that he was going to ignore the 1985 legislation and introduce yet more legislation. These are the Bills which we are discussing today. The Government ought to be under investigation also for the way in which it always treats trade unions in a beneficial way. The Opposition's Waste Watch Committee has, in fact, uncovered that this Government, which is now purporting to deregister the BLF, paid a muralist-in-residence for the Builders Labourers Federation, no doubt to assist it with its wall painting. Mr Hicks —It is graffiti. Mr SLIPPER —It is graffiti, as the honour- able member for Riverina-Darling points out. The people of Australia should enjoy the next BLF graffiti they see on the wall because they have helped pay for it. Would one believe that government money could be spent in such a worthless way? I also heard that the Government has given thousands of dollars to a union so that its members can take ceramic classes while they are on strike. What a joke! Mr McGauran —Who is paying for it? Mr SLIPPER —We are paying for it, and the people of Australia will call this Government to account at the next election because this is unacceptable. It is a tragedy, but it is happening, believe it or not. The BLF in Victoria received more than $52,000-more than $1,000 every week-for artists and murals. Ten thousand dollars of that was for the muralist-in-residence whom I mentioned before. That is why the BLF's widespread graffiti such as `Hands off the BLF' and `Free Norm Gallagher' has been more colourful in recent times. Why should we be funding and supporting this sort of graffiti which we find on building sites throughout the nation? We should compare the indecisive, reluctant actions of this Government with the firm determination of the Queensland Government to make sure that electricity was turned on, to make sure that the people of that State will not be dictated to by the jackboot tactics of extremist and militant trade unions. The Premier of Queensland, perhaps the greatest politician alive in Australia- Mr McGauran —There is no `perhaps' about it. Mr SLIPPER —There is no `perhaps' about it, and he will undoubtedly go down in history along with other world statesmen and stateswomen such as Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher. He pointed out the dangers of excessive union power when he stated: The industrial movement has become a dinosaur, it has grown too big and will now go into extinction. These Bills purport to put the BLF into a state of extinction. We know, and I suspect honourable members opposite also know, that this is not the case. It is simply a mild reprimand of the BLF. The BLF will be able to crawl back to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in just three years; that is, of course, unless honourable members opposite decide to support the amendment to be moved by the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, which will keep the BLF away for over 10 years, and we invite them to join us on that issue. The BLF will get back into the industrial system in just three years if the Government persists with its attitude. As far as we are concerned, that is simply not good enough. Where are the members of the left wing of the Australian Labor Party? Where are the 31 people who voted in Caucus against this legislation? There is not one of them in the chamber. Dr Klugman —I am here. Mr SLIPPER —The honourable member for Prospect may well be here, but he is not someone whom I normally consider as one who occupies Moscow corner. Interestingly, they are changing the name of Moscow corner to `the BLF-Norm Gallagher faction'. Are those members going to come into the House to vote for this ban, for this legislation? I suppose they will. They will be lined up and will come in here and vote against their principles. It is about time the Government took note of the feeling that is now abroad in the Australian community. There is an overwhelming case against the BLF. It has forfeited, in no uncertain way, its right to participate in the Australian industrial system. It has caused many moderate and reasonable unions to have their names blackened. It has been responsible for Australians of all political views thinking that the union movement is completely out of date and a total disaster. Many unions, including the electricity unions in Queensland, have overstepped the mark. I think that the actions against the BLF should be a warning to unions which in many cases are determined to undermine the economic system of this country. We in the National Party and our Liberal Party colleagues in opposition join together in supporting this legislation. We intend to move the amendment which I mentioned earlier, which would extend the period of the ban from three years to 10 years. We consider that the BLF has absolutely no right to operate in Australia. It must be done away with once and for all. Sadly, this legislation will not achieve that end. The Government can claim no credit for its belated actions. It has really done a political Nero. It has been fiddling while the industrial system of this country has burned. There are a number of unanswered questions. What is going to happen to the assets of the BLF? What is going to happen to the officials of the BLF? Are they going to infiltrate other unions? Are they going to do their mischief in other places? What is going to happen to members of the deregistered BLF? Are they going to join some other already existing union? Are they going to take over that union, subvert it, then continue their industrial disruption, the industrial lawlessness, under another name? The Government says that the union will not be permitted to reregister under another name, but what if its members join or take over another union? That is a matter which has not yet been addressed by the Minister. The Government has completely ignored its responsibilities to the people of Australia once again. It is guilty of bringing in legislation which is simply too little too late. We in the National Party and the Liberal Party fully recognise the absolute disaster the BLF has been for industrial relations. While we do not oppose this legislation, we would like to see it stronger. We want more teeth in the Bills, but we do support their broad thrust. I reiterate that the legislation will not achieve what the Minister claims it is supposed to achieve. Undoubtedly the people of Australia will condemn this Government for failing to take the strong, firm line that is needed. It is about time that the Government took notice of the demands of the people of Australia. If it does not it will be beaten, as it undoubtedly will be beaten, at the next election. Mr MacArthur-Mr Deputy Speaker- Motion (by Mr Cunningham) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J. Beddall, D, P. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Chynoweth. R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) 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. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. 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. 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. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. 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) Fitzgibbon, E. J. Jull, D. F. Milton, P. Hodges, J. C. Bilney, G. N. Cowan, D. B. Keating, P. J. Cameron, Ian Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 8 April, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 4-by leave-taken together. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(12.21) —I wish to raise two matters in respect of clauses 1 to 4. I then intend to move an amendment to clause 5. The first of the two matters relates to the present office bearers of the Builders Labourers Federation. Can the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) tell the Committee what will be the position with respect to the present office bearers, the present hierarchy, of the Builders Labourers Federation? It would appear from my reading of the Bill that it is silent with respect to those office bearers. Of course, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has been particularly strong in its denunciation of the Federal office bearers of the Builders Labourers Federation. Let me remind the Committee of the strength with which the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission expressed itself in the recent case involving the Builders Labourers Federation when it spoke about Mr Gallagher and his cohorts who had been running the BLF in recent years. The Commission referred at page 65 of its decision to all those curious slogans under which the BLF has been trading, slogans such as `Dare to struggle, dare to win', `Most harm to the boss, least harm to the members' and `An injury to one is an injury to all'. The Arbitration Commission in its judgment went on to say: It is under such archaic banners that the Federal Management Committee has waged its campaigns, leading the rank and file from one disaster to the next. The efforts of the leaders have caused hardship to other workers and aroused the hostility of the other building unions. Builders labourers have been deprived of National Wage Case increases until long after other Australian workers have received the benefit . . . It is in the Arbitration Commission's judgment a particularly withering denunciation of the Federal Management Committee. Not only is it a withering denunciation of the Committee but also, I think, everyone must agree now that Mr Gallagher and the other office bearers of the organisation who have led the Builders Labourers Federation to this position really are deserving of the strongest censure. We ask the question: What is to happen to them? Are they simply to remain as office bearers? Are we, by means of this legislation, going to get rid of Dr Jekyll only to see Mr Hyde pop up in some new form in some new organisation, be it an unregistered association or, indeed, a registered association under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, able to continue the same campaign of industrial lawlessness he engaged in while the Builders Labourers Federation was registered? We are saying that it is not enough simply to deregister the BLF if the office bearers are to be able to continue their regular campaign of intimidation, thuggery and industrial lawlessness, to operate their new organisation, whatever it may be, and behave in the way described in those memorable words of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), namely, acting with complete disdain of the law. On our reading of the Bill it would seem that the office bearers are to go scot-free. There are to be no penalties, obligations or restrictions imposed on them and no reprimands given to them. As I said, we will lose Mr Gallagher as Dr Jekyll but we may well get him back as Mr Hyde. What is to be done about this? If the Government is serious about destroying the Builders Labourers Federation, it must destroy the force, the effect and the activities of the present hierarchy-the present office bearers-who have dragged the Builders Labourers Federation and the building industry into their present parlous state. On my reading of the Bill, it would seem that nothing is being done at all with respect to the office bearers of the Builders Labourers Federation nor indeed does it seem that there is anything which answers this question in the relevant Act. If I am wrong about that I would be grateful if it were pointed out. I raised a second disturbing matter with respect to the Builders Labourers Federation in the second reading debate. It was unfortunate that the Minister was not able to address himself to that matter, but no doubt he will take the opportunity to do so in the Committee stage. It will be very interesting to hear his reply. My point related to the assets of the Builders Labourers Federation. Clause 4 of the Bill incorporates into the builders labourers framework section 143 (6) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Section 143 (6) says in substance that the property-the assets of the deregistered organisation-remains the property of the deregistered association. The Act states that they shall be: . . . the property of the association and shall be held and applied for the purposes of the association in accordance with the constitution and rules of the organisation insofar as they can be carried out or observed notwithstanding the deregistration of the organisation. First of all, there is a question about the entire assets of this organisation. We want to know what will happen to those assets. Will Mr Gallagher and his friends continue to have their hands on these millions of dollars, because that is what is at stake? Will they be able to use that money to carry out in some new form a campaign of industrial terrorism and lawlessness or will some serious and sustained attempt be made by the Government to have the assets distributed among the members of the organisation or otherwise disposed of according to law? We believe that this should be supervised and that a receiver should probably be appointed. Some mechanism should be set up to collect the organisation's debts and liquidate its assets and then distribute the funds to the members, because they are the property of the members. Yesterday in Question Time, I raised a question with respect to a sum of $1.5m. This is a very serious situation because, on the information that I have been given, on 4 April, $1.5m was in fact delivered to a bank. Shortly thereafter Mr Gallagher and some of his offsiders arrived at the bank and took that money away in bags. There must be some explanation as to how these officials of the Builders Labourers Federation can wander around the city with $1.5m in a series of bags, loaded down with their loot, and take it who knows where subject, apparently, to no Federal Government supervision and, apparently, without any concern or care by the Federal Government as to where that money was going, who was getting their hands on it and whether it was to be sent overseas. We think that some answer must be given to this question. It is not enough for the Minister to say, as he did yesterday, that the Federal Government has a limited constitutional power. Three points can be made in answer to that statement. The first is that the Commonwealth does have power in the Australian Capital Territory. It must do something because the Builders Labourers Federation is big, strong, powerful and wealthy in the Australian Capital Territory. The Government has power in the Territory and it must act. It must propose some new laws to dispose of the assets of the BLF to ensure that they are disposed of lawfully, properly and legitimately and to ensure that the Federation's members are not deprived of their entitlements. Secondly, there are State Labor governments and the Federal Government should get into some arrangement with them. If they have the constitutional power they should act and the Federal Government should ask them to act to ensure that the assets of this association are dealt with properly and according to law. It is not enough to stand back and say: `Well, maybe $1.5m is being carried around Melbourne and there may be other assets being disposed of improperly but we are not going to do anything about it because we do not have constitutional power'. The Government has the Australian Council of Trade Unions and it has the Labor State governments, and it can act with them. Thirdly, the Federal Government also has power with respect to the sending of money out of the country. It has responsibility for and authority over that matter. Even if the Minister cannot do something about it, at least he can give us some encouragement to show that this matter is being taken on board by the Government, that it is concerned about it and that it is prepared to act upon it. It should use the full force of its constitutional power to ensure that there are safeguards and to ensure that the assets and property of the Federation are properly taken care of. If that is not done Dr Jekyll will re-emerge not only as Mr Hyde but also as a very wealthy Mr Hyde who will have enough money to carry on the campaign of industrial lawlessness-a campaign which is really directed solely towards the destruction of the building industry. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(12.31) —I wish to make a short contribution which, it is quite possible, does not directly relate to clauses 1 to 4, although I think it is fairly closely related. A number of speakers on the Opposition side raised the point that a certain number of people opposed the legislation in Caucus. Earlier, by interjection, I indicated that I was one of the people who opposed the legislation. I have jotted down a couple of sentences which I think are worth thinking about in the Parliament before we pass legislation. They apply not only to this piece of legislation but also to previous legislation passed, I think, last August by this Parliament; namely, the Building Industry Act. My view is that offences proclaimed by parliament should be offences no matter who commits them. The definition should not apply only to certain classes of person. If something is wrong, it is wrong no matter who commits the offence. Cases should be distinguished on the basis of behaviour, not on the basis of a person's membership of an organisation, race, religion, marital status, et cetera. We have established anti-discrimination boards, human rights commissions, et cetera. It is my view that anti-discrimination legislation becomes most important when dealing with unpopular classes of persons. In this case we are dealing quite justifiably with an unpopular group of people-the BLF. It is all the more important to ensure that we do not pick out people on the basis of their belonging to a certain organisation but that we pick them out on the basis of what they do. I think it is wrong for Parliament to pass this legislation. Obviously, the vast majority of the Caucus disagreed with me. I accept that, and I will be voting for the legislation, but I do think this question ought to be raised and at least considered by the Parliament. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(12.33) —I welcome the opportunity to say a few brief words because I want to record my support for these Bills and also put on record a few questions and ask why the Government is not taking the matter further. I listened with interest to what the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) said. In principle, I agree with him and I admire the way he said it. However, I think the rules he is talking about apply in general to people who can be considered to be within the norm. Mr N.A. Brown —Norm who? Mr WHITE —Norm Gallagher, amongst other people. This is an abnormal situation, proven over many years, because the Builders Labourers Federation has demonstrated that the normal rules do not apply. That is why I give my full support to these Bills. I would be the last person in the Parliament to claim any real expertise in dealing with the BLF because my background has never brought me into contact with it, but I speak for very many Australians-millions of Australians-who, over the years, have stood by and watched with amazement this union bring the whole of the industrial relations movement in Australia and the unions into disrepute. I find it extraordinary that it has taken until 1986 to introduce the proceedings that we are debating today. I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), when he is replying, to give some reasonable explanation to those millions of Australians who want to know why, when proceedings were underway in 1983, the Government pulled back and once again accepted the word of the union leaders who had proven time and again that their word was worth nothing. I also raise the question which has been raised by other unions: Why did the Government not proceed in 1985? Why is it only talking about deregistration for three years? I would have thought that, in the normal course of events, three years is certainly not long enough because it will lie low- Mr Willis —That relates to clause 5 of the Bill, not clauses 1 to 4 which we are now debating. Mr WHITE —Why will the Government not at this stage take action in regard to the assets of the union? What is to happen to the funds which are already held under the building unions superannuation scheme? Why will it not encourage the States to follow the line that it has taken and put this rogue union out of business once and for all? Finally, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), has already asked, what is to happen to the officials of the BLF? Will they reappear tomorrow in another guise? It is a union which over the years has shown no regard for courts, the country, the industry which has provided it with its bread and butter, individuals, its own members, or any civilised convention. I finish on this note: I very much hope that the rank and file, the majority of those unionists in the BLF who wish to pursue a normal civilised life, working for a living, taking pride in their achievements, will take the opportunity presented by these Bills to get out of the BLF, to join another union, to make a new start and prove to all other decent Australians who are waiting for that to happen that the leadership of the BLF has been the party at fault over all these years. Let us see the rank and file take the opportunity to get out and lead a normal, decent life, contributing to the prosperity of this country. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(12.37) —I briefly associate myself with the remarks made by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and wholeheartedly endorse his comments. I would have hoped that more members of the Parliament, particularly those among us with legal training and with respect for the rule of law, would have been prepared to embrace and endorse the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Prospect. I only hope that the action being taken is not something that the Parliament as a whole and the Australian Labor Party in particular will come to regret at some future time. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(12.38) —I add a few remarks in regard to the passage of the Bill. I note the speed with which the legislation has been introduced. In 1983, the Hawke Government, of course, backed away from de- registration proceedings. But on this occasion it has brought forward the legislation with untimely speed, in my view. The matter was brought forward at 10 o'clock this morning and may be completed by lunch time. We support the legislation, but again I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that because of the non-presence of Government members in the chamber and the fact that 31 members reportedly voted against the Bill in Caucus, there is a lack of unanimous support for a very important piece of legislation. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) stated that it is easy to pass the legislation when both sides of the House support it. To the contrary, when the Fraser Government was in office the Australian Labor Party was against such procedures. The Builders Labourers Federation, in Victoria, as we all know, has had a long history of using standover tactics in the building industry. Right now it is using a vigilante arrangement whereby pickets move from site to site and the smaller building operators are picked off. The building industry in general is terrorised by the activities of this unsavoury union. I would like to make sure that the Government's attitude on the matter of superannuation is clear. In the building industry there is a trilogy of an unusual kind, that is, that one must have a ticket, a job and superannuation in order to work on any building site. I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) what is his view and what the Government will do in regard to the superannuation issue, particularly in relation to the BLF. The BLF has been the leader in this arena. It has coerced its members in regard to the 3 per cent productivity claim. It is very proud of its position in this area, even though it has not been agreed to by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The other matter that has been referred to by honourable members is the three-year non-registration period. I support the amendment that there should be a 10-year non-registration period so that BLF members will not live in hope that their union will rise again as a new force. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! The Committee is dealing with clauses 1 to 4 at the moment. The matter that the honourable member has touched on is dealt with in clause 5. Mr McARTHUR —The other matter to which I draw the Committee's attention-the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) made considerable mention of it-is the assets held by the union and what the Government intends to do with them. I suggest that they be held in trust, even by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. They either should be distributed to the union members or should be used to provide safety measures on building sites, so that they can be put to good use. I am fearful that the assets now held by this union will be put to unlawful and unwise use in the future. Likewise, I would like to know what is the Government's intention in regard to the income that the members now receive. Also, I draw to the Minister's attention the writs involving the Master Builders Association in New South Wales and Victoria at the moment. Will the passage of this Bill mean that the writs have no standing in a legal sense? The Master Builders Association in those two States is now conducting a campaign which will cost $300,000, unless this Bill removes the legal standing for the claim. Also, under section 5 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act the BLF is involved in an action against five companies in Victoria arising from deregistration proceedings. The cost of this action is in the range of half a million dollars. I seek an assurance from the Minister that because of the passage of this Bill the BLF will not be able to pursue this action against the five companies which stood out against the actions of the BLF. I support the Bill, but I wonder whether it will be effective against this rogue union that has held the building industry of Australia to ransom for the last decade. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.43) —A very careful perusal of the clauses before the Committee reveals beyond any doubt that the Hawke socialist Government is not-I repeat, not- fair dinkum about deregistering the Builders Labourers Federation. The legislation is ineffective. It does not go far enough. It is in all probability unconstitutional. I believe the Bills-and the guts of the Bills are contained in the four clauses that we are looking at now-are tame-cat, incomplete, insipid, gutless and wide open to successful constitutional challenge. Curiously, I find myself in some sympathy with the remarks of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner). I place these points on the record: Is this not legislation which usurps judicial function-function which should be carried out either by the court or by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Is it not sectional, arbitrary, discriminatory and impossible, if not in absolute breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the provisions of freedom of association and the Government's much vaunted claim that it supports the Human Rights Commission? In regard to freedom of association, I ask: Is there freedom of association when a deregistered organisation is permitted to act as an incorporated body-I will deal with that in a moment-under threat of a government which says, without legislative backing, `We will take certain action against those who dare to become involved with you'? I believe the Government could not have done a worse job if it had asked Norm Gallagher to draw up the legislation. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), a Rhodes Scholar with LL.B after his name, is not fully aware of the fact that this legislation is as weak as water and full of holes which one could drive a truck through. I further believe that history will almost certainly vindicate the 31 Labor members of parliament who voted against the legislation in Caucus yesterday. Like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), in his brilliant speech during the second reading stage of the Bill, I am convinced that the BLF has not been killed. I am certain that the Prime Minister knows this. At best it has been anaesthetised for a paltry three years. Although deregistered, it can still operate wildcat-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 101a I shall report progress. Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I advise the House of the following ministerial arrangements: The Treasurer (Mr Keating) will be absent from Australia on Government business from today until 22 April 1986. He will be attending important International Monetary Fund and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development meetings in the United States and Europe. In his absence the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) will very competently fill the position of Acting Treasurer. As a matter of courtesy, I advise the House also that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) will not be at Question Time today as he is attending the funeral of Sir Lawrence Hartnett in Melbourne. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to his guarantee of 2 April that housing starts in 1986-87 would be 135,000 and to the statement yesterday of the Minister for Housing and Construction that the achievement of this figure is based on there being a sustained fall in interest rates over the next 18 months. Does this mean that the Prime Minister is promising yet again that there will be a sustained fall in interest rates, just as he did at the time of the last election? If so, what is the `use by' date for his latest promise? In other words, how long will this promise last before it is broken? Mr HAWKE —It is a matter of some interest to me that in an issue as important as this-the future course of interest rates-I am able to call upon a wide range of supporting material. Mr Howard —Ooh! Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition, who these days is reduced to saying `ha, ha' or `ooh', has just said `ooh' again. He may say `ooh' a bit more loudly when I call upon his written authority in this matter. A document from the Leader of the Opposition has come to my attention- Government members-Another one? Mr HAWKE —Yes, another one. It is fascinating material-a document dated 14 March 1986, addressed to all coalition senators and members. It gives an outline of the Opposition's position in this matter and its thinking on these issues. Before I come to the main matter about interest rates, I point out the quality of the Opposition's strategic approach in these matters. The document states: Key questions the Opposition should be now asking are: What will the Government do if world oil prices recover? Secondly, what will the Government do if world oil prices continue to fall? The Opposition covers its options. On the question of interest rates, the Leader of the Opposition says: The outlook for interest rates is therefore for further falls. There we have the Leader of the Opposition on this question. Members of the Opposition are expecting interest rates to fall in the future. If that is their expectation, I am not here to argue with them. Mr O'NEIL —I ask the very able Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services: As there have been reports in local government circles about the possibility of Commonwealth general purpose revenue assistance to local government being reduced in 1986-87, can the Minister comment on the accuracy of those reports and advise what progress has been made in the Government's consideration of this matter? Mr UREN —I am delighted to say that there is no truth in the reports. The Cabinet considered the question of future general purpose financial assistance to local government on Monday. This consideration was based on the submission I put forward following receipt of the report of the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance chaired by Professor Self. I am pleased to say that the Government has accepted the broad thrust of the report. Firstly, the Government has decided to continue the Commonwealth contribution of untied grants to local government. Secondly, local government will receive no worse treatment than the States in the next two years, which is a recommendation of the Self report. Thirdly, local government will receive this year no less than it received last year in real terms. Fourthly, local government will receive no worse treatment following the arrangements with the States in subsequent years. The State Grants Commissions will continue to recommend allocation of funds in respect of their States. There will be certain changes, but those will be made on a gradual basis. I might say that these arrangements have been agreed to by the States and the Australian Council of Local Government Associations. Mr Sinclair —This should be a statement to the House. Mr UREN —I will be making a full statement to the House on Thursday, but I must say with some pride that this Government is committed to local government. Local government is the government nearest to the people and this Hawke Government has a commitment to people who have needs; so much so that our contribution to local government tied and untied grants is over $1,000m this year-an increase of 50 per cent on the last year of the Fraser Government. I believe that when the Bill is moved in this House in the next ten sitting days, all Government members will be proud of the contribution of this Government to local government. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the house that we have present in the Gallery this afternoon a delegation from the Irish Parliament, led by the Speaker of the Dail Eireann, Mr Tom Fitzpatrick. This is the first visit by an Irish parliamentary delegation to Australia. On behalf of the House I extend to the delegation a warm welcome to this chamber and to Australia. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HUNT —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry, I refer to Senator Walsh's well-publicised statement on 19 March, when he said: . . . for those farmers who actually want to remain farmers their best interests are served if land prices are lower rather than higher. In view of that statement, does the Minister accept that lower land prices have undermined the equity against which record farm borrowings have been made by thousands of Australian farmers? Are the Government's policies aimed deliberately at lowering rural land values? Does the Minister still support the Treasurer's proposed capital gains tax and the quarantining of farm losses for farmers, which have also contributed to lessening of demand for farms and declining land values? Is the Minister aware also that in some parts of Australia land values are reported to have fallen by up to 40 per cent? Mr KERIN —My name be Kerin from County Armagh. Mr McGauran —Speak up. We can't hear you. Mr KERIN —I am sorry; I said that my name is Kerin and my forebears came from County Armagh. The question from the Deputy Leader of the National Party reflects on statements by Senator Walsh. Senator Walsh generally makes statements with a fair amount of economic sense. What the honourable member is reflecting on is a question that has bothered the rural sector for a long time, that is, that one cannot get effective change in the farm sector while ever land values are a lot higher than one can make from the purchase of additional land. There have been various land booms which have been followed by various slumps in land prices. That has always bedevilled the farm sector. We get most of the adjustment when the farm sector returns to normal health and when the land values go down. When land values are high and the prices received by the farmers are low the farmers have a debt problem which becomes fixed on the properties. It has always been a case of booms and busts. Whichever way one goes there is a very real problem. What the honourable gentleman points to is something that is very familiar to us. It was in 1979-80 that we had the last decent price for most of our commodities. We had inflation then partly due to the oil shock and certainly due to the fuel policies of the previous Government. We had rising land values, rising inflation and decent commodity prices. Some farmers raced in, expanded, and bought additional land because those high commodity prices gave the struggling farmers a chance to get out of farming. Now we find that as the prices drop there is disinflation; land values will drop, regardless of what any government does, because of the overseas prices. Compounding the problem was the fact that we had a four-year drought in some parts of Australia. Certainly there was a drought in nearly all of Australia in 1982-83. That year showed the lowest return to the farm sector since 1950-51 when figures were first recorded, so we have the compounding of a process that was purely market driven, we had the massive drought, and we now have debt ridden farmers. Some of those farmers who took on high debts at that time, of course, are the ones who are in by far the most trouble at present. There is no deliberate policy by this Government to bring down land values. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics was predicting the value for sheep properties-that is the wheat-sheep sector-generally would fall this year because they had simply been too high for too long, against the trend. Sure, I am aware that land values are dropping in some parts of Australia, depending on the commodity, on the region, and on the urban pressure. In other areas land prices are still holding very well. In terms of the capital gains tax and the question of quarantining, I simply say that the capital gains tax is in the farmers' long term interest. Whileever people could plough money into land and force up the price of land, indulging in tax sheltering activities-this applies to quarantining-it could be argued that it was not in the interests of the farmers themselves, particularly those close to the urban areas and the provincial cities. This is a very complex issue. I do not know what more I can say. Basically, Senator Walsh was talking a lot of economic sense, but he was reflecting on a problem that has always bedevilled the farm sector. Mr BEDDALL —My question also is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. I ask: Has the Minister received representations from and had discussions with the rural sector representatives on the policy measures to be included in his 15 April statement on rural and economic policy? Is the Minister aware of any further claims? Can he assure the House that the various claims will be addressed in his statement? Mr KERIN —I have received representations and held discussions on the nature of the economic and rural policy statement which I will deliver on behalf of the Government next Tuesday. Mr Tim Fischer —What time? Mr KERIN —It will be about 3 o'clock. I meet with between 20 and 40 different rural organisations and individuals each month. If any- thing, the number has been greater over the past few months. For instance, I have had discussions with the Canowindra Seven, the New South Wales Livestock and Grain Producers Association, the Australian Agricultural Council and, more recently, meetings with a more rational body, State Australian Labor Party agriculture Ministers and spokesmen for agriculture. Additionally, I have consulted with and received representations from my own primary industry and rural and provincial affairs Caucus committee and the Prime Minister's rural task force. The National Farmers Federation, through its President, initially indicated that it saw no purpose in talking, as its position on the issues was well known. However, I did have discussions with Mr McLachlan, Mr Tooth and Mr Shannon of the NFF on Tuesday, 1 April. I am aware of other claims. For instance, in January and February this year Press reports included the following claims in respect of rural and economic policy. There was the January Livestock and Grain Producers Association six-point plan; the January Canowindra Rural Action Group six-point plan; the 2 February Howard immediate aid three-point package; the 5 February LGPA emergency executive 10-point plan; the 7 February Canowindra additional six-point demand package; the 11 February National Party seven-point plan; the 13 February National Farmers Federation five specific demands; the 14 February National Party 14-point plan-it has another seven; the 16 February Howard five-point plan-he has picked up another two; and the 28 February National Party 18-point plan. If we give the National Party another fortnight it will be up to 22 points. I have been through the points to the extent that I could be very pointed about the ability of some farm leaders and the Opposition parties to pinpoint sensible economic and rural policies. Besides the obvious inability of the Opposition to decide on how many points it has in its plans, there are some substantial inconsistencies in respect of some of the claims. Some argue for the abolition of tariffs and anti-dumping duties for manufacturing industries. However, they also want protection against imports for rural produce. Some argue for a reduction in the deficit, but also call for substantial cash aid for farmers. For instance, Mr Tooth has called for a reduction in the deficit but the organisation of which he is President, the LGPA of New South Wales, endorsed in February a call for an extra $3.6 billion to be granted in cash aid for farmers. As is quite obvious, the Government recognises that many primary producers are experiencing severe difficulties. We recognise that the agricultural sector is important to the national economy. The Government recognises that there are groups other than farmers in both urban and rural communities who also face severe economic and social difficulties. Consequently, the Government remains committed, governing in the interests of all Australians, to continuing economic strategies which have and will continue to achieve its economic and social objectives. It also remains committed to implementing balanced policy measures which will provide long term benefits for the rural sector. Mr McGAURAN — My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister will be aware of the formation in December last year of the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation, known as SAARC. I ask: Has the Minister personally instructed that a message of congratulations be forwarded to SAARC? If not, why has the Minister ignored the importance of the sub-region to Australia, particularly in relation to the need for co-operation between India and Pakistan over non-proliferation issues? If he has sent a message, what concrete proposals does the Minister have for improving trade, cultural and defence contacts with that region? Mr HAYDEN —I am grateful to the honourable member for Gippsland for asking me this question because, if for no other reason, it allows me to declare, like the Minister for Primary Industry, that I have Irish forebears. In my case the records apparently disclose that my forebears were encouraged to leave their country for their country's good. I understand that they were amongst the earliest beneficiaries of the assisted migration program to this country. With your indulgence, Madam Chair, I will be anecdotal, but very brief. I recall my first visit to Great Britain in 1970. I was a member of this Parliament, but I was on a private visit. The Central Office of Information was kind enough to look after the arrangements in England. The people making the arrangements met me in a little conference room and one of the three ladies who were greeting me said: `Mr Hayden, I presume that you would like to make a telephone call to some of your relations in the old country.' I replied: `No, not really. I do not have any relations in this part of the world.' She said: `An Australian without any relations in Great Britain?' I said: `Well, the facts are that my relations went to Australia at government expense and I am the first one to be able to get back here.' At that point the conversation sagged rather badly. In reply to the honourable member's question, I am not too sure whether I sent a message of congratulations, but if I did not I would accept a rebuke. I will see whether such a message did go. Our concern about our relationship with the countries of the Indian sub-continent is quite evident from the fact that last year I made an official visit to the several countries of that region, which is near to us and of concern and interest to us. It was an important visit. We have some aid involvement in the region but it is not large. The problem is that the populations of those countries generally are so huge that the sort of contribution Australia could make in terms relative to need is quite minuscule. That is not a justification for not making an effort and as our opportunity to improve our contributions in the aid field develops-and that is determined very much by economic circumstances and the decisions that mandatorily arise from that-we will so improve them. We are looking forward to a visit from the Prime Minister of India. Our Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, had extensive discussions with the Indian Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in the Caribbean last year and it is quite evident that the relationship between the two men was very positive. That is evidenced by the keenness of the Indian Prime Minister to visit Australia at an early opportunity. The date has yet to be determined, but we trust that it is not too far distant. In relation to trade, this is a much more appropriate matter for my colleague the Minister for Trade, but I should point out that the opportunities for trade development are matters for both the private and public sectors and they are influenced very much by complementary trading openings developing. Those are matters which the newly conceived Austrade will be purposefully pursuing. Austrade, which is now in place, is a concept of the Minister for Trade. On the matter of defence exchanges the best I can say there, apart from pointing out that if the honourable member wants a definitive answer he should speak to the Minister for Defence, is that from my recollection of my visit there last year, Australian military officers go to the military college in India on exchange. The relationship, although not extensive and not terribly well developed compared with that with countries in our immediate region-and there are clear reasons for that-is, nonetheless, one of notable resilience and there is the opportunity to develop it as that opportunity presents itself. Mr WRIGHT —Can the Minister for Trade confirm that Australia has concluded a major export sale of sugar to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? What are the implications of this for the depressed Australian sugar industry? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge his very keen interest in the fortunes of the sugar industry. I can confirm that recently a sale to the USSR of 150,000 tonnes of sugar worth around $30m has been concluded. This comes hard on the heels of a contract signed between the USSR and the Australian Wheat Board for some $500m worth of wheat. Given the circumstances of Australian agriculture generally, both these contracts are of enormous importance. It was my pleasant duty late last year to lead a delegation to the Mixed Commission in the USSR and among the delegates who accompanied me were those representing CSR Ltd and the Australian Wheat Board. It was my pleasure to represent their interests to the Soviet authorities. I am glad to say that the discussions carried on at that time, including those representations that I made, have borne such important fruit. I might also point out that this comes as a result of the patient and constructive rebuilding of the trade relationship between Australia and the USSR. This Government has been careful to distinguish between trade and political interests with the USSR, but we have also been careful to rebuild after the damage that was done to that very important trading relationship by our predecessors. In order to solidify that trading relationship, I had handed to the Soviet Minister for Foreign Trade just a few days ago a draft umbrella agreement to do with the trade in commodities between our two countries. As the Mixed Commission is meeting here in Canberra today and tomorrow and I will meet the Deputy Minister for Foreign Trade on Friday, I hope that we will be able to advance the negotiations on that commodities agreement. It is important that we get trade with the USSR back on to a stable footing in the interests of securing a better deal for Australian agricultural producers. On the question of sugar, I should point out that this sale allows us to have some cautious optimism about the circumstances of the international sugar industry. We have seen the price of sugar rise from an historic low of about 3 cents per pound last year to some 9 cents now. That is a dramatic improvement. Mr Sinclair —Why don't you make a statement? You are wasting Question Time. Mr DAWKINS —Perhaps members of the National Party are disinterested in the fortunes of the sugar industry, just as they have been disinterested in the whole of Australian agriculture. That is why the protests going on now are as much protests against the ineptitude of the National Party as they are about the fortunes of agriculture itself. This Government has done more to rescue the fortunes of agriculture and extend the opportunities for agriculture internationally than has ever been done in recent times. These hopefully improved circumstances in the sugar industry give added weight to the very constructive efforts that my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry has pursued in relation to the reconstruction of that industry in Queensland. It is a very great pity that the National Party, both here and in Queensland, cannot take a more constructive approach to the fortunes of that important industry. Mr TUCKEY —My question is also addressed to the Minister for Trade. I refer him to Standing Order 196, section 14 of the Form of Return for Members' Interests and section 11 of the Statement of Ministers' Pecuniary Interests, tabled in the Parliament by the Prime Minister on 22 of September 1983 and yet to be publicly updated. In the light of recent events, has the Minister provided- Mr Maher —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: This question is obviously a matter not related to the Minister's portfolio and I ask you to rule it out of order. Madam SPEAKER —We will await the question. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member has not heard my question yet; I am about to ask it. In the light of recent events, has the Minister provided the Prime Minister with the information that his mother and benefactor, Mrs Muriel Dawkins, has a registered holding of 30,000 Bell Group Ltd shares? Did the Minister make the Prime Minister aware of this pecuniary association when he was appointed by the Prime Minister to the group of Ministers who interviewed Bell's Mr Robert Holmes a Court and representatives of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and subsequently recommended to the Government and Caucus that no inquiry be undertaken into the Bell Group Ltd takeover of BHP? Mr DAWKINS —I filled out the forms required of me by the Prime Minister in relation to pecuniary interests. As far as I know, I have never had any Bell Group shares. Mrs KELLY —Has the attention of the Special Minister of State been drawn to recent statements by Opposition and Australian Democrat members in support of proportional representation and against single member electorates? Following these comments has he received representations to change the Commonwealth Electoral Act to do away with single member electorates for the House of Representatives or even possibly in the Northern Territory? Mr YOUNG —My office has not received any representations from the Liberal Party, the National Party, or the Democrats in relation to the views they may hold about single member as against multiple member electorates for the Commonwealth Parliament. Some representations were made, I understand, by the Proportional Representation Society of Australia back in 1983 to the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform along these lines, but nothing has come of that. Our history in Australia shows that if single member electorates are drawn up on fair boundaries and based on one vote one value the party which receives the majority vote, of course, will become the government of that State or the Commonwealth. That is what we have achieved in the election of this Parliament. It happened at the last election and it will happen at the next election. The party, ourselves, that gets the majority will again be in government. In the Australian Capital Territory the redistribution process would be the same as for the Commonwealth; that is fair boundaries based on one vote one value where the majority of people in Canberra would be able to decide upon the people they wanted to run the council in this constituency. We have had single member electorates for this Parliament since Federation. Only Tasmania has a proportional representation system for its lower House. None of the other States, apart from a brief experiment in New South Wales in the 1920s, has ever adopted a proportional representation system for a lower House. All States moved away from the multi-member, electorates common in the nineteenth century, during the early part of this century. Mr Carlton —What about councils? Mr YOUNG —It is quite different in the Legislative Council. Mr Carlton —No, I mean local government. Mr YOUNG —The argument can be taken to the nth degree. We have multi-member electorates but that is not as democratic as using the State as a whole as one electorate. So if we were to do that in New South Wales for the House of Representatives a candidate would need something like 2 per cent of the vote to be elected here. No one party would ever be able to have a majority of votes. We would be doing deals with all sorts of minority parties in order to have the government of this country. No one has seriously put to this Government that the system of single member electorates ought to be replaced by multi-member electorates. I see that there have been some rather curious comments made in this debate. Senator Reid, who represents the Australian Capital Territory, says that single member electorates are no good because this will not give the Liberals a say in the electoral system. I am not too sure what that means, but if it means that the Liberal Party in the Australian Capital Territory accepts that it would be defeated on a fair vote that is something that it has to put up with. I recall that in 1974 the Labor Party received only 24 per cent of the vote in the House of Assembly elections in Canberra. So obviously the people in Canberra, like people throughout Australia, vary their support for parties from time to time. As I say, if we have a fair system it does not guarantee any party long term government. In the case of Senator Vigor-I do not know Senator Vigor but I understand he is a member of the Australian Democrats- Mr Hodgman —He is a senator from your State. Mr YOUNG —He is a South Australian and that is one of the reasons I am against multiple-member electorates-he might finish up in mine. I do not know him but he says some funny things. He says that single member electorates are a gerrymander-this comes as news to most of us in this House-and that single member electorates will disenfranchise the people of the Australian Capital Territory. I do not know what Senator Vigor thinks about South Australia having 12 senators as against New South Wales having 12 senators, but he does not seem to make any comment on that. Single member electorates would do no such thing. They would not disenfranchise the people of the Australian Capital Territory, and it is an insult to the intelligence of the people of the Australian Capital Territory to tell them that these sorts of things occur. Nor are single members electorates a gerrymander under a system which has been disciplined by the Australian Labor Party. If the Opposition were in power and giving Canberra single member electorates with the Bjelke-Petersen gerrymander pen it could quite easily have a gerrymander on single electorates as has been demonstrated in Queensland until today. The people of the Australian Capital Territory will have one vote one value and fair boundaries, and we can assure the people of Canberra that they will get the council for which the majority of people in Canberra vote. Mr PORTER —I refer the Minister for Health to the Newcastle doctor-Dr Parker- case and I remind him that he has yet to provide me with an answer to the question without notice I asked in this place on 20 March. Did Dr Parker tell the Health Insurance Commission investigators that the Sydney doctors who approached Dr Parker had claimed that accidents and injuries could be organised for those who are unwilling to co-operate? Did Dr Parker also inform the HIC investigators that he was told that these tactics had been used in the past in Sydney? If so, how does the Minister justify his answer to the House on 14 March that the evidence presented to him did not warrant a Commonwealth Police inquiry except in regard to the malicious damage charge? Dr BLEWETT —In response to the original point made by the honourable member for Barker I have prepared a written answer, and approved a written answer, to the question that he put on notice. I think it will deal with most of the points that he has just raised. Dr Parker made his initial complaint first of all to the Australian Medical Association on 4 March 1986 and then to the media on 10 March 1986, but no formal complaint was made at any time to the New South Wales Police, the Australian Federal Police or the Health Insurance Commission. The Commission became aware of the allegations only after the matter had received media coverage, and by that time the doctors involved has sought legal advice and it was not possible for Commission officers to obtain an interview with those doctors. There was no need to seek any assistance from the Australian Federal Police to identify or locate either of those doctors. The Health Insurance Commission is still, and has been since 11 March 1986, seeking to interview the doctors concerned. The Government has not sought to have the matter examined by the Australian Federal Police since to date there has been no need to do so. The only offence that has been highlighted at this time is that of malicious damage to Dr Parker's surgery window. The Newcastle police examined the circumstances surrounding that incident but considered that it was only one of a spate of incidents of vandalism that occurred in the area at that time. In regard to the alleged threats to Dr Parker, to which the honourable member I presume may have been referring, I understand that a private prosecution has been commenced by Dr Parker and that summonses issued in relation to that matter were returnable on 4 April 1986. Those proceedings make further comment on those points sub judice. Mr GEAR —Can the Acting Treasurer advise the House of the benefits to low income earners from the housing package announced by the Government last week? Mr HURFORD —I am pleased to be able to tell the honourable member for Canning that, thanks to some tough negotiating undertaken by the Treasurer with the banks, the banks have given a commitment for making available an increased number of low start loans. It is true that our banking system, when it comes to lending for housing, has been too much involved with the very rigid credit foncier loans. Over a number of years many of us have been wanting this breakthrough to get the banks to make available more low start loans. Thanks to this particular round of negotiations, each one of the savings banks involved in those negotiations has now made its commitment to these low start loans. Of course, sensibly, this will mean that people will be able to undertake their lending with repayments at a lower level when their incomes are at a lower level. Then, of course, those repayments will grow as their incomes grow. That will bring into the lending market a lot of people who would not otherwise be in that market. It is also interesting to note-and I draw this to the attention of the House-that hitherto, with the credit foncier loans and with the ceiling on interest rates from the savings banks, a limited amount of funds was available at the concessional rate of 13.5 per cent. Of course, there being that limited amount, most borrowers were obliged to get supplementary funds at a very high rate of interest. The cocktailing results will probably mean that many people will now be able to borrow at the new market rate of 15.5 per cent-at rates which are lower in total than the cocktailing rate. This will not always apply but there will be many to whom it will apply. I would also like to draw to the attention of the honourable member for Canning that, due to the fact that there was a limited amount of funds available at the concessional rates, the banks had their own rationing system in place. That rationing system did not mean that the most needy were getting those loans. I would just like to ask the general question: How many people in this House, for instance, have been getting advantage of the savings bank loans with the ceilings that apply? I do not think anybody in this House would come within the category of being needy and be getting those loans. Now that the new loans are at the- Mr Carlton —Tell us about the building societies. Mr Howard —Tell us about the building society rates. Mr HURFORD —Madam Speaker, some interesting interjections are being made from some of the hierarchy- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I ask that interjections cease, please. Mr HURFORD —I would just like to draw attention to them, Madam Speaker. I have been asked to answer a question about building societies. The Treasurer, having stayed behind in this country instead of leaving earlier for meetings of the International Monetary Fund, did not get one question yesterday from the Opposition on the matter of housing interest rates. There was not one question. He was obliged to rise on a question put to the Minister for Housing and Construction. I have waited all day for one question from the Opposition about housing interest rates. I have not got one. I had to rely on a question from my own side of the House. Yet, members of the Opposition are interjecting. In summary, the Government has taken a very wise decision in the package that it outlined last Wednesday. Provisions are made for the housing needs of low income people. The Government will be monitoring the performance of the banks to make sure that low income earners will receive housing loans at such rates, and with the low start loan processes in place, that their housing needs can be satisfied. Mr MACPHEE —I refer the Minister for Communications to his Press release of 2 April headed `New Commercial Radio, Data Services Plan for Outback'. The Minister said: My Department will consider the proposals on a zone-by-zone basis to ensure that the needs of the people to be served are adequately recognised. How will the Minister's Department ascertain the needs? What is the method? What are the criteria? Mr Hodgman —Do you come from Ireland, Duffy? Mr Jacobi —He came from Wexford. Mr DUFFY —Madam Speaker, in reply to the honourable member for Hawker's interjection, in fact it is County Sligo. The honourable member for Goldstein referred to the needs of particular areas. The only method that can be adopted by the Department in relation to that is to carry out investigations on the basis of field surveys. Of course, because of the vastness of the areas concerned, a considerable amount of time would be needed to designate those areas specifically. I will obtain more detailed information in relation to the particular areas to which the honourable member may be referring. Mr JACOBI —My question is directed to the Minister for Health. The Minister is well aware of my persistent campaign, together with the honourable members for Capricornia and Hughes, for a national model food Act. Last May the Minister stated that this Parliament would need to consider national legislation if the States failed to implement model legislation which they endorsed some six years ago. Is it a fact that the Minister went into conclave with the State Ministers last week? Did they discuss the matter? Did they decide to bring in uniform legislation which would save consumers some $50m a year and strengthen Australian manufacturers' efforts to compete with food imports? If they failed to reach agreement, will the Minister introduce national legislation as a matter of urgency or are we to persist with the ridiculous parochial regime of the need for seven Ministers to police one can of tinned bully beef? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of the long term interest of the honourable member and, of course, of members of the other side of the House in trying to get uniform food standards in this country. I am glad to say that at the Health Ministers conference last week a final draft agreement to establish a mechanism for the adoption of National Health and Medical Research Council model food standards regulations, specifically or by reference, subject to their approval by a national food standards council of Health Ministers, was endorsed. This agreement will now be referred to the Prime Minister for presentation to the State Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. These actions should ensure uniformity of food regulations across Australia with consequent benefits to industries and consumers. Indeed, the estimate is that it will mean a saving of some $50m a year to consumers. I have to point out that we have decided to go down the path of co-operation with the States, which is the preferred path of this Government. I also indicated to the Health Ministers that it was up to all of us now to make this work effectively or we would have to consider national legislation. The Clerk-Notice has been received from the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That this House censures the Minister for Health for: 1. Misleading the House on 14 March, 1986 by saying that a statement made by Dr Parker, a Newcastle doctor, clearly refuted any suggestion that a mole was operating within the Commission; 2. Covering up serious allegations of the break-down of the Medicare system and the involvement of organised crime in the defrauding of Medicare; 3. Failing to use the full resources of the Commonwealth including the Federal Police to investigate grave allegations of fraud, corruption and blackmail, preferring instead to initiate a limited in-house HIC investigation; 4. Encouraging and facilitating the rapid expansion of fraud and over-servicing by promoting universal bulk-billing; 5. Planning, in the words of the member for Newcastle, the downfall of the present system of medicine as it is now practised; 6. Failing to take legislative action to stop fraud and over-servicing, of which the Government has had notice for over 18 months; and believing that the Minister has demonstrated that he is not a fit and proper person to hold the high office of Minister of the Crown calls for his resignation. Mr Young-Madam Speaker, I indicate that it is the intention of the Government to bring on the censure motion later in the day. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to sub-section 97 (1) of the Legal Aid Ordinance 1977 of the Australian Capital Territory, I present the annual report of the Legal Aid Commission (Australian Capital Territory) for 1983-84. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to sub-section 20 (3) of the Coal Industry Act 1946, I present the annual report of the Joint Coal Board for 1984-85. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of the House, I present a report on an evaluation of the Aboriginal study grants scheme-summary and review of recommendations. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of the House, I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on electric lamps. This report was circulated to all members of the House on 3 April 1986. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1930, I present the statement or receipts and expenditure for the Australian Capital Territory for 1983-84. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Norfolk Island annual report for 1984-85. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority annual report for 1984-85. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Commonwealth Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 I present the annual report of the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission 1985 which contains the Commission's recommendations for distribution of Commonwealth income tax funds to individual councils. On 9 September 1985, I approved the recommendations of the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission and payments were made to South Australia on 11 September 1985 by the Treasury. 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 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 Baldwin,Mr Brumby,Mr Hawker,Mr Kent,Mr Mildren,Mr Sharp and Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the Speaker and 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 divisions 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,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker,Mr Lloyd and Mr McArthur. 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 Peter Fisher,Mr Tuckey and Mr White. 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 destabilizing nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government (a) take new initiatives to encourage all member states of the United Nations-especially the governments of nuclear weapon states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time, (b) call on all nuclear weapon states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All Federal Members of Parliament and Senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Baldwin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: The Sandinista Government has brought about improvements in the Nicaraguan people's welfare, especially in health and education, and, as shown by a poll generally considered to have been fair, has the support of the majority of the people, Under President Reagan, the United States has conceived, organised, trained, armed, financed and directed the Contras, forcing the Nicaraguan Government to divert scarce funds to self-defence. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that as an ally of the United States, and as a member of the Security Council, the Australian Government will do its utmost in arguing for a halt to all United States aid for the Contras. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Orionia Family who arrived in Albany in January this year, have had their vessel S.V. Orionia taken away from them by an arbitrary Federal Government decision and now have been given 14 days to leave Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government grants residency status to the eleven members of the Orionia Family to allow them to stay and rebuild their lives in Albany. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That proposed cuts to Federal funding of Child Care Centres are totally unacceptable on the grounds that they will (1) lower the quality of child care to a standard which is not acceptable. (2) raise child care fees to a financially impossible level for a large proportion of families in need of the service and thus disadvantage many children. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House revoke the decision to cut funding to Child Care Centres. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free. To The Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are dissatisfied with the present Federal Government's policy on Community Languages. And request that the Australian Government take urgent steps to formulate and approve a policy for the teaching of Community Languages, on a permanent basis, in the day schools, in order to safeguard the linguistic and cultural heritage of all Australians. Moreover, with the present petition, we request that Community Languages Resources Centres be instituted, to operate within communities, in order to assist schools in the implementation of Community Languages programmes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Free. 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 programmes, 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 Mr Hollis. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth that: (1) they are completely dissatisfied with the funding levels of Child Care. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled urge the Government to repeal the `Child Care Amendment Bill 1985'. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions on a reasonable sliding scale equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investment. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. 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 the 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 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 the 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,Mr Nehl and Mr Sharp. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian Crosses-represents the Nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, wish to record our nationwide protest against the Government's policy of World Parity pricing of fuel. We seek a reduction to a more suitable level, such as 45c per litre, to be maintained or lowered during the Incomes Accord or a period of three years, whichever is the greater. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. 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 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 is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Free and Dr Klugman. The Petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia being residents of South Australia respectfully showeth; that the humble petitioners respectfully seek a delay in the new funding arrangements planned for April this year for Subsidised Child Care Centres in Australia; and express total opposition to the cuts in child care which are beginning to have a deleterious effect on children's services in South Australia. Your Petitioners therefore pray and urge the instigation of: 1. Urgent discussions with State Governments, peak bodies representing children's services, and the A.C.T.U. 2. That such discussions ensure that funding mechanisms are fully explored and ensure more appropriate funding guidelines. 3. That such discussions examine regulations for the quality assurance of children's services. 4. That such discussions be mindful of the need to retain high quality children's services and trained personnel to work in children's services. And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hurford and Mr Jacobi. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi 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 every Pray: by Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Mallee electorate respectfully showeth: That all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. That the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long term viability. That the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. by Mr Peter Fisher. 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 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. or any site within Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional Nuclear Reactor at Lucas Heights. by Mr Peter Morris. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 every pray. by Mr Sharp. 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 Sharp. 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) —Order! Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The total irresponsibility of the Hawke Government in refusing to address the fundamental causes of the collapse of the public hospital system under Medicare and the explosion in the costs of medical care. 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- Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the business of the day be called on. Mr Sinclair-Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to speak for a few seconds. On the basis that there will be a debate on the censure motion later this afternoon, the Opposition will not oppose this motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed. Clauses 1 to 4. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(2.58) —The plain fact is that the Hawke socialist Government is simply not fair dinkum about deregistering the BLF. As a very careful consideration of the clauses before the Committee at the moment will confirm, this legislation is ineffective, it does not go far enough and, in all probability, it is unconstitutional. I wish to support and endorse completely the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) in his outstanding speech during the second reading debate and condemn the Government for curtailing debate on this most important measure in jack-boot Moscow fashion before luncheon today. Had I been able to speak I would have said that the two Bills that have come before the Parliament can be described only as tame cats, incomplete, insipid, gutless, and wide open to successful constitutional challenge. I support with unabated enthusiasm the deregistration of the Builders Labourers Federation. Curiously, I find myself suggesting that either this Government has, deliberately brought into the Parliament legislation which it knows will not achieve its purpose, in which case it has engaged in a massive fraud and deception, or it is so incompetent that we are seeing a repeat performance of what happened last year with the building industry legislation. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, this Parliament was asked, at great cost to the taxpayers of Australia-- Mr Slipper —How much did it cost? Mr HODGMAN —It would cost millions when one takes into account the cost of the building industry legislation which this Government put through the Parliament last year and the lengthy proceedings which went on before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says-and frankly he nails the Government-on 4 April this year when it got the decision that it sought in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, it came out within 60 minutes and announced: `We are not going to act under the Building Industry Bill which we put through the Parliament last year. We are not going to rely on the proceedings in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We are going to bring in new legislation'. Why? It is either incompetent or it has lied and deceived this Parliament and the people of Australia. Mr Slipper —The Government supports the BLF. Mr HODGMAN —Of course, and that is the very point I am making. The Government is not fair dinkum about deregistering the BLF. What a joke! It is not fair dinkum about getting rid of the BLF. The Government could not have done a worse job if it had asked Norm Gallagher himself to draw up this legislation. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister of Australia, the man of the Boulevarde Hotel and Belconnen Mall fame, a Rhodes Scholar with LLB after his name, is not fully aware of the fact that this legislation is as weak as water and is full of holes which a first year law student could drive a truck right through. Let me put something to the Minister, because I am about to make a prediction; namely, history will almost certainly vindicate the 31 Labor MPs who voted against this legislation. Mr Slipper —How many? Mr HODGMAN —Thirty-one. They voted in Caucus yesterday. Who has ever heard of a proposition that there are some things under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia that are only to be done by way of judicial function? Who has ever heard it suggested that it is wrong for a parliament to legislate to take away an individual's rights which ought properly be dealt with either by the courts or, in this case, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Did honourable members hear what the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) said before lunch about legislation which is sectional, arbitrary and discriminatory? Does the Government really believe, as it claims, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, in particular, the provisions thereof which defend and protect the right of freedom of association? Does this Government that claims to believe in individual rights support the freedom of association provisions in that Declaration and the work of the Human Rights Commission? The thing that is going to nail the Government is the thing that its Ministers know is going to bring down the Builders Labourers Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Bill. I draw attention to clause 8. I am not going to debate it, but the Committee will see it contains what is called a double delegation power which is drawn in the most extraordinary form. It is in the regulations that the Government will meet its Waterloo in the High Court of Australia because, whilst it is normal to include in a Bill a provision in relation to regulations, the words contained would usually be: The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing matters- (a) required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed; or (b) necessary for a carrying out or giving effect to this Act. Have a look at what the Bill has got. The present wording is `necessary or convenient to be prescribed'-that is a second prescription-`for carrying out or giving effect to this Act'. It is not for me to argue the case of Mr Ian Douglas QC, or any other person who takes this to the High Court of Australia, but-and I ask honourable members opposite to remember this down the track, because they have also been told it-this legislation which the Government claims is fair dinkum is hiding under a cloud of unconstitutionality. I conclude my remarks by endeavouring to support the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in proving that this legislation is not fair dinkum anyway. I am disappointed that a Minister whom we all thought was conscientious and as honest as the day is long can be party to legislation that is a sham and a fraud. Mr Slipper —Clayton's legislation. Mr HODGMAN —I think the honourable member sums it up-Clayton's legislation. We all know that this legislation will not kill the BLF. The question I am asking the Minister-and I am looking him right in the eye-is why is he parading around Australia pretending that he wants to kill the BLF when the best he is prepared to do-and the Prime Minister and the Minister know that this is right-is not to kill it, but simply to anaesthetise it for a paltry three years. The Minister knows that, although it might be deregistered, it can still operate wild cat outside the system; it can still retain its assets; it simply has them held in trust. Its office bearers can be office bearers of other unions and agreements that it makes as a deregistered but still incorporated incorporation have not been outlawed by this Government's legislation. The Government is either engaging in an outrageous sham and a fraudulent deception of the people of Australia or it is so damned incompetent that it should not occupy the treasury benches. Norm Gallagher must be laughing all the way to the bank or, if I can take the words of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, to and from the bank. If the Minister is not interested in the $1.5m involved in that little episode which was raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I can assure him that there are 15 million Australians who are very interested indeed. Norm Gallagher must think that he is on top of the world. The Minister is either the most incompetent Minister ever or he is part of a cruel fraud. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(3.07) —This morning the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) in the debate on these clauses sought to explain his attitude and the reasons for his opposition amongst 30 of his colleagues in the Australian Labor Party Caucus to this measure. I hope that I do not do the argument that he put an injustice by summarising it, but he sought to put the case that actions contemplated in legislation of this sort should not be to the detriment of individuals. I think that that was the substance of what he said. I point out that under the Building Industry Act passed last year it is organisations that are granted the status, privileges and responsibilities that go with registration. I must say that, although I admire the honourable member for Prospect for his fairly consistent approach to individual freedoms and values, the point that he made did not seem to have any validity in relation to this legislation. Both employers and union organisations are given certain benefits, as I have already described, and it is legislation of this sort that seeks to adjust the privileges, status and responsibilities of organisations. I repeat that it is not individuals who will be directly affected. However, I do believe that, given the views expressed by the honourable member for Prospect, with the co-operation of the Government, in debate in this chamber he will support a Bill of which I have given notice in the Notice Paper to ensure that there is freedom of association in the work-place in this country. Having regard to the honourable member's remarks this morning, I confidently look forward to that support. Another matter that comes to mind is that clauses 1 to 4 and the measures in their entirety will destroy one of the old chestnuts in Labor Party mythology. I am talking about those legends which perpetuate the tired old line that governments should not pass laws to regulate and outlaw outrageous behaviour which is not compatible with community standards. Surely this action, once and for all, will see that that piece of nonsense no longer prevails, and we should all be thankful for that. We will no doubt not have to listen to that line when we return to government, as we surely will after the next election, and find it necessary to curtail the outrageous excesses of the union movement. Nor, I might add, can the Australian Council of Trade Unions credibly continue to peddle that line because it, too, is a willing partner in this deregistration exercise. There is no doubt that the ACTU and its members have agreed, at the behest and probably at the urging of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to pick up the members of the Builders Labourers Federation once that union is deregistered. Let us hope that this is an end to those spurious arguments we have had when the coalition parties have been in government, along the lines that parliament is not the proper place to deal with outrageous union behaviour, that legislation is not suitable for that purpose, because the Hawke Government has shown, by introducing these measures, that it certainly is. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.12) —I will reply to some of the points that have been made in the course of debate on the first four clauses of the Builders Labourers Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Bill. Before referring to some specific points, I should say that the general impression that the Opposition has given in the course of this Committee stage debate and also during the second reading debate is, I guess, an understandable one, politics being what it is. It wishes to appear more macho than us and therefore to say that we have not gone far enough and to stress that there are more things that should have been done. Some people, such as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), have taken the rather absurd line of trying to say, on the one hand, that this is an horrendous Bill because it will breach international conventions and, on the other hand, that it is as weak as water. Of course, it is pretty hard to have it both ways. But we expect that sort of thing from him. The situation that we face in bringing forward this legislation is obviously very serious and it is unique, a point I made in my second reading speech. It is not a situation which is likely to arise very often in the history of this nation. I certainly hope that that is the case. Certainly, it is unique in the present industrial relations situation in this country. The action that we are taking in respect of the Builders Labourers Federation is unprecedented in the history of this Parliament. It is very serious action. I think it trivialises the debate enormously to suggest, as have some Opposition members, that somehow or other this legislation is not serious or severe; it is indeed. But the alternatives simply do not exist to deal effectively with a situation which we regard as unacceptable in terms of the industrial relations environment in this country, the economy and the building industry, which is a very important constituent part of that economy. In the context of making that general line to the effect that the Bill does not go far enough, obviously points have been raised in the course of the debate and more will be made later. The points that have been raised are in relation to office bearers and the assets of the union. In relation to the office bearers, it has been suggested that they will be free to continue to operate as office bearers of the BLF in an unregistered state and that that situation should not be allowed to continue. It reaches a point where one must say that there are personal rights involved. Despite the fact that we would all regard the behaviour of these people as being absolutely beyond the pale, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), pointed out, and they have been directly criticised very vehemently by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in its judgment of last week, nevertheless, they have not in the process of undertaking those actions which we would all find horrendous, broken any laws or undertaken criminal activity. Of course, in respect of one of them there is an allegation and a charge of a serious nature which could lead to that official, if found guilty after a retrial which is scheduled to be held later this year, being ineligible for office. But in respect of other officials, as much as one might deplore their behaviour, they are not guilty of an action which under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act as it presently stands disqualifies them from office. I think it would be a serious step to go down that path. It is not true to imply that there is no penalty for them. The situation simply is that their power base, the union of which they have been the controllers for a considerable period, is being severely disadvantaged, to say the least. It is being deregistered and taken out of the conciliation and arbitration system. Its members will therefore have great incentives to move to other unions. Measures will be involved to facilitate that process, so there will be a tremendous erosion of the power base from which they have been able to exercise the actions which we find horrendous. I think that that clearly means they will be suffering a considerable reduction in their power and influence in the building industry and in the industrial relations arena. One would certainly expect that that would be the case. it is our intention that that should be the case, and I am quite sure that that will be the case. In respect of the assets of the Builders Labourers Federation, to seize or freeze the assets of an organisation is a pretty drastic step. One would need to have good reason to do so. In regard to the Builders Labourers Federation, I have already pointed out that we simply would not have the constitutional power to do that once it was deregistered. If we did it before deregistration, as soon as deregistration occurred that action would lapse. We, as a Federal government, would have no further control over those assets. That is because our powers in this area derive from the conciliation and arbitration power. Once we go beyond that and put the organisation outside the system, it becomes a matter for the States, except in the Australian Capital Territory where, as I have already indicated, we would have power. Whether we would do anything would depend on what actions the Builders Labourers Federation in its unregistered state took in the Australian Capital Territory, once it was put in that position. So we would keep a watchful eye on that process. I believe it would be a matter for concern if over time membership of the organisation ran down considerably, but there were still considerable assets in the hands of a very small group. That situation might need to be addressed and that is something for the future of which we are mindful, but not something we would seek to take action against immediately. Mr N.A. Brown —What about the States? Mr WILLIS —I am asked: What about the States? I have already said that it is up to the individual States. The Victorian legislation which was passed last year contains a section which relates to this specific matter. It is a matter for that Government as to whether it will act on that section. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) raised a couple of issues about the deregistration action against the Master Builders Associations of Victoria and New South Wales. Let me say that I do not know of any deregistration action against the New South Wales MBA. I do know that action has been taken against the Victorian MBA. I would think that the action of the Builders Labourers Federation in that respect would lapse once the deregistration took place. It may be capable of being resumed again, but I think in its current state it would lapse. He also mentioned action taken against five companies under section 5 of the Act for wrongful dismissal. I am informed-I will need to check this to be absolutely certain-that that action has been taken by individual members rather than by the organisation as such. Therefore, that action would be sustainable. The honourable member for Denison, as I have already mentioned, indicated that he had great concerns about this legislation because it was on the one hand too weak and on the other too horrendous. I do not think it is possible for us to take those remarks terribly seriously. Clauses agreed to. Clause 5 (Registration). Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(3.20) —I move: Clause 5, page 3, line 33, omit `3 years', substitute `10 years'. The amendment seeks to extend from three years to 10 years the Builders Labourers Federation's period in Coventry. As the Committee would be aware, the purpose of the two Bills is, first of all, to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation and, secondly, to provide for consequences which arise from that deregistration. Obviously, one of the questions that arises in the light of the deregistration of the Builders Labourers Federation is: `Will it ever be able to be reregistered? Will members of the BLF ever be able to awaken from their sleep and get themselves reregistered and continue with business as usual?' The Bill as it is presently expressed gives us part of the answer to that question, because as it is presently expressed the Bill indicates, in effect, that the Builders Labourers Federation will not be able to apply to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for reregistration as an organisation, under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, until three years has elapsed from the time of its deregistration. The Bill goes on, of course, to provide that the new BLF will have to satisfy the Arbitration Commission that it is going to behave itself. But apart from that, it requires a period of three years to elapse before the BLF will be able to apply to be reregistered and to become an organisation registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Opposition has a number of things to say about this. In the first place, the period specified is not long enough. The Builders Labourers Federation has already been deregistered in the past. It was deregistered for almost two years. That did not seem to do much good, because it came back bigger, richer, tougher, more ruthless and more lawless than ever before. What is the magic difference between two years and three years? I cannot see it at the moment, apart from the fact that it involves a difference of one year, and I doubt very much indeed whether the Builders Labourers Federation will reform itself in that additional one-year period. So, the Opposition believes that there is really no case that can be advanced for simply putting the BLF out of business for three years. As I have said, we have seen what it has done in the course of being deregistered for two years. Is it likely to be any better in the future? The second point the Opposition makes about this matter is that, if the Government wants to put the BLF out of business, it should do it properly. It should not fiddle around with it and simply put it on a good behaviour bond for three years, because that will not achieve anything at all, and that is particularly so if the Government is not going to do anything at all about its assets, which are very substantial, and its income, which is presently very substantial and which presumably will continue, at least to some extent. The Government is really telling the BLF to go away and have a holiday or to go to sleep for three years, while its money will continue to come in, presumably with many BLF members still being there. The Government is telling the BLF that it can come back in three years and that all will be forgiven. If it satisfies the Arbitration Commission with its undertakings it will be reregistered and will be able to go back into the business of doing its best to destroy the building industry. The Minister smiles, as he frequently does. It is to his credit that he is one of the few people around here who can smile, but he smiles at the proposition that I have put, which is really quite extraordinary. I will tell the Committee why it is extraordinary. The Builders Labourers Federation conned the Government once before. In 1983 it said to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as well: `Let us back into the fold, allow us to remain as a registered organisation and we will behave ourselves'. I read to the House this morning that glowing Press release that the Minister issued in 1983, when he said: `A new dawn has emerged in the building industry. The Builders Labourers Federation has reformed, it has seen the light, it has promised to behave and, therefore, we should drop the deregistration proceedings against the BLF and allow it to continue working within the conciliation and arbitration system'. They fell for that trick. The Prime Minister, cunning and all as he is, and his willing assistant, the Minister, fell for those velvet words from Mr Gallagher. They believed him, although they must have been the only two people in the country who would believe him. However, they believed him and they allowed the Builders Labourers Federation to go on and they terminated the deregistration proceedings. The point I make is simply this: The Builders Labourers Federation will come back in three years and it will say to the Minister and the Prime Minister: `Trust us one more time'. Of course, the Prime Minister uses those words himself, but there would probably be almost as many people in the country who would believe the Prime Minister on that subject as would believe Mr Gallagher. However, they believe each other, apparently, and those promises and those undertakings will be given again. The Arbitration Commission, which has accepted those undertakings many times in the past-and there are still the same personnel there-for all we know may accept those undertakings again with the best will in the world and with the best motives. Those of us on this side of the chamber and the public at large will not accept the word of the Builders Labourers Federation and its present hierarchy of people who seem hell-bent on destroying the building industry and, presumably, then destroying the next industry that they will move into, if they can get into that one, and they will go on and on. We say that the Government must face up to the simple reality of the question of whether it wants the Builders Labourers Federation out of business or not. If the Government wants to do that it should do it properly; it should do it root and branch. It is no good treating the Builders Labourers Federation simply in the way in which it is being treated at present by deregistering it for three years and giving it an opportunity to come out in three years time like the monster from the blue lagoon, reactivating itself and going back into business, in exactly the same way as it is behaving now and as it has behaved over the past 10 years. What is the evidence to the contrary to that which I am putting? What is the answer to this matter? If we are wrong, let us know where we are wrong. The Opposition considers that the Government may as well do it properly if it is going to do it at all. If the Government is going to do it, it should not do it with half measures. Do it properly: Put the BLF out of business permanently, and at least extend the period of three years to some longer period, and we suggest 10 years. Mr Slipper —Twenty years. Mr N.A. Brown —The honourable member suggests 20 years-I do not know whether there are any other bids from honourable members. Ten years is a good round figure; it has an air of permanency about it, and that is what we are looking for. There is no magic in a period of 10 years, but it has an air of permanency about it and the Opposition considers that that is a very substantial contribution. But, of course, the Government says in reply that some of the things that we have put up about distributing the assets of the union cannot be done, because it would be serious. The Minister says: `No, we can't fiddle around with the assets of the Builders Labourers Federation because that would be a serious step'. Of course it is a serious step to take, which is exactly why we say that the Government should take it. The Government is dealing with a very serious matter which is having a very deleterious effect on a major industry in this country, the building industry. So, we put it to the Government that it should take positive steps, either in negotiation with the States or by using its power to control money being spent overseas. The Government should do something positive, constructive and substantial to ensure that the assets of the BLF are distributed properly, and to members, because they are the members' property. However, the Government simply comes back to us and says that it would be a drastic step and that it cannot do it. To that the Opposition responds that, yes, of course it is drastic and it would be a very severe step, but the Government is dealing with a very serious situation and that is the very reason why the Government should approach this subject far more seriously and with the intention and the will-which we will support if the Government can demonstrate that it has it-to put the Builders Labourers Federation out of business permanently. It is for those reasons that the Opposition urges the Committee to accept the proposition that the deregistration of the Builders Labourers Federation should not operate simply for three years but that it should be continued for 10 years. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.30) —The Government does not accept this amendment. Before coming to the details raised by honourable members, I make a few remarks on the question of deregistration and reregistration. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N. A. Brown) talked about the Government having put the Builders Labourers Federation on a good behaviour bond and said that we had been conned once before. Those remarks are quite wrong and I think that he should be a little more aware both of the past history of this matter and of what is proposed now. In respect of the past history of this matter, I remind the House that the BLF was deregistered in 1974 and came back in 1976 when the Fraser Government was in office and without opposition from the Fraser Government. The situation was that it came back without opposition from the Fraser Government in 1976. Under the Fraser Government the BLF started to become an organisation which reached the pinnacles which have led this Government to take the action it now has. Mr N.A. Brown —We took the proceedings in 1981. That is why we started the case. Mr WILLIS —Let me say, if the Opposition can keep quiet for a few minutes, that it took the Fraser Government until 1981 to take action against the Builders Labourers Federation. The Fraser Government then instituted a deregistration proceeding, which it entered with much fanfare, and announced a decision in February 1981. The Fraser Government filed an application in September 1981, so it took seven months to get around to filing an application. The case started in late 1982, about 20 months after the Fraser Government announced that it would take the case. When this Government came into office the situation was that the case had been rolling on for several months. The Government's case had not yet finished; the BLF had yet to put its case and the case had already cost about $2m. The counsel for the employers said in 1983-of course, the case was entered into by the Government without consultation with the employers, who were later inveigled into it on the basis that the Government would pay all their costs-that, if he were the counsel for the BLF, he could have kept the case strung out for five years. That was the situation we faced. We had a deregistration case proceeding which was an impossibility, which was going on ad infinitum and which in our view could not be effective because the basis for its being effective simply did not exist. The time period was absurd and the costs of such proceedings were ridiculous. The fact that there was strong union opposition meant that deregistration would result in the same outcome as in 1974 to 1976 when no-rate agreements meant that there was no opportunity for members to go from the BLF to other unions because other unions did not seek to cover them. That would have been the situation again unless a different situation prevailed. The situation has changed dramatically from what it was then because of the actions this Government has taken. We gave the BLF the opportunity to demonstrate to all other building unions that it was prepared to work co-operatively with them and that it was prepared to adhere to undertakings and to be an ordinary trade union in the way other building industry unions are. Of course, it has totally broken all those commitments. That is the enormous difference from where we were under the previous proceedings. The situation now is that there is very substantial alienation of the Builders Labourers Federation from other building unions, particularly in Victoria and New South Wales and less so in the other States. For that reason it is possible for the Government to take deregistration proceedings now which will be effective and which will have the effect of putting the BLF out of business in a way which would not have been possible had we adhered to the previous procedures, which were impossibly cumbersome and absurdly ineffective. The Opposition knows that to be the case. That is the background of the situation we faced, the reason we took the steps we did and why we terminated the previous deregistration proceedings and entered the process of giving the BLF one last chance to prove that it had some bona fides in this matter. It has demonstrated conclusively that it has not and now we simply have to take effective action, which we are taking through this legislation. It is being deregistered in a way which will be absolutely effective. Mr N.A. Brown —For three years only. Why don't you do it permanently if you are so serious about it? Mr WILLIS —I will come to that point if you will sit down and stop shouting like an idiot. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) —Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order. Mr N.A. Brown —Well, the Committee stage is supposed to give an opportunity to the Minister to reply. Mr WILLIS —The Committee stage is not an opportunity for the Opposition to continually interject on the speaker. Mr Hodgman —You are not only Simon's puppet, you are Normie's puppet now. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! I ask the honourable member for Denison and the Deputy Leader Opposition to allow the Minister to proceed without interruption. Interjections of that sort are clearly disorderly and disrupt the proceedings of the House. The Minister is entitled to be heard. Mr WILLIS —I come to the amendment proposed to this clause. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked what is the difference between the two years from 1974 to 1976 and the three years proposed in this legislation. That shows an abysmal ignorance of what is in the legislation. What is in the legislation is not deregistration for three years-it is deregistration, and that is it. Mr Hodgman —Rubbish! You are an absolute liar. Mr WILLIS —That is what the first Bill says. The second Bill, with which we are now dealing, says-- Mr N.A. Brown —They can apply after three years to come back and be registered again. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! I ask the honourable member for Denison to withdraw the reference he made to the Minister. He used unparliamentary language. I ask honourable members to contain themselves in relation to this matter. Mr Hodgman —In respect to you, Mr Deputy Chairman, I withdraw. Mr WILLIS —As I was saying, the provision in the Builders Labourers Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Bill says that the union cannot make an application to become reregistered for three years. It is essential that we have a provision which sets out a period during which the union cannot make an application for reregistration. If there were no such provision it would be able to seek reregistration the day after deregistration. We believe that would be thoroughly counterproductive to an effective deregistration. It would make the parties believe that there was a possibility of the BLF coming back very quickly, the BLF would be in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the next day and it would be impossible for us to have an effective deregistration. Three years is a long period during which there will be a reallocation of the work to other unions. That will happen quickly through regulations provided for under this legislation. There will be a final distribution of the work by the Commission because the distribution of work under the regulations is an interim thing until the Commission makes a final decision. The situation we face is, firstly, that there will be no application for three years. Secondly, if after three years the Builders Labourers Federation wished to become reregistered it would have to jump two threshold points that are provided in the legislation; that is, under this legislation it would have to satisfy a Full Bench of the Arbitration Commission that its registration would not be against the objects of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act or inimical to the Federal conciliation and arbitration system. Of course, those two points are in the declaration by the Commission issued last Friday, in which the Commission found that the Builders Labourers Federation had been in breach in both of those respects. The Commission, if it were to agree that the organisation be allowed to go forward to pursue reregistration, would have to be convinced that the body had dramatically changed its composition and attitudes from the time it issued that declaration last Friday; in other words, that the situation it found to exist in the BLF's past behaviour was not likely to exist in the future. Given the fact that the organisation has been deregistered once and has come back; has given all sorts of commitments and has broken those commitments; has been found guilty of various breaches and of acting against the objects of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act; and has performed actions inimical to the Federal conciliation and arbitration system, it clearly has a substantial hurdle to jump after that period of three years. Presuming it can do that, it then has to face the fact that it would be seeking reregistration in a situation where the area it seeks to cover is covered already by other unions and has been for some time. Presumably those unions would object to the registration of another union in an area which they already covered. I believe those are all substantial hurdles indeed. I believe it is unnecessary for us to reach the degree of saying that we will ban the union from making an application for 10 years. I am quite convinced that if we had put 10 years in the legislation the Opposition would have come in with 20 years, as one Opposition member suggested, simply to be seen to be more macho than we are. The situation simply is that in this legislation we need a provision which is enough to ensure that the action is effective. That is what we are doing. It will ensure an effective deregistration. It will ensure that the situation in the building industry can be settled down without the Builders Labourers Federation in a registered state. The opportunities for the BLF to come back in the future are there but they involve very substantial hurdles to be jumped. In my view, and I am sure in the view of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, a very substantial change in the nature and composition of the BLF would be involved if the Commission were to be satisfied that the BLF should be granted registration in the future. The Government believes that it is appropriate for us to have the three-year period. We do not need anything more. I must say that statements such as those made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to the effect that the union has been deregistered for three years are a nonsense. That is not what the provision says. The provision says that the union is deregistered and cannot make an application for reregistration for three years. To say that it has been put on a good behaviour bond is likewise an absurdity. The situation we are producing here is without precedent in this country. It is something the previous Government never had the guts to do; it pursued a totally ineffective course in the Federal Court, a course which was leading nowhere, and from a government which had provided no opposition in any case to the registration of the union after if had been deregistered previously. I think a lot of what has been said in this debate by the Opposition is simply macho politics, an attitude of `We can be tougher than you'. When the Opposition had the power and was in a position to do something it showed how totally ineffective and weak it was. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(3.43) —As the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has sought to give his own version of history in the matter I think it should be rounded out. I am sure that neither he nor any other member in the chamber would want history rewritten without some of the details being expanded. The Minister quite rightly said that the Fraser Government, coming to government in late 1975, did nothing in this area which was in any way close to what is proposed in the measures contained in the Builders Labourers Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill. In fact, it was in 1981 that the Fraser Government took the decision to proceed with deregistration under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, as it then stood. It was some five years after its election before the Fraser Government actually got around to commencing deregistration proceedings. However, in that five years the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The present Prime Minister of Australia could well have been showing in those years the leadership he now professes to be able to give to this country. But, he sat around. Government members know the sort of thing that happened under the then President of the ACTU. Why, if the Prime Minister is so responsible now, was he not so responsible then? Why would he not institute in those years some disciplinary action within the ACTU, which the present leadership of the ACTU has shown it is prepared to exercise? It is all very well for the Minister to look at the Fraser Government and to forget the mentality of the times, to forget the uproar that would have been created amongst members of the Australian Labor Party Opposition in this Parliament. That is very convenient. The fact is that in 1981 the Fraser Government chose to institute proceedings against the BLF. As a prerequisite to those proceedings, affidavits had to be sworn by hundreds and hundreds of building contractors around this country. The Minister and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) know just what a time consuming business that is. The Minister knows that at that time such contractors were under threat. What happened was that the Hawke Government decided: `We will get out of this. We will buy them off'. As I said this morning, the Government bought them off. The parties, including the BLF, paid the costs of that hearing so that the Government would agree to abandon the proceedings, along with the employers, who by then had no choice in the matter. They had nowhere to go. Those builders who swore those affidavits copped abomination after abomination from the Builders Labourers Federation for having the temerity to swear on oath the truth of events which it was hoped at the time would lead to the deregistration of that union. When the Labor Government came to power it said: `We will buy them out of that'. If the Government is as fair dinkum as it now claims to be, why could it not have let that action run while it was preparing the contingency position that it might well now be in? Why could the Government not have been planning to do the things it is now doing while that action was running? If it failed, as the Government has said it was bound to fail, and if it took too long, as the Government says it was bound to, it would have had something to come up with at the end of 1983 when that hearing was to be concluded and the decision handed down. But the Government did nothing until the last half of 1985. If the Government was so critical of what the Fraser Government did not do from 1976 onwards it should have been in a position the minute it was elected to office to do something about the situation. In all honesty, this Government cannot criticise the previous coalition Government for not doing something because this Government was not itself in a position to do anything when it was elected to office. In fact it has taken three years to do something. I thought that little lesson in history might be useful, as the Minister decided to indulge himself in history. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.48) —Let me just say-- Mr N.A. Brown —How many more speeches are we to have? Mr WILLIS —There have been plenty more speeches from the honourable member's side than were allowed for by the Whip. Let me simply say that the actions that are being taken by this Government will be effective because the situation which exists as a result of the actions taken by this Government previously is very different from the situation that would have existed had the previous Government's deregistration action gone through. Mr Rocher —Why didn't you do it straight away? Mr WILLIS —That situation would not have existed. Is the honourable member so thick that he cannot understand that? Let me try simply to get this basic point in the minds of the honourable members opposite. If we are going to have an effective deregistration it is almost impossible to do it unless there is a substantial preparedness on the part of the trade unions associated in that area to take the members of the organisation which is being deregistered. If that situation does not exist one cannot have an effective deregistration. It might be a legal one but it will not be an effective operation. The point I am trying to make to the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) is that the situation which exists now is one in which there is that preparedness. There is a situation in which the unions will be prepared to take the members of the Builders Labourers Federation. That was not the situation before. That most certainly was not the situation in 1983. That situation came about because of the actions we undertook and the processes we went through and what came out of those processes. What came out of those processes was a preparedness on the part of the union movement to say: `That is it, we have had enough; the BLF has gone beyond the pale and now we are prepared to take its members'. That is why the action that we are taking now will be effective and the action that the Opposition took in government could never have been effective. Deregistration through the Commission leaves a tremendous hole at the end of that period because one then has a situation of no coverage for BLF members. In the normal Commission processes it would take many months to fill that vacuum and in the meantime there would be chaos out there. In this legislation we are ensuring that there is no such vacuum by providing for the distribution through regulation and that distribution, which is temporary, will be done finally by the Commission. That means that the deregistration will be effective in a way that was simply not possible under the course of action that was being pursued by the previous Government. Question put: That the amendment (Mr N.A. Brown's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. M. Ruddock) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Adermann,, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. CCarlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. 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) Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J. Beddall, D. P. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. 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. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Saunderson, J. Gorman, R. N. J. 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. Jenkins, H. A. Jull, D. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Hodges, J. C. Milton,P. Cowan, D. B. Bilney, G. N. Cameron, Ian Keating, P. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis)-by leave-read a third time. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Barker moving forthwith the motion of which he has given notice for the next day of sitting censuring the Minister for Health. Motion of Censure Mr PORTER(Barker)(4.03) —I move: That this House censures the Minister for Health for: (1) Misleading the House on 14 March 1986 by saying that a statement made by Dr Parker, a Newcastle doctor, clearly refuted any suggestion that a mole was operating within the Commission; (2) Covering up serious allegations of the break-down of the Medicare system and the involvement of organised crime in the defrauding of Medicare; (3) Failing to use the full resources of the Commonwealth including the Federal Police to investigate grave allegations of fraud, corruption and blackmail, preferring instead to initiate a limited in-house HIC investigation; (4) Encouraging and facilitating the rapid expansion of fraud and over-servicing by promoting universal bulk-billing; (5) Planning, in the words of the Member for Newcastle, the `downfall of the present system of medicine as it is now practised'; (6) Failing to take legislative action to stop fraud and over-servicing, of which the Government has had notice for over 18 months, and, believing that the Minister has demonstrated that he is not a fit and proper person to hold the high office of Minister of the Crown, calls for his resignation. Early in February, two Newcastle doctors in partnership, Doctors Parker and Court, were approached by two Sydney doctors, Doctors Haider and Sidhwani. The Sydney doctors were then in the employ of Dr Edelsten and they claimed a deep knowledge of his operation. They sought the two Newcastle doctors' support in the establishment of a 24-hour medical service which they claimed, if operated along the lines of the Sydney ventures, would make an enormous amount of money out of the Medicare system. A meeting was arranged in Newcastle for the evening of 5 February, when the proposal was put to Doctors Parker and Court. During those discussions the Sydney doctors claimed firstly, that they had access to confidential Health Insurance Commission parameters regarding allowable levels of overservicing for medical and diagnostic services per patient; secondly, that they had access to confidential information regarding doctors' Medicare income; thirdly, that no money was made out of initial consultations, but that once they got a patient in they would be directed for other investigations or to other clinics; fourthly, that each specialist referral within their organisation would earn their organisation not the normal $50-odd but $300 because the specialists followed a written protocol to maximise income rather than meeting the actual medical needs of the patient; fifthly, that they were on salaries of between $300,000 and $400,000; sixthly, that they would not be able to continue or would be in trouble if Labor lost office; and seventhly, that accidents and injuries could be organised for those who did not co-operate and that such accidents had been organised in Sydney. The proposal put to the Newcastle doctors was that they should close their 24-hour medical practice and join the Sydney-sponsored venture. Subsequently, Dr Parker advised the Sydney doctors that they would not join the venture. True to the threats made, a few days later a brick was thrown through the door of Dr Parker's surgery. The brick had written on it three words: The first was unparliamentary and the second two words were `off now'. It was at this stage that Dr Parker sought the assistance of his local medical association, which decided to go the the local Federal member for help and to the Press. Following a report of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, I immediately called for a full Australian Federal Police inquiry into these serious allegations of the use of leaked confidential Health Insurance Commission information for the purposes of fraud and overservicing and the threats of personal injury and actual malicious damage to property. Instead of bringing in the Federal Police to investigate these grave charges, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) decided to have an in-house investigation by staff from the Health Insurance Commission. Subsequently, in answer to a question on 14 March in this House, the Minister said: Dr Parker's statement to the Commission clearly refuted any suggestion that a mole was operating within the Commission. I seek leave to table the transcript of evidence of the interview between the Health Insurance Commission officers and Dr Parker. Leave granted. Mr PORTER —I thank the House. The transcript of that evidence firstly, substantiates, the seven grave charges that I have made and, secondly, makes clear that the Minister has not only misled the Parliament but also grossly misrepresented Dr Parker. At page 8 of the transcript of evidence Dr Parker explains how he could not work out how such large amounts of money as claimed by the two Sydney doctors could be earned. He states that Dr Haider explained: . . . they they knew exactly what they could do, what they could get away with within the system, that they were squeaky clean, but that they knew what they could do and get away with as far as ordering tests, investigations, etc, goes'. He went on to say: I said well, what do you mean? They quoted a figure and they said to me they, that where they were at the time- suggesting that they knew that the parameters set by the Health Insurance Commission did vary- they could order seven MBAs- that is, multiple blood analyses- per forty patients without tripping off the computer. Despite the best endeavours of the officers of the Health Insurance Commission to clear the Commission of these allegations, Dr Parker was not going to be swayed. On page 11 of the transcript he says: The whole thing was based on they inferred that they could get this information and that was the reason for their success; the reason that they could work just inside the guidelines, without getting into trouble. They were insinuating at all times, but they never actually said they had a mole, they just said they had that information. Dr Parker did not say that there was not a mole in the Health Insurance Commission. He said that these two doctors had confidential information and had in fact insinuated that there was a mole in the Health Insurance Commission. The statement of the Minister for Health to this House last month that `Dr Parker's statement to the Commission clearly refuted any suggestion that a mole is operating within the Commission' is a total misrepresentation of Dr Parker's position. It is clearly untrue and was calculated to mislead the House. Before I come to the reasons why the Minister for Health would want to take the heat off the Health Insurance Commission and the fallibility of this national computer-based Medicare payment system, let me make a couple of other points. Of course, a mole is not the only way confidential Health Insurance Commission information can get out. A statutory declaration made by Dr Walker, President of the Hunter Medical Association, who was contacted by Dr Parker after the meeting with the Sydney doctors, says in paragraph 10: On Monday March 17 1986 two investigators of the HIC (Mr Shane McAnulty and Mr Phil Clift) interviewed me and in the course of discussion I was informed that dissatisfied ex-employees of the HIC would be one possible source of leaks in the HIC. I was encouraged to advise anyone with information to come forward and report to them and they stated that they were fully aware of Dr Edelsten's activities and were continuing to investigate. The Health Insurance Commission investigators said that. Mr McAnulty, the same investigator, in discussion with a lawyer involved in this case, has revealed that an ex-employee of the Health Insurance Commission, with intimate knowledge of the computer operation of the HIC, is in fact now working for Dr Edelsten. I make no assertion regarding that employee's behaviour. But what is clear is that not only could there be a mole in the HIC but in addition Health Insurance Commission investigators themselves have suggested that dissatisfied ex-employees may be passing on to their employers confidential information they obtained during their employment with the Health Insurance Commission. Whatever is the reason for this serious breakdown in security, the fact is that people claim to have the information and Medicare is being ripped off by planned and extensive fraud and overservicing. The Minister claims that he does not know why in the first eight months of this financial year medical expenditure is $99m over budget. What a farce! He must be the only one who does not know what is going on. What is worse is the failure of the Health Insurance Commission fraud and overservicing section to take any action to recoup this stolen taxpayers' money. Mrs Kelly —What did you do about it? Mr PORTER —It indicates how easy it is for the crooks to beat the system. Mr MacKellar —We prosecuted. Mr PORTER —We did prosecute. The Government has lost control of Medicare because the administrative arrangements it has set up, relying on a central national computer, are fatally flawed. When one adds to these fatal flaws the Government's promotion of bulk billing for all patients, it is clear that the Government has provided a gold-plated pipeline to the mint. Under bulk billing, doctors are encouraged to send their accounts directly to the Government. The system provides a number of opportunities for the Government to be billed without the patient ever having an opportunity to audit the account. The majority of doctors, of course, are not involved. But for those unscrupulous, unethical doctors who know the extent of allowable overservicing and who can bill the Government without the patient auditing the account, this system provides a heaven-sent opportunity to rip off the Government on a massive scale. We have continually pointed out the fallibility of this Medicare scheme but the Government chooses to ignore us. The Medicare cheats have a real friend in the Labor Government. No wonder Dr Parker, in a statutory declaration dated 3 April, at paragraph 13, reported: The Sydney doctors said that if the Labor Government lost office, they would not be able to continue or would be in difficulty. What they meant, of course, is clear. These doctors were claiming that it was possible under the Labor Government's Medicare bulk billing program to treat patients, once they got them through the door, as money making concerns. They claim that provided they stuck to a written protocol of maximising the number of tests within the leaked Health Insurance Commission parameters, which, of course, they got hold of, they will maximise their income per patient regardless of the patient's need for such tests. The Sydney doctors are quite right-the Opposition will not allow this Labor-promoted rip-off of taxpayers' funds to continue. The leaking of confidential information regarding the parameters of the allowable number of medical services per patient is not the only information that was claimed to be leaked from the Health Insurance Commission. The two Sydney doctors also claim to have access to information regarding the income of other doctors. This, of course, is not the first time that such confidential Medicare information regarding doctors' incomes has been leaked. I am sure that members of the House will recall the front page story in the Sydney Morning Herald on 29 April last year in which the incomes of leading Sydney doctors were disclosed from Medicare records. Despite my frequent public calls for action on that leak, we have not been told how the leak occurred, by whom, what action had been taken and what action, if any, has been taken to increase security to prevent subsequent leaks. The truth is that the Government has no way of guaranteeing the confidentiality of medical records and it is trying to avoid public scrutiny by brushing this matter under the carpet. In the light of this experience, the Minister's claims that confidential information can be held secure by the same people in the Health Insurance Commission for the purposes of the Australia Card is a joke. Allegations of Medicare fraud and overservicing are not new. In fact, I explained to the House last year how the system was being worked. However, I did not at that time have sworn statements, such as the affidavits that I will seek leave to table in a moment, disclosing admissions by practising doctors as to how they were ripping the system off. The Government has the information; it has the allegations which were given to the Health Insurance Commission investigators. Yet on 14 March the Minister for Health-and he repeated it today with access to the transcript of interview-tried to cover up these grave allegations. He says that at this stage the evidence does not appear to warrant referral to the Australian Federal Police except with regard to the malicious damage to property. What a farce! In fact, he admitted today that he could not even find the Sydney doctors. In summary, then, we have a Dr Haida and Dr Sidhwani claiming that they are doctors working for Dr Edelsten, wishing to set up a 24-hour practice capable of earning large amounts of money through fraud and overservicing of the Medicare system. Subsequently, on 15 March Dr Edelsten confirmed the claim that they are doctors and that they were working for him. When Dr Parker advised the two Sydney doctors that he would not join their venture, a brick was thrown through his plate glass door consistent with the claims of thuggery in relation to those who failed to co-operate. The Sydney doctors claimed to have access to confidential Medicare information in relation to both the parameters of allowable overservicing and doctors' Medicare incomes. As I said, there has already been a leak, published on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, of doctors' Medicare incomes. When Dr Parker's story was made public, instead of immediately initiating a full Federal Police inquiry, the Federal Minister opted for a limited in-house inquiry by the Health Insurance Commission. Mr Shipton —A cover-up. Mr PORTER —It is indeed a cover-up. Three days later the Minister in this House misled the Parliament by suggesting that Dr Parker had refuted his claims when he was interviewed by the Health Insurance Commission investigators, a claim that is patently false and denied by Dr Parker. Today he repeated that little more has been done since that time. In addition to his attempts to cover up these allegations of a fatal flaw in Medicare which is allowing a rip-off of in excess of $100m, the Minister failed to enact legislative changes to overcome some of the blatant abuses of the Medicare system. The Minister and his Department have been advised that problems were occurring in this area as long ago as late 1984, and no action has been taken. We have been told that legislation would be introduced to overcome the problems identified by the Public Accounts Committee report. Where is the legislation? Of course, nothing has been heard of it. At the outset I explained that Dr Parker went to his local medical association whose president is Dr Walker. Together they went to see their local Federal member of Parliament, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris), to get some action on this matter. I seek leave of the House to table the statutory declaration of Dr Parker and that of Dr Ian Walker. Leave granted. Mr PORTER —Dr Parker states: On that same date, I in company with Dr Walker, spoke to Mr Allan Morris, the local Federal member. Mr Morris did not want me to inform the Press (this had already been done). Mr Morris said that he did not wish to bring up the matter in Parliament, nor did he want the Opposition parties informed. Mr Morris said ``You doctors will self-destruct''. He said ``Dr Edelsten is doing a job for us we couldn't do ourselves. He is like the BLF is to the union movement''. Dr Walker's statutory declaration confirms this. He said that the honourable member for Newcastle stated: . . . Edelsten was achieving what the Government has been unable to do, the downfall of the present system of medicine as it is now practised. Allegations of unethical medical practice by way of fraud and overservicing, such as those made by the two Sydney doctors, abound in relation to Dr Edelsten's clinics. Whilst Dr Edelsten has seemingly been continually under investigation, nevertheless the Federal Government has not taken any action to stop him. What does the honourable member for Newcastle mean when he says that Edelsten was achieving what the Government had been unable to do, namely, the downfall of the present system of medicine as it is now practised? It is clear that the Government, through the bulk billing system, is encouraging such overservicing. What the Minister wants to do obviously is to allow those doctors to continue until public opinion turns against this rip-off. Then he will say that the only way to fix it will be to put them all on a salary. That is just what the Minister for Health has always wanted. Honourable members will recall his words: The Party has put aside any primary emphasis on salaried or capitation system in pragmatic recognition of the prevailing culture and attitudes in this society and its efforts to secure widespread community support for its program. He went on to say: This is a fact of life and whatever changes may be desirable in that system will have to take place gradually and incrementally. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.23) —I remind the House that on 14 March 1986, as the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) has said, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) answered a question put to him by the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth). In answering that question, the Minister said: Dr Parker's statement to the Commission clearly refuted any suggestion that a mole is operating within the Commission. I ask: Was that an honest statement, as he is bound to be honest? Was it honest but incompetent, or was it deliberately deceptive? The honourable member for Barker has laid out the sequence of events. Let me remind the House of that sequence. On 5 February 1986 there was a meeting which had been promoted from Sydney, attended by Dr Parker and Dr Court-the two doctors from Newcastle-two Sydney doctors and two Sydney businessmen. What was the proposal? It was a very straightforward one. It was proposed that a 24-hour clinic be opened up. What were the benefits? If they opened up a 24-hour clinic they would make an enormous amount of money; in fact they would become millionaires within a short time. How was this to be achieved? It is perfectly plain that it was to be achieved, on what Dr Parker has said and on what was before the Minister, through the exploitation of Medicare. Wrapped up in that meeting was a threat. Let me quote what Dr Parker said of this threat: Well, they said during the dinner that if their boss came to Newcastle he would be happy to organise accidents and injuries to us and our families and that he had used those sorts of tactics before. Wisely, the doctors decided not to be involved. Then, a few days later, as the honourable member for Barker has said, a brick came through their clinic door, with a note saying `f... off now'. How did that happen and why did it happen so quickly after their refusal to be involved? Dr Parker has told us that on 7 March 1986 he started proceedings. Dr Parker in his statutory declaration, which is now before the House, said: On 7th March, 1986 after I had begun to have fears for the safety of myself and those around me, I obtained legal advice, and as a result of such advice, I made complaints to the Newcastle Court House, directed against the persons I met at the dinner, complaining of an apprehension by myself of possible violence to myself and family. One would think that that was fairly serious stuff, but this Minister is apparently content to brush it off. We know that there was a radio interview and on 11 March there was the interview between officers of the Health Insurance Commission and Dr Parker and his partner Dr Court. The Minister has the transcript. He had it when he answered the question in this House on 14 March. Honourable members will recall that his answer was given to a dorothy dix question which was carefully phrased. The honourable member for Perth asked: Is the Minister for Health able to comment on the alleged claim that there is a mole within the Health Insurance Commission who has been feeding confidential information to businessmen to enable them to rip off Medicare? Can the Minister also comment on whether he has received information from the Health Insurance Commission on allegations by a Newcastle doctor concerning corruption and intimidation? That question might almost have been written by the Minister. We in this House all know what dorothy dixers are. There was no possibility of misunderstanding. The question had no doubt been procured by the Minister, and he gave an answer which was designed to cap public comment on a potential scandal by denying that the interview with his own officials had raised any question of a mole in the system and of that mole sabotaging that system for profit. There was a carefully phrased question and a carefully and precisely phrased answer. The answer in part was clearly and purportedly based on the transcript of the interview we have before us in the House. I remind honourable members once again that the Minister said: Dr Parker's statement to the Commission clearly refuted any suggestion that a mole is operating within the Commission. The Minister is not saying there is no evidence; he is saying unequivocally and unambiguously that there was nothing in anything Dr Parker said to the Commission's officers to support even a suggestion that there might be a mole. What did Dr Parker say about this critical meeting of 5 February? What did he say about it in his interview as recorded and supplied to the Minister? The honourable member for Barker has outlined what took place. Let me remind honourable members of what happened. The two other doctors were going to break away from their Sydney boss. They wanted to organise Newcastle before he did. Finance would be provided for the clinic and profits split, and Dr Parker and Dr Court would be `millionaires in a couple of years'. Even the Minister would understand that it is not easy these days, just from one's earnings, legitimately to become a millionaire within a couple of years. It is really quite hard work. Did the Minister pause to think how this would take place? How was it to take place? It was to take place through the exploitation of the Medicare system and the taxpayers. Let me read to the House some of the statements which were recorded, evidence given by Dr Parker when he was seen by the officers of the Commission. I shall quote what he was told. Dr Parker, speaking of one of these doctors, said: . . . he was very reluctant to say anything, but he basically came out and said he, they were, they knew exactly what they could do, what they could get away with within the system, that they were squeaky clean, but that they knew what they could do and get away with; as far as ordering tests, investigations, etc, goes. Now I had no idea of the significance, the possible significance, of that statement at all, this has all been said to me after I made this statement to the press. Would not the Minister have known the significance of that statement-that the doctors knew what they could get away with within the system? Dr Parker continued: They also said at one stage that when they referred a patient to a specialist within the Organisation, that that specialist would have a written protocol . . . and the written protocol is supposed to be worth about $300 every time they referred a patient. What was the protocol? Why, it was a protocol of what they could do on that patient without tripping the computer. Where do we think that protocol came from? Did that question not pass through the Minister's mind? Dr Parker stated: The whole thing was based on they inferred that they could get this information and that was the reason for their success; the reason that they could work just inside the guidelines, without getting into trouble. Is that not lovely? They could work just inside the guidelines without getting into trouble. Dr Parker also stated: They were insinuating at all times, but they never actually said they had a mole, they just said they had that information. Where did it come from? Did that thought not cross the Minister's mind? Where could it have come from, save from the Commission itself? Lastly, in this catalogue of quotations-and there is much more but time does not permit-Dr Parker stated: He said once we were involved he would go into great detail about where the money was made. I said to him, `there's no way you can make this sort of money you're talking about, out of seeing the patients on a legitimate basis ' and he said, `that's right, that's true'. What is that other than an admission, on what Dr Parker says, of plain straightforward dishonesty? What does it refer to? It refers to the ripping off of the Medicare system and the systems of control within Medicare. After listening to that, let me read again what the Minister said in this House. He stated: Dr Parker's statement to the Commission clearly refuted any suggestion that a mole is operating within the Commission. Not only is that contrary to what Dr Parker said and what was recorded by the officer of the Commission, but the officers themselves were looking for a mole. In the course of the interview they stated: Well, there's two avenues of our inquiry. One avenue of course is that somebody is going to do something about pathology, pay a commission or do something which encourages the provision of pathology services and where they're doing this is an offence. And of course the second part of it is that should someone in the Health Insurance Commission be giving information to a party who is not authorised to receive them, that is also an offence. If one reads what Dr Parker has said, as the Minister would be aware, he has not been talking about commissions. Dr Parker was approached about the exploitation of the system. How was that going to be done? It would be done by knowing how the system works. The Minister is not only condemned by the record of interview and by his own careful and overclever reply to that very carefully planted question, but he also contrives, in answering the question, to condemn himself. I again quote from his answer in Hansard of 14 March 1986 when he stated: I might just observe on that point that the Health Insurance Commission does not have a standard monitoring system. It is flexible and parameters for monitoring overservicing are regularly changed on the basis of developing information. That is a fatal explanation. How would anyone know how the system works, a system which the Minister himself tells us is flexible and the parameters of which are regularly changed? Unless one had inside information, there was a leak or there was a mole, how would one know? The Minister tells us that Dr Parker's statement to the Commission clearly refuted any suggestion that a mole is operating within the Commission. That is a proposition that his own officers clearly did not accept, because they were investigating it. It is a proposition that is absolutely inconsistent with everything that Dr Parker has said. What is the answer? Was it just a slip? No, there was no slip. It was deliberate, calculated, planned and contrived and it was demonstrably and deliberately misleading. Of course, that is not the only evidence that we have here. From what Dr Parker says, we have evidence that these doctors knew of other doctors' income. We have the Minister's answer when he stated: The evidence does not appear to warrant referral to the Australian Federal Police. Let me sum up what the evidence amounts to: It amounts to exploitation of the Medicare system. The exploitation was highly organised on a basis, from what Dr Parker tells with great candour, which one of the doctors admitted was not legitimate. Next we have plainly a breach of the security of the Medicare system. What other explanation is open on the facts that we know? None. We next have disguised, or not so disguised, threats of injury made to doctors who have been approached about setting up a 24-hour clinic. The evidence is before the Minister that these things have been done in the past. What does the Minister say? He says: `Hell, this is not a matter for the Australian Federal Police. What is in it for the Australian Federal Police? What does the evidence point to?' All the evidence, including the brick through the window, the threats and the plan to set up the clinic and make fortunes for everybody, directly points to the emergence of organised crime in Medicare. It requires the most serious and immediate examination by the Australian Federal Police. Before the Minister prompts an examination by the Australian Federal Police, what will he need? Will he need a signed confession and a few dead bodies? What will he need? We do not know. We only know that he will do anything to avoid having this scandal aired in public and he will do anything, so it seems, to avoid involving the Australian Federal Police. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(4.39) —Firstly, may I make a few background remarks before dealing with each of the specific allegations. Most of them have not been talked about by either speaker, but I will go through them in detail. By way of background comment, first let me say that immediately the information appeared in the media this Government ordered an investigation by the appropriate body, which at that stage was the Health Insurance Commission, and the interviews took place immediately following that decision, that is, there was no delay; there was no hedging and in fact we encouraged a public debate of these issues and endeavoured to give the Parliament the information immediately to hand. I will deal with those specific points of information in a moment. I also have to say that at no time has the Government ever said that it would not refer this matter to the Australian Federal Police. What it did say was that it had to have evidence before it to justify such a reference, given the enormous demands that are made on the Federal Police and the investigatory powers that the Health Commission has. That is the first set of background points. The second is to look at the background to this issue in the way that it developed. Firstly, the original dinner took place on 5 February and, as Dr Parker said, it was decided that `we would go out to dinner and have a chat over a few bottles of wine and a meal', et cetera. In fact, nearly every allegation that has been presented here today derives from statements made at that dinner over a few bottles of wine. I will come to those specific statements. These discussions take place at the dinner and nothing is done. The doctors concerned did not feel the need to report it to the police, the HIC or the Public Accounts Committee which is investigating these matters. Nothing is done until 15 February when a brick is thrown through Dr Parker's window. One would have thought that, if Dr Parker had made some connection between this brick and the alleged threats, when the matter was discussed with the Newcastle police, there would have been some reference to these other doctors and the threats against him. But the transcript indicates that there is no evidence that Dr Parker, when the matter was reported to the police, related it to these events at the dinner on 5 February. That, again, must be remembered. It is true that in late February, some three weeks after the original dinner, he took the issue to the Australian Medical Association. He did not take it to the police, either State or Federal, or the Health Insurance Commission. He took the issue to the AMA. Again, one would have thought that, if the AMA were really interested in getting to the bottom of this criminal problem that is alleged in New South Wales, rather than suggesting to Dr Parker that he should go to the media and make a great public issue of it, the AMA would have advised Dr Parker to go to the Federal Police, the HIC or the Public Accounts Committee, or that the AMA would have done so itself. In fact, they were given that advice. When the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris) spoke to the AMA representative and Dr Parker, he advised them to take it in confidence to the Public Accounts Committee where witnesses could be questioned confidentially under oath, without all the problems and distortions that have resulted from blowing up this issue in the public arena, with writs flying around the medical profession in New South Wales. Edelsten has issued one writ in regard to a couple of doctors; Parker has sought a court order. The whole effort to get to the bottom of this was very much confused by the line taken by the AMA and Dr Parker, who went into the public arena. Dr Parker says he suspects he has been used by the AMA. If people were seriously concerned about the substance of those remarks made at that dinner table, there are sensible courses to take which would enable the police or the authorities to get to the bottom of it. None of those courses was taken. I say to the Opposition, as I have always said, if it has hard evidence that it can bring to us about fraud and corruption in the New South Wales medical profession, or if the New South Wales branch of the AMA has this evidence, it should bring it before us and we will properly investigate it. But that has not happened. The AMA has not brought these problems before us, nor has the Opposition until today. They have not put before us any new evidence that could be properly investigated. Let me look at the specific set of allegations that has been made here. Let me try to refute them quickly. I am accused of misleading the House by saying that a statement made by Dr Parker, a Newcastle doctor, clearly refuted any suggestion that a mole was operating within the Commission. If one reads the transcript, one will see that, I think on three occasions, Dr Parker clearly denies that an allegation was ever made that there was a mole in the HIC. Let me quote: `I never at any stage said to anybody that they told me they had a mole in the Government Department'. Dr Court, referring to a similar suggestion, said: `I never said anything like that'. Clear denials were placed on the record several times and the only public allegation that I know of about a mole allegedly came from Dr Parker, and Dr Parker has quite clearly denied it. People at a dinner party made a series of allegations about how they can get money out of Medicare, and it is automatically assumed that the only way those things could be calculated was by having a mole. It is quite clear that Parker and Court never at any time made the public allegation. They have never suggested, nor has anybody else in this affair suggested, that there was a mole in the Health Insurance Commission. I do not know how these doctors were able to make allegations that they had calculated things. I do not know what truth lies behind their calculations. They were endeavouring- Mr Porter —You don't want to find out. That is the point. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member for Barker will cease interjecting. Dr BLEWETT —We certainly do want to find out. Mr Porter —Why don't you look for them? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker will hear the Minister in silence. The honourable member for Barker and the honourable member for North Sydney were heard in silence. The Minister will be heard in silence. Dr BLEWETT —We certainly intend as far as possible to get to the bottom of these allegations. But let me say that, because of the way in which this issue was taken to the media and because of the writs that now fly around, it is extremely difficult for us to reach the doctors concerned. All of them are now involved in court cases in New South Wales. Mr Porter —Why? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Barker continues to interject, I shall warn him. Dr BLEWETT —Let me turn now to the assertion that I am covering up serious allegations of the breakdown of the Medicare system and the involvement of organised crime in the defrauding of Medicare. There is no evidence in these hearsay remarks. There is no hard or firm evidence. There is nothing in these transcripts-and I am glad that they are here for people to investigate-that establishes that organised crime is involved in the defrauding of Medicare. If the police are to set off down these tracks, we need better evidence than a few hearsay remarks, many of which were made in the media and which are partially denied, at least in this document. We need something more than that if those sorts of things are to be pursued. Another allegation is that I have failed to use the full resources of the Commonwealth including the Federal Police. Let me say that we have used the full resources of the Commonwealth in terms of the Health Insurance Commission, which is the appropriate and immediate investigator of this issue. If more hard evidence develops in the continuing inquiry-I have received a report each week on this inquiry as it goes on-that justifies a reference to the Federal Police, this Government will do so. If the Opposition is prepared to provide that hard evidence, we will do so. I challenge the AMA, which has been so involved in the background to this issue, if it has hard evidence about fraud, corruption and blackmail within the medical system in New South Wales, to bring it forward to the Government and it will be properly investigated. I have time and again dealt with the claim that universal bulk billing encourages and facilitates the rapid expansion of fraud and overservicing. We have recently received the first preliminary evidence in regard to bulk billing and overservicing. I am very pleased to be able to say that there appears to be no correlation whatsoever between those doctors who bulk bill and those who provide above normal services; nor does there appear to be any correlation between the size of general practitioners' incomes and the amount of bulk billing they do. We will be able to release that material for the Opposition to examine, in our usual open way. But the preliminary investigation of GPs suggests that, despite all the assertions of the Opposition, there is no correlation between the use of bulk billing by a GP and either the size of his income or the amount of servicing that he does. The fifth allegation made was that I am somehow planning, in the words of the honourable member for Newcastle, `the downfall of the present system of medicine as it is now practised'. I am assured by my colleague the honourable member for Newcastle that of course he never said anything of that sort and that this kind of allegation is another of the straws grabbed by the Opposition to make a case in this matter. Finally, I turn to the allegation that I failed to take legislative action to stop fraud and overservicing, of which the Government has had notice for over 18 months. Let me place on the record that this Government has done more about fraud and overservicing than any previous government in this country. Mr Porter —How much money have you got back? None. Dr BLEWETT —For the first two years of this Government this Opposition and the AMA were constantly saying- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member for Barker will cease interjecting or he will be warned. Dr BLEWETT —The Opposition and the AMA were continually attacking me in this House and in public for being too tough on fraud and too tough on overservicing. Of course, one of the results of that was the record recovery from overservicing in the first year of this Government. As we have improved our systems and introduced the Medicare system, in which all the information comes into one bank, of course, some of the problems of overservicing have been much more easily tackled. One can look at the record of fraud cases pursued by this Government and at the recovery by this Government, and certainly it compares more than favourably with the efforts of any previous Government. As for legislation, it was the present Government which introduced in October-November last year a full overview and reform of the fraud laws in this country in relation to Medicare to make them much more flexible and much more effective. This involved a major overhaul of the laws on Medicare fraud to improve their effective working, to make them more flexible and more effective in dealing with this particular canker that exists among a small proportion of the medical profession. It was the present Government which undertook this massive and effective overhaul of the fraud laws. Again, it was this Government which decided that the most efficient way of dealing with fraud and overservicing was to put all the elements of fraud and overservicing together in the Health Insurance Commission so that there would not be the old division between the insurance funds and the Department. To put them together in a single agency is the most efficient and effective way of dealing with fraud and overservicing. One of the specific charges was denied by the honourable member for Newcastle, who, apparently, was never even approached. Apparently, he was just quoted by the Opposition in this way, without any suggestion of whether or not the statement was true. That reflects the kind of contemptible level to which the Opposition has sunk in trying to make a case out of this issue. The Government will welcome from the Opposition and from the New South Wales AMA some hard evidence to enable the prosecution of these cases to be much more effective. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Porter's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 15 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. 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) Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D, P. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, 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. Chynoweth. R. L. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. 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. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Saunderson, J. Gorman, R. N. J. 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. Jull, D. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Hodges, J. C. Milton, P. Cowan, D. B. Bilney, G. N. Cameron, Ian Keating, P. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ALLAN MORRIS —Yes. I claim to have been misrepresented today by statements made and documents which were tabled. I seek leave to elaborate further on the matter after having a chance to study the documents involved. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That will suit the House. Debate resumed from 12 March, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(5.02) —It is something of an anti-climax to come back to the captive cocky Bill after the stirring events of the deregistration of the Builders Labourers Federation and the very disturbing motion in relation to the conduct of certain of the medical profession in New South Wales. I fully endorse the majority of the amendments proposed in the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill, as would anyone concerned with the conservation of Australia's natural heritage. However, I draw to the attention of the House the import of clause 6 of the Bill which deals with the export of household pets which happen to be native Australian animals. I will also address the wider issue of the export of certain categories of native fauna, whether or not in the pet category. The Northern Territory, my seat, is home to an unparallelled range of native reptiles, animals and birds. Apart from the inherent advantages of this situation for those of us lucky enough to live there, the native fauna has played its part in the commercial life of the Northern Territory by attracting visitors and the dollars they spend. However, these beasts and birds are not entirely without their problems. Our crocodiles have a history of endangering people in popular aquatic recreation areas. A number of attacks and several deaths have been attributed to these reptiles over the past couple of years, although I hasten to add that the deaths appear to have occurred mainly in Queensland. The Territory's magpie geese literally ate the rice crop, along with millions of dollars of investors' funds during the ill-fated development of the Humpty Doo rice project a couple of decades ago. At this moment our cockatoo and galah population is literally making a meal of seedling sorghum and maize crops in the Douglas-Daly area of the Top End because it has been a very dry wet season. I have been personally involved with trying to assist an Indonesian consular official to take home with him the family pet, a sulphur-crested cockatoo, after the consular official had finished a tour of duty in Darwin. Quite extraordinary laws prohibit such an action unless the bird in question has been a household pet for many years. It seems to me that clause 6 does not do much to alleviate the situation. A bird has to have been in the family for not less than three years. As I recall, the Indonesian gentleman in question had Australian-born children younger than that and happily he was allowed to take those children home to Jakarta with no trouble at all. My point is that the Northern Territory is home to enormous numbers and varieties of bird life, particularly in the parrot family. Because of their beauty, personality and in some cases their ability to talk, they are much prized in overseas countries. I am reliably informed that a family living in a high rise apartment in Singapore, with the only wildlife to be seen being behind bars at the local zoo, will pay handsomely for one of these Australian birds to brighten up the concrete cubicle in which they live. However, the Australian Government has a total prohibition on the export of these birds unless they are destined for a zoo or for reputable scientific study. Simple human enjoyment does not come into it. I hasten to add that I totally endorse the Government's stance in relation to wildlife species which are endangered, but I would always prefer to export a bird or animal for profit and the ultimate enjoyment of other human beings than to see it blown out of the air by a shotgun. This is the situation we have in the Territory at the moment and I believe that it is far worse in the major grain producing States of the south. After the Humpty Doo experience, where the birds ate well and the investors went broke, serious attempts at cropping in the Northern Territory were abandoned for the best part of 20 years. With the active encouragement of the Northern Territory Government, farmers are now successfully growing sorghum, maize, mung beans, soya beans and other crops and our protected bird species are making a meal of them. Smart farmers plant mini-crops under trees away from their main grain paddocks. Those mini-crops are purely for the birds. The problem is that the birds make such heavy use of the roosting facilities in the trees that the trees eventually die, so the birds invade the main grain paddocks. Desperate farmers have applied for shooting permits so that they can control these normally protected bird species on their land. It is an unfortunate fact of life that tens of thousands of cockatoos and magpies are blasted out of the air each year. I know of one farmer from the Douglas-Daly area who became so desperate that he hired a plane and attempted to chase his farm population of protected birds back to the bush. A bird collided with and broke the radio aerial and ancillary gear on his plane. This grounded the aircraft and cost him thousands of dollars. In the meantime the galahs returned to his farm and ate a substantial portion of his crop. If these farmers were allowed to trap just some of these birds and channel them into a Government-controlled export market, it would have the immediate effect of reducing damage to the grain industry and saving the lives of thousands of birds every growing season and would go some way towards cutting out the bird smuggler who, because of the secret but lucrative nature of his trade, makes no distinction between rare and plentiful bird species and often inflicts enormous suffering on the birds through capture and smuggling practices. It would generate another area of legitimate trade, especially amongst farmers, who are in dire need of any additional cash income they can generate, as any casual perusal of the daily Press confirms and the demonstration outside this House and around Canberra Airport over the past couple of days underlines. This problem is not affecting just the Northern Territory. Despite the enormous numbers of grain eating birds in my electorate, a farmer who recently relocated to the Top End from the Narrabri district of New South Wales said that compared with the situation in his State our farmers should be on first name terms with their local population of cockatoos and galahs. At last year's meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers on Norfolk Island, Queensland and the Northern Territory argued for a relaxation of the Federal Government's prohibition on wildlife exports, particularly in relation to the types of birds about which I have been talking. Over recent years the Northern Territory has shown how a wild crocodile population can be conserved and at the same time human life safeguarded and how commercial benefit can be derived through tourism and trade. I urge the Government to reconsider not just restraints on individuals taking budgerigars and galahs overseas as household pets but also the whole question of the export of native birds. The way the law stands at the moment, the bird suffers unnecessarily and the smuggler waxes fat on his illegal profits. I support the tenor of the Bill. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(5.10) —I rise to support the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill. This Bill amends an Act which came into force in 1984 and consolidates into one single piece of legislation the previous conservation controls on the import and export of plants and animals. Most of the debate has centred on the export of birds, and I intend to speak briefly about one particular bird a little later. It is important to note the tremendous mortality rate involved in the export of birds. The Traffic Bulletin magazine of several years ago shows that exports of birds from countries such as South America to the United States in some instances involve a mortality of 100 per cent. The mortality rate varies roughly between 50 and 100 per cent. In fact in 1979-80, 265 birds, animals, reptiles and eggs-with an estimated overseas value of $743,000-were recovered from smugglers, according to a Press release by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), who has just left the chamber. That shows the enormity of this problem. I hope that this legislation will go some way to continuing and, hopefully, reinforcing the protection of the birds and animals, the fauna and flora of Australia. I am sure that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) is one of the few members in this Parliament who knows all about the orange-bellied parrot. Mr Ronald Edwards —He spoke to you about it. Mr CHARLES —The Minister spoke to me about it. Mr Ronald Edwards —The honourable member for Dunkley knows about it and speaks about it. Mr CHARLES —The honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) is very concerned about this rare bird. In fact, it is one of the rarest and most threatened species in Australia. There are fewer than 200 of the species in Australia. We are proud of it because its main habitat for the greater part of the year is off-shore from the wonderful seats of Isaacs and Dunkley, to the south-east of Melbourne, in Port Phillip Bay, mostly in the Swan Island area. It is rumoured-of course, I never give great credence to these rumours-that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation frequents that island and uses the birds for pot-shots every now and again. Nevertheless, as I have said before, the orange-bellied parrot is one of the rarest and most threatened bird species in Australia. Its population fluctuates but it is always less than 200. It is a shame that in the past we have been unable to protect this rare and quite beautiful bird as well as we might have. Its habitat fluctuates from the west coast of Tasmania up to King Island and across to Port Phillip Bay to Swan Island and into the areas of south-east Melbourne. As the picture I have here shows, it is a wonderful parrot. The loss of habitat, particularly in the Port Phillip area, and the trapping of the bird for aviculture are considered to have been the primary causes of the past decline of the species. Pressures for land development and habitat alteration are now the main threats to the bird's survival. I will quote from a little book entitled the Orange-bellied Parrot put out as a Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union conservation statement. It states: The Orange-bellied Parrot's breeding habitat comprises extensive sweeping sedgeland plains, lying west of the central Tasmanian massif. These plains are subject to an unpredictable westerly airstream which brings frequent heavy rain throughout the region, often causing many parts of them to be inundated. As I have said, the birds are distributed along the coast, up to the mainland and the Gippsland lakes in Victoria, west to Port Phillip Bay, and to the south-east of South Australia. These are the bird's primary areas. Swan Island, which is off Queenscliff, is under Commonwealth control. I hope that the Minister will look at this particularly rare bird and report back to the honourable member for Dunkley and myself at some time in the future on whether we are able to protect this rare species for ever more. With fewer than 200 birds, the situation is of quite grave concern. This legislation is very important. It brings together various pieces of legislation which came into force in May 1984. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, it will play a central role in the protection of Australia's wildlife and will contribute significantly to the protection of the wildlife of the world. During the debate several weeks ago we all heard the heart-rending stories of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and some other fine speeches made in regard to the import and export of flora and fauna and how many birds have suffered. We heard the argument that it is better to have that than to have them shot out of the air, as the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) just said. There is a fine line. It is not an easy issue. However, we hope that, with this legislation and because the concern of the Minister, this crime-and it is organised crime, because it involves multi-dollars-can be significantly wiped out. Earlier an honourable member spoke about education in environmental matters, especially in regard to our flora and fauna and our wildlife. I think it was the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) who made a very fine speech a couple of weeks ago on this legislation. He spoke on educational aspects and how we should be educating people, both young and old, about our environment. We hear a lot of emotive material in regard to our environment, which is not always in the best interests of the fauna and flora concerned. I think it is one of the prime instruments of government for it to use some of its money in the educational processes, starting back in the school area to teach children to carry through life a knowledge of the protection of flora and fauna that is necessary and that those flora and fauna are part of this world and fit into it, just as we humans do. I ask the Minister to keep in mind my remarks about the orange-bellied parrot, which has the concern of the honourable member for Dunkley and myself. I support the legislation. I sincerely hope that it helps to stamp out some of the crime and cruelty that has existed in the exporting of such fauna and flora around the world. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(5.18) —I rise to support my colleagues the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) and the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth). I know the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) also has spoken in this debate and contributed significantly. I will say also, in the nature of this debate, that there have been some honourable members opposite who have made worthwhile contributions. I refer to the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who is at the table, and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). We look forward to hearing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) sum up in the debate. Obviously, in view of the nature of my opening remarks, it can be seen that this legislation is bipartisan. In fact, it is legislation to which the previous Government had addressed itself, and I will deal with some of the specifics in a moment. I think it is important to emphasise that in matters of this nature, if we have a degree of commitment from both sides of the House and not the political action we often have in this place, we end up with a more informed debate and a better informed community. I will talk about the educational aspects in a moment. As the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) has said, the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill consolidates into a single piece of legislation the previous conservation controls on the import and export of plants and animals. It enables Australia to meet substantial and significant obligations for protection and conservation of the world's wildlife listed in the appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna-CITES. The legislation also controls the export of native Australian plants and animals and their products and it is this latter part to which I wish to devote some attention. I shall deal with it in terms of the specifics. There are four amendments: First, to make controls on the export and import of certain wildlife more appropriate to their status and the circumstances in which they enter trade; secondly, to simplify complex administrative procedures; thirdly, to clarify and tighten enforcement provisions; and fourthly to provide protection for those who provide information leading to prosecuting or proceedings. I will deal with those administrative and enforcement matters in a moment in the context of some other remarks. Clearly in this legislation we are saying that we believe we have some international obligations in this place. One sees that those international obligations are quite wide ranging when one looks at the role of the Australian Government. We have international obligations in respect of endangered flora and fauna. In my view, and I believe in the view of many members who have contributed to this debate, we also have obligations in terms of the public perception of the right thing to do. There is great concern about the treatment of wildlife by smugglers. There is justifiable concern among our people that some of our near neighbours, countries such as Singapore and Malaysia, feel that the taking of smuggled wildlife and offering it for sale is a normal part of their business practice. It would be our view that that should not be a normal part of their business practice, as my colleagues have already mentioned quite eloquently in their addresses. We really must say in this place that there are some things that are not on in the conduct of business dealings or the treatment of wild creatures. We are saying that we believe that international conventions on these matters should be observed and we will ensure that they are observed in the context of this legislation. We are also saying in the context of this legislation that we are setting out some administrative and enforcement procedures to enable us to act on the handling of wildlife. I now turn to the central part of the debate in the community. In my view there are two sides to the argument-a spurious side and a substantive side. The spurious side is that from time to time in this country we suffer from outgrowths in the population of our wild animals caused principally by climatic changes. It is then argued logically that the way to deal with that outbreak of numbers is to export those animals. In fact that argument is not logical because when there is an increase to plague proportions of a particular species, the climate itself is more likely to remedy the numbers than the establishment of an export trade. The export trade would be minuscule in terms of the total number with which we are dealing. Here I am talking about outbreaks of parrots in particular which occur in country areas of Western Australia. In terms of establishing an export trade it would not be possible to make any significant impact on the numbers of parrots and cockatoos. It also must be emphasised that if we set up that sort of export trade, the administrative procedures and the time and cost involved in policing that trade would be so substantial that we would not be able to get on with the business of dealing with the smugglers of endangered species. The argument does not hold up. If there are plague proportions of native animals and birds in certain circumstances due to climatic conditions, the way to deal with that plague is to let the climate rectify the numbers and it will. We have had other contributions in this debate as to whether we should be involved in culling and control, but I will not go into that at this moment. I believe that climatic procedures are very important in controlling numbers. Any argument that an export arrangement is the way to control numbers will not hold up because it will not work. The other point that has been made by speakers on this side of the House-I refer particularly to the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright)-is that whenever one encourages people to keep wild creatures all one is doing is adding to the appetite for them. In fact, one is creating a market, an enhanced market, for the trade in endangered species. I do not know how other people feel personally about the keeping of wild creatures but I find it totally obnoxious. I cannot imagine how anyone could really want to keep wild creatures in a cage; it seems to me to be an absurd way to behave, but I suppose that it is done. Mr Cohen —Some of the Opposition members should be kept in cages. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment mentions that perhaps from time to time people in public life should be kept in cages. I think that is true. I think that the casual observer of the public arena would recognise that fact. We will not get down to specifics. When we talk about wild creatures, I think it is quite obnoxious for people to keep them in cages. That is the first part of the argument. The second part of the argument which must be developed is that if one encourages people, by way of an export trade, to keep animals one is also encouraging them to seek endangered species for the market. In this country we have been given the inheritance of a remarkable land and a remarkable mixture of flora and fauna. As a nation we have a responsibility to pass on that inheritance. If all we are doing is passing on a depleted inheritance, those who follow us will rightly condemn us for not having cared for that inheritance. That is the broad argument to be addressed. From time to time there will be clashes between wild creatures and the farming and forestry communities. Those clashes will occur and we must recognise that fact; we cannot be soft about it. History shows that in those clashes, man-if I can use that term without sexist connotations-always wins out. That will happen but it does not excuse us, as a national government, from having a responsibility for endangered species. We do have a responsibility for endangered species and this legislation addresses itself to that responsibility. I now turn to another aspect which I believe is important. From time to time we have been subjected to predatory raids from some of our neighbours. I come from Western Australia and the coral reef area in the north-west of Western Australia is sometimes subjected to predatory raids by Taiwanese and Indonesians who come down and take a lot of creatures from those reefs. The problem with that whole mentality is that it is not safeguarding our inheritance. Our idea is that one should try to leave this world in a better condition that one found it, but too often the attitude which prevails is that one takes everything one can and lets tomorrow look after itself. Given the economic pressures in South East Asia, one can understand why that sort of attitude might occur. But it does not excuse us from acting if we know that it is occurring. It is my view that we, as a government, should be responsible for acting on that or supporting State governments which act on such matters. Nothing disheartens Australians more than the thought that people are coming here and simply pillaging the place. We have seen that on the Great Barrier Reef and we are seeing it now on the reefs in Western Australia. It is unacceptable for us to sit here and let it happen. That is why this legislation is important. It is a benchmark in terms of the Government's attitude towards the question of endangered species. The legislation also does something else. I referred earlier to the educational role. This legislation says that we, as a national government, have a responsibility to set standards of behaviour and flowing from that we have a responsibility to educate the community in what is acceptable behaviour. We set standards and then we educate the people as to the standards of acceptable behaviour. That is why it is good that there is a degree of bipartisanship in this chamber. There will be different views, depending on the part of the country from which one comes and the experience and pressures to which one is subjected. However this does not excuse us from protecting our inheritance. We have this inheritance and it is important that we should protect it. I wish to deal with yet another specific-and that is the Australian attitude towards the taking of whales and dolphins. It is commendable that the former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, took a very strong stand on this matter and we have continued that stand. I know that there is a great support in the community for that stand. From time to time the spurious argument is developed that we can afford to allow the taking of whales and dolphins for the establishment of marine parks. We have a responsibility in this place to say that we are not going to fall short of our international obligations. Australia is being seen as a world leader with respect to the protection of whales and dolphins. Arguments are being advanced in Australia and elsewhere that we ought to water down those conditions. We ought not to let that happen. In my own state of Western Australia we have the Atlantis Marine Park. It is an issue that I will not go into in detail now, but I must say that there is some legitimate concern in our national Parliament about whether or not we should allow new marine parks to be established. Previous speakers have referred to the issue of organised crime in relation to smuggling. Clearly it is an issue. The rationale of organised crime is always to work in those areas where it is believed that substantial profits can be made. It happens that one of the substantial profit areas of organised crime is narcotics. It happens that another substantial area of organised crime is bird smuggling. We have had testimony given by some people from the United States with connections in organised crime who have identified the volume and the amount of finance involved. There ought to be a recognition in this country that that has happened. There ought also to be a recognition that we ought to be dealing with this problem severely. The only regret I have is that I believe there are countries adjacent to ours that freely allow the markets for those smuggled birds to flourish without in any way meeting their responsibilities. We ought to be saying to those countries that that is not an acceptable standard because what they are doing is in a sense stealing from Australia. They are not in any way meeting their obligations, under international conventions, nor are they meeting their economic obligations to Australia. That is an issue that I believe has been addressed well in this debate, but we ought not ever be lax in pursuing that. Many people I speak to in Western Australia who have travelled to places such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Kuala Lumpur express regret at seeing Australian birds, clearly in many cases illegally acquired, being available for sale in those cities. Another matter on which I get frequent reports is a matter I referred to earlier-the pillaging of reefs in Western Australia by Taiwanese and Indonesian fishermen who believe that it is their right to come and pillage those reefs. It is our view that it is not their right; it is our view that the governments of those countries have a responsibility, as we do. I now move to another element of the debate. In speaking to the way in which this legislation is structured and the direction it is taking, I go back to my earlier remarks about whether or not one ought to set up an export trade in our wildlife. I am not talking about endangered species; I am talking about wildlife generally. What I have said already, and I think it has to be emphasised very strongly in this debate, is that if we set up an export trade, resources should be directed towards the management of that trade. It is our view that those resources should be directed towards policing, control and the proper administrative procedures for handling potential trade in endangered species. It is the choice we make. It is the opportunity cost of setting up this sort of structure is the cost of not being able to establish an export trade. I believe we have to deal with the issue directly. It is spurious to argue, as I said earlier, that we can control population outbreaks by taking the top off the population, by exporting; it does not work, particularly with parrots and cockatoos. But the issue has a wider application. We will be judged by the generations that follow us. How have we dealt with our inheritance? How substantially have we as a Government and a Parliament cared for that inheritance? This legislation tries to address that central point. I believe that the major issue that we as a country and as a set of States have to address is the proper management of not only our wildlife but also our conservation areas. The difficulty we have had has been the rapid development in the last 20 years in Australia of attitudes towards conservation and the setting aside of conservation areas, and attitudes towards endangered species and other wildlife. There has been a rapid change in public attitudes and public performance-what governments are prepared to do. What we now have to be doing as a central Government and as a set of State governments is ensuring that we have in place proper plans managing not only our conservation areas but also our wildlife. It is quite a deficient area in respect of many places in Western Australia. It is an area about which I have some concern. We do not have effective management plans for areas such as Bungle Bungle in the Kimberley area of Western Australia. The Western Australian Government has addressed itself to that question, but we need rangers to handle the management of those areas. What that comes down to is being prepared, as a country, to put money into the training and the maintenance of rangers in areas such as Bungle Bungle and in areas such as the Leuwin Naturalist National Park. We have been quite deficient in many respects in those areas. We have been prepared as a country to say: `Yes, that is a good area. We should be conserving it. We should be conserving the wildlife in that area'. But we are not prepared to do anything about it by having trained people on the ground. It was with pleasure that this week we visited the Namadgi National Park in the Australian Capital Territory. We saw well trained rangers in Namadgi who were capable of educating the public and managing the area. If we are not prepared to pay that price to do the job properly, two things will follow: First, the conservation areas and those conserved animals that we believe are important will be depleted; secondly, the educational process that it is important to set in place will not eventuate. It is with a sense of great satisfaction that tonight I talk about the State-Federal co-operation in the Great Barrier Reef Marine National Park. The educational role is very important. It enables people to say that this is what a reef is about, this is what we ought to be looking for, these are the things we ought to be enjoying with respect to a marine national park. It can be achieved by rangers being present on the ground. It is certainly something that we saw this week during our visit to Namadgi. It is something that I believe people are increasingly going to be asking for around the country, because internationally there has been a significant change. People are no longer prepared to have a plastic travel arrangement set up for them. Travellers have become more discerning. They expect to see wildlife, they expect to see conservation areas, and they expect to see them in good condition. The end point of that for us as a Federal Government and for State governments is that we must have properly trained rangers and proper educational programs. I know that the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) has been witness on the Great Barrier Reef to the difference between what I call a MacDonalds tour and, say, snorkelling and enjoying the facilities and the quality of the reef. This is important legislation. Its sets a direction in the debate and what we are saying is: `Yes, we are for management; yes, we are for enforcement; and yes, we are for meeting our international obligations. Some of our neighbours do not do that properly and we ought to be quite deliberate in saying that they do not and ensuring that the Australian people believe that we are protecting Australia. It is good to be able to join members such as the honourable member for Dunkley and the honourable member for Isaacs. This legislation addresses itself to our inheritance and our international responsibility to that inheritance. I am pleased to see that we are dealing with this matter in this place in the proper context of debate and I am pleased to commend the legislation to the House. Mr COHEN(Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(5.44) —in reply-First of all I want to express my appreciation for the bipartisan support for the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill. I thank honourable members for the comments they have made concerning the Government's approach to the control of wildlife trafficking. Once again, I commend the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) for his contribution as the shadow Minister. It was the usual measured contribution that we have come to expect from him and I thank him for his comments. Governments around the world are attacking wildlife smuggling primarily through the development of greater international co-operation. The network of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES, countries now numbers 91. I was encouraged to note that the honourable member for Bradfield, in addressing the problems of controlling wildlife smuggling, did not advocate that the present level of control should be reduced, as has been suggested by some members on both sides of the House. I agree with the honourable member for Bradfield that the judiciary must be prepared to apply levels of sentence which simply make it not worth while for those who openly breach the law to run the risk of being caught. The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act provides penalties of fines of up to $100,000 or 5 years imprisonment. The imposition of a $5,000 fine, in view of the profits to be made or the advantage to be gained over fellow collectors of wildlife, seems to be wholly inadequate. Such fines do not reflect the Government's view, the public view, or the seriousness of these offences. It is unfortunate that some members of the Opposition do not share the views of the honourable member for Bradfield and believe that reducing Australian controls on the export of wildlife will solve not only the smuggling problem but many more problems besides. A number of honourable members have suggested that by prohibiting the commercial export of live native wildlife, specifically that which is not endangered, this Government is aiding and abetting fauna smuggling and condoning the cruel treatment of fauna that smuggling involves. They suggested that, by relaxing import controls, smuggling would be eliminated, employment would be created and revenue would be provided to fund conservation and to supervise a trapping and export program. They claim that such exports would assist in the control of birds that are pests to the agricultural community and would replace current methods of control with a more humane alternative. The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) referred to recommendations in the second report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation entitled `Trafficking in Fauna in Australia' in support of his case. I remind the House that a previous coalition government-the Fraser Government-in consultation with the States examined the recommendations of this report in considerable detail and acknowledged that, while the arguments put forward in favour of government-controlled trapping and export had some merit, they were outweighed by other considerations. In July 1984 the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers-CONCOM-completed a detailed re-examination of the matter and concluded that, while superficially attractive, the arguments in favour of relaxing controls on the export of native fauna were not substantiated. In relation to the suggestion that relaxation of controls would eliminate smuggling, available evidence indicates that, while some illegal export of white cockatoos, galahs and corellas occurs, the preferred and most usual target for smugglers are, not surprisingly the uncommon, rare or endangered species. These include black cockatoos, golden shouldered parrots, Major Mitchell cockatoos, gang gangs and Australian birds of prey such as hawks, falcons and eagles. It is difficult then to understand the claim that allowing the export of white cockatoos, galahs and corellas would eliminate smuggling. The experience of other countries which allow legal export of wildlife indicates that smuggling has not been eliminated and that an avenue for legal export in many cases opens additional avenues for smuggling. This involves the falsification and forgery of permits, the inclusions of rare or uncommon birds in shipments of common species and the substitution of wild trapped birds for captive bred specimens. Recent experience in the United States of America has shown that the recent lifting of a prohibition on the sale or export of captive bred birds, even under the supervision of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, does not offer security to wildlife. A three-year investigation by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service resulted in 39 arrests on charges related to illegal traffic in wildlife. It appears that permits and leg bands issued by the United States Government to identify legally held birds were fraudulently used on 400 to 500 endangered peregrines and gyrfalcons taken illegally from the wild and intended to be sold overseas for $50,000 each. Some honourable members have claimed that the inflated prices currently obtained for smuggled birds would generate considerable revenue if export controls were relaxed. However, surely anyone with an ounce of intelligence would not expect that prices of $2,000 and $3,000 for galahs, cockatoos and corellas would be maintained if restrictions on the supply of those birds were lifted. It is a simple question of supply and demand. Of course, one can get those sorts of prices while the export of these birds is illegal. Once one starts to export them, the price will drop, particularly if one exports them in the sorts of numbers that are being talked about. So this is a totally false market. I am advised that birds of similar status in the wild that are legally imported into the United States wholesale in the United States for around $12 to $30. So the big profits are not going to be there. Furthermore, claims of revenue generation do not take into account the substantial capital costs of providing suitable cages, holding areas and transport or the costs of quarantine and distribution in other countries. The honourable member for Petrie suggested that there would be no difficulty in controlling and supervising the export of Australian birds. He suggested that the existing resources of the State National Parks and Wildlife Services could be used. His assessment of those resources is at odds with those of some of his colleagues who consider that there is an overwhelming and unfulfilled need to concentrate Australia's limited resources in this field on the protection of rare and endangered species. Mr Peter Fisher —An all party committee advised that. It was not just the honourable member for Petrie. Mr COHEN —But it has already been looked at by a previous government and rejected. Quite simply, State conservation agencies do not have the resources to meet additional administrative, supervisory and enforcement responsibilities from existing overstretched resources. The honourable members for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), Petrie and Fisher (Mr Slipper) consider that the export of native birds that cause agricultural damage would reduce crop losses. To have any impact on the quantity of birds that are in the area of the honourable member for Fisher, one would have to capture not thousands but hundreds of thousands and, in some cases, millions of birds. The experience of other countries is that populations of pest species are unaffected by large-scale capture for the pet trade. Sri Lanka now discourages the capture of the rose-winged parakeet despite its reputation as the most destructive pest of rice paddy in that country because other much rarer species are caught and sold in the guise of this pest species. We are more likely to achieve control of agricultural damage caused by birds by developing a better understanding of their biology and behaviour than by trapping them for export. The proponents of relaxing control of export of pest birds fail to address the potential problems of the receiving countries. Galahs, sulphur-crested cockatoos and corellas have become pests in Australia because they are adaptable and able to colonise new areas. The same characteristics could enable those species to become pests in other countries. Already the United States authorities have had to undertake a costly campaign to eradicate the South American monk parakeet which became established after being imported as a cage bird and released by owners. The campaign, initially thought to have been successful, now appears to have failed and the spread of monk parakeets may be beyond control. Budgies liberated in Florida's urban and suburban areas have become established and flocks of 8,000 or more have been reported. The Californian Department of Food and Agriculture reported in 1975 that populations of ring-necked parakeets, nanday conures, canary-winged parakeets-all parrots-were established, increasing and penetrating agricultural areas. We also have to consider the cost. One of the things that people like the honourable member for Fisher and others who advocate this export- Mr Peter Fisher —Mallee. Mr COHEN —I am sorry, the honourable member for Mallee. Honourable members who advocate the export of birds should estimate what the cost to the country would be. We have about nine or 10 international airports in this country. If birds were to be exported we would need to have officers who are expert ornithologists at every airport. This would involve not just one but a number of officers because of the shift-work that would be involved. Every time somebody wanted to export a bird, experts would be needed at Cairns, Townsville, Sydney, Hobart, Adelaide, Perth or wherever to certify the bird. One has to know the hundreds of different types of birds. One has to be an expert. Who will pay for that? Of course, the people who export will not pay. They will say: `This is a valuable export trade. The Government can pay for it.' So the taxpayer will pick up the tab. If cost recovery is involved, the hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of dollars it would cost us to set up this service would have to be borne by the exporters and they would say: `Well, it is not worth while exporting'. We would get all that sort of debate in this country. The honourable member for Petrie challenged the findings of CONCOM that legalising the export of pest species of birds would involve unacceptably high mortality rates. He failed to take into account morality in capture, subsequent acclimatisation to cages, transport, and the substantial losses that can occur in overseas quarantine and holding facilities. International studies of mortality from those causes have shown that on occasions losses are similar to those occurring with smuggled birds. A resolution of the Conference of CITES members states: Mortality in trade and captivity is high. This Conference urges exporting countries to endeavour to restrict gradually the collection of wild animals for the pet trade and that all contracting parties encourage the breeding of animals for this purpose, with the objective of eventually limiting the keeping of pets to those species which can be bred in captivity. Large scale commercial shipments expose birds to the effects of lengthy handling times, and in Australia's case prolonged travelling times would also be involved. Crowding of birds allows easy transmission of disease in transit and in quarantine. Because of Australia's isolation from many avian diseases, Australian birds under these conditions would be particularly vulnerable. A recent publication of the Humane Society of the United States and the Animal Welfare Institute reported: Large commercial importers, who may import many thousands of birds at one time, find it uneconomical or even impractical to provide adequate facilities. Therefore, birds are often kept in sub-standard conditions which lead to high mortality. The honourable member for Fisher referred to the report of Dr Bulmer, an officer of the Department of Agriculture in Canada, who was in Australia as part of an exchange of officers between that organisation and the Department of Primary Industry. The report, intended to be an account of the officer's review and assessment of Australian livestock import and export programs, makes minor reference to the current prohibition on the commercial export of native birds and recommends that the ban be lifted in favour of regulated export of non-endangered species. Its recommendation on this matter has not been endorsed by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and it certainly does not have my support. Dr Bulmer does not appear to have consulted State conservation agencies. The report contains a partial list of arguments for and against, but does not include evidence to substantiate his recommendation. It is therefore of little value and is not a constructive contribution. The honourable member for Bradfield recognises the problems involved in enforcing controls on wildlife exports presented by Australia's size and low population density. He appreciates the difficulties inherent in detecting such clandestine activities as fauna smuggling. Similar problems are experienced by other countries. CITES, by establishing an international co-operative network of controls on imports to complement export controls, offers potential to increase greatly enforcement effectiveness. The Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service is developing contacts with similar agencies in other CITES countries and has assisted United States and European authorities in the preparation of prosecutions in those countries relating to the import of wildlife illegally exported from Australia. Amendments proposed in this Bill will allow closer international co-operation and assistance. Several speakers drew attention to the need to create general public awareness of the importance of protecting wildlife. Let me say that in addition to the information program mounted by ANPWS to maintain public awareness of the Wildlife Protection Act, the Service has a broad-ranging program of public information and education. I will not go into all the details of that information program, but I can assure honourable members, if they are interested, that it is very wide and very extensive. In addition to developing an awareness of the importance of wildlife protection, it is necessary for the community generally to accept a responsibility to assist in the enforcement of wildlife protection laws. Many prosecutions of wildlife smugglers result from information provided initially by members of the public. This Bill will ensure that the identity of those providing such information is protected. Regrettably, allegations reported in the Press of illegal activities concerning wildlife are sometimes unsubstantiated-they are almost always unsubstantiated-or, when investigated, are found to be exaggerated and grossly distorted. The Press in this country seems to delight in getting hold of any wild allegation and printing it as if it were fact. The persons making the allegations are never asked to substantiate their allegations and, incidentally, will rarely come to the authorities with those allegations, but they can get a headline story. In some cases informants advise the media prior to or instead of informing the agencies responsible for wildlife law enforcement, making it impossible to initiate successful investigations. The motives of such people must be open to question, particularly when they claim to be interested in the protection of animals. I ask anyone with information on illegal trade in wildlife to present that information to government wildlife agencies to assist them to combat unscrupulous trappers and smugglers. I want to take some time to deal with a matter concerning kangaroos. I was going to raise it as a matter of misrepresentation, but because it would take some time to do so I prefer to raise it in this debate, appropriately at the conclusion of the other matters I have raised. I think it is important. Mr Connolly —Do you want an extension of time? Mr COHEN —I will want an extension of time. I know that the honourable member for Bradfield is aware of some of the problems we have had on this issue. I just want to say that on Tuesday, 18 March, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program, the 7.30 Report, in Melbourne dealt with allegations that I had had changes made to a film about kangaroo culling which had been commissioned from Film Australia in 1983 by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. That report was typical of the selective editing and manipulation of information which often occurs in ABC current affairs programs. A reporter named Mike Jennings made the program after he came to my Parliament House office on Friday, 14 March 1986. The interview was arranged at his request that I should answer questions about allegations that there was corruption in the kangaroo culling industry in Queensland and that I had `censored'-that is his word-the film made by Film Australia after I had seen the first completed version of it. Mr Jennings did two interviews in my office. The first interview filled a 10-minute magazine and the second lasted about eight minutes. In the 7.30 Report, as it went to air in Melbourne on 18 March, Jennings used film from a Four Corners report on the kangaroo culling industry which had been made by David de Vos early in 1985. Mr de Vos had come to interview me on 20 March 1985. In the course of that interview he put to me without warning claims that he had evidence of corruption in the industry and allegations of coercion, intimidation and threats of death being made against certain people. I told him then that I had never heard claims about death threats and intimidation and was shocked to hear them. I asked him to let me have any evidence he had for investigation, but he has never provided any to me. I seek leave to table my letter to David de Vos, dated 22 March 1985, and his reply of 28 March 1985. Leave granted. Mr COHEN —Mr de Vos's Four Corners program went to air on 2 April 1985 and included that section in which he put those questions and my response. Jennings, in his story for the 7.30 Report on 18 March 1986, just a couple of weeks ago, re-used this section from de Vos's report. (Extension of time granted) I thank the House and I thank the honourable member for Bradfield for granting me an extension of time. ABC current affairs programs tend to indulge in this form of journalistic incest. The 7.30 Report then went on to play a section of Film Australia's first version, which had shown a person named Banjo Hunt, who lives in Queensland, making allegations similar to those made by de Vos. Coupled with this, the 7.30 Report also used an interview with the director of the Film Australia film, Patrick Wellington, who is shown saying that the interview with Banjo Hunt had been removed from his film for Film Australia after I had seen that first full version. The 7.30 Report contended that I had seen that interview with Hunt before I was interviewed by de Vos in March 1985. I hope those in the House will listen with interest to this little bit of ABC juggling. Here is a clear implication that I was lying; that I did in fact know about the allegations of corruption in Queensland, about the death of one man-never proven to have been related to the kangaroo industry, I was later to find out-and all the things raised by de Vos before he interviewed me and that I had sought to expunge the Hunt interview from the film to protect myself. Those are very damaging claims to make about a Minister of the Federal Government and they are claims that any seasoned and experienced journalist would explore very carefully before making an assault on the Minister's reputation. Let us come back then to the date of 14 March and the interview in my office. In the first interview that Mike Jennings did with me he put to me very strongly that I had had cuts made to the Film Australia film, including the Banjo Hunt interview. I made it very clear that, although I could not remember at that moment just when I had seen the first version of the Film Australia film, it had definitely been after the de Vos interview. Jennings put it to me in that prosecuting manner so favoured by ABC current affairs interviewers: `You saw this film in November 1983'. I told him that I could not have seen the film at that time; I did not remember when I had seen it, but it was not until after the de Vos interview. He was insistent that I had seen it then; Patrick Wellington had told him that was the date. When the magazine ran out, after 10 minutes of this sort of thing, I told Jennings that I could check on the date when I had first seen the film while he was there. I rang officers at Film Australia with Jennings sitting just on the other side of my desk. He was able to hear all my end of the conversation, during which I repeated the dates as they were given to me. He saw me writing them down and heard me making other inquiries. These were inquiries he could have made directly from Film Australia if he had been a diligent journalist checking information that had been given to him and of which he could not possibly have had any firsthand knowledge. It was open to him there and then to ask me whether he could speak to the Film Australia officers at the other end of the line. I would have been very happy for him to do so, but he made no attempt to take advantage of that opportunity. The information given to me by Film Australia showed that I first discussed the possibility of making the film on 31 August 1983. Obviously, such a film could not possibly have been made by November 1983, the date on which Jennings or, as he said, Wellington, said I had first seen it. I gave him the dates from Film Australia which show that the rough cut film was not completed until November 1984. I did not see it then and could not have found time to see it for very good reasons; the Labor Party was in the middle of an election campaign which demanded all my time. Just after the election, as everybody knows, I became quite ill and was in hospital for several weeks. I returned to my office about the end of January 1985. Just to recapitulate, de Vos interviewed me in March 1985 and Four Corners used his report on 2 April 1985. Film Australia's records show that I did not see its film for the first time until the end of April 1985, that is, several weeks after the de Vos interview. That information seemed to stun Jennings. However, he accepted it and acknowledged that his interview had proceeded on misinformation. He said that he thought it would have to be done again in light of the Film Australia information. He even remarked that his interview with Wellington, which was to have been in his report, may have to be dropped. He asked me whether I could do a repeat of the interview, because he had got it all wrong. I did that and in that interview he covered much of the same ground. I took the opportunity to make it plain that I could not have seen the Film Australia film before my meeting with de Vos and had no knowledge of the allegations he raised before he brought them out. Let me emphasise that the second interview with Jennings was a re-take, specifically made so that the 7.30 Report reporter, Jennings, would be doing his interview with at least some of his basic information correct. My understanding-and Jennings said nothing that could make me feel otherwise-was that the second interview would be the one used and that the first interview would be redundant. But that is not what happened. I saw a video of the 7.30 Report story of 18 March the following afternoon. It was soon apparent that Jennings had had no compunction in using sections of both interview tapes, juxtaposing them to give an unfair and misleading effect. Jennings's report went ahead on the theme that I had already totally refuted. It intimated that I had known about allegations of corruption and coercion in the kangaroo culling industry in Queensland for some time before the de Vos interview but had never done anything about it. The fact is that the allegations made by Banjo Hunt on which Four Corners and 7.30 Report placed so much value were first made by him six years ago, that is, three years before the Labor Party came to power. Those allegations were investigated at the time and found to be totally unsubstantiated. Incidentally, when I heard these allegations, I asked my Department what it knew about them. Officers told me that they recalled that it had happened four or five years before that date and that these allegations had never been investigated or substantiated and no one had been able to come up with anything. The point is that it seems to have been known years before I became Minister and years before Labor came into office. As Jennings sat in my office with me, I told him about that fact. There has never been any evidence, just allegations-ABC current affairs interviewers seem to be very hazy about the meaning of the word `evidence'-produced to me by anybody, including some of the critics of Australia's kangaroo culling program, to support any of the claims of corruption in the industry in Queensland or anywhere else. I told Jennings that, too, and I said that if he could produce evidence I would have it investigated immediately. That should be on his own record. But not only did Jennings have no evidence, it turned out after questioning him that he had made no effort to find Banjo Hunt, nor had he made any other inquiries himself. His information came from the ABC film library. So much for ABC current affairs journalism. Jennings was told before I agreed to an interview to bring not just allegations but to be prepared to name his sources and provide evidence. We were not interested in anonymous allegations. He brought allegations and was reluctant to name his sources. We are still waiting for the evidence; and yet the 7.30 Report set out to show that I had, to use its word, culled the Film Australia film to my own advantage. How does this square with the high flown sentiments contained in the ABC publication The Role of the National Broadcaster in Contemporary Australia which was published last year and which states: The ABC is required to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism. Let me pay one tribute to Richard Watson who was the executive producer. I thought he acted very responsibly when I reported this matter to him and I think he was very embarrassed by Jennings's behaviour. Film Australia was commissioned by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, at my request, to counter the wild and damaging claims being made by anti-culling campaigners in the United States. Honourable members will recall the discredited and malicious film it made entitled Goodbye Joey. The film was intended to protect and uphold the good name of Australia overseas. It was supposed to show that this country had an excellent kangaroo management program and that culling took place for very good reasons. We gave access to the critics in Australia of the culling program and the industry. In the event the film was far more balanced than many ABC current affairs programs. We allowed our critics to come on the program and make their criticisms and then we answered the criticisms. I believe that it would be exceptional for a film intended to promote national interest, as this was, to be opened up to provide access for critics and dissenters. If honourable members will listen to this incredible story, when I first asked Film Australia to do the film, it sent the script to me and this was how it intended to present Australia to the rest of the world, bearing in mind that this is the film we are making to protect Australia's good name: The scene opens with a coat of arms on the wall. The camera is looking through the barrel of a gun. A shot rings out and the kangaroo falls off the coat of arms. That is the good part; it then got worse. I asked: `Is this what we are spending $200,000 on to improve Australia's good name? Thanks very much: I will save the money'. May I say that Film Australia is much better now than it was at that time. As I said, the critics were invited to participate and they did. They were not edited out as Jennings was trying to prove. He has a copy of the film. I know from him that he did not buy it from Film Australia or obtain it with its permission. If he has seen it right through as he says he has, he knows that the critics are well represented. They have seen the film and they have expressed their satisfaction with it and their Press representation. Jennings, with all the high moral purpose to which the ABC current affairs journalists so often pretend, seemed to think that our critics should have had a say in the final editing of the film. (Extension of time granted) It was a fair thing to test his position on that. I asked him: `Would you allow me to have a look at your report before it goes to air'? He said: `No'. Also, he was glad that that had not got on to his tape. We make no apologies for this film; far from it. Any fair analysis would have shown that we were more than generous to our critics. It was our film. We were the producers and like all producers we could determine what we believed should go into it. Jennings agreed that that was the producer's right. In that position, as producers, we are in a position which is no different from that of the ABC or any other makers of films and film programs. If it comes to the point, and anybody cares to evaluate the film and Jennings's report on 7.30 Report, in terms of the standards trumpeted for itself by the ABC, I am sure we will come out streets ahead. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Cohen) read a third time. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PETER FISHER —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr PETER FISHER —I think the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), in speaking to the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill, confused my name with the electorate of a member of this House. I wish to say that I have never recommended the export of our wildlife as a viable export industry. An all-party committee of this Parliament made a recommendation for the export of some of our pest species, not as a means of developing an export industry, but as a means at that time of overcoming the frustrations and difficulties met in controlling the criminal activities of smugglers and dope couriers involved in a two-way trade in this country. I would like also to say that the protection of our endangered species-in fact, the protection of all our wildlife, not just our endangered species-is a national responsibility and it is essential to Australia, in order to protect our uniqueness and our importance as a nation, to protect these species. Mr Cohen —This is a personal explanation, is it? Mr PETER FISHER —Yes, it is a personal explanation because if authorities sit on their hands and do not accept that some of the problems that we have in this country can be helped through controlled culling, I think some of the problems we were talking about during debate on this Bill will only intensify. Mr Cohen —Mr Deputy Speaker, if I inadvertently confused the honourable member's name with an electorate, it will be altered in the Hansard. I apologise to the honourable member. Debate resumed from 19 February, on motion by Mr Hawke: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(6.13) —We are debating tonight a piece of particularly important legislation. It is essentially social, but at the same time it has a major impact on the capacity of the private sector in particular to employ Australian women. There has been a perception for many years that women in the Australian economy have been facing certain situations which are regarded as discriminatory. The purpose of this legislation, as has been put to us by the Government, is that by debating this issue and passing the legislation-the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill-it will have a significant impact on the welfare of women in the workforce. When we debated a similar piece of legislation, namely, the Sex Discrimination Bill in 1984, I said: . . . I emphasise that there are honourable members who quite rightly feel that certain aspects of the legislation may not in their opinion be either necessary or wise. However, on balance, I think the point needs to be emphasised that, in my experience in this House, no social legislation has ever been perfect and I doubt whether it ever will be. Therefore, it is the role of this Parliament to set in place principles and objectives which we would like the Australian people to follow. The power rests with this House ultimately to determine whether the legislation, as implemented, meets the requirements of the Parliament. I add to that, whether this legislation will significantly improve the situation of women in the Australian work force. The Opposition does not object to this legislation because we accept wholeheartedly the principle of equality of opportunity for women. I add, however, that we do not accept the concept of affirmative action. The record of affirmative action as applied in the United States of America in recent years demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that where opportunities are given to people on the basis of any criteria other than their sheer ability, one was not affirming the rights of some, but tending to negate the rights of others. It is for that reason that I shall move at the Committee stage an amendment to change the name of this legislation, to put it in its correct context. It is in fact an equal opportunity for women Bill. That is what the Bill is about and that is what the name of the Bill ought to be. Unfortunately, the context of affirmative action has been left in the legislation for no reasons other than political ones. Senator Susan Ryan, the Minister for Education, in 1981 introduced into the Senate her own affirmative action legislation which was later withdrawn. She strongly held the view that even if the contents of her earlier legislation could not be included, she should at least settle for nothing less than the name. Shakespeare had a lot to say about names. All I want to say is this: Legislation before this House should be based principally on the need to ensure that it meets the requirement of the day and it is not there simply for window dressing. Regrettably, the Hawke Government has become quite notorious for its tendency to seek window dressing rather than real solutions to its problems. The general principles of the Bill are based on the concept of equal employment opportunity for women. It is not affirmative action, as I said, and it therefore should not be compared with what has taken place in the United States. In fact, selection and promotion on the basis of merit are entrenched explicitly in clause 3 (4) of the Bill. It requires that educational and other procedures be developed to overcome practices that have discriminated against the equal employment and promotion of women on merit. In terms of implementation, the Bill will require certain categories of employers to develop affirmative action programs. For example, employers who have staff of over 100, which is the magical figure in this legislation, will be required to develop and implement affirmative action programs which require a relevant employer to take eight steps. I would like to place them on record: Firstly, a statement to employees that an affirmative action program has commenced; secondly, conferring responsibility for the program on a person with sufficient authority; thirdly, consulting with each trade union having members affected by the program; fourthly, consulting with employees; fifthly, collecting of employment statistics by sex and job type; sixthly, identifying patterns and practices that could discriminate against women; seventhly, setting objectives and making forward estimates for employment of women; and, eighthly, monitoring and evaluating the program and assessing the achievement of those objectives and forward estimates. I hasten to add that according to the Bill a forward estimate means a quantitative measure or aim which may be expressed in numerical terms, designed to achieve equality of opportunity for women in employment matters, being a measure or aim that can reasonably be implemented by the relevant employer within a specified time. Because of the somewhat dubious terminology used to express the definitions of what is meant to be forward estimates, I am not the slightest bit surprised that there are members of the House who regard that particular proposal as possibly the thin end of the wedge which will use statistics as a means of forcing the issue on others. I wish to make it quite clear that the endorsement of equality of opportunity is not new to the Liberal Party of Australia, or to the the Opposition as a whole. As far back as 1963 a Liberal government set up a Women's Bureau in the Department of Employment. The Liberal Party for many years has based its philosophy upon the belief that the role of government is to provide a climate which encourages the greatest diversity while protecting the rights of all individuals, men and women alike. In fact, the 1974 platform of the Liberal Party and the Country Party, as it was then called, stated: The Parties are dedicated to the pursuit of social freedom and the maximisation of equality of opportunity and status for men and women in the Australian community. Any form of arbitrary discrimination of social, economic, legal or educational nature is inconsistent with the philosophy of the Liberal and Country Parties. Where such discrimination is seen to exist it is a policy of the parties to strive concretely for its elimination. It went on to say: Certainly differences in status continue to exist between the roles of men and women in the Australian society. These exist in both institutional and attitudinal terms. Where these differences are seen to arise from unfair discrimination or inequality of opportunity a Liberal and Country Party Government is pledged to work actively for their elimination. The record of the Fraser years in particular stands out as a very serious and genuine attempt to improve the status of women in Australian society and to achieve a situation where there was no discrimination and where men and women could be treated equally. In 1977, we introduced the National Women's Advisory Council to advise government on matters of concern to women. This was seen at that time as a most constructive measure in regard to women's issues. In fact it was the first time that any Australian Government had done that. Under the Fraser Government, the Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau was established within the Public Service Board. It instituted a three-stage program designed to introduce compulsory equal employment opportunities for women in departments and authorities. The goal of the program was to increase the number of women in senior management and in jobs not traditionally done by women. It should be remembered that the period of the 1970s was difficult in terms of women gaining access to seniority in the Public Service for a very fundamental reason: In the mid-1960s there was the infamous marriage bar whereby, if a woman who had already chosen a career in the Public Service married, she automatically had to resign. It was only some years later that women were in fact permitted to carry on dual responsibilities and be a wife and mother and also have the right to a career. It is also principally for that reason that undoubtedly there has been a slowing up in the process of women having access to seniority in the Public Service. However, the position is now changing. I recall that in about 1982 some 2 or 3 per cent of Second Division positions were held by women. There were none in the First Division. The percentage has now gone up to about 5 per cent, and I do not have the slightest doubt that we will see that trend continue in future. On 26 November 1981, Senator Ryan introduced into the Senate a Sex Discrimination Bill as a private member's Bill. Because it was an Opposition measure it was not proceeded with, but it was significant in the context of the legislation that we are debating in the House now, because essentially Senator Ryan's legislation was based on using the powers of the Parliament and the law to require that employers meet the structures and the determinations established by her Bill. I am very pleased, and the Opposition is certainly pleased, that the Government did not proceed in this legislation along the lines originally proposed by Senator Ryan. Had that been the case, with the deepest regret I can say that we would not have approached this legislation on a bipartisan basis as we are doing tonight. I commend the Government for its decision on not going down that particular course, because the worst thing that one can do for any community is to set people aside and to place them in the position where they feel that they are threatened. When people are threatened by what they see as being draconian laws, unfortunately, the history of humanity shows that the very people that one wants to help are those that one helps least. In October 1982, in the time of the Fraser Government, a joint statement was issued by the Acting Attorney-General, Mr Neil Brown, now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and the Minister of Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Tom McVeigh. They announced an intention to introduce a Sex Discrimination for Commonwealth employees Bill that would extend protection against discrimination on the grounds of sex or marital status to Commonwealth employees throughout Australia and complement existing State legislation. The Bill, however, was not introduced because in March 1983 there was an election and the Government fell. However, that legislation did come back to the chamber in June 1983 and, as I said before, it was passed by the House. Opposition members had a free vote, but, as I recall, a majority of members supported the proposal. Over the years there have been some difficulties with the interface between Commonwealth and State sex discrimination legislation. One thing in common is that at both levels legislation contained numerous exceptions. Some of those exceptions reduced the overall effectiveness of the legislation in combatting discrimination, while others could be regarded as being simply commonsense precautions against unreasonable expectations. For example, exemptions applied in employment relating to facilities and physical attributes, education allowances for single sex schools, religious bodies, charities, clubs and sport, superannuation and insurance, accommodation, advertising, application forms, combat duties, pregnancy, vicarious liability, and sexual harassment. Many of those discriminations, if one can call them that, were perfectly justified, and I trust that they will remain on the statute book for many years to come provided that they are considered as being necessary, and not given some right which incorporates them into law indefinitely. The whole issue of the status of women in relation to retirement is now an issue which needs to be given serious consideration. Should women be expected now to retire at age 65, the same as men are expected to retire at that age, or should women continue to have an age 60 retirement arrangement which, in fact, is discrimination, as many men would see it, in favour of women. If we are going down the road, as I trust that we will do in due course, towards universal coverage in terms of superannuation and pensions for all Australians, these are issues which must be given very serious consideration. In 1981, Senator Ryan's Sex Discrimination Bill included provisions for affirmative action in public and private employment. That was dropped from the 1983 Bill, as I said earlier. However, the Government did issue a Green Paper on the need for affirmative action and stated that public discussion and consultation were necessary. From that a committee was established on which the Opposition was represented by my esteemed colleague Senator Peter Baume. The Government's affirmative action for women policy discussion paper proposed further legislation which would set minimum requirements to apply ultimately to all private sector organisations employing, as I said earlier, over 100 people. That represented approximately 65 per cent of the entire work force, and it also applied to higher educational institutions. I have already noted the proposed requirements for developing affirmative action programs, and they are in the Act as it stands. It is interesting to point out, however, that in the context of that Green Paper and the work of the committee which followed from it, pilot programs were set in place in which 28 companies and three tertiary institutions participated for a period of 12 months, and reports were prepared on an affirmative action program designed by officers of the Affirmative Action Resource Unit. The program involved the appointment of an equal employment opportunity officer, consultation with employees and unions, a review of current personnel policies and practices, and a serious examination of all the issues involved. Employers were included in the initiative of introducing equal employment opportunities, with the Business Council of Australia setting up in 1985 an independent and voluntary council of equal employment opportunity. This represented, as far as the private sector was concerned and certainly in the context of big business, a major step forward for women in Australia. It is believed that it will continue to build on the momentum and experience gained by the companies that participated in the pilot affirmation program. However, the Business Council of Australia and other organisations with which these issues were discussed and which made a contribution to the resulting report were strongly of the view, as they still are, that legislation is neither appropriate nor necessary to achieve the Government's objectives of equal employment opportunities for women. The Business Council member companies have already set up a council for EEO to provide promotional and supportive work to companies participating in voluntary equal opportunity programs. This initiative was planned to build on the success of the pilot program, and although it will receive financial assistance, presumably from the Government, as it does from the private sector as a whole, its establishment was not contingent on that support. The Business Council expressed concern that the superimposing of compulsory programs on this voluntary activity would have a negative effect on the attitude of corporate managers and that it involved risk of a serious backlash against these initiatives and the cause of women. As I said initially, in all fairness the Opposition is not convinced of the need to have legislation in this field at this time. It is for that reason that one of the amendments I will be moving will be the five-year sunset clause, in the expectation that whatever benefits will come out of this Bill should be well and truly understood and universally applied within that period of five years. Once that has been established as being the normal line of behaviour of business in Australia, as it is now of the Government, the private sector has every expectation of being able to carry it through without any further strictures and enforcabilities in the form of legislation. Freedom to embrace new directions is the essence of liberalism. The attitude of the current Opposition in terms of small government philosophy and so forth makes us concerned about a proposal which will establish not necessarily another statutory authority in the normal sense of the term, but nevertheless a unit within an existing department of state which will cost approximately a further $1.5m. It is significant, because the Business Council of Australia proposal, and that suggested by most other private sector organisations, was that it would probably cost the Commonwealth nothing and that the BCA was prepared to carry the cost and take the issue forward on a voluntary basis in the belief that it is easier to convince people of the need for change rather than necessarily to have a bureaucratic approach which tries to force the issue over time. In the implementation of this legislation we will see, therefore, a series of interesting initiatives take place. On the one hand, we are told in the legislation that companies will be expected to put forward necessary information as required by the Bill. The companies will go to this authority, which will be able to expect from them both public and confidential reports. The legislation provides that material supplied in evidence in a confidential report will not then be used in a report to the Parliament, except presumably with the support of the company from which the information was supplied. There is also the provision that in the ultimate, if there is a lack of co-operation from the private sector or from a specific company, the Minister responsible may, in the context of the report, table in the Parliament the names of companies which refuse to co-operate. That is seen by the many companies yet again as an example of unnecessary government intrusion into their affairs. It is seen by the Opposition as evidence of the fact that if this Government wants to have the support of all business it has to think carefully about how it will apply human rights-type legislation in a manner which will not backfire effectively on the very people it wants to support. For that reason we will be moving an appropriate amendment in relation to that provision. The Opposition objects to the use of the words `affirmative action' in this Bill; we do not see it as an affirmative action Bill; we see it as an equal opportunity for women Bill. The concept of equal opportunity for women is one that the coalition supports absolutely, but we have concerns about the manner in which it is proposed that it should be applied. For that reason we are prepared to allow the legislation to go through the House, because the principle is one which all parties should support. Nevertheless, elements of reservation are held by the Opposition in relation to the specifics of this Bill. We will endeavour in the Committee stage to put to the House reasons why amendments should be made to the legislation so that it can go onto the statute books of Australia as a piece of legislation of which this Parliament can be justly proud. Ms FATIN(Brand)(6.34) —I begin my remarks by saying how pleasing it is to this side of the House to see that the Opposition parties are supporting the passage of the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill. There are some occasions in this House when it feels as if we are spending a great deal of energy rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. At other times we come face to face with issues of absolutely vital social and economic concern and breathe the refreshing air of a truly progressive attitude to the development of Australian society. This debate, which will culminate in the establishment of affirmative action for women as a central notion in Australian employment practice, fits firmly into the second category. Along with the Sex Discrimination Act passed in 1984, this Bill will establish this Government's record in the area of justice and equality and will mark it out as having made significant and lasting reforms, bringing both justice and equality within the reach of Australian women. It is customary, when addressing legislation which implements significant new measures, to pay tribute to the people who have contributed their skills and energies to bring the Bill before the House. In this case I preface my comments about the legislation with a tribute to two exceptional Australian women without whose dedication and integrity we would not be introducing this Bill today. Senator Susan Ryan has been unstinting in her advocacy of a legislative base for equality of opportunity and has played an absolutely central role in bringing the issues relating to the wellbeing of women to the forefront of the political agenda. Dr Anne Summers has also made a contribution of comparable significance, handling her job as head of the Office of the Status of Women with a level of competence, sensitivity and sheer administrative flair which has distinguished her as one of our most brilliant political minds. I know my colleagues in this House will join me in wishing Dr Summers well in her new appointment, even though New York's gain is very much Australia's loss. I pay tribute also to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), whose commitment to improving the status of Australian women has earned him widespread and genuine respect in the community and the Parliament. Edna Ryan, that great pioneer of equal employment practice and a great inspiration to many of us, including her namesake Senator Ryan, has spoken of women's employment experience in the following terms: She says, firstly, that women's skills have been denied; secondly, women have been regarded as invaders in the work force; thirdly, they have been subjected to the paternalism of working men, employers and the courts; and, finally, the segregation of the sexes at work has made it easy to deny women equitable pay. I do not want to present the House with yards of statistics to illustrate the staggering injustice that women have suffered in practice as a result of these four aspects of their role in the work force. Suffice it to say that one of the most effective tasks undertaken in the last few years by the Office of the Status of Women and the women's bureau of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has been the systematic documentation of the extent to which structural discrimination keeps women in general at the very bottom of the employment heap. In comparision with women in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, Australian women have remained in low paid, low status, segregated jobs or have suffered a level of unemployment and disaffection which would never have been tolerated had it affected the male work force. What makes the situation really intolerable is the simple fact that most Australian women these days will be in the work force for a significant period during their working lives. Women are not marginal on the Australian employment scene. Just like men, many women need to work so that they can support themselves and their families. Just like men, many women have ambitions to contribute their skills in professional and technical areas outside the home. Just like men, many women aspire to the sort of recognition we, as a society, give to people who work in paid employment. The point is that I am not talking about ideology. I am not making any assertions about what women can do or would do if they had the chance. I am talking about a fact of life in Australia today, that is, nearly 40 per cent of our work force is made up of women, most of whom are systematically discriminated against in terms of occupation choice, pay, conditions and promotion prospects. The glib answer to all this, of course, is to consider the abstract notions of freedom and equality and to conclude that women actually rather like the situation as it stands at present, because if they did not they would change it. This crass assertion conveniently overlooks the at other times heavily laden point that individual attitudes and social conventions are often so deeply entrenched that they are not even recognised as being open to change. As President Johnson once said, freedom is not enough. It is easy to talk theoretically about women's rights of access to education and employment. To do so misses the point about the implicit discrimination that marks a lot of our educational and labour market establishments. It is not good enough to tell someone they are theoretically equal, while at the same time perpetuating a practical system which disadvantages them at every turn. The Bill before us today will encourage both employers and employees to identify those aspects of employment which militate against women by limiting their involvement or their expectations. It does not-I hope this point will be emphasised by every speaker in this debate-impose any kind of quota on employers or in any sense imply that their choice as to who they employ or promote will be limited. In fact, if the legislation has any bearing on an employer's freedom of choice, it could only increase it, because of the greater number of skilled and qualified people who will be available once structural barriers to women are removed. The idea of the extension of choice is absolutely central to the whole notion of affirmative action as adopted by this Government. Of course, we all know that any measure to widen people's options is like the proverbial red rag to the right wing conservative forces in this country. I am sure it came as no surprise to any of us to hear some members of the Opposition forecasting that affirmative action will destroy the family, ruin everybody's marriages and render most Australian children motherless. In the past, the same sort of road to ruin attitude forecast that the abolition of slavery in the United States of America would herald the end of the Western world and that if children were prevented by law from working down coal mines the British economy would collapse. What I am saying is that this legislation is aimed at expanding the choice of the woman who works in the labour market, without in any way limiting the choices of either her male colleagues or the woman who decides to work in the home. The issue is not one of encouraging women away from the home. People who misrepresent the legislation in this way deserve to have their motives very closely questioned. All we as a Government are doing is ensuring that women who do want to work are treated equally with men and have the same opportunities compared to men. Of course, this makes sound business sense as well as reflecting Australia's very strong national commitment to notions of fairness and fair play. As I have said before, adherence to the merit principle means that employers will have a wider range of people from whom to select their staff. As well, it means that both women and men will have the satisfaction of knowing that employment and promotion selections have been made on the basis of skills and qualifications rather than on tacit assumptions or outright prejudices about the capabilities of men and women. The inherent sensibleness of the idea that these decisions should be based on merit will remain untouched by the legislation, but if some employers begin to realise that there are occasions on which the best man for the job is a woman, then so much the better for Australia's general level of efficiency and expertise. With this legislation we will see the beginning of the end of the hidden agenda which has governed the employment of women ever since they began to move into the paid work force. As my New South Wales colleague, Neville Wran, once observed, what needs challenging is the discrimination embedded in organisational rules and regulations which were designed to accommodate to white Anglo-Saxon male expectations, lifestyles and career patterns. I believe that this Bill is precisely the mechanism we need in Australia if we are serious about carrying out this challenge. It is absolutely central to our long-standing commitment to ensure that everyone in the work force is treated with justice and equity and allowed to realise his or her full potential. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(6.45) —I fear that the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill is a characteristic Hawke Government measure. It is put forward to advance a cause we all support-the removal of barriers to equality of opportunity for women. However, there remains a real fear with the public that the machinery the Bill establishes will, firstly, bureaucratise business and universities and colleges; secondly, be more costly than is admitted; thirdly, introduce quotas in a disguised form for appointments and promotions; fourthly, be counter-productive by stigmatising those women who would otherwise conscientiously be acknowledged as models-role models, to use the jargon; and fifthly, undermine the principle of merit and consequently further erode standards in universities, colleges and enterprises. These fears must be acknowledged and faced. The point is that the Bill does not directly say that it will do any of these things. That is certainly what its radical feminist promoters want. That is what it may do sooner or later, although for the moment it is being introduced as legislation to encourage a fair go for women. I have to say that I have discussed this Bill widely in the community and many of the women I have talked to, but especially career women, are very critical of the Bill. Career women say, frankly that if the Bill is enacted they will take advantage of it-why should they let less talented women take all the advantages-but they see it as unnecessary and likely to be counter-productive, leading to a situation in which women who are achievers will no longer be regarded as owing their positions to their abilities but rather to the devices of affirmative action. They may or may not be right, but the House would be foolish to ignore the views and fears of such women of achievement. Basic to the whole question is the principle of equality of opportunity. This is both an ideal and a matter of practical common sense. It is an ideal because women have faced unfair barriers in the pursuit of careers. It is practical common sense because any enterprise, either commercial or educational, which continue to discriminate against talented women in favour of less talented men would quickly enough suffer in relation to its competitors. That is why, without benefit of heavy handed government intervention, the Australian community and comparable democracies around the world have moved progressively towards equality of opportunity for women. Many businesses have done this voluntarily, an outstanding example being Esso Australia Ltd, under its Chairman and Managing Director, Mr James Kirk, now Chairman of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Under his plan Esso increased the number of women in management and professional positions by 500 per cent. Sometimes equality of opportunity did not have to be brought about because it was always the practice, as in some academic departments. Sometimes government encouragement has helped the process, as with the work of the old National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation and the various affiliated State committees. One way or the other, equality of opportunity has been becoming the rule, without the sort of dominating or domineering machinery its critics fear this Bill may impose. Let us turn to the particulars of the Bill. Basically, the Bill requires higher education institutions and employers employing, to begin with, more than 1,000 people, and by 1989 those employing more than 100 people, to develop and carry out affirmative action programs. These programs involve a number of elements, including preparing a management policy statement of an affirmative action character, the appointment of an affirmative action officer, consultation, the collection of information, a review of existing promotion and appointment practices, `setting objectives and forward estimates', and monitoring the program. Finally, employers will have to prepare reports to a Government director of affirmative action telling the Government how they are doing. So all relevant businesses and higher educational institutions are to have this new bureaucracy and these new bureaucratic procedures imposed on them. The Government stresses that while imposing this law on business and educational institutions it is not adopting a punitive approach because the penalty for non-compliance is neither a fine nor imprisonment but is simply that of being denounced in Parliament. We can be glad that neither fines nor gaol are involved, but that seems to be beside the point since such penalties are not needed. Colleges and universities, being totally dependent on Commonwealth funding- more's the pity-will obey the Commonwealth law as promptly and zealously as they can. The Commonwealth will have no difficulty whatsoever with the universities and colleges. As for businesses, they value a reputation for being law abiding, and the proposed sanction of a parliamentary denunciation, of being considered a law breaker and in contempt of parliament, is enough to ensure compliance. So talk of taking a consensual or non-punitive approach is simply cynical propaganda. If the Government had relied on the pre-existing and voluntary moves towards equality of opportunity, it could have properly talked of its consensual or non-punitive approach, but with its Director of Affirmative Action, its affirmative action officers in the work place, and its compulsory programs, it can no longer do that. What will this new bureaucratic imposition cost businesses and higher educational institutions? We are not told. However, the Business Council of Australia has told us that the pilot program involving 30 private organisations and three educational centres will cost up to $10m at the most. It estimates the cost at somewhere between $5m and $10m. The Vice-Chancellor of Sydney University has told us that affirmative action will cost his university alone $450,000 a year in additional affirmative action staff, superannuation, advertising procedures and so on. I think this is probably an underestimate. In any case, that estimate is of what one can call preliminary or mere costs; it leaves aside the ongoing cost of these changes to the university which I will come to later. The Confederation of Australian Industry has told us that in 1981 comparable affirmative action schemes cost the 500 largest corporations in the United States some $1.5 billion. So there is a cost, whatever it may be and it would help the debate if the Government would tell us more about its research into this aspect. I should add that at least the Government has made the additional expenses incurred tax deductible. That is significant, although it does not remove the incidence of costs from the community and the taxpayer. We should not draw too much consolation from the fact that small businesses are not covered by this Bill. This may be-and its critics fear this-only a temporary respite. We know that the radical feminists, who are the promoters of this Bill, want it to encompass small business. We know what happened in Victoria in the case of Mrs Oldham. Once a member of the feminist organisation, the Women's Information and Referral Exchange-WIRE-she wrote a letter to the Age in Melbourne saying that small business did not need and could not afford affirmative action programs, whereupon she was expelled from WIRE. Small business may not yet be caught by the legislation, but is this only a matter of time? In his second reading speech on 19 February, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) placed great and pious emphasis on his insistence that he was `totally opposed to the use of quotas'. He said: I want to stress that the Government's affirmative action legislation does not propose positive discrimination or reverse discrimination. We are totally opposed to the use of quotas, and this legislation, by stating that all actions are to be based on merit, makes this clear. Those opponents of equal opportunity for women who try to discredit our legislative approach by claiming that we are proposing quotas are wrong. The Bill clearly demonstrates that. I think that is gobbledegook. The word `quotas', meaning a compulsory proportion-in this case of female employees regardless of merit-has fallen into disrepute. So much injustice and bitterness have been engendered by the American quota system that the Australian device to overcome this-adopted by people who still want quotas but do not want the odium of them-has been to use the word `target' instead. `Target' is the same thing, but it is less peremptory. In this Bill, the Government has gone a step further in newspeak. It does not even talk of `targets', but of `objectives' and `forward estimates' which are again the same thing. The `forward estimate' is, it is true, fixed by the employer and not by the Government, but it is monitored by the equal employment opportunity officer and the Director of Affirmative Action who will obviously insist, with the sanction of Commonwealth denunciation always in the background for businesses and certainly in the foreground for universities, that the estimate become a de facto quota, however disguised. An illustration of this trend outside the Commonwealth field is the New South Wales Education Department's announcement last year that from the beginning of this year 40 per cent of all vacancies for promotion must be filled by female teachers with no nonsense whatsoever about merit. The Prime Minister also placed great emphasis on clause 3 (4) in the Bill which says that nothing in the Act shall be taken to require a relevant employer to take action which is incompatible with the merit principle in appointments and promotions. He said that merit remained supreme, that there would be no disguised quotas or whatever. But of course merit does not remain supreme. It is important to be clear about this because many people have been hoodwinked by this device of the Government, this statement in a clause in the Bill which gives a false impression. I repeat that clause 3 (4) says that nothing in this Act shall be taken to require a relevant employer to take any action which is incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. The point is that merit has been redefined by affirmative action. To most people, ordinary people, merit still means the best person for the job, regardless of sex or any other consideration not related to the job. But in affirmative action practice, merit has come to mean not the best person but the person who is good enough, who has the minimum necessary qualifications. For example, if an employer is looking for a teacher of chemistry and wants to meet the merit test as redefined, he or she does not have to appoint the best qualified person, only a person who is qualified enough, who is minimally qualified. Once the merit test is met in this way, other considerations beyond mere qualifications can then be used to justify an appointment. In this way, the radical feminist quotas, targets or forward estimates will be met and are being met already in the universities where increasingly and notoriously feminist appointments are being made over more meritorious applicants with the result that standards in Australian universities are falling, especially in the liberal arts departments. It is a matter of great sadness, but I think the situation will get much worse before it starts to get better again. But at least, let us have none of this prime ministerial gobbledegook about preserving the merit principle because affirmative action has destroyed it. That is why so many women of achievement oppose this Bill as counter-productive. They believe that it will cause the appointment and promotion of less meritorious women with the result that genuinely meritorious women will be considered to have won their positions not through their merits but through their sex. If that happens, their value as role models will certainly disappear. While all members would welcome a measure that seeks to remove any remaining artificial and discriminatory barriers to women who seek careers, I have recorded my serious doubts about this Bill. I hope I am wrong, but I fear that it will turn out to be a bureaucratic, costly and discriminatory measure that will undermine meritoriousness and standards. In any case, that is what we have come to expect from this Government. The people who will then be hurt the most are those women of merit and achievement who have the right to expect better from this Parliament. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(6.58) —I have just been given the information that I can have my head, so to speak. I am delighted to hear that I do not need to restrain myself and that I am not subject to any time constraints. Initially I wish to say that unlike the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman), I embrace the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill with full enthusiasm. I will vote for it and I speak in favour of it with great enthusiasm. I believe that this Bill is one of the most far-reaching efforts to break down the entrenched discrimination and prejudice which exist in our society. I am pleased to be speaking in this debate and offering my support to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the women members of Parliament, women in government and women in the community at large. It is fair to say that for many years a great deal has been said about the need to provide women with equal opportunities. Governments and private agencies have been moved to remove legal and administrative barriers where these can be identified and/or quantified. Women's groups have kept up the pressure, have kept us informed and have continued the struggle for women's rights. There is no doubt that there have been some resultant gains from this struggle and some of those gains have been quite important. We now see women in positions in the so-called non-traditional areas of their participation. In that I include the senior echelons of business and the public sector. We have seen in this Parliament the election of a woman as Speaker; in the South Australian Legislative Council we have seen Miss Anne Levy elected as President-important parliamentary positions. Only this year was that development finally achieved. Susan Ryan, Barbara Weise, Janice Crosio, Joan Kirner, Caroline Hogg, Pam Beggs, Elsie Hallahan and Yvonne Chapman are all in important ministerial positions either here or in the States. Janine Haines, Di Laidlaw, Jennifer Adamson, Virginia Chadwick, Fran Bladel and Judy Jackson are all shadow Ministers, and thus have also reached senior political positions. There are senior women too in the private and public sectors, and prominent women in education, the arts, science and many other areas. In listing women of achievement I do not for a moment want people to think that I am in any way being patronising. I simply want to underscore the fact that moves have been made, that achievements have occurred as a result of the great struggle that has gone on over the last hundred years to give women a place in society which is due to them. That position is a position of equality with men. For all these women there are many more men-men who are no more intelligent, no more capable, and no more qualified to hold positions from which women appear to have been barred in the past. One of the fortunate results of the continuing struggle for women's rights has been the recognition by the Government of the need for this legislation. It is a recognition that a lead needs to be taken by government to ensure that opportunities are given to women to overcome those barriers which stand in the way of their equal opportunity to participate, to the maximum of their capabilities, in the processes of our society. That lead has been taken by the Government through a well researched, co-operative plan for affirmative action which has already been tested in a pilot program in the private sector and in higher educational institutions. That program was a success. Only two criticisms were made to me about the pilot project and I believe they are or can be addressed. The first was the lack of legislative underpinning for the pilot program. Those people working in equal opportunity areas, especially those who have been concerned with the results of the 1980 National Labor Consultative Council `Guidelines for Employers' and working in the affirmative action pilot program found that even in supportive environments the problem of lack of legislative backing seriously hindered the potential of the programs. This legislation is addressing that problem with strong yet sensitive processes for affirmative action. The second criticism was the lack of financial resources for the program. This is not addressed in the legislation. While the private sector will be compensated to some extent because it will be able to claim tax exemption for the additional staff which is recommended in the implementation handbook, higher educational institutions, and later on the public sector, cannot, of course, receive taxation benefits. Adequate resources are essential for the success of the program and this is an area which must be addressed. I hope that the comments that I am making, and I am sure others will make, will be addressed in the Budget so that adequate funding can be made available to higher educational institutions and the public sector to ensure that where under the program additional staff positions are required those positions will be funded and therefore will be filled in the near future as soon as the legislation is passed. Even so, the pilot program can be judged to have been a success, and that success points clearly to the excellent prospects envisaged through this legislation. It is legislation which aims at education and persuasion, not coercion and intimidation. It is legislation which will provide employers with clear guidelines for promoting equality of opportunity for the participation of women in the work force. One of the unfortunate results of the struggle for women's rights is the reaction of conservatives who deny the need for any changes or who more recently argue that those changes necessary have already been accomplished. Although I prepared these notes long before the honourable member for Wentworth made his contribution earlier, they could not be more true. His comments, in a sense, were an argument against the Bill. He couched them in terms such as: `I intend to support this Bill, but I am warning you that there are many problems with it and it will all fall apart'. I do not believe any of that. I think that is just a typical conservative position of opposing anything that is new. In the light of this criticism, however, I want to talk about equal opportunity and affirmative action and why they are necessary. It is beyond dispute that discrimination exists against women and other groups. There has been extensive research which identifies the nature of that discrimination, why it occurs, how it occurs, and where it occurs. The question these days should be how to tackle the problem. Equal opportunity is a concept which has changed over the past few decades. Some people have yet to move away from the approach that the removal of legal barriers and the provision of uniform resources will provide equal opportunity. What has become obvious to those people who have been working in equal opportunity areas has been the failure of such policies to change the situation of women or other groups which suffer discrimination. Neither have generalist approaches which do not provide specific programs aimed at client groups been successful. What is necessary is compensatory assistance for those individuals and groups which are disadvantaged for socio-economic, cultural, ethnic, gender, racial, physical or other reasons. The affirmative action program will provide specific compensatory assistance. It is possible to measure the success of compensatory programs by measuring the equality of group outcomes. Before we hear outraged comments from the otherside about levelling, what I am saying does not mean that everyone should be brought down to a common denominator. Equal opportunity does not and had never meant that every individual should obtain the same socio-economic position in life. The report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission for the 1982-84 triennium summed the situation up well. It said: A major aspect of equality of opportunity concerns the rights of individuals to be treated differently according to their interests and abilities, their right to different treatment to foster that potential has to be judged against the relative deprivation of others, in terms of forgone chances and an equitable distribution of resources. It is not unreasonable to expect that there will be some general trends in group outcomes if improvements are being made under compensatory programs. If there is no discrimination we should see similar distributions of individual members of social groups participating in the processes of our society. We certainly do not see that at the moment. The pilot program which preceded this legislation and other research which has been done have clearly shown the extent of informal discrimination which is identifiable both horizontally and vertically in the workforce, in educational institutions and generally, but the results of these programs make it clear that there is great benefit both to individuals and to society if those individuals and groups who suffer discrimination are assisted to realise their true potential. There is no incompatibility between equal opportunity, the pursuit of excellence in society and the principle of merit. Discrimination hinders the overt principle by denying the individuals discriminated against and society the benefits which would result from individuals realising their full potential. Affirmative action and equal opportunity are two sides of the one coin in my view. We cannot have equal opportunities without affirmative action. This legislation recognises this fact, as does the widespread support that the affirmative action program has received. I am very pleased to note that for once the saner voices opposite have prevailed and that the Opposition is supporting this Bill, although one cannot help commenting that we are seeing a new degree of pragmatism on the Opposition benches. That the Opposition is supporting this legislation is more the result of opinion polls, which indicate that women are voting Liberal less and less these days, that women are deserting the Liberal Party I think its stand on this legislation is dictated more by that sort of consideration than by any deep-felt principle. Before I conclude, I simply want to say one thing about a piece of information that I have been given. Suggestions have been made that this Bill should be subject to a sunset clause. I think it would be absolutely irresponsible for this Parliament to agree to such a proposal. Any such suggestion should be rejected out of hand. The whole idea this legislation is to set up a mechanism which over time will ensure equal opportunity through affirmative action. If we put a sunset clause in this legislation, inevitably employers who are reluctant to comply with the legislation will take it upon themselves to delay the introduction of programs required under this legislation until the legislation goes out of existence. If this were to happen, the whole exercise will have been an empty gesture. I suppose that if we were to put targets into this legislation-much feared by the honourable member for Wentworth-one could look at some sort of sunset clause for, when the targets were met, the sun could set. However, in view of the fact that the Opposition is so vigorously opposed to any suggestion of targets, I do not see that there is any likelihood of that happening. In those circumstances I believe that this legislation should be placed on the statute books and should be there for all to see and for all to comply with in the longer term. No doubt in the future the Parliament will have to look at the situation. If women have managed to take their place in society on the basis of equality with no further discrimination against them-in other words, if the affirmative action programs have worked-there will be no further need for the legislation and possibly it could then be repealed. However, I think that will be many years down the track. I certainly do not think I will see it in my lifetime. When one considers the fact that women in an organised way have been struggling for equality in this country for well over 100 years, I do not think we are likely to see that struggle come to fruition in the next five, ten, 15 or 20 years. So I have very little faith in any suggestions that a sunset clause should be inserted in this legislation. I totally reject the idea. I know that the program will be a success. I know that it will bring positive benefits to everyone, regardless of their sex. I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Government on introducing the legislation and Senator Ryan for her work in developing it. I am very pleased to support the passage of this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Scholes) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Slipper-that is, the honourable member for Fisher. I am sorry about that. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(7.15) —Madam Speaker, I thank you for your confidence in me and suggesting that I should have an electorate named after me at this early stage in my career. I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SLIPPER —Yes, outrageously. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr SLIPPER —Earlier today the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) made a statement in this place. While I know that his statements have very little credibility either here or in his own Party room, I take strong exception to it. He presumably jokingly claimed that I have all the hallmarks of an operative for the KGB. Even he could not be serious in making such a nonsensical statement. I want to emphasise that the honourable member's statement is completely untrue and without foundation and I take strong exception to it. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(7.16) —I rise tonight to talk about a matter which I think is relevant to most of Australia today and particularly to rural areas. A very well known businessman in a large rural town in my electorate received a letter from Mr Pat Hills, the New South Wales Minister for Industrial Relations, who suggested that he put on some more apprentices because of a shortage of skilled craftsmen in New South Wales. Normally I do not like to read out letters in this place, However, I would like to read the letter that this businessman wrote in reply to the Minister which I think explains what is happening in rural New South Wales. The businessman's letter stated: Dear Sir, We received your letter dated 11/2/86 inviting us to employ extra apprentices in our business this year. Mr Minister, it is with regret that we have to write to you a few lines to inform you of the present situation we are experiencing here in the country, or better still here in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area where we live and work, of which you may not be aware of. We have been in Business now for the last (34) years; our business is of (General Engineering and Blacksmiths). We live and work in this rural area which we depend entirely from people that work the land. ``The farmers''. During this period we had some quiet years because of weather conditions or other matters, but then, the following year things were coming good again and we were recovering and never lost the incentive to work. We were managing to do some planning at least for the following year. The way things are going here today we cannot plan for next week. As mentioned earlier we depend entirely from the farmers, but today the farmers do not spend any money because they don't have any to spend, because anything they have to buy from machinery, implements, fuel, fertiliser, water, etc. Over the last 3 or 4 years they have had an enormous price increase, and the farm produce had decreased in price, such as wheat, barley, oats, rice, oranges and stone fruits. This year also (the grapes) the wine industry is taking a dip, and there is no sign of improvement. Today in business with the type of expenses like workers compensation, all other types of necessary insurances, compulsory registrations, rates, interests, vehicle insurances and registrations, and the continuing increase in fuel, high wages, workers holidays, 17 1/2% payloading, sick leave, 38 hour week, continually rising costs and all other expenses that snow in continually it makes business very difficult to survive. . . . The building industry is also dead in this town, and we depend also a bit from this, but all boils down that the money comes from the land as we have no other industries here. Mr Minister, it would be high time if the present governments would look also beyond the ranges and not only at the cities and metropolitan areas, as we pay taxes here to, and heavy! We are also very concerned at the news of the new 3% productivity superannuation scheme, (and worse still to be controlled by the unions). If this scheme comes into action we can kiss good-bye to our once beautiful free country of Australia, because the greedy unions will become financially strong, that they will control the finance of the country, they will control the banks and the government, they will buy out or run our farms and our business or make us shut down our business. Mr Lee —You don't believe that, do you? Mr HICKS —This is what they believe. I would say that this is true. The letter continued: The new payroll tax for Subcontractors that came in force early last December 1985 is another Tax slug that can't be beared here. Over the past 36 years since we migrated to this country we have been worked very hard and with a lot of sacrifices we tried to save every cent to make a future for ourselves so we could take things a little easier and have a quiter life on our retirement which should be due not far from now. But instead today we have to work twice as hard just to try to hold and keep what we have saved. If small business and farmer are not surviving and are not making any money, the Government will suffer a big loss of revenue. One sector that contributed a lot to bring about the present situation is, too many Unions that we have in this Country. It is sickening to think that a Country with a population of 15 million have some (520) Unions which through disputes and demarcations between themselves are crippling this nation through their greediness of wanting more and more money and less work are adding to costs and are pricing our product for export out of proportion so we cannot compete with the rest of the world, and if there is still any good exports, like coal for instance, the striking miners and wharfies are keeping the Boats awaiting for days and are scaring away good buyers and Australia is loosing the market. We think that the standard of living here in Australia is very high and beyond the reach of the country. Another reason that some people are complaining that the standard of living is low in the Government and others advertising and inviting people on Gambling (instead of saving the money for the family necessity) as we have far too much of this gambling in this country! and this is contributing to shortage of money for living in many families, and subsequently breaking marriages and kids running the streets and becoming vandals. Mr Minister, we must press on the Government to change their policies and to look quickly at these important points before it is too late. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LEE(Dobell)(7.21) —Tonight I wish to speak on the question of interest rates and the level of interest rates which are charged by some building societies, particularly those in New South Wales. As many honourable members would be aware, the NSW Building Society Ltd became the Advance Bank Australia Ltd on 1 June 1985. On that day the NSW Building Society was granted a banking licence by the Federal Government. The idea behind that was that the granting of new banking licences would allow the Government to improve competition in the financial sector. The Advance Bank, as a result of winning that licence, was able to provide certain benefits to its customers. The Federal Government allowed the Advance Bank to start issuing cheques and its customers could have cheque accounts. The Advance Bank was allowed to expand into many areas outside the home loan area. In addition, the Federal Government acts as a lender of last resort if ever that Bank gets into difficulties. So whenever the Advance Bank wishes to borrow funds anywhere the borrowers always know that the Commonwealth Government is backing the Advance Bank because it was granted that banking licence. I wish to express concern that although the Advance Bank has received all the benefits that go with obtaining a bank licence, it is not bound by all the rules which are applied to other banks in Australia. In particular, the Advance Bank is charging more than 13.5 per cent on loans that were issued before 1 June 1985. Home loans issued by the Advance Bank between 1 June 1985 and 2 April 1986 are indeed bound by the 13.5 per cent ceiling, but loans issued by the NSW Building Society, which was the original home of the Advance Bank, are not bound by that ceiling. As the Advance Bank is in the unique situation where it comes under some form of Commonwealth Government control, I am here tonight to urge the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to consider extending the 13.5 per cent ceiling to all Advance Bank loans issued either as the NSW Building Society before 1 June 1985 or as the Advance Bank between that date and 2 April. I think it is important, if we are applying one rule to the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Westpac Banking Corporation and the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, that the same rule should apply to the Advance Bank. It should be required to maintain a ceiling of 13.5 per cent on all loans issued by the Advance Bank or by the NSW Building Society before 2 April. Mr Ian Robinson —Have a talk to Neville Wran. Mr LEE —That is the difference. The Advance Bank now comes under the Commonwealth Government's control. I will come back to the other building societies in a moment. I believe that the Advance Bank has a responsibility to its borrowers and customers to abide by the same rules that apply to the other banks. If the Advance Bank will not voluntarily lower interest rates on its pre-1 June 1985 loans to 13.5 per cent, I call on the Treasurer to intervene and to force the Advance Bank to abide by the same rules and conditions that apply to other banks. I come to the question mentioned by my friend from the north coast of New South Wales the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson), and that is the other building societies. As he has pointed out, they come under the control of the relevant State governments. That has been made very clear by the Treasurer. I must say that I am a little concerned by some of the comments by building societies that the Government's decision last Wednesday will force them either to seek a subsidy from the Federal Government or to raise the interest rates they apply to their customers, to their borrowers. I shall provide a few figures on this point. It is important to make sure that the building societies are not seeking to bulldoze State governments into making incorrect decisions. The building societies have not been affected by the collapse in deposits to the same extent as the saving banks- Mr Beale —Ha, ha! Mr LEE —As the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, I am surprised that the honourable member for Deakin does not appreciate the statistics. In the three months to January 1986 savings bank deposits fell at an annual rate of 10.7 per cent, bringing the rate of growth over the year to January to 2.3 per cent and falling. By contrast, as the honourable member for Deakin does not appear to realise, the building societies' funds rose by 11 per cent. So there is a total difference between the effect on the savings banks and the effect on the building societies. I believe there is no sound economic basis for the claims by the building societies that they have to obtain a subsidy from the Commonwealth Government or that the interest rates charged to their borrowers have to increase. I call on the State governments and, and in particular, the New South Wales Minister for Housing, Frank Walker, to refuse permission to the building societies to increase their rates, particularly for existing borrowers. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(7.25) —I was approached in December last year by the Bundaberg sub-branch of the Returned Services League, which indicated that its members were greatly offended by a Four Corners segment on the dismissal of the Whitlam Government which was televised on 11 November 1985 and so in sensitively entitled `Lest We Forget'. These words have tremendous significance for our returned servicemen and whilst, neither wishing to become involved in politics nor claiming exclusive rights to the use of the words, the RSL believes that its view on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's insensitivity ought to be conveyed to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). I duly informed the Minister on behalf of the sub-branch. His reply was as follows: Dear Mr Conquest, I refer to your personal representation on 23rd December 1985, on behalf of the Bundaberg sub-branch of the RSL, concerning the ABC Four Corners program, `Lest We Forget'. As you will be aware the ABC is established as an independent statutory authority with complete responsibility for the management of its operations and programming. The ABC has advised me, however, that the aim of the program was to present a thoughtful analysis of the dismissal of the Whitlam Government and its legacies to mark the 10th anniversary of that event. The program makers fully acknowledge that the term `Lest We Forget' has special significance with regard to the heavy loss of life and other deprivations suffered during two world wars. Actually, there were other conflicts between and after those two world wars. The letter continues: It is equally appreciated that the sacrifices made by many were made in defence of democratic principles in Australia and elsewhere. The ABC considers that as a title to the program `Lest We Forget' had relevance in that it dealt with those same democratic principles and defence which are commemorated on Remembrance Day. I trust this clarifies the matter for your constituents. In view of your concern in this matter, I have referred a copy of your letter to the ABC for consideration. Yours sincerely, Michael Duffy. I was less than impressed with the reply and recoiled from the excuse that the ABC is an independent statutory body and has complete responsibility for the management of its operations and programming. The Minister in his reply to me indicated that he had referred a copy of my letter to the ABC for consideration. I would hope that some accompanying remarks were included because the term `for consideration' is about as encouraging as the mirror reply `I'll look into it'. While the dismissal of the Whitlam Government was a significant though to many of us not unwelcome event, I regard the choice of the program's title, `Lest We Forget', as an insult to those who served and remember the fallen in those areas of conflict in which our forces participated and which have claimed the lives of so many people. The insensitivity of management in allowing the title to be used will not be forgotten by many. The RSL, too, will maintain the rage. Unfortunately, this management of the ABC lives to offend another day, but others whom I remember were not so lucky. When any statutory body receives $395m a year of taxpayers' money its performance becomes a matter of public concern, so I wonder how long we must listen to ABC programs taking such liberties and such licence. I know we do not have to listen to or view the programs because we can turn off the set but that is not the point. An ostrich might stick its head in the sand or the three monkeys might see, hear and speak no evil about the ABC but this Minister fits into another category. He merely says that the ABC is independent-independent in thought, word and deed, and apparently in accountability. I read with some amusement the answers to questions on notice which asked what the responsible Minister does in response to petitions on certain matters. Usually the standard reply is that they have been referred to the department for consideration. It is bad enough that the ABC programmer was insensitive to the memory of our fallen, but the Corporation's social insensitivity also manifests itself in many varied programs covering topics such as perverse sexual activity and other subjects which offend the moral standards of many. I wonder for how long people have to complain or how far standards have to slip before the guidelines are reviewed. I do through this adjournment debate urge the Minister to institute a review now or at least request the ABC to be more responsible in its programming. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(7.30) —In the past few weeks there has been much discussion in this place about matters relating to the building industry. I wish to raise a matter relating in particular to Spaceline Homes Pty Ltd which operates in Melbourne and which, as honourable members will know, has in the past few months run into difficulties. I am particularly concerned about some comments made by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) who is the shadow spokesman on these matters. He is purported to have been something of a business whiz kid before entering parliament. When the Spaceline company got into difficulties the honourable member for Deakin was quoted in the Melbourne Age of Monday, 17 March, as saying: Spaceline would be `the first of the dominoes to fall in the mounting housing industry crisis' . . . and `that a number of other home building companies are likely to follow Spaceline into receivership'. I found those comments both objectionable and consistent with a policy of trying to talk down the economic recovery in the economy. That is not only my reaction, but also the spokesman for the Housing Industry Association in Victoria, Dr Silberberg, representing the private sector, the captains of industry in Victoria, commented on the honourable member's remarks and stated: It is a very unhelpful track to pursue. In other words, the Housing Industry Association in Victoria rejected the comments of the shadow spokesman. I found that to be a very interesting situation. Here we have the honourable member for Deakin being shown the door by Melbourne business, particularly representatives of the building industry which is one of the vital industries in Victoria. For the benefit of the honourable member for Deakin, and I might say that he made those comments in the context of interest rates, the Spaceline organisation has given as its reason for difficulties increased prices charged by sub-contractors over whom there is no price control. There is also no wage restraint, because they are outside the terms of the prices and incomes accord. They set their own rates and, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has indicated on a number of occasions in this House, in an overheated building industry, where in fact one cannot get a builder because they are all flat out, they name their own price. The Spaceline organisation has run into this difficulty. Mr Beale —What about Frontier, D'arcy, Bartlett and the two in Queensland? Mr O'KEEFE —I am glad to note that the honourable member for Deakin is in the chamber to hear these comments and I hope that he learns something from them. The Spaceline organisation has its difficulties because of the very reasons pointed out by the Treasurer. I do not think that it does the honourable member for Deakin any credit, nor those whom he purports to represent, by taking opportunities like that to try to talk down what is in fact a very delicate situation in the economy. I make the point that the Government recognises that the building industry is at the heart of the Australian domestic economy. Under the previous Liberal Government the building industry had been used to a period of cycles of booming and busting. The record number of small business bankruptcies in the period leading up to the election of this Government is an indication of how small business is left to the dogs when this sort of free enterprise nonsense is portrayed by government. We have an overall objective of smoothing out these peaks and troughs and the Government is closely studying a number of options that will ensure that a smooth, strong and viable building sector is at the heart of the economy in the future. I urge my constituents, many of whom rely on their homes or their dreams of a home, to take no notice of comments of people like the honourable member for Deakin but, instead, to note that the economic management provided by this Government will secure that the building industry is strong and viable. The Government notes the important role it has in the economy and will ensure that it stays in that position. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(7.35) —Tonight I would like to discuss the question of tertiary education and the access to it by Australians, and in particular the allocation of resources devoted to tertiary education throughout regional Australia. The chairman of the council of the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education located at Lismore has recently made a call for an inquiry into the allocation of Federal and State government resources to tertiary education in that region of the State. I very much support that call for an inquiry because I believe that the far north coast and the north coast of NSW have been discriminated against in terms of the allocation of resources for tertiary education for some considerable time, notwithstanding representations made by me, and in particular a visit by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) to that area in 1984 when she said that she recognised the overwhelming need for additional resources in that area and that she was confident resources would be forthcoming. It is indeed a disappointment to me that she is not a member of this place and is not in a position to respond directly to the matters I intend to raise tonight. The north coast of New South Wales has only one tertiary institution, the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education. Projections for its population are that it will have some 700,000 people resident within that region within 15 years. That would mean that it is comparable to the State of Tasmania. Tasmania has a university and two CAEs. Obviously the north coast does not have sufficient tertiary resources. I believe that the role of the Northern Rivers College has been demonstrated and the importance of this facility is given ample evidence by the fact that it was able to fill its quota for the inaugural course for tertiary education for nurses. Many other CAEs throughout New South Wales were unable to fill their inaugural courses. The real problem faced by this college in terms of expansion is the limited amount of capital funding available. The decision to establish the College was made in 1972. It was proposed that the College would be built in four stages. Some 15 years later stage two has just been commenced. An amazing statistic brought to my attention about this College is the problem of residential accommodation available for students. Students in regional colleges cannot commute. They either come from the cities to study in the regions, or they live in the surrounding country areas. They do not have access to public transport; they are not sufficiently financially secure to have access to cars; they cannot walk to the college from their parents' home and have to leave home in order to study. The Northern Rivers College has 748 full time students. It has, unbelievably, 66 beds in the residential college available for those students. I repeat that there are 748 students and 66 residential college beds. That is a disgrace. The question of access to tertiary education is very important in our community. Australia faces major challenges in keeping pace with our rapidly changing world. This Government has a preoccupation with providing resources for the western suburbs of Sydney and, for that matter, Melbourne. It is interesting to compare the access to facilities available to people who are resident in the western suburbs of Sydney with the north coast region of New South Wales. Within 57 kilometres of the centre of Sydney residents have access to three universities and 10 CAEs. The north coast-I have mentioned that its population is growing rapidly and that the region is comparable to the State of Tasmania-has access to one CAE. There is an absolute need for this Government to review priorities for capital funding for tertiary education and to provide capital funding for the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education. The high population growth, the high rate of regional unemployment, the fact that we have a large Aboriginal population with inadequate access to educational facilities, and the fact that there is a change in the economic base in the area indicate a strong claim for a greater allocation of capital resources for this important College, this important regional resource, to ensure that the people who live in that region are not discriminated against. I urge this Government to support the call made by the chairman of the college council and supported by the principal and the staff to have an inquiry into the allocation of resources for tertiary education and to compare those resources available in the western suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne with the resources that are dedicated to the north coast of New South Wales. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(7.40) —I wish this evening to address some of the criticisms of the United Nations that have been made by members of the House in the recent past and particularly the remarks attributed to the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) in the Melbourne Sun of Tuesday, 8 April. I think the most disappointing aspect of all recent criticism of the United Nations that has appeared in the Press and in the speeches or other utterances of some members of the House is summed up in the headline in the Melbourne Sun `M.P. finds a rotten state of nations'. If the report and the emotive language used were simply another case of an honourable member seeking publicity, or seeking to jump on a band wagon, I think they might be dismissed. However, when the criticism comes from someone who has had some opportunity to observe the work of the United Nations at close hand, even though as an observer, the comments need to be taken more seriously because in many ways they form part of a continuing campaign by conservative elements, sometimes called the `New Right', to denigrate international inter-governmental organisations. There are three comments I wish to make on the matters raised by the honourable member for Bruce. Firstly, the broad brush attack relies heavily on exaggeration, emotion and ignorance. The suggestion that the United Nations headquarters in New York is a base for at least 1,000 Soviet bloc spies is probably the best example of such exaggeration. Notwithstanding the fact that the Soviet mission to the United Nations clearly is well beyond the needs of the Soviets for their United Nations work, the comments concerning the staffing arrangements and the reflection on the personnel arrangements are really not worthy of an Australian observer, especially when it is remembered that a very large percentage of such staff are nationals of Western countries. My second comment concerns the singling out for particular criticism of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, and the United Nations de-velopment program. I think it is interesting that these organisations are singled out for particular criticism. Undoubtedly the UNCTAD discussions pose a threat to the self-interest of the trading relations of some countries and so an attack by conservatives on those discussions is understandable. Not so understandable is the attack on the UNDP, which, if my memory serves me correctly, has been headed by a Western appointee for many years. What cannot be excused are the charges made against UNESCO that it is corrupt, that it misappropriates and misuses its funds. Not a shred of evidence is offered. As far as I am aware, the honourable member has never been to UNESCO, has certainly never discussed such charges with government officials responsible for our membership of UNESCO. As far as I know, he has never discussed it with the Government's advisory body on UNESCO, the Australian National Commission for UNESCO. In the circumstances it seems clear that the criticism is simply a regurgitation of the unproven charges levelled against UNESCO by the New Right in the United States of America, regrettably aided and abetted by a former Australian representative to UNESCO. The charges ignore the sweeping administrative and other changes that UNESCO has put into place in the last two years, details of which I am sure could be made available to the honourable member if his mind is not completely closed on the subject. My final comment is that these most recent outbursts, like the earlier one, should be seen for what they are. Let there be no mistake. They are attacks on the multilateral system, a system which has served the purposes of some countries as long as they had control over the system or a power to veto particular decisions and proposals made by the system. Those who attack multilateral systems, of course, believe that bilateral arrangements are preferable. This may be true of course for one of the big and powerful who can pick and choose, indeed dictate the terms of such arrangements. In 1986, however, the shrinking of the globe and the inevitable closer contact between nations must require maintenance, indeed a strengthening of the multilateral system. It would be nice to read and hear of something positive, something constructive on this subject, from the critics of that system rather than a continuing litany of tired, subjective and unproven charges. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(7.40) —Tonight I would like to talk briefly about the pensions assets test- Mr Gear —Oh, no! Mr HAWKER —And a particular anomaly that has come to light in my electorate. I think the honourable member might just listen to this. I have spoken many times in this chamber about the inequities of the assets test and how it discriminates against farmers. I have said before that because the family home is exempted, a pensioner couple living in the city can have assets, if mostly in their house, of over $250,000 and yet still receive a full pension. Yet a pensioner couple in the country, particularly soldier settlers, with a farm worth say $250,000 including their house, can be completely denied a pension. On any basis of equity this Government's claim about fairness between the city and the country is a joke when it comes to the assets test. One of the Government's undertakings with the assets test was that the family home would be exempt. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), when he made his speech to the House on 1 June 1984 when announcing details of the assets test, said in part: The key features of the new assets test are as follows: I will just take the first feature: The principal residence is completely excluded from the test. Mr Gear —But it is. Mr HAWKER —When the honourable member listens a bit further he will find that there are times when it is not. Nothing in what the Prime Minister said could be clearer, or could it? When we look at this anomaly I think we will find that when it comes to administering the latter of the Social Security Act, sometimes it does not always quite happen that way. In this case, a pensioner couple is living in their own home on a farm. The ownership of the farm is in partnership with their son on a 50-50 basis and the son also lives on the farm with his family in his own separate house. The farm has been valued at just over $200,000 and the pensioner couple's house has been valued at $65,000. One would think that as the farm is in a partnership, in order to assess it for the assets test as to whether or not a pension would be available, we would take half the value of the partnership and then deduct the value of the house because, as the Prime Minister said, the house is exempt. That would mean, if we work it out, that the pensioner couple's assets would be about $35,000, but, no, not under the Government's legislation. Section 6 of the Act says that we must do it the other way around. According to the interpretation of the assets test by the Department of Social Security, we deduct the value of the pensioner couple's home first and then we halve the assets, thus the pensioners' assets are considered to be nearly $70,000 instead of $35,000. In other words, in this case, according to the Government's Act, the pensioner couple in fact really only have half a house. This pensioner couple appealed to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, and that appeal was upheld. Despite this, the Department of Social Security overruled the Appeals Tribunal and disallowed that appeal. Thus, despite what the Prime Minister said, here is one pensioner couple whose principal residence is not completely excluded from the assets test. In fact, according to the Government this couple has only half a house. It is interesting to think about the ramifications. If the son happened to become eligible for a pension, what would be the situation? Would he only have half a house too? I think if the Government is serious about exempting the family home from the assets test, it must correct this anomaly and correct it quickly. We have a genuine case of someone who has been denied a pension or part of a pension because of bad drafting under the assets test legislation. This particular couple went through a lot of trauma going through the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. They had been told by the Department in its letter overruling the case that they could still go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. But as they said to me, after six months of the trauma of waiting and not knowing what was happening, they really could not face it because they are a fairly old couple and I think it is not hard to understand why they would have difficulty going through the trauma of getting legal aid to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I think the Government should address this anomaly quickly because here we have a case of genuine decent people who have been treated shabbily by this legislation, and people who really should have been more than eligible for a pension under the assets test, yet because of bad drafting of the legislation they have been denied part of that pension. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Canning)(7.50) —I would like to take up a point raised by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). When I came in here tonight I did not realise that we would be talking about the assets test. Certainly there are anomalies under any legislation, and I do not think that the honourable member would advocate our changing the whole legislation because of one case. My advice to him is to take the case directly to the Minister. We have a very compassionate Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). I am sure that the Minister would be able to sort out this problem. It would be of no use turning over the whole of the legislation because one case does not fit the legislation. I have asked time and time again without answer-and perhaps the honourable member for Wannon can reply to this in a future adjournment debate-whether, if by some misfortune the Opposition got back into Government and repealed the assets test, it would raise taxes to pay for pensions for those people who do not need them, including at least 12 millionaires who are getting them, or would lower the pensions of the people who do? The honourable member opposite can address his mind to that and during his next adjournment speech could give some kind of idea about how he would handle this whole question of the assets test. Previously another member of the Opposition talked about education and the so-called lack of tertiary education in his electorate. It is just like members of the National Party to say that, because there is a need for tertiary education in some parts of a member's electorate, we should build a monument at that location to which a few people can go. The only thing I would ask the honourable member-I think it is the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt)-is: Who put the universities and the colleges of advanced education in Sydney? Certainly, if the honourable member goes back through the history books, he will find that it was his own coalition Government. Why did that Government not stick one up in Richmond when it had the chance to do so? The then Deputy Prime Minister used to hold a seat up there; if he did not think it was good enough to put a CAE in Richmond, why does the honourable member ask this Government to do it? The simple reason for our having CAEs and universities in our capital cities is that it is more cost effective to do it that way. They have very much larger populations and it is a lot easier to shift individuals to the metropolitan areas to go to CAEs and universities than the other way around. It seems to me to be ludicrous that members of the Opposition would ask this Government to put a CAE in the Richmond electorate. Anyway, the reason that I am here tonight is to talk about consumer issues. As honourable members may know, I run the consumer prices action group in Western Australia. It is the largest group of its type in Australia and we monitor supermarkets throughout the southern areas of Perth. Through that organisation, it has come to our attention that many more consumer issues need addressing. So, under the auspices of the Canning prices action group, I have undertaken to put out a questionnaire to ask people in Perth about wider consumer issues. What we really want to do is to get into things that affect people on the ground, things that matter to them. I have asked them to tell me about things such as whether they have had trouble with car repairs or purchases or in relation to home building. We are building a record number of homes now and, thankfully, due to the decision made by Cabinet last week and its excellent housing package, we will build many more houses. Some of the consumers who have houses built may have some complaints. I want to know about those, as it is only by coming to some organisation or some government instrumentality and bringing those concerns forward that we can make them known to the providers of those goods and services. Certainly, I hold the view that the providers of goods and services are only as good as we make them. If one never complains about the service or goods that one gets, one deserves a sub-standard service if one gets it. By putting out this questionnaire, I hope to gauge from as wide a source as possible the sorts of concerns facing consumers, not only in my electorate but throughout the southern areas of Perth. Having looked both here and in America, as I was lucky enough to do last year, at the way that consumer organisations are run and just at the consumers themselves, I think that consumers in America are very much more aggressive than consumers in Australia. I feel that consumers in Australia just seem to cop whatever service or goods they receive without very much concern about the quality of that service or those goods. We have a duty to point out to those providers of poor goods and services that they are providing a sub-standard service or sub-standard goods, because it is only through doing things like that that we can bring it to their attention and raise the standards. Certainly we owe it to the State of Western Australia, where we will have the America's Cup in 1987 and a big influx of people from overseas. They expect a higher degree of service, possibly, than we in Australia expect. We should do this not only because of the America's Cup but for tourists in general, because tourists come here and spend their dollars here and they expect and should receive good service. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(7.55) —It is only three years since this country came out of a crippling drought. The drought left large sections of rural Australia saddled with crippling debt. It wrecked the local economy of very many country towns in our grazing and cropping areas. One of the side effects of the big drought of the early 1980s was to help pave the way for the Australian Labor Party's win at the polls in March 1983. The drought-induced rural recession, coupled with a price collapse on the international sugar market, flowed through to big city votes as well. Natural disasters notwithstanding, people decided they wanted a political change. Country people, their farmlands ruined and knee-deep in debt to the banks, changed the voting patterns of generations and decided to give the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) his chance to bring Australians together. The Labor Government chose a strange way to repay rural Australia, in particular, for its trust. Already deeply in debt, fighting their way out of a devastating drought, the farmers were targeted by this union-based Labor Government for fresh taxes and heavier financial burdens. The scams and straight rip-offs Labor is foisting on the farm community through fuel taxes, fertiliser pricing and capital gains taxes are well documented. Treasurer Keating, in his never-ending search for the mythical J curve, deliberately sent interest rates through the roof. This means that a lot of Australians in the cities will never be able to afford their own home. It has meant that a lot of debt-laden farming families have had to leave their right after the mortgagee sale. A combination of Government bloody-mindedness, union bastardry in the grain transport and handling terminals and the meat industry, and falling commodity prices in three years of Labor administration brought Australia's farm community full circle-they were living off the land like the pioneer farmers of the early nineteenth century. Now that the farmers are broke the Labor Government has decided to look as though it wants to help, so it fiddles with fuel prices, fiddles with fertiliser prices, and, as we read in this week's papers, it is fiddling with a package to try to get farmers off their knees. Labor just does not understand that farms would be back on their feet if only the Government got its foot off their necks. The Government appears to be a bit late. While the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and his cohorts are practising pea and thimble tricks with tax, interest rates and subsidies for farmers, another major drought is creeping over the land. Already 51 cattle stations in my electorate, the Northern Territory, have been declared drought affected. As the member for the Northern Territory, I see a lot of inland Australia, and indeed, one has only to read the regional papers of the north to find out what is happening. The Queensland cattle centres of Barcaldine, Blackall and Julia Creek record local conditions as bad to very bad. The entire 50,000 square kilometre shire of Cloncurry is in the process of being declared drought stricken. This is supposed to be that shire's wet season, yet for the first time in 102 years it has not had a drop of rain in the first quarter of the year. The Mount Isa shire, which is centred on a major regional city, has had the driest year so far since records were kept. Not only are cattle being shipping out as fast as they can be mustered to escape the drought, but the 20,000 or so people at Mount Isa face a serious drinking water problem. Lake Moondarra, the nearby city water supply, is so low that the Council can no longer pump out of it. It is looking at pumping water from 46 kilometres away at Lake Julius, which will give Mount Isa water, but at a price. City water rates will have to be jacked up by an immediate 28 per cent minimum to pay for it. The population of part of small town Australia-in this case Girilambone in western New South Wales-draws its only water in pots and pans from a disappearing mud-hole contaminated with dead sheep. That may not worry Canberra too much, as there are only 66 people in this town, but they are Australians and in 1986 the conditions under which the people of that town exist, and other small-town people like them, are a disgrace to this nation. Victoria has its share of problems, with Lake Hume carrying only 9 per cent of its capacity, a single day's rain this year for the north-east and a general failure of autumn rains to supply grass for winter feed. The Government should forget about fiddling the books and recognise that even now Australian agriculture contributes 40 per cent of our export income and employs one million people. Agriculture cannot keep on doing that if it is squeezed dry between the high tax regime of the Hawke Government and a drought creating anomaly called El Nino. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of new Resource Management Centre, St Leonards, N.S.W. Mr West to 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: Refurbishment of taxation building, Brisbane. Mr Scholes to move- That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 8 April 1986, namely: The construction of the National Bicentennial Science Centre at Section 28, Parkes, which is within the Parliamentary Zone. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 2587) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: (1) What amount of the 1984-85 Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program allocation remained unspent in each of the States and local government areas for each category (2) How does this compare with each previous year of the program's operation Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program (ABRD) legislation provides that of the total receipts paid into the Road Fund during the life of the program up to certain specified proportions may be paid to various road categories and between States in respect to arterial and local roads categories. Nominal annual expenditure allocations are provided to each State by category based on the expected level of revenue paid into the Road Fund during the year. These allocations are not fixed and can be varied. Annual allocations provided do not include details of disbursement to local government areas. Total payments from the Road Fund in 1984-85 equalled the allowable provision for that year. Details of 1984-85 category underpayments relative to nominal allocations: National Roads $m Urban Arterial Roads $m Rural Arterial Roads $m Local Roads $m New South Wales... - 3.3 0.3 4.9 Victoria... 5.2 2.0 - - Queensland... 1.6 - 1.6 - Western Australia... - - 1.4 0.2 South Australia... 0.6 1.8 - 0.1 Tasmania... 1.1 - - 1.0 Northern Territory... - 0.6 - - It should be noted the above unexpended allocations were utilised within other categories and/or States in 1984-85. (2) Total payments from the Road Fund in 1983-84 equalled the allowable provision. Payments in 1982-83 under-utilised revenue receipts by some $54m. (Question No. 2752) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 26 November 1985: (1) Which applications for the importation of second-hand passenger aircraft lodged since 1 January 1984 (a) have been approved and (b) are still being considered and when was each application lodged. (2) For which aircraft have applications been approved. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (2) The Central Office, as well as each of the five Regional Offices of my Department, may approve the importation of aircraft. The following table lists each office's import approvals issued since 1 January 1984 for used passenger aircraft. Departmental records do not indicate whether imported aircraft have had previous owners. The Department requires applicants to indicate whether the aircraft are either `new' or `used`. The table shows the importer's name; aircraft imported and number; date application was lodged; and, where appropriate, when each application was approved. IMPORT PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR USED PASSENGER AIRCRAFT, LODGED SINCE 1 JANUARY 1984 Central Office Name/Company Aircraft Type No. Date Lodged Date Approved Trans Australia Airlines... Boeing 727-77... 1 23.02.84 03.04.84 Orlando Airways Australia Pty Ltd... Sikorsky S-55B... 1 24.03.84 21.05.84 Boyd Munro... Piper PA31 Navajo... 2 22.05.84 31.05.84 Aerotechnics Ltd... Cessna A185E... 1 04.06.84 07.06.84 Airlines of Western Australia... Fokker F28... 1 11.07.84 29.08.84 Pacific Aviation... Embraer 820c... 1 17.05.84 10.09.84 Crowley Airways Pty Ltd... Cessna R172K... 1 19.09.84 25.09.84 Pacific Aviation... Embraer 820c... 1 06.09.84 05.10.84 Trans Australia Airlines... Airbus A300... 2 10.10.84 18.10.84 Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd... Soloy Turbine Pac Cessna... 10 21.08.84 28.10.84 Nat Young Holdings Pty Ltd... Maule 180c MS... 1 26.07.84 13.12.84 Catholic Diocese of Kerema... Hiller UH-12E... 1 28.11.84 14.12.84 Catholic Diocese of Kerema... Cessna C185E... 1 28.11.84 14.12.84 Bell Helicopter Aust Pty Ltd... Bell 21 4ST... 1 02.08.85 07.08.85 Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd... Beech 200T... 1 16.09.85 18.09.85 Bell Helicopter Aust Pty Ltd... Bell 21 4ST... 1 24.10.85 28.10.85 Rex Aviation Ltd... Cessna 500... 1 22.12.83 03.01.84 Rex Aviation Ltd... Cessna 402C... 1 20.01.84 01.02.84 Aerotechnics Pty Ltd... Piper PA44T... 1 27.01.84 08.02.84 Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd... Beech 200... 1 28.02.84 02.03.84 Okanagan Helicopters... Bell 212... 1 19.03.84 19.03.84 Jakair Pty Ltd... Britten Norman BN2A... 1 11.04.84 13.04.84 Petard Pty Ltd... Cessna 182... 1 01.11.83 14.05.84 Auscott Ltd... Rockwell Comm. 690C... 1 13.05.84 17.05.84 Mr Chauvinist Pty Ltd... Bell 206B... 1 15.05.84 21.05.84 Rex Aviation Ltd... Cessna 404... 1 16.05.84 23.05.84 Rex Aviation Ltd... Cessna 402C... 2 16.05.84 23.05.84 Rex Aviation Ltd... Cessna 441... 1 19.06.84 29.06.84 Pacific Aviation Pty Ltd... Piper PA-32R/300... 1 26.06.84 29.06.84 Paxford Pty Ltd... Robin R2160... 1 28.06.84 11.07.84 Jakair Pty Ltd... Britten Norman BN2... 2 11.07.84 20.07.84 Jakair Pty Ltd... Beech 80... 1 14.07.84 24.07.84 Pacific Aviation Pty Ltd... Piper PA-34... 1 17.07.84 25.07.84 Hazelton Air Services Pty Ltd... Piper PA-31/350... 1 25.07.84 31.07.84 Meekin Enterprises Pty Ltd... Beech 55... 1 27.07.84 02.08.84 Aust. Jet Charter Pty Ltd... Falcon 20E... 1 30.07.84 06.08.84 Flynn, J.... Cessna 310B... 1 11.07.84 08.08.84 Intran Aviation Pty Ltd... Mooney M20J... 1 14.09.84 20.09.84 Navair Sales Pty Ltd... Beech 55... 1 10.09.84 24.09.84 Pacific Aviation Pty Ltd... Piper PA-31... 1 04.09.84 27.09.84 Pacific Aviation Pty Ltd... Piper PA-31/350... 1 04.09.84 27.09.84 Pacific Aviation Pty Ltd... Piper PA-32R/300... 1 04.09.84 27.09.84 Pacific Aviation Pty Ltd... Cessna 210N... 1 04.09.84 27.09.84 Heli-Muster Pty Ltd... Bell 47G... 1 05.10.84 08.10.84 Allan Bligh Aviation Pty Ltd... Hughes 269C... 1 30.10.84 05.11.84 Aeromil (Aust.) Pty Ltd... Piper PA-31T... 1 05.11.84 07.11.84 Rex Aviation Ltd... Cessna 310R... 1 12.10.84 09.11.84 Rex Aviation Ltd... Cessna 210R... 1 18.10.84 09.11.84 Jakair Pty Ltd... Hughes 369MS... 1 22.10.84 12.11.84 Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd... Beech 65... 1 12.11.84 21.11.84 Rex Aviation Ltd... Cessna 441... 1 15.11.84 27.11.84 Rex Aviation Ltd... Cessna 172RG... 1 09.11.84 30.11.84 Jakair Pty Ltd... Beech 58... 1 22.10.84 10.12.84 Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd... Beech C90... 1 23.11.84 11.12.84 Surf Life Saving Association of Australia... Bell 206B... 1 10.12.84 11.12.84 Pacific Aviation Pty Ltd... Piper PA-32/301... 1 18.12.84 09.01.85 Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd... Bell 47G3B1... 1 20.12.84 11.01.85 Sydney Airways Pty Ltd... Harvard T6... 1 04.01.85 21.01.85 Heliflite Pty Ltd... Robinson R22... 1 10.01.85 24.01.85 Commercial Aviation Pty Ltd... Bell 212... 1 05.02.85 13.02.85 Heliflite Pty Ltd... Robinson R22... 1 12.02.85 20.02.85 Edwards Aviation Services Pty Ltd... Bell 206B... 1 07.03.85 19.03.85 Heli-Muster Pty Ltd... Bell 47G3B-KH4... 14 16.04.85 22.04.85 Blackmore Customs Pty Ltd... De Havilland DH20/A1... 1 29.04.85 02.05.85 Rex Aviation Ltd... Cessna 441... 1 02.05.85 13.05.85 Nagari Pty Ltd... Bell 47J... 1 07.05.85 10.05.85 NSW REGION Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd... Beech 200C... 1 09.05.85 16.05.85 Jakair Pty Ltd... Cessna 185F... 1 13.05.85 22.05.85 National Parks & Wildlife Service... Rockwell Commander 690... 1 20.05.85 23.05.85 Heli-Muster Pty Ltd... Bell 47J2... 1 24.05.85 07.06.85 P. B. White Minerals Pty Ltd... Robinson R22... 1 30.05.85 04.06.85 Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd... Beech C90... 1 03.06.85 06.06.85 Heli-Muster Pty Ltd... Bell 47G5... 1 03.06.85 13.06.85 '' '' '' ... Bell 47G3B1... 1 03.06.85 13.06.85 Jakair Pty Ltd... Cessna 421B... 1 05.06.85 13.06.85 '' '' '' ... Britton Norman BN2A-21... 2 19.06.85 27.06.85 Pays Air Service Pty Ltd... Piper PA-28/180... 1 28.06.85 17.07.85 '' '' '' '' '' ... Piper PA-31/380... 1 '' '' '' '' '' '' '' ... Piper PA-34... 2 '' '' Intran Aviation Pty Ltd... Mooney M20J... 1 05.07.85 10.07.85 Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd... Beech C90... 1 25.07.85 29.07.85 McFarlane, D.T.... Cessna 180... 1 31.07.85 06.08.85 Knox, H. D.... AESL Airtourer T6... 6 09.08.85 03.10.85 Pays Air Service Pty Ltd... Piper PA-28/180... 1 20.08.85 23.08.85 Fahey, F.... Cessna U206F... 1 26.09.85 27.09.85 Heli-Muster Pty Ltd... Bell 206B III... 1 26.09.85 28.09.85 '' '' '' ... Bell 206B... 1 '' '' Hazelton J. D.... Beech 95-B55... 1 23.10.85 28.10.85 '' '' ... Cessna 182RG... 1 '' '' Western NSW Airlines P/L... Cessna 310R... 1 28.10.85 30.10.85 '' '' '' '' ... Beech F33A... 1 '' '' National Safety Council of Australia... Bell 205A1... 1 01.11.85 06.11.85 Anderson, P. N.... Lockheed PVI Ventura... 1 13.11.85 09.01.86 Solon Pty Ltd... Harvard T6... 1 18.11.85 22.11.85 National Safety Council of Australia... Messerschmit B0105... 1 29.11.85 11.12.85 Western NSW Airlines P/L... Cessna R172K... 1 10.12.85 06.01.86 '' '' '' '' ... Cessna 172RG... 1 '' '' Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd... Falcon 20F... 1 10.12.85 17.12.85 '' '' '' '' ... Beech 200C... 1 12.12.85 '' A. E. Air Eastern... Beech A65-80... 1 18.12.85 30.12.85 Segmueller, R. L.... Cessna 303... 1 30.12.85 31.12.85 Plastic Sales & Distribution Pty Ltd... Cessna 441... 1 30.12.85 15.01.86 VIC/TAS REGION A S Aviation Pty Ltd... Cessna 172 RG... 1 30.12.83 03.01.84 '' '' '' '' '' ... Cessna 152 II... 2 30.12.83 03.01.84 Ian Baillie A/C Sales... De Havilland DHC6... 1 09.01.84 09.01.84 Missionary Aviation Fellowship... Cessna U206G... 1 06.01.84 10.01.84 Richey Fishing Co Pty Ltd... Dornier Do27... 1 30.12.83 11.01.84 G R Gill... Meta Sokol L-40... 1 18.01.84 25.01.84 Border Air Services Pty Ltd... Piper PA21-200... 1 02.02.84 03.02.84 Missionary Aviation Fellowship... Cessna TU206G... 1 08.02.84 10.02.84 Traidaplane International... Cessna 206... 1 02.02.84 06.02.84 '' '' ... Cessna 182... 1 02.02.84 06.02.84 Rhys Thomas... Cessna 182 RG... 1 20.02.84 21.02.84 Civil Flying Services... Piper PA28-161... 2 05.03.84 07.03.84 Border Air Services Pty Ltd... Grumman G164B... 1 02.03.84 09.03.84 Western Aerial Crop... Piper PA25-235... 1 05.03.84 09.03.84 Rhys Thomas... Cessna 210... 1 13.03.84 15.03.84 Traidaplane International... Mitsubishi MU2G... 1 03.04.84 05.04.84 '' '' ... Beech C55... 1 23.05.84 23.05.84 P Bird... Bell 47... 1 25.05.84 25.05.84 Missionary Aviation Fellowship... Cessna A185E... 1 26.05.84 30.05.84 Rhys Thomas... Cessna 172... 1 30.05.84 31.05.84 Civil Flying Services... Cessna 182 II... 1 14.06.84 18.06.84 Traidaplane International... Piper PA 31-350... 1 20.06.84 22.06.84 Civil Flying Services... Cessna U206... 1 04.07.84 09.07.84 Palmstead Pty Ltd... Cessna 500... 1 10.07.84 10.07.84 Vowell Air Services... Aerospatiale SA31 5B... 1 14.07.84 20.07.84 Keys Nominees Pty Ltd... Beech B55... 1 01.08.84 07.08.84 Rhys Thomas... Cessna 152... 1 08.08.84 09.08.84 VIC/TAS REGION Premier Airlines Pty Ltd... Aero Comm 500S... 1 14.08.84 14.08.84 P E Patrick... Piper PA28R... 1 27.08.84 30.08.84 Rhys Thomas... Cessna 172... 1 07.09.84 07.09.84 Rhys Thomas... Cessna 172RG... 1 07.09.84 07.09.84 Civil Flying Services... Rockwell Comm 500S... 1 06.09.84 11.09.84 NSCA... Bell 205... 3 25.09.84 26.09.84 Vowell Air Services... Bell 206... 3 30.09.84 01.10.84 Bernaldo Nominees Pty Ltd... Cessna T310R... 1 03.10.84 09.10.84 Rhys Thomas... Cessna 172... 1 12.10.84 16.10.84 K Ingersol... Aeronca 7AC... 1 26.10.84 31.10.84 MAF-Air Services Pty Ltd... Cessna 206G... 1 14.11.84 20.11.84 P Patrick... Piper PA32R... 1 21.11.84 22.11.84 A J F Pty Ltd... Cessna 210L... 2 26.11.84 26.11.84 Sherrard Aviation Pty Ltd... Cessna 404... 1 26.11.84 26.11.84 Rhys Thomas... Cessna 172... 1 22.11.84 03.12.84 S M Thomas... Cessna 172... 1 22.11.84 03.12.84 L G Seehusen... Cessna U206F... 1 19.12.84 19.12.84 Sherrard Aviation... Cessna 210... 1 11.12.84 11.12.84 Sherrard Aviation... Cessna 172RG... 1 19.12.84 20.12.84 W J Bell... Piper PA31B... 1 09.01.85 10.01.85 Transecutive Airlines Pty Ltd... Cessna 402B... 1 11.02.85 14.02.85 Ian Baillie... Cessna 340... 1 20.02.85 20.02.85 Rhys Thomas... Cessna 210M... 1 23.02.85 25.02.85 R Ferguson... Robinson R22... 1 25.03.85 25.03.85 R E Merridew... Piper PA31... 1 22.03.85 26.03.85 Sherrard Aviation... Cessna 414... 1 28.03.85 28.03.85 Sherrard Aviation... Cessna R182... 2 30.04.85 01.05.85 VIC/TAS REGION W J Bell... Cessna 337G... 1 27.04.85 01.05.85 Aerocountry Helicopters... Bell 47... 1 17.05.85 17.05.85 E Kes... Cessna 210B... 1 26.05.85 29.05.85 Sherrard Aviation Pty Ltd... Cessna 414A... 1 19.06.85 20.06.85 Sherrard Aviation Pty Ltd... Cessna 404... 1 19.06.85 20.06.85 Transecutive Airlines Pty Ltd... Casa 212... 1 20.06.85 21.06.85 Civil Flying Services Pty Ltd... Piper PA31-350.85... 1 11.07.85 12.07.85 W J Bell... Cessna 182RG... 1 12.07.85 15.07.85 Transecutive Airlines Pty Ltd... Cessna 310... 1 15.07.85 15.07.85 Vowell Air Services... Aerospatiale SA315B... 1 15.08.85 15.08.85 Civil Flying Services Pty Ltd... Britten-Norman BN2B... 1 10.08.85 20.08.85 Civil Flying Services Pty Ltd... Cessna 310R... 1 19.08.85 21.08.85 Stillwell Aviation (A'sia)... BAe125-800B... 1 29.08.85 03.09.85 G P Hosking... Cessna 182RG... 1 04.09.85 05.09.85 G P Hosking... Piper PA31-310... 1 04.09.85 05.09.85 MAF-Air Services Pty Ltd... Cessna U206G... 1 07.09.85 17.09.85 Civil Flying Services Pty Ltd... Cessna 421C... 1 21.09.85 02.10.85 Mezereon Pty Ltd... Piper PA32R... 1 21.10.85 21.10.85 Mezereon Pty Ltd... Piper PA32RT... 1 21.10.85 21.10.85 A J G Pty Ltd... Cessna 210L... 1 22.10.85 22.10.85 Aerocountry Helicopters... Bell 47... 2 23.10.85 24.10.85 B P Jones... Piper 32-300... 1 29.10.85 01.11.85 Rhys Thomas... Cessna 182RG... 1 21.10.85 14.11.85 NSCA... Bell 205... 1 11.12.85 12.12.85 Civil Flying Services Pty Ltd... Piper PA24-400... 1 06.12.85 16.12.85 Civil Flying Services Pty Ltd... Beech E33c... 1 06.12.85 16.12.85 Ian Gray... Piper PA28-181... 1 17.12.85 17.12.85 Ian Gray... Cessna 172P... 1 17.12.85 17.12.85 Ian Gray... Cessna 182 II... 1 17.12.85 17.12.85 W I Bell... PA31 B... 1 24.12.85 30.12.85 QUEENSLAND REGION Sealion Pty Ltd... Cessna Hawk XP II... 1 09.01.84 10.01.84 Sealion Pty Ltd... Cessna Hawk U206... 1 09.01.84 10.01.84 Sealion Pty Ltd... Cessna Hawk 182 II... 1 13.01.84 18.01.84 Nicholsons Air Service Pty Ltd... Piper PA36-300-Pawnee Brave... 1 18.01.84 24.01.84 Bell Helicopter Australia... Bell 212... 1 18.01.84 24.01.84 Sealion Pty Ltd... Cessna 172-Skyhawk II... 1 17.01.84 24.01.84 Flight Safety Australia Pty Ltd... Cessna Citation 500... 1 16.03.84 16.03.84 A. D. Pederson... SNCAN Stampe Bi-plane SV-4-A... 1 22.03.84 24.05.84 Sea World Pty Ltd... Bell Longranger 206L-I... 1 03.04.84 03.04.84 Four Jacks Aviation Pty Ltd... Cessna 310R... 1 05.06.84 13.06.84 V Mail... DeHavilland Dh82... 1 01.06.84 13.06.84 Blanch's Aerial Agriculture... Piper PA36... 1 12.06.84 06.08.84 Orlando Airways Australia Pty Ltd... Sikorsky S-55B... 1 12.06.84 20.06.84 Blanch's Aerial Agriculture... Piper PA25-235... 1 13.06.84 20.06.84 Stahmann Farms Inc... Rockwell International Thrush Commander S2R... 1 30.06.84 06.07.84 Bell Helicopter Australia... Bell 206B J/R III... 1 03.07.84 05.07.84 G. S. Camm... Piper PA18-90 Super Cub... 1 09.07.84 10.07.84 East Coast Helicopters... Hiller UH 12 ET... 2 09.07.84 10.07.84 Tradbury Pty Ltd... Cessna Commuter Skyhawk II... 1 09.07.84 25.07.84 Auscan Aviation Pty Ltd... Cessna Commuter 172 RG> 1 14.07.84 01.08.84 R. A. Real... Cessna 180H... 1 03.08.84 06.08.84 E. G. & M. Blanch T/a Blanch's Aerial Agriculture... Piper PA36-Super Brave 400... 1 07.08.84 13.08.84 Francis B. G. Drinan Pty Ltd... Piper PA36 ``Tiara''... 1 16.08.84 17.08.84 M. Shanley... Cessna 185... 1 07.09.84 11.09.84 C. & W. Drilling Services Pty Ltd... Cessna TR182 RG... 1 16.10.84 17.10.84 John Wild Pty Ltd... Cessna A185... 1 18.10.84 18.10.84 Schuttdown Pty Ltd... Cessna 310R II... 1 11.10.84 22.10.84 City and Country Helicopters... Hiller UH-12E... 1 23.10.84 29.10.84 G. S. Camm... Piper PA18-125... 1 23.10.84 01.11.84 Bell Helicopters Australia... Bell 412... 1 19.11.84 19.11.84 Sealion Pty Ltd... Piper PA31-350... 1 13.12.84 18.12.84 Orlando Airways Australia Pty Ltd... Sikorsky S-55B... 1 18.12.84 28.12.84 Bell Helicopters Australia... Bell 412... 1 21.12.84 27.12.84 Darwick Holdings Pty Ltd... Hiller UH 12E... 2 03.01.85 29.01.85 Bell Helicopters Australia... Bell 206B... 1 10.01.85 22.01.85 Freeport Indonesia Inc... Bell 206B Jetranger... 1 11.01.85 14.01.85 Sealion Pty Ltd... Cessna 310R II... 1 14.01.85 29.01.85 Sealion Pty Ltd... Cessna 404... 1 14.01.85 29.01.85 Sealion Pty Ltd... Cessna 402B... 1 14.01.85 29.01.85 Talair Australia Pty Ltd... Cessna 402A... 1 21.01.85 22.01.85 Sealion Pty Ltd... Cessna 402B... 1 15.01.85 12.03.85 Sealion Pty Ltd... Cessna 310R II... 1 15.01.85 12.03.85 G. Camm... Piper L-4J-Floatplane... 1 26.02.85 Not Issued G. Camm... L-5B Stinson... 1 25.02.85 08.03.85 Sealion Pty Ltd... Cessna 210... 1 11.03.85 12.03.85 Sealion Pty Ltd... Cessna 421 ``C''... 1 12.03.85 21.03.85 Sealion Pty Ltd... Cessna 182 RG... 1 12.03.85 21.03.85 Hamilton Island Enterprises T/a Seaworld Aviation... Avions Marcel Dassault Falcon 20E... 1 23.01.85 24.01.85 Helicopters Brisbane Pty Ltd... Robinson R22... 2 25.06.85 17.07.85 Bell Helicopter Australia Pty Ltd... Bell 214 ST... 1 04.07.85 07.08.85 Pacific Aviation... Piper PA18-150... 1 23.07.85 06.08.85 B. D. Farrington... Grumman AA-5A ``Cheetah''... 1 16.08.85 27.08.85 R. G. R. & B. J. Mockridge... Cessna 210N... 1 04.09.85 30.09.85 Sealion Pty Ltd... Cessna 210N II... 1 04.09.85 03.10.85 G. A. Norton... Bell Jetranger III... 1 10.10.85 10.10.85 Bell Helicopter Australia... Bell 206B Jetranger III... 2 17.10.85 23.10.85 Sealion Pty Ltd... Piper PA32-300... 2 22.10.85 23.10.85 Sealion Pty Ltd... Cessna 210 Centurion II... 1 22.10.85 23.10.85 Labrix Pty Ltd... Hughes 269 ``C''... 1 30.10.85 31.10.85 Helicopters Brisbane... Enstrom F28F... 1 28.10.85 05.12.85 Sealion Pty Ltd... Cessna 210N II... 1 31.10.85 04.11.85 A A Company Pty Ltd... Hughes 269 ``C''... 2 04.11.85 05.11.85 Sealion Pty Ltd... Piper Aerostar 600A... 1 04.11.85 06.11.85 Sealion Pty Ltd... Cessna 182 RG... 1 26.11.85 10.12.85 Sealion Pty Ltd... Maule M5235C... 1 27.11.85 10.12.85 Sealion Pty Ltd... Cessna 310R II... 1 10.12.85 23.12.85 Air North Queensland Pty Ltd... Cessna Citation 500... 1 19.12.85 23.12.85 SA/NT REGION Rossair General Aviation... C402C... 1 18.01.84 23.01.84 Rossair General Aviation... C310... 1 22.05.84 23.05.84 Lloyd Aviation... Gulfstream G159... 1 16.07.84 20.07.84 Rossair General Aviation... C310... 1 27.07.84 31.07.84 Rossair General Aviation... Beech B80... 1 27.07.84 31.07.84 Rossair General Aviation... C310R... 1 13.08.84 13.08.84 Rossair General Aviation... C340A... 1 13.08.84 13.08.84 Rossair General Aviation... C402B... 1 13.08.84 13.08.84 Rossair General Aviation... C402C... 1 13.08.84 13.08.84 Rossair General Aviation... C414A... 1 13.08.84 13.08.84 Rossair General Aviation... C182RG... 1 01.08.84 14.08.84 Rossair General Aviation... C210N... 1 01.08.84 14.08.84 R. P. G. Leach... Bell 206L-1... 1 22.10.84 06.11.84 J. C. W. Stokes... PA28-161... 1 20.02.85 05.03.85 A. K. Thomas... PA30B... 1 09.04.85 10.04.85 Airtransit Pty Ltd... C402B... 1 19.04.85 23.04.85 Lloyd Offshore Helicopters Pty Ltd... Bell 206B... 1 08.05.85 09.05.85 Lloyd Offshore Helicopters Pty Ltd... Bell 212... 1 08.05.85 09.05.85 A. K. Thomas... PA39... 1 09.05.85 15.05.85 S. A. Agricultural Aviation Pty Ltd... C185... 1 17.05.85 27.05.85 Rossair General Aviation... DHC1 MK2... 1 25.06.85 25.06.85 Sterling Aviation Pty Ltd... C310B/A1... 1 23.09.85 24.09.85 Rossair General Aviation... C210N... 1 17.10.85 18.10.85 Rossair General Aviation... C182R... 1 17.10.85 18.10.85 Godfrey Office Equipment Pty Ltd... PA31-350... 1 31.10.85 07.11.85 D. J. M. Stott TA Darwin Aeronautics... Airtourers T6.24... 6 30.10.85 16.12.85 W.A. REGION Okanagan Helicopters Australia Pty Ltd... Sikorsky S76... 2 03.11.83 11.01.84 Horan Nominees Pty Ltd... Robinson R22... 1 12.03.84 16.03.84 Skywest Jet Charter Pty Ltd... Cessna Citation II... 1 07.03.84 16.03.84 Trans West Airlines Pty Ltd... BAe Jetstream 31... 1 06.03.84 16.03.84 Horan Nominees Pty Ltd... Bell 206... 1 27.03.84 29.03.84 Skywest Aviation Ltd... BAe Jetstream 31... 1 28.06.84 29.06.84 Mayne-Bristow Helicopters Pty Ltd... Bell 212... 1 07.12.84 10.12.84 Mayne-Bristow Helicopters Pty Ltd... Bell 212... 2 19.12.84 19.12.84 I. L. Dunn... Beechcraft Baron 58... 1 24.01.85 24.01.85 R. W. Purvis... Hot Air Balloon... 1 05.02.85 13.02.85 Mayne-Bristow Helicopters Pty Ltd... Bell 212... 2 09.04.85 11.04.85 Jaycrow Helicopters (Offshore)... Puma SA 330J... 1 03.05.85 08.05.85 Flightways Air Services Pty Ltd... Piper PA31-310... 1 07.05.85 08.05.85 Flightways Air Services Pty Ltd... Cessna C441... 1 20.05.85 20.05.85 Skywest Jet Charter Pty Ltd... BAe Jetstream 31... 1 09.07.85 10.07.85 Mayne-Bristow Helicopters Pty Ltd... Puma SA 330J... 1 26.07.85 26.07.85 J. C. Segaert... Dromedaire M18... 2 03.10.85 22.11.85 Airflite Pty Ltd... Cessna 421C... 2 16.10.85 25.10.85 Flightways Air Services Pty ltd... Falcon 20C... 1 18.12.85 20.12.85 Mayne-Bristow Helicopters Pty Ltd... Bell 212... 2 20.12.85 23.12.85 (Question No. 2853) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Is there a common standard throughout Australia in relation to food and drug labelling which requires adequate information to be given in common language on (a) ingredients, (b) weight, and (c) other relevant features. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The labelling requirements for food and drugs in Australia are mainly prescribed in Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation dealing with health and weights and measures matters. There has been active and effective co-operation through the work of a number of bodies such as the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Therapeutic Goods Advisory Committee and the Standing Committee on Packaging which has resulted in the development and introduction of uniform labelling information for food and drugs. The Model Food Act and Regulations require, inter alia, comprehensive information to be provided as follows: the prescribed food name, the name and address of the person taking responsibility for the food, the country of origin, date of marking, statement of ingredients and components in descending order by weight. In addition, labelling and advertising must be in the English language, be legible and be in standard type. All State and Territory governments are committed to the speedy introduction of the provisions of the model. The Standing Committee on Packaging has developed model legislation for pre-packed articles. This model is generally reflected in State and Territory legislation and/or administrative procedures. The provisions require comprehensive consumer information for labelling including the name and address of the packer and the true weight or measure. In addition, the standardisation of sizes has greatly assisted both industry and consumers. A working party has been recently established by the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments to examine all weights and measures legislation with a view to identifying and eliminating any residual differences in legislation and administration. In respect of therapeutic goods, including drugs, the Therapeutic Advisory Committee within the Commonwealth Health portfolio has developed, in close consultation with industry, governments and user groups, a final draft of the Therapeutic Goods Order for the general requirements for labels for therapeutic goods. This Order is expected to be considered for adoption under the Therapeutic Goods Act in the near future. The States and Territories have agreed, in principle, to draft complementary legislation to ensure that the above requirements are uniformly applied throughout Australia. These requirements include: the name of goods, the name of the active substances, the quantity or proportion of all active substances, the name of the dosage form, the quantity of the goods, warning statements, if any, the batch number, the expiry date, the storage conditions, directions for use, the name and address of the manufacturer, and a statement of the purpose for the use of the goods. There are also particular labelling requirements for specific drugs as well as requirements that the labels be in English language, legible and in metric units. These developments have resulted in the uniform labelling of packages for the great majority of food and drugs sold in Australia. (Question No. 2855) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What progress has been made in the development of model legislation for consumer protection following negotiations between the Commonwealth and State and Territory Governments. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government is committed to the concept of uniform consumer legislation throughout Australia. The Commonwealth chairs a Working Party of officials from all States, the Territories and the Commonwealth which is seeking to develop uniform legislation based on Division 1, Part V of the Trade Practices Act 1974. In February 1984, the Commonwealth released for public comment an exposure draft Bill of proposed amendments of the Trade Practices Act, together with a list of additional changes requested by the States to make the Act a suitable basis for mirror legislation elsewhere in Australia. Many of the amendments contained in the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1985 are integral parts of the uniformity exercise with the States and Territories which have been closely consulted in their development and formulation. At the September 1985 meeting of the Standing Committee of Consumer Affairs Ministers, it was agreed that New South Wales, Western Australia and South Australia will proceed to enact uniform Fair Trading legislation as soon as practicable. The Victorian Fair Trading Act received Royal Assent in October 1985 and is awaiting proclamation. The Victorian Government has undertaken to amend the Act to bring it into line with the amended Trade Practices Act provisions. The Queensland Government has reserved its position and is yet to make a decision on the matter, while the Tasmanian Government has indicated that it does not intend to enact the legislation at this time. (Question No. 2856) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: 1. Who are the members of the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council. 2. Which organisation or interest group does each member of the Council represent. 3. What is the increase in real terms of the level of funding by the Commonwealth allocated to the Council in 1985-86 over 1982-83. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Membership of the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council as at January 1986 is: Professor David J. Harland is the Chairman of the Council and has been since its inception in 1977. He is a Professor of Law at the University of Sydney and an associate member of the Trade Practices Commission. Mr Robin Brown is the Director of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations (AFCO) and the immediate past Chairman of that organisation . Mr Peter Dunstan is the Director of Information and Public Communication with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and, prior to that appointment on 4 November 1985, was General Manager of Corporate Affairs with Unilever Australia. Mr Sam Fiszman is the Managing Director of Univers Carpet Wholesalers. Ms Diane Kenward is an elected organiser for the Federated Liquor and Allied Employees Union of Australia (South Australian Branch). Mr Bryce Kinnear, a company director from Adelaide, is a Fellow of the Advertising Institute of Australia and a former Chairman of the Advertising Federation of Australia in South Australia. Miss Helen Lynch is the Regional Manager for the City South Branch of Westpac in Sydney. Mr Daryl Maddern, Assistant Secretary of the Consumer Policy Branch, Office of Consumer Affairs, is the departmental member of Council. Mr David Miller-Randle is Controller of Quality Control with Coles-Myer Ltd. Mr Geoff Morgan is an executive member of the Consumers' Association of Victoria and a former executive member of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations. Mr Brendan Pentony is a lecturer in law at the Canberra College of Advanced Education and a past Chairman of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations. Mr Ron Reedman, a former Deputy Chairman of Grace Brothers, is a Councillor of the Australian Retailers Association (ARA) and a council member of the Confederation of Australian Industry. Mrs Suzanne Russell, a senior lecturer in Home Economics at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, is a Council member of the Australian Consumers Association, an executive member of the Consumers' Association of Victoria and a former Chairperson of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations. Ms Philippa Smith is the Policy and Public Affairs Manager for the Australian Consumers Association. 2. The fourteen members of Council are appointed as individuals, not as representatives of any organisation. Council members reflect a wide cross section of the community, and have experience in areas such as consumer affairs, voluntary organisations, commerce and industry, marketing, trade unions, government and consumer law. 3. It would not be appropriate to make a direct percentage comparison between the level of funding allocated to the Council for 1982-83 and 1985-86, since the means by which Council is funded and the size of its membership has changed. In 1982-83, Council's administrative expenses were not separately identified and were met by the then Trade Practices and Consumer Affairs Division of the Attorney-General's Department, which had responsibility for providing secretariat services to the Council. An amount of $24,804 was allocated to Council to provide for the cost of air fares of members attending its meetings and $5,095 was provided to cover travel allowances. At that time Council consisted of 8 members. Council was allocated $65,800 for 1985-86 to cover all administrative and meeting expenses and to provide for the hiring of consultants and the publication of reports. A separate special allocation of $39,900 was provided to cover travel allowances ($15,806) and, for the first time, sitting fees ($24,094). (Question No. 3164) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) What is the rationale behind the requirement that unemployed persons must undergo a waiting period before being eligible for unemployment benefits. (2) Is it a fact that if an unemployed person who has been long term unemployed has a holiday break such a person must sit through the waiting period again before being re-eligible for unemployment benefits; if so, why. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The `waiting period' was an initial provision of the Unemployed and Sickness Benefits Act 1944 which was later incorporated in the Social Services Consolidation Act 1947. The rationale for the imposition of a one week waiting period before unemployment or sickness benefit commences to be payable was that a claimant for benefit generally would have more than adequate income from wages, holiday and long service leave payments upon termination of employment to tide them over the initial week's waiting period. (2) A person is not necessarily regarded as being ineligible for unemployment benefit during a short absence from the usual place of residence such as in the case of a holiday break, provided: the requirements of section 107 of the Social Security Act are satisfied, ie the person is capable of undertaking and willing to undertake suitable paid work and takes reasonable steps to obtain such work during the period in question; and the CES is notified in advance and an address supplied at which the person can be readily contacted; and applications for continuation of unemployment benefit (forms SU19B) are lodged as required. The same obligations apply to the person to continue looking for work during this period while he or she is living at their usual residence. In the situation where a person failed to meet the above requirements payment of unemployment benefit would be cancelled. If the person lodged a further claim and satisfied the provisions of section 107 a further waiting period may be required to be served before commencement of benefit. However, under the provisions of sub-section 119 (1a) the date from which unemployment benefit is payable may be advanced up to seven days provided that the person: was unemployed for a continuous period of one or more days ending immediately before the claim is lodged; satisfies the delegate of the Secretary that during period he or she was capable of undertaking and was willing to undertake suitable paid work, and had taken reasonable steps to obtain such work; and was not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit due to involvement in industrial action. Thus where a person is required to serve a waiting period and the above conditions are met, the waiting period is reduced by up to seven days. In effect, the waiting period in such a case commences from the date a person became unemployed or from seven days prior to the date of lodgment of the claim, whichever is the later. (Question No. 3166) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the existence of community organisations describing themselves as welfare rights centres with the objective of providing assistance to clients of the Department of Social Security in respect of benefits, allowances, eligible appeals and reviews. (2) Does his Department provide financial assistance, support or advice to any of these centres; if so, (a) to what centres and (b) what assistance or advice is provided to each centre. (3) Does the existence of these centres indicate a weakness in his Department's capacity to (a) administer the system of benefits and allowances and (b) liaise effectively with clients and potential clients. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of the organisations described as welfare rights centres. The objectives of these centres are to provide welfare support services within the community. In that role they assist clients of the Department of Social Security but do not operate solely for that purpose. (2) (a) and (b) My Department does not provide financial assistance to welfare rights centres. However, responses to request for assistance or advice are provided where possible. Information relating to new policies or procedural changes that may affect clients of the Department is also made available to the centres, as it is to other welfare groups. (3) (a) and (b) For many years the more affluent members of society have had advisers of various kinds to assist them in their dealings with governments and government departments and authorities. These initiatives merely reflect a growing community awareness that the least advantaged in our community are also entitled to receive professional and other technical advice from sources independent of government. Governments have themselves recognised the need to ensure accountability of government departments by establishing independent bodies, such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Ombudsman. (Question No. 3187) Mr Peter Fisher asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 14 February 1986. (1) How many appeals have been (a) made to, (b) heard by and (c) upheld by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal in relation to decisions taken under the assets test legislation. (2) How many decisions by the tribunal upholding pensioners' appeals have been subsequently overturned by his Department. (3) How many appeals against the assets test have been (a) made to and (b) heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and what is the waiting period. (4) Have any appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal been successful. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) As at 31 January 1986, 2257 appeals had been lodged in relation to the assets test. Of these, 281 appellants subsequently withdrew their appeals or their appeals lapsed. A further 516 appeals were conceded by the Department prior to a hearing before the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and another 624 pensioners accepted Tax Office revaluations of their properties and did not proceed to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. (b) The Social Security Appeals Tribunal had heard and made recommendations on 453 which were finalised as at 31 January 1986. (c) 109 appeals were upheld in accordance with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal's recommendations as at 31 January 1986. (2) As at 31 January 1986, the SSAT's recommendations to uphold had not been accepted in 59 cases. (3) (a) As at 20 February 1986, 65 appeals have been lodged with the AAT. (b) As at 20 February 1986 5 cases have been heard by the AAT. (c) The time before a case is heard by the AAT varies according to the individual case, but 4-6 months is typical. In cases of hardship, expedited hearings can be arranged. (4) As at 20 February 1986, no appeals in relation to the assets test had been successful. (Question No. 3330) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 12 March 1986: (1) Will he provide as many details of each person who comes forward under the overpayment amnesty as will not jeopardise their privacy. (2) What were the circumstances of each case. (3) What measures will he introduce to prevent persons who have received an overpayment from doing so again. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Statistics will be compiled on the characteristics of Amnesty claimants after the Amnesty concludes. Details will be provided when they become available. (3) The Amnesty is part of a comprehensive and integrated approach by the Government to the question of social security overpayments. This involves a range of measures relating to the prevention, detection and recovery of social security overpayments. The characteristics of Amnesty claimants will be examined to see whether any modifications to existing admission and review procedures are necessary. (Question No. 3394) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: (1) What was the cost of the national wealth survey. (2) Who conducted the survey. (3) Why was the survey conducted. (4) What action will be taken following the results of the survey. (5) Will he provide a copy of the survey. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The review report on wealth was prepared in my office by a consultant employed on my staff to advise on general tax matters. As such it has not involved any specific costs to date. (2) Mr Phillip Raskall. (3) To provide me and the government with information on wealth distribution to assist in the development of the tax reform package. (4) The report is being prepared for publication. (5) See (4). (Question No. 3396) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: (1) Is the amnesty hot line being used by the public to provide information to the Department on clients who are defrauding the social security system; if so, how many cases have been reported in each State. (2) Did he expect that the public would use the amnesty hot line for this purpose. (3) Is his Department investigating the information provided about persons said to be in breach of the conditions of benefit payments; if so, will (a) offenders be prosecuted, (b) the money be reclaimed or (c) the amnesty be applied. (4) If the amnesty is not to be applied, why not. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There have been some calls to the amnesty hotline giving information about social security clients whom the callers felt were being incorrectly paid. Although no figures are available it would seem that these calls constitute a small proportion of all calls made to the hotline. In line with past experience a number of these calls have proven to be malicious. (2) No. The intended purpose of the hotline facility is to provide an anonymous environment to enable clients to make enquiries and test their eligibility for the amnesty. The amnesty publicity has emphasised this role. (3) Yes. Mechanisms already exist to deal with public information. (a) Decisions, on whether or not to prosecute offenders, will be made having regard to existing guidelines. (b) Yes. (c) A client could claim, and would be covered by the amnesty, up to the time of being notified in writing of prosecution action or overpayment providing all other amnesty eligibility criteria were met. (4) Not applicable. (Question No. 160) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) How many staff are allocated to the Agriculture and Multilateral Policy Division of his Department. (2) How many staff were in the Division, or its equivalent, on 31 December 1982. (3) What is the breakdown of the current staff allowance to the Division according to levels of seniority. (4) How many staff at each level are engaged directly in agriculture matters. (5) How many staff (a) are currently employed and (b) were employed on 31 December 1982 by his Department. (6) What was the value of agricultural exports during 1983-84 and what was this as a percentage of total export income. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The former Agriculture and Multilateral Policy Division was upgraded into the Agricultural Trade Group and the Multilateral Trade Group following re-organisation of the Department of Trade consequent upon the establishment of the Australian Trade Commission on 6 January 1986. The Average Operative Staffing Level (AOSL) allocated to the former Agriculture and Multilateral Policy Division was 50. AOSL allocated to the Agricultural Trade Group and the Multilateral Trade Group is 23 and 34 respectively. (2) On 31 December 1982 20 staff were specifically allocated to agricultural duties in the then Commodities No. 1 Division which had responsibility for agricultural and minerals matters at that date and 30 staff were allocated to Trade Policy Division which had responsibility for international organisations, GATT and commercial and trade policy matters at that date. (3) and (4) The current breakdown of AOSL according to bands based on classification used in the Department is set out below for the Agricultural Trade Group and the Multilaters Trade Group. Comparative figures with the former Agriculture and Multilateral Policy Division are shown in brackets (excluding the Division Head who was a shared resource). Agricultural Trade Group Band 3 - Senior Executive Service 3 (3) Band 2-Clerical Administrative Class 9 to 11 10 (7) Band 1-Clerical Administrative Class 8 and below, and clerical staff 10 (8) 23 (18) Multilaters Trade Group Band 3 - Senior Executive Service 5 (3) Band 2-Clerical Administrative Class 9 to 11 15 (12) Band 1-Clerical Administrative Class 8 and below, and clerical support staff 14 (16) 34 (31) (5) (a) 958 staff were employed by the Department prior to the formation of AUSTRADE. The re-organised Department currently employs 419. (b) 1,064 staff were employed by the Department on 31 December 1982. (6) The value of rural (including agricultural) exports during 1983-84 was $8,949m which was 36% of total exports for that year. (Question No. 973) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: Further to question No. 639, has his attention been drawn to a further drop of 12,000 in the readership of the National Times, to 283,000. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. The readership figure of 283,000 is taken from a Roy Morgan media survey. The previous survey by the same company showed a readership figure for the National Times of 295,000. I am advised that the readership of the National Times is volatile with marked swings in both directions. (Question No. 998) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 9 May 1985: (1) With respect to the Australian Tourist Commission's (ATC) North American campaign featuring Paul Hogan, what procedures did ATC offices follow with respect to ordering and distributing follow-up brochures. (2) When was (a) the first and (b) the last radio and television campaign run. (3) When were the first batch of follow-up brochures to ATC North American offices delivered and in what quantities. (4) When were any further deliveries of brochures made and how many were delivered in each batch. (5) What was the interval between the first inquiries to ATC offices in response to the campaign and the mailing of follow-up brochures to these inquirers. (6) If any delays occurred, why did they occur. (7) How many inquiries for follow-up material were for school projects. (8) What was the cost of printing follow-up brochures. (9) How many were (a) printed in total and (b) distributed. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The ATC used the booklet `Destination Australia' to fulfil consumer and trade enquiries in response to the ATC's North American campaign featuring Paul Hogan. ACT estimated its requirements and arranged for production of the booklet. Following production they were sent to the ATC distribution centre and from there they were mailed out to respondents to the toll-free telephone number quoted in the advertisements. (2) (a) The first radio and television campaign commenced on 8 January 1984 and concluded on 16 April 1984. (b) The last radio and television campaign commenced on 21 January 1985 and concluded on 17 March 1985. (3) 250,000 copies of the booklet `Destination Australia' were delivered in July 1983. (4) A further delivery of 250,000 copies was made in June 1984. (5) Enquiries were not received directly by ATC offices, rather they were received by the ATC's toll-free telephone number contractor. When calls were received details of the caller were immediately entered into the contractor's computer and mailing labels were produced. These were sent to the distribution centre daily for despatch of literature. The time between the telephone call and mailing was 24 hours or the next working day. (6) No delays are reported to have occurred in this process. (7) It is not possible to calculate how many enquiries were for school projects. (8) The gross cost of printing the booklet `Destination Australia' was approximately $616,500-or $1.23 per book. The net cost to ATC was less than this when industry contributions for advertising in the booklet are taken into account. (9) (a), (b) 500,000 copies of the booklet `Destination Australia' were produced and all have been distributed. (Question No. 1233) Mr Blunt asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: Has the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority or organisation for which the Minister is responsible, employed consultants since March 1983; if so: (a) who has been employed (b) for what purpose (c) what working plan was given to them (d) what was the cost of their services (e) when did their services commence and finish; and (f) was any fee in excess of the initial quote; if so by what amount Mr Hawke —The answer provided to this question (Hansard, 20 November 1985, pages 3320-3358) incorporated details relating to consultants employed by the Australian Bicentennial Authority. I have been advised that the Authority has since updated the information previously submitted, and I now provide the additional information concerning consultants employed by the Authority: CONSULTANTS: 2 MARCH 1983 TO 23 MAY 1985 AAV Australia Purpose : To develop concept and production of audio visual for International Air Show Working Plan : Written brief Fee Paid : $27,590.25 Period : April 1985-June 1985 Excess Over Quote : Nil Anne Barton Graphic Design Purpose : To produce visual format of Annual Report Working Plan : Written instructions Fee Paid : $1,000.00 Period : May 1985 Excess Over Quote : Nil N. Armstrong Purpose : To study ideas for computer displays for the Australian Exhibition Working Plan : Written instructions Fee Paid : $549.00 Period : May 1985-July 1985 Excess Over Quote : Nil Australia on the Move Purpose : To prepare draft final report on proposed Multicultural Centre Working Plan : Written brief Fee Paid : $5,000.00 Period : April 1985-June 1985 Excess Over Quote : Nil Black Inc Recorders Purpose : To translate and record foreign language versions of Authority audio visuals Working Plan : Verbal brief Fee Paid : $8,779.80 Period : March 1983-October 1985 Excess over Quote : Nil Damien Parer Productions Pty Ltd Purpose : To conduct feasibility study of project `Youth Report' Working Plan : Written brief Fee Paid : $4,000.00 Period : April 1985-June 1985 Excess Over Quote : Nil P Gillett Purpose : Preparation of Bicentennial Program Chart Working Plan : As instructed Fee Paid : $275.00 Period : May 1985 Excess over Quote : Nil Inscan Design Pty Ltd Purpose : Interior design work for National Office Working Plan : Written briefs Fee Paid : $18,883.25 Period : August 1983-November 1985 Excess Over Quote : Nil Mary Davy Design Purpose : Prepare a complete issue of the June 1985 Bicentenary 88 Newsletter Working Plan : Written brief Fee Paid : $4,344.00 Period : March 1985-August 1985 Excess Over Quote : Nil J Shortis Purpose : Advise on proposed Outback Children's Festival Working Plan : Written brief Fee Paid : $525.77 Period : February-July 1985 Excess over Quote : Nil Consultants employed prior to March 1983 and retained since March 1983 Logica Pty Ltd Purpose : To advise on computer and word processing matters Working Plan : Written brief Fee Paid : $7,943.00 Period : March 1983-May 1985 Excess Over Quote : Nil Noble Lowndes International Purpose : To administer superannuation scheme Working Plan : Written instruction and subsequent liaison Fee Paid : $33,378.00 Period : March 1983-May 1985 Excess Over Quote : Nil Oaceen Pty Ltd Purpose : Design software for computer Working Plan : Written brief Fee Paid : $111,400.37 Period : March 1983-May 1985 Excess Over Quote : Nil Sir David Stevenson Purpose : To advise on proposed Tall Ships program Working Plan : As required Fee Paid : $5,159.21 Period : March 1983 to June 1984 Excess Over Quote : Nil Note: V. Plush : Consultancy as specified did not proceed (Question No. 1726) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1985: (a) When will the decision to close the Australian Trade Commission in South Africa take effect. (2) To what extent will the closure hurt Australian exporters. (3) Will the South African Trade Commission in Australia continue unaffected by the decision. (4) How many officials are there in the South African Trade Commission, and will they continue to be able to promote imports from South Africa. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The decision took effect on Friday 27 September 1985 (2) It is not possible to quantify the extent to which closure will hurt Australian companies exporting to South Africa (3) Yes (4) The South African Government currently maintains an office of the South African Trade Commission in Melbourne with a staff of two South African officials. There is also a Consulate of South Africa located in Sydney which employs a Vice-Consul (Commercial). The missions are able to promote imports from South Africa. (Question No. 2216) Mr Wright asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 16 October 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the campaign being waged by the Queensland Motor Traders' Association and the Petroleum Institute claiming that the federal tax on fuel is approximately 60c in the $1 and as high as 34.5 cents a litre. (2) What are (a) the estimated excise on tax on crude oil, (b) the actual excise on tax on (i) petrol and (ii) diesel and (c) the federal royalties which apply to fuel. (3) How is it assessed that excise on crude oil is approximately 60% or equivalent to 14 cents a litre. (4) How many reductions have occurred in the maximum wholesale price of petrol since the Government came to office. (5) What controls does the Government have over the retail price of petrol. (6) What were the reasons for removing the special freight subsidy on petrol in 1985. (7) When was import parity pricing introduced and what effect has this scheme had on the price of petrol to motorists. (8) What was the maximum wholesale price of petrol when (a) the Fraser Government took office and (b) the Hawke Government was elected in March 1983. (9) What are the declared intentions of the Government to vary the present import parity pricing policy. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) (a) 14 cents per litre (cpl)-see part (3), (b) (i) 10.007 cpl, (ii) 10.007 cpl (c) 1 cpl-see part (3) (3) An indicative estimate for the breakdown of the cost components of petrol is that the excise on indigenous crude oil contributes approximately 14 cents per litre, or about 25 per cent of the average retail petrol price. On average, receipts from the excise on crude oil presently account for about 60 per cent of the producers' returns from the sale of indigenous crude oil. Other components in the cost of petrol include imported crude oil, producers' net receipts, Commonwealth excise on petrol, State business franchise fees, and refining, marketing and freight costs. (4) Since March 1983, the Prices Surveillance Authority and its predecessor, the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority have reduced the maximum wholesale price for petrol on five occasions. (5) The Commonwealth has limited constitutional power to control retail petrol prices. Constitutional authority to control retail prices lies primarily with the States. However, the Prices Surveillance Authority sets maximum endorsed industry wholesale prices for a range of petroleum products for each capital city in Australia and to this extent influences retail prices. (6) The Petroleum Products Freight Subsidy Scheme was reviewed earlier this year. The Scheme provides for the payment of a subsidy related to the cost of freighting eligible petroleum products to country locations. Subsidy levels are equal to the difference between the actual freight costs and a maximum consumer paid contribution. A report by the Auditor-General concluded that it could not be established that the benefits of the subsidy were being passed on to country consumers and that artificial schemes had been designed and operated specifically to attract the subsidy. On 21 May 1985 the Government announced that the consumer-paid contribution was to be increased from a maximum of 1.2 cents per litre to a maximum of 5.2 cents per litre, i.e. an increase (depending on location) of up to 4 cents per litre. (7) The introduction of full import parity pricing took place on 15 August 1978. The major impact on the price of petrol to motorists has been that petrol prices closely reflect world crude oil prices. However, because of the relatively low tax on petrol, Australia's petrol prices are still amongst the lowest of the OECD countries. (8) (a) In November 1975, the average maximum justified wholesale price of super grade petrol in the six State capitals, as determined by the Prices Justification Tribunal, was 13.3 cpl, (b) At 1 March 1983, the average maximum justified wholesale price to resellers for super grade petrol in the six State capitals, as determined by the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority, was 43.2 cpl. (9) The import parity pricing policy has been the subject of major reviews in the past two years in response to developments in world oil markets-the most recent review having taken place in April-May this year in the context of a review of the domestic crude oil marketing arrangements. Following that review, the Government announced that the arrangements will be reviewed again in 1987 (earlier only if major changes occur in petroleum industry conditions), with a view to introducing a free market from 1988. (Question No. 2317) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, 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 or 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 John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1 (a) (b) (2) 3 (a) (b) (c) 1983-84 expendi- ture 1984-85 expendi- ture Nature of subject of expenditure Who provided outside assistance Payments Why was assistance sought $ $ National Australia Day Council 65,000 86,000 Provide advertising and promotional services encouraging recognition of Australia Day Spectator Australia Pty Ltd As in Q1 To augment existing activities and provide specialist assistance not otherwise available Australian Institute of Sport 33,446 48,557 Produce publications, promotional give-aways, plaques, presentations and one staff member's salary n.a. n.a. n.a. This answer does not include the programs of the Australian Tourist Commission and Australian Information Service which promote Australia overseas or promote domestic tourism. It does not include the Department's involvement in information campaigns on government programs. (Question No. 2344) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) What was the expenditure by the Minister's Department and authorities under the Minister's control on advertising (other than classified newspaper advertising) by individual subject or program in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85. (2) Who (a) initiated and (b) conducted each campaign. (3) Why was each campaign necessary. (4) What was the basis of remuneration for each campaign. (5) Was the assistance of the (a) Information Co-ordination Branch or (b) Australian Government Advertising Service obtained. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Department of Aviation and the Independent Air Fares Committee (1) Nil advertising campaigns. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. See also note 1 below. (4) Not applicable. (5) Not applicable. Australian National Airlines Commission (1)-(4) The Commission considers the answers sought in these parts of the question as being commercially confidential and as such wishes to refrain from providing details in these areas. (5) The Commission has appointed advertising agencies to handle its corporate, passenger and cargo advertising and has not found it necessary to seek the assistance of the Information Co-ordination Branch or the Australian Government Advertising Service. Qantas (1) Total worldwide Qantas advertising expenditures on all campaigns (too numerous to mention individually by subject or program) for the Qantas financial years (April/March) of 1983-84 and 1984-85 were $11,225,860.20, $14,551,621.64 (2) Campaigns are initiated by Qantas management to promote tourism and are conducted by the various advertising organisations and representatives that Qantas has contracted with throughout the world to perform this task (3) Advertising campaigns have been conducted in order to promote and publicise the various products and destinations that Qantas offers to prospective international air travellers and freight worldwide (4) The basis of remuneration to the various advertising organisations that conduct Qantas campaigns are: the commission retained by those organisations through the placement of advertising materials with media the contracted service fees paid by the client (Qantas) to those advertising organisations for services provided (5) No. Note 1. The Government's policy is that all Australians have a right to equal access of information. The role of Government information programs, including advertising campaigns, is to inform Australians in the most efficient and cost effective manner of their rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities and matters deemed of national importance. The necessity of an information campaign is determined according to these criteria. (Question No. 2677) Mr Campbell asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 25 November 1985: (1) How many migrants from the Republic of South Africa have been admitted to Australia in the last 12 months. (2) Under what migration categories have the migrants been admitted. (3) How many migrants have described their occupations as lawyers, solicitors, barristers or advocates in each category. (4) How many of those so describing themselves have (a) indicated their intention to live and work in WA and (b) been nominated by WA legal firms and what are the names of those firms. (5) Are any of those who describe themselves as lawyers, solicitors, barristers or advocates non-white. (6) Has Australia admitted any refugees from the Republic of South Africa in the last 12 months. (7) Have any other persons within Australia originally from the Republic of South Africa been granted (a) refugee status or (b) permission to remain in Australia on compassionate or humanitarian grounds within the last 12 months. (8) Are any such applications pending; if so, how many. (9) Is there a shortage of lawyers in Australia. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Preliminary figures show that 1,679 migrants who described South Africa as their last country of residence arrived in Australia in the financial year 1984-85. (2) The following is a breakdown of migration categories under which the 1,679 migrants arrived: FINANCIAL YEAR 1984-85 (P)* Migration Category Nos. Family migration... 1,168 Skilled labour... 376 Business migration... 38 Independent migration... 2 Refugee and S.H.P.... 9 Special eligibility Visaed... 10 Non Visaed... 76 Total... 1,679 * (p) Preliminary, figures subject to revision (3) In total, 6 migrants described their occupations as lawyers, solicitors, barristers or advocates. A breakdown is not available for each migration category. (4) (a) and (b) This information is not readily available. (5) Statistical data are not collected on the basis of race or colour but, as I have indicated in the Parliament, the anecdotal evidence is to the effect that the majority of those processed from Pretoria are white and from Capetown are coloured. (6) Preliminary figures show that 4 refugees who described South Africa as their last country of residence, arrived in Australia in the financial year 1984-85. (7) (a) One person described as a citizen of South Africa and not included in the above figure has been granted refugee status. (b) This information is not readily available. (8) There are seven such applications for refugee status pending. (9) According to information supplied by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, there are minor shortages of lawyers in Western Australia and South Australia. Demand is in balance in all other States and Territories except Tasmania where there is a minor oversupply. (Question No. 2762) Dr Klugman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 27 November 1985: (1) How many child care centres catering mainly for employees of (a) universities, (b) other tertiary institutions, (c) the ABC, (d) other statutory authorities, (e) the Australian Public Service and (f) the State public services are subsidised by Commonwealth or State Governments in each State or Territory. (2) What is the amount of (a) Commonwealth and (b) State Government subsidy for each centre. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Under the Commonwealth Government's Children's Services Program child care centres are not established specifically to cater for particular groups of employees. In fact it is a condition of Commonwealth funding that centres are open to the general community and that the Government's priority of access guidelines are applied to all prospective users. Decisions about providing CSP funds to services are made on the basis of priority of needs indicators. In some cases where the location of a centre is at or near a particular institution a concentration of employees from that institution may gain places in that child care centre. It is not necessarily the case that in all these centres a majority, or even a significant proportion, of places is taken up by employees of that institution. Attached is a list of Commonwealth subsidised child care centres which have been located at, or are sponsored by, the categories of institution listed in the honourable member's question. Information showing which of these caters mainly for employees of the particular institution is not available. The Commonwealth's estimated recurrent expenditure for each of these centres for 1985/86 is also shown on the list. Information on the amount of State Government subsidies is not readily available to the Commonwealth. SERVICES APPROVED FOR FUNDING UNDER THE CHILDREN'S SERVICES PROGRAM AS AT 10 FEBRUARY 1986 State Name of Service Estimated recurrent expenditure 1985/86 $ (a) Universities NSW (1) Kangas House Child Care Centre... 158,466 (2) Hobbit House Pre-School and Child Care... 58,562 (3) House at Pooh Corner... 158,148 (4) Union Child Care Centre... 125,064 (5) Kintaiba Community Child Care Centre... 160,559 (6) University Avenue Child Care Centre... 60,810 (7) Culloden Road Child Care Centre... 47,960 (8) Laurel Tree House... 80,756 (9) Abercrombie Street Child Care Centre... 21,000 Vic. (1) Latrobe University Children's Centre... 182,537 (2) Monash Community Creche... 82,912 (3) Deakin Children's Centre... 64,083 Qld (1) Campus Kindergarten-Day Care Section... 76,150 (2) James Cook University Union Child Care Centre... 72,200 (3) Playhouse Parent and Child Care Centre... 121,200 SA (1) Flinders University and Sturt Campus Child Care Centre... 238,923 (2) Mackinnon parade Child Care Centre (Adelaide University)... 185,582 (3) University of Adelaide Pre-School and Nursery Centre... 126,120 WA (1) University Child Care Club Inc.... 207,148 (2) Murdoch University Child Care Centre... 67,100 Tas. (1) University Community Child Care Centre... 219,500 ACT (1) Parents on Campus Child Care Centre... 45,500 (2) University Pre-School and Child Care... 162,800 2,723,080 (b) Other Tertiary Institutions N.S.W. (1) Bathurst Multipurpose Centre... 82,671 (2) Newcastle College of Advanced Education (Newcastle Multipurpose Centre)... 77,440 (3) Milperra Child Care Centre... 52,800 Vic. (1) Prahran Campus Community Child Care Co-operative... 51,113 (2) (Phillip Institute of Technology Community Child care Co-operative Ltd... 80,350 (3) Swinburne Community Co-operative Pre-School Centre... 98,982 (4) Albury/Wodonga Mobile Child Care Service... 23,262 (5) Chisholm Child Care Centre, Frankston... 31,088 Qld (1) Queensland Institute of Technology Union... 35,550 SA (1) Adelaide College Child Care Centre... 99,793 (2) Salisbury Campus Child Care Centre... 66,441 WA (1) WAIT Child Care Centre... 100,345 (2) Western Australian Institute of Technology Student Guild-`Barney's Place' Child Care Centre... 61,000 (3) Nedlands Campus Child Care Centre... 66,630 NT (1) Darwin Institute of Technology Child Care Centre... 27,760 ACT (1) Bruce Children's Centre... 80,788 (2) Canberra CAE Child Care Development Centre... 45,843 (3) Canberra College of TAFE Child Care Centre... 118,763 1,200,619 (c) The ABC NSW (1) Inner City Care Child Care Centre... 115,453 (d) Other Statutory Authorities-Nil (e) The Australian Public Service-Nil (f) The State Public Service NSW (1) Hornsby and District Hospital Neighbourhood Centre-Occasional Care... 14,900 (2) Blacktown Hospital Child Care Centre... 52,218 (3) Lidcombe Long Day Care Centre... 116,122 (4) Mount Druitt Hospital Child Care Centre... 109,895 (5) Canterbury Children's Cottage... 93,849 (6) Balmain's Children's Centre... 127,500 (7) Rozelle Child Care Centre... 129,900 (8) Liverpool Hospital Child Care... 109,409 (9) Dubbo Children's Long Day Care Centre... 54,257 (10) Narrabri Child Care Centre... 42,012 (11) Hobbit House Child Care Centre... 51,658 Vic. (1) Twenty-Four Hour Work-related Child Care Centre... * SA (1) The Community Child Care Centre at Flinders Medical Centre Inc.... 81,983 (2) Community Child Care Centre at Flinders Medical Centre... 69,800 (3) Royal Adelaide Hospital Child Care Centre... 91,092 (4) Glenside Hospital Child Care Centre... 84,000 (5) Queen Elizabeth Child Care Centre... 84,000 (6) PSA Child Care Centre... 3,000 WA (1) Jennifer Lockwood Child Care Centre... 54,500 (2) Princess Margaret Child Care Centre... 79,219 1,449,314 * Approval in principle only; amount not yet determined. Notes: (i) The child care centres listed are Commonwealth funded centres only as information on centres solely subsidised by State Government is not readily available to the Commonwealth. (ii) All child care centres funded under the Children's Services Program are available to be used by the general public. The services listed are not, therefore, restricted to employees of the named institutions. (iii) Services were included in the listing if they were either located at or sponsored by one of the institutions. (iv) Expenditure figures are estimates only. Variations in claims submitted during the year can lead to adjustments up or down. (Question No. 2847) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What action has he taken in response to allegations that certain advertisements by (a) South African Airways, (b) the South African Tourist Board and (c) other organisations, are in breach of the Trade Practices Act as constituting misleading and deceptive advertising. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Trade Practices Commission is the Commonwealth agency which is responsible for administering the Trade Practices Act 1974 and I referred a copy of representations by the honourable member to the Commission for its consideration and possible investigation as to whether a provision of Division 1, Part V of the Trade Practices Act has been breached. I have been informed by the Trade Practices Commission that it has considered the matter and decided that it would not be appropriate to undertake the broad investigation required. The Commission has explained that it has received no consumer complaints about South African travel advertising, which is in similar vein to tourist promotional advertising generally in using a certain amount of puffery to attract the interest of potential travellers. The Commission has also stated that it is difficult to imagine a consumer being misled by promotional advertising of South Africa as a tourist destination, however colourfully it may be portrayed, when conditions and events in that country are the subject of constant media attention and receive such a continuing high level of publicity. (Question No. 2857) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What is the increase in real terms of the funding of the Trade Practices Commission in 1985-86 over 1982-83. (2) How many staff of the Trade Practices Commission were engaged in the enforcement of the Consumer Protection Division of the Trade Practices Act in each year since its commencement. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $11,375,000 is expected to be appropriated to the Trade Practices Commission for 1985-86 compared with the 1982-83 appropriation of $5,185,162. This current level of funding, excluding an extraordinary item of $4 million which relates to particular legal expenses, represents an increase in 1986 values of 16.9% over the 1982-83 figure. The increase in funding fulfils a pledge given prior to the election of the Government in 1983. (2) The following table sets out the number of staff engaged in enforcing the consumer protection provisions of the Act at the end of each financial year since 1977-78. 1977-78-34; 1978-79-34; 1979-80-35; 1980-81-34; 1981-82-24; 1982-83-24; 1983-84-34; 1984-85-38; 1985-86-39 (Estimate). Additional staff are engaged on consumer protection guidance and information work. Records kept before 1977-78 do not identify staff engaged exclusively on consumer protection enforcement work. The table indicates an increase of 62.5% in staff engaged in consumer protection enforcement work since this Government took office and moved to honour its election pledges. This increase follows the revocation by my predecessor, Senator the Hon. Gareth Evans, Q.C., of a ministerial direction given to the Trade Practices Commission by the former Government which had seriously inhibited the scope of the Commission's consumer protection enforcement work. (Question No. 2860) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What community legal centres were in existence in March 1983. (2) What was the level of funding allocated to each centre. (3) What new community legal centres have been established since March 1983. (4) What was the increase in real terms in total Commonwealth funding of community legal centres between the 1982 and 1985 Budgets. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) There is no record of all the community legal centres in existence in March 1983. However, the community legal centres funded by the Commonwealth in the calendar year 1983 and the funds allocated to each centre were as follows: $ NEW SOUTH WALES Womens Legal Resources Project... 5,358 Tenants Union of N.S.W. Co-op Ltd.... 9,690 Marrickville Legal Centre... 30,282 Inner City Legal Services Centre... 13,324 Redfern Legal Centre... 60,564 Macquarie Legal Centre... 30,282 Total... 149,000 VICTORIA Action and Resources Centre... 5,190 Broadmeadows Legal Centre... 6,720 Coburg Community Legal Centre... 5,770 Doveton and District Legal Service... 17,540 Fitzroy Legal Service... 51,400 Frankston North Free Legal Service... 4,560 Monash Legal Service... 3,120 North Melbourne Legal Service... 10,580 Nunawading Legal Service... 36,000 Springvale Legal Service... 19,200 St Kilda Legal Service... 23,100 Sunshine Legal Service... 570 Tenants Advice Service... 14,500 West Heidelberg Community Legal Service... 23,550 Western Suburbs Legal Service... 19,200 Total... 241,000 QUEENSLAND Caxton Street Legal Centre... 28,800 Youth Advocacy Centre... 12,000 Toowoomba Legal Service... 400 South Brisbane Legal Service... 800 Total... 42,000 SOUTH AUSTRALIA Norwood Legal Service... 19,500 Bowden-Prompton Legal Service... 12,000 The Parks Legal Service... 12,000 Law Society of South Australia... 4,000 Total... 47,500 WESTERN AUSTRALIA Gosnells District Information Centre... 10,000 T.L.C. Emergency Welfare Foundation of W.A. Inc.... 10,000 ``Shelter W.A.'' (Tenants Advice Service)... 5,500 Total... 25,500 OVERALL TOTAL... 505,500 (3) It is not possible to determine the identity of all the new community legal centres which have been established since March 1983. However, set out below are new centres funded by the Commonwealth since 1983 up to and including calendar year 1986. NEW SOUTH WALES- Public Interest Advocacy Centre Environmental Defenders Office Kingsford Legal Centre Illawarra Community Legal Centre Interagency Migration Group Blue Mountains Neighbourhood Centre. VICTORIA- Womens Legal Resource Group Camcare Flemington Community Legal Service Consumer Credit Legal Service Southern Communities Legal Service Geelong Community Legal Service QUEENSLAND- Brisbane Welfare Rights Centre Womens Legal Service Petrie Community Legal Centre Sunshine Coast Community Legal Service SOUTH AUSTRALIA- Noarlunga Community Legal Service Mitchell Park Community Legal Service WESTERN AUSTRALIA- Sussex St Community Law Services North Perth Migrant Resource Centre TASMANIA- Hobart Community Legal Service Tenants Union of Tasmania Inc. Child and Family Service Debt Help Tasmanian University Referral Service AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY- Welfare Rights Centre Canberra Community Legal Service (4) The increase in real terms in Commonwealth funding for community legal centres between financial years 1982/83 and 1985/86 is estimated to be of the order of 204%. (Question No. 2933) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What computer bureaux or computer based information systems have been established to provide production and marketing information at the farm level by (a) the Federal Government (b) State and Territory Governments and (c) the private sector. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a), (b) and (c) This is a wide-ranging question which extends beyond the direct responsibilities of my portfolio. Within my portfolio, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE) is an `information provider' on two electronic publishing services that provide computer based information systems that can be accessed at the farm level and which carry a wide range of information relevant to the rural sector. The systems are the `Farmlink' videotex system of Elders-IXL Ltd and the `Information Express' system of AgriData Australia Pty Ltd. The reports published on these systems are selected extracts and summaries from the BAE's regular print publications, Crop Report and Quarterly Review of the Rural Economy. The reports summarise the outlook for the major rural commodities in terms of production, price, value and exports. In order to assist the honourable member, the Minister for Science has provided the following information on the activities of the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in this field. `The CSIRO has developed, or is developing, in collaboration with State Departments of Agriculture, the following computer based information systems providing information at the farm level: SIRATAC, for cotton breeding and integrated crop and pest management suitable for the Australian environment. SIRATAC is in use on farms. SIRAGCROP, for optimal management of irrigated crops to improve crop yield and water use efficiency in the south-eastern Australian irrigation areas. SIRAGCROP is currently being evaluated and validated on farms. GRAZPLAN, a computer based `expert system' for on farm management of grazing systems. GRAZPLAN is currently being validated with independent sets of data from farms. AFIC, Australian Feeds Information Centre. AFIC is a national animal feeds data bank. It provides information on analyses of all feeds used in livestock production throughout Australia. Computer based analysis of earth satellite data to provide farmers with information on the phosphate status of pastures. Current work is concerned with validating analyses on the ground. Computer based model of pig production combining efficiency in the use of feedstuffs and ideal carcass composition at slaughter. The system is currently under test in commercial piggeries in Victoria.' (Question No. 3116) Mr Campbell asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 3 March 1986: (1) Has the Royal Australian Navy let a contract for a study into the defence of surface ships in the aftermath of the Falklands War. (2) If so, was the German company MTG considered to be better qualified to undertake the study than the British who had experience in the Falklands and what were the reasons. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Royal Australian Navy recently let a contract with the MTG company of the Federal Republic of Germany for a study to analyse the contribution of a range of modern weapons and sensors in providing anti-ship missile defence with surface combatants. (2) MTG is a non product orientated company which since 1966 has been involved in a wide range of technical and operational analyses for the German Navy, other NATO and non-NATO Navies. The company is internationally respected for its competence and neutrality. The company represents Germany on the Multi-National NATO Frigate Replacement Project NFR90, where it has a continuing task for Anti Ship Missile Defence studies together with a similar commitment for the German F124 Frigate Project. The NFR90 Project Office is a multi national grouping of eight nations, which includes the US and UK where recent experience and operational performance data is made available, and where appropriate, applied in developing concepts for a new ship for the 90's. The company has developed an extensive data base on weapons and sensors through these associations and tasks and is involved in trials assessments for the German Navy. This broad spectrum of activities provides the company with the benefits from recent experience to apply to analytical studies. This study not only drew from MTG the benefits of UK experience but also operational data from other nations thus maximising the source base. (Question No. 3128) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) What was the responsibility of (a) his Department, (b) any private security firm or (c) any other body for the design and implementation of security arrangements in force on 12 November 1985 at No. 2 Army Reserve Commando Company Base, Williamstown, Victoria. (2) What physical protection was provided for firearms stored at the base. (3) Were any sensor systems installed; if so, (a) where, (b) were they connected to a (i) local or (ii) remote alarm and (c) did they operate satisfactorily. (4) At what stage in the robbery which occurred at the base were security staff alerted. (5) Was there a lapse of time between the beginning of the break-in and the arrival of security staff; if so, what was the reason. (6) What weapons were stolen. (7) What steps have been taken to upgrade security at the base. (8) Are similar arrangements in force at other Army Reserve bases where weapons are stored; if so, (a) at which bases in each State, (b) is he satisfied with the arrangements and (c) what steps are being taken to upgrade the arrangements. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The Department of Defence is responsible for the policy on which Army bases its security arrangements for Army Reserve installations. (b) A private security firm was responsible, under contract, for the provision of after-hours security inspections and for the monitoring of security alarms. (c) Army is responsible for overall security of the 2 Commando Company Base. (2) Firearms at the 2 Commando Company Base were stored inside a double brick armoury located within a fenced, floodlit compound. The armoury is fitted with a steel mesh reinforced ceiling and a metal door secured by a special-to-purpose padlock and an alarm. As an additional security measure, weapon bolts and breech blocks were stored separately. (3) Sensor Systems were installed. (a) The door to the armoury was protected and an electronic intrusion device was located inside the armoury. (b) The sensor systems were connected to both (i) a local audible alarm, and (ii) a remotely monitored facility. (c) the alarm system operated satisfactorily. (4) The security firm alerted the Victoria Police to the possibility of a break-in within six minutes of the first alarm. Army personnel were contacted 1 hour after the alarm and the civilian security patrol was contacted 1 hour 20 minutes after the alarm. (5) Victoria Police responded 15 minutes after notification but after failing to detect any irregularities, left the area. The civilian security patrol responded within 10 minutes of notification and detected the intruders. Army personnel arrived at the base 40 minutes after notification. The time lapse of 1 hour 30 minutes between the beginning of the break-in and detection of the intruders was due to: (a) The initial response not detecting any irregularities from outside the base perimeter fence; (b) Some difficulty in co-ordination between the alarm monitoring and patrolling divisions of the civilian security firm; and (c) The delay in contacting Army staff and the civilian security patrol. (6) Weapons stolen were fourteen submachine guns and one 1.5'' signal pistol. The submachine guns were incomplete as the weapon bolts were stored separately. (7) The armoury has been repaired and the security measures upgraded. A review of the performance of the civilian security company is being undertaken in conjunction with civil and military police investigations. (8) Similar security arrangements are in force at some other Army Reserve bases. (a) For obvious security reasons the details of these bases where firearms are stored cannot be made public. (b) The arrangements are satisfactory however the implementation of responses to alarms is under review. (c) Security arrangements are subject to on-going review. (Question No. 3171) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether more cattle are sold (a) yearly and (b) monthly through the saleyards at Toowoomba than through any other centre; if so, what are the reasons. (2) How many cattle are sold at each of the leading 5 centres in Australia (a) yearly and (b) monthly. (3) Do the figures imply that private enterprise control and ownership of the selling centres produces greater turnover than statutory or municipal authority control. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b). The Toowoomba saleyard had the nation's highest cattle throughput in 1985, but did not have the highest cattle sales figures for each month of 1985. I am not aware of any definitive analysis as to why Toowoomba had the nation's highest cattle throughout last year, but I expect that a number of factors would be involved; including the relatively large number of cattle in the Toowoomba region and the location of Toowoomba on the road and rail networks of Southern Queensland giving it accessibility to a range of buyers and sellers of cattle. (2) Cattle throughputs at leading saleyards in 1985 were as follows: Saleyard... Toowoomba Queensland Midland W.A. Wodonga Victoria Dandenong Victoria Bayanup W.A. Status of Control and Ownership... Private State Government Municipal Municipal Private Month January... 17,039 9,829 14,560 7,660 8,244 February... 10,281 8,248 4,300 4,960 11,088 March... 21,928 8,927 9,030 9,005 8,525 April... 23,849 10,551 7,170 18,080 6,345 May... 13,882 13,178 10,310 6,871 3,905 June... 5,423 10,632 8,820 13,573 4,701 July... 6,681 19,773 9,150 8,895 7,857 August... 4,235 12,572 8,980 5,565 7,724 September... 11,080 9,828 11,574 11,052 7,371 October... 23,640 15,873 13,980 7,762 7,233 November... 18,430 12,137 12,050 7,075 6,535 December... 11,610 6,740 14,508 10,090 7,674 Total... 168,078 138,288 124,432 110,588 87,202 Note. Above figures were derived from a variety of State Government sources. (3) No. (Question No. 3175)) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 13 February 1986: (1) Why does the provided list of advertising campaigns and research studies not include the activity level surveys conducted by his Department and (2) Why was the `Community Attitudes to Taxation' survey commissioned by his Department and not by the Information Co-ordination Branch. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The activity levels survey was not included in the response to PO 1451 as it was considered that the study did not comply with the definition of `research studies` supplied by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet i.e. research studies refers to market research or opinion polls. My Department has since been advised by Prime Minister and Cabinet that the activity level survey would fall within their definition of research studies. However, details of both the activity levels survey and the recreation participation survey have already been provided in response to Parliamentary Question 1526. (2) The `Community Attitudes to Taxation' survey was conducted by my Department through the Information Co-ordination Branch (ICB). The ICB is part of the Information Services Division of my Department. (Question No. 3252) Mr Conquest asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 18 February 1986: (1) Is any price support scheme for the sugar industry conditional, inter alia, on the Queensland Government contributing $1 for every $2 contributed by the Commonwealth. (2) Will the Commonwealth proceed with price support if the Queensland Government provides a complementary support package which supports this ratio. (3) Is a support price of $230 a tonne adequate. (4) Is he able to say whether any funds from any States were provided or were conditional before the Commonwealth Government supported the steel and car industries with assistance packages. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Commonwealth's 23 September 1985 offer was conditional on a State contribution of not less than $1 for each $2 from the Commonwealth and industry agreement to a program of deregulation. (2) This is a matter for determination by the Commonwealth Government in the light of proposals by the Queensland Government. (3) The Savage Committee estimated a support price of $230 per tonne of sugar for the 1985 season to be adequate to cover cash and interest costs for the average family cane farm with some allowance for the farmer's own labour and depreciation in the first year of the three year support package. (4) As with the proposed sugar plan, the steel and motor vehicle plans both entail substantial State and industry participation. (Question No. 3293) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 11 March 1986: (1) What amount was expended on Veterans' (a) travel, (b) accommodation and (c) meal allowances from (i) 1 July to 31 December 1984, (ii) 1 January to 30 June 1985 and (iii) 1 July to 31 December 1985. (2) Following the 1985 amendments to repatriation legislation, has the Minister's Department adopted criteria providing specific notional retiring ages for particular occupational backgrounds in respect of the granting of pensions for total and permanent incapacity (TPI); if so, what ages are denoted for each occupational background. (3) How many pensions were granted at the (a) special (TPI) and (b) intermediate rates from (i) 1 July to 31 December 1984, (ii) 1 January to 30 June 1985 and (iii) 1 July to 31 December 1985. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) (b) and (c) Travel Subsistence allowances incl. meals and accommo- dation $ $ 1.7.84 to 31.12.84... 9,136,457 505,922 1.1.85 to 30.6.85... 10,507,188 546,616 1.7.85 to 31.12.85... 8,278,060 361,554 The reduced expenditure for 1.7.85 to 31.12.85 reflects the introduction of revised travel and subsistence arrangements. (2) No. (a) Special (TPI) rate (b) Inter- mediate rate (3) (i) 1 July to 31 December 1984... 2,090 131 (ii) 1 January to 30 June 1985... 2,686 89 (iii) 1 July to 31 December 1985... 1,747 85