Tuesday, 29 April 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to the front page article by Mr Peter Hartcher in the Sydney Morning Herald of 25 April last in which there is reference to the continuing saga of the Dawkins affair and to an intervention purported to have been made by a Sydney firm of solicitors to require the members of the Opposition in this Parliament to desist from a course of inquiring of the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) about his involvement in the recommended change of Senior Trade Commissioner in Milan. The article itself is headed `Commission tried to stop attack on Dawkins: solicitor'. I table a copy of the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald of that date. The article goes on to state: According to Mr Walton's solicitor, Mr Michael Kroger of the Melbourne firm Kroger and Kroger, he received an urgent phone call last Wednesday from a solicitor acting for the Trade Commission. At the same time, the Opposition was preparing a parliamentary attack on Mr Dawkins. It continues: The Commission's solicitor, from the firm Dawson Waldron, raised for the first time the possibility of a settlement of Mr Walton's case, but said it could not be discussed in an inflamed atmosphere, according to Mr Kroger. Mr Kroger said: `He told me that as a precondition to a settlement, the current inflamed situation had to be brought to an end. A calm atmosphere was needed. `He asked me to immediately send a telex to the Opposition saying that Walton's position was not helped by a parliamentary uproar, and urging the Opposition to abandon its attack on Dawkins.' The article continues to identify the extent to which the solicitors for the Trade Commission attempted to place pressure upon the Opposition in this place so that we would not proceed with our line of questioning to the Minister for Trade which, of course, resulted in his grave embarrassment on the last occasion that the matter was before the House. We await later answers in this House on the same matter today. Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to May's Parliamentary Practice which identifies one of the causes of a breach of parliamentary privilege as attempts by improper means to influence members in their parliamentary conduct. While in this instance there is certainly no direct suggestion of fee or reward to any member, certainly page 157 of Parliamentary Practice, in an extension of this reference, in talking about attempted intimidation of members, refers to `sending a letter to Members threatening them to vote for a particular bill would be regarded as a treasonable act by a future administration' as being a case of breach of privilege. At page 158, we see further that acts tending indirectly to obstruct members in the discharge of their duty are regarded as a breach of privilege. If we turn from May to Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice, we find on page 655 reference to `Attempts by improper means to influence Members in their parliamentary conduct'. It also refers to attempted intimidation of members and makes reference to the fact that any suggestion that might impair the complete freedom of members within the Parliament should be regarded as a breach of parliamentary privilege. Madam Speaker, I do not want to delay the House but I point out that this is endorsed not only in Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice but also in Odgers's Australian Senate Practice, and I turn your attention to page 646, which refers to the degree to which there can be a breach of parliamentary privilege where a threat by people outside the Parliament to take or not take certain action is used as an attempt to change the action of members of the Parliament. As I have said, the reference is on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald of 25 April and it shows a direct attempt by solicitors, on behalf of the Trade Commission, to influence the members of the Opposition in this place in terms of questioning they might pursue with the objective of apparently arranging for a settlement of the Tom Walton affair with either solicitors representing the Minister for Trade or solicitors representing the Trade Commission. Madam Speaker, I put it to you that there is a prima facie case and suggest that you consider the issues at your earliest opportunity. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on the same matter. It has been suggested by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) that you should consider a matter of privilege. So that you have a full and, might I say, accurate picture I would like to refer to this matter myself. I, of course, was very alarmed on seeing that story and made inquiries of the Trade Commission in terms of its alleged involvement in this incident. I have not a newspaper article, but a signed statement from Dawson Waldron, the solicitors who acted for the Commission in this regard, and I will read it to the House. It states: We refer to the report in the Sydney Morning Herald of Friday, 25 April, 1986 dealing with Mr Walton. The background to our conversation with Mr Walton's solicitor and the substance of the conversation are as follows: 1. The Acting Managing Director of the Commission advised us on 16 April, 1986 that a member of the Commission's staff had approached him claiming that he had been in recent contact with Mr Walton and his solicitor, Mr Michael Kroger. The staff member had advised the Acting Managing Director that Mr Walton and Mr Kroger were concerned about the publicity being attracted by the matter which they judged to be embarrassing to Mr Walton. Mr Kroger had indicated a desire to open up communications with a view to removing the matter from public gaze. 2. The Acting Managing Director asked that we contact Mr Kroger to suggest that he might consider sending a telex as a matter of urgency to the Opposition spokesman for Trade, Mr Braithwaite, stating that the current publicity being given to the case in the Parliament was embarrassing his client and was prejudicing discussions regarding Mr Walton's employment. 3. We telephoned Mr Kroger on Wednesday, 16 April, 1986 leaving a message for him to return our call. He returned our call at approximately 2.15 p.m. that day. 4. In accordance with our instructions, we suggested to Mr Kroger that he consider sending a telex to Mr Braithwaite stating that the current publicity being given to the case in the Parliament was embarrassing his client and was prejudicing discussions regarding Mr Walton's employment. 5. Mr Kroger indicated that he was prepared to send such a telex but only if a settlement or resolution could be reached between the Commission and Mr Walton regarding his future. In response to a direct question from ourselves, Mr Kroger confirmed that such a settlement or resolution was a condition precedent to him de-publicising the case. He went on to add that if some mutually agree- able arrangement could be reached, his client would undertake not to approach members of the Opposition or members of the press and that threatened legal proceedings against the Minister for Trade would not go ahead. 6. We said we had no instructions to put any such proposition or terms of settlement to Mr Walton. 7. Mr Kroger reiterated that he was not willing to send a telex to the Opposition along the lines suggested in the absence of some resolution or settlement of Mr Walton's future. We said we would convey his remarks to the Commission and obtain further instructions on whether the Commission was prepared to make any such proposal. We indicated that we thought this unlikely. In the light of this background there are three principal errors in the account of the conver- sation contained in the Sydney Morning Herald report. They are: Firstly, the conversation took place on 16 April 1986 and not 23 April 1986; Secondly, the telephone call resulted from an initiative by Mr Walton and his solicitor and not the Commission or ourselves; Thirdly, we did not raise the possibility of a settlement and we did not suggest that as a precondition to a settlement the current inflamed situation had to be brought to an end. On the contrary, it was Mr Kroger who raised the possibility of a settlement and who indicated that a settlement was a condition precedent to his depublicising the case. We specifically disclaimed any instructions to propose a resolution or settlement of Mr Walton's future and indicated that we thought it unlikely that the Commission would supply such instructions. There has been no other conversation or contact between us and Mr Kroger in relation to this matter. So, far from this being a matter which the Commission raised, it was raised by Mr Kroger or Mr Walton. In relation to depublicising the matter, I was prepared to co-operate and said that I would raise the matter only if it were raised in Parliament. So, Madam Speaker, when you are considering this matter of privilege, you might like to have with you the document from which I have read and which I now table. Madam SPEAKER —I will consider the matter raised by the Leader of the National Party of Australia and report back to the House as soon as possible. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I advise the House of the following ministerial arrangements: The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Hurford, will be absent from Australia from today until 22 May 1986. He will be visiting South East Asia and Europe, including attending a meeting of the Asia Development Bank and an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Conference on migration in Paris. During his absence the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, will act as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Mr John Brown, will act as Minister Assisting the Treasurer. As a matter of courtesy I might also note-this will be a matter of great regret to all my friends opposite as it is on this side of the House-that the Treasurer, Mr Keating, will be absent from Parliament today because of illness. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I preface my question by reminding the Attorney-General that the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate of New South Wales, Mr Clarrie Briese, presides over cases involving the administration of Federal law. I refer the honourable gentleman to the vindictive and unjustified attack by the Premier of New South Wales on Mr Briese. I ask the Attorney-General: Does he have full confidence in Mr Briese? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. Mr BEDDALL —I ask the Minister for Primary Industry: Does the recent American subsidised wheat sale to the Yemen Arab Republic represent a breach of the assurances provided to the Prime Minister by the United States Administration during his recent visit to Washington? Mr KERIN —I understand the concern of the honourable member. The Yemen Arab Republic is an important Australian market. We supplied 100 per cent of its wheat requirements in 1984-85. Australia still expects to sell around 400,000 tonnes of wheat to the Yemen Arab Republic this year. This is the quantity we have been selling there in recent years. However, I would like to inform the House that there have been some changes in the circumstances of the market. Until this year, besides Australia's wheat sales, the Yemen Arab Republic was also taking 132,000 tonnes of flour from the European Economic Community. Yemen has now opened a new flour mill with the consequence that there is now an expanded wheat market in the Yemen Arab Republic. Some estimate that to be up to 600,000 tonnes a year. The United States subsidised wheat sale just announced will be replacing European Community flour. Australia will still be able to make its normal wheat sales into the market. Nonetheless, there are some causes for concern. The Yemen Arab Republic is a market where subsidies have not previously been used. This sale by the United States is clearly breaking new ground. Although it can be said that the United States wheat sale is replacing EEC flour and that an EEC bid for the contract had been lodged, the quality of wheat available from the Community would not have been suitable. This suggests that Australia may have won this contract in the absence of the United States export enhancement program subsidy. For these reasons we shall be using the avenues established by the Prime Minister during his trip to Washington to review the issues involved with the United States Administration. Our aim will be to minimise further subsidised competition. I repeat: In the circumstances now prevailing in the Yemen Arab Republic market we can expect Australia to maintain its 400,000 tonnes contracted level of sales. Mr TUCKEY —I address my question to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Acting Minister Assisting the Treasurer. Were any of his ministerial staff, other ministerial assistants or consultants provided to assist Justice Murphy in the preparation of his defence against Crown charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice? If so, what was the specific purpose of the assistance they gave? Mr JOHN BROWN —I can inform the House that despite some rumours to the contrary no member of my staff ever acted, with my approval, on behalf of-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr JOHN BROWN —I repeat: At no time did any member of my staff, with my approval or with my permission-- Mr Sinclair —Or consultants? Mr JOHN BROWN —Or consultant, -- Mr Beale —Without approval? Mr JOHN BROWN —With my approval or permission- Mr Howard —With your knowledge? Mr JOHN BROWN —Which question am I answering? I repeat: At no time did any member of my staff or any consultant employed by me, with my permission or approval, work in any way to assist Mr Justice Murphy with his defence. Ms MAYER —Will the Minister for Defence inform the House of measures that he is taking to create a more efficient relationship between the Department of Defence and Australian industry in the provision of equipment used to carry out defence projects? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable member for her question. I am pleased to say that I have approved a major program of review, which has been released to Australian industry-of Commonwealth-owned machinery and plant and other production equipment and facilities. The equipment which comprises nearly 20,000 items is currently issued on loan or lease to hundreds of Australian companies which are current or previous contractors to my Department or is held in store. I think it is high time that this enormous quantity of Commonwealth assets was looked at so that industry can make better use of it for commercial and defence work. Some items are being used intensively now but others have been held for 30 years with very little use. Facilities have accumulated over the years as needed for new defence projects and all items currently on loan to industry will be reviewed as quickly as possible. Those that are not required to meet current contracts will be either offered to companies currently using them or disposed of at auction. The Commonwealth might also wish to retain ownership of a very small number of items against future strategic requirements, but it is our intention in relation to future projects to keep Commonwealth ownership of assets to an absolute minimum. That does not mean a reduction in the Government's commitment to self-reliance and Australian industry support of defence. It reflects our intention to do business with industry on a normal commercial basis and to minimise government impediments to future commercial exploitation of the skills and capabilities gained through defence work. The items currently available for review, such as the floating crane and plant for making clockwork mechanisms for fuses, are expected to realise at least $14m when sold. Other items in use by industry in fulfilling current contracts will be reviewed as those contracts expire. The total book value of all items is approximately $90m, $39m of which relates to the FA18 project. In addition to the revenue gained from the sale, there will be some savings in the administrative area, as currently each item carries a Commonwealth plant number and has to be checked annually. Such items include things like urns for tea making and the other odd thing here and there. Keeping those items on the books is a hell of a waste. In some cases, though, rent is being charged where the equipment is being used for non-defence purposes, so there will be a slight reduction in revenue there. All in all, as I have said, we expect immediately $14m worth of savings, effectively, from the proceeds of the sale and ultimately savings could be up to $90m. Mr SPENDER —Did the Special Minister of State provide to or procure for Mr Justice Murphy documentary material for the purposes of assisting him in preparing his defence to the Briese charge? If so, what was the material? Mr YOUNG —Let me make it quite clear: Under no circumstances did I provide any of the material referred to by the honourable member to His Honour Justice Murphy. The only thing I offered to Justice Murphy was my best wishes. Mrs KELLY —Has the attention of the Special Minister of State been drawn to the report on this morning's Australian Broadcasting Corporation news of the horrendous death toll on Australian Capital Territory roads due to the lack of policing? Is there any truth in the report that the transfer of 42 police from Canberra to the national crime investigation is pending? Mr YOUNG —I was concerned to be told about the report on the radio this morning of the horrendous death toll on Australian Capital Territory roads. Whilst it may not concern a great number of members in this Parliament, it certainly is of concern to the community here in Canberra. The first thing to say about the Australian Capital Territory policing is that there has been a significant increase in the resources available to the Australian Federal Police since its formation. As I have said in the Parliament previously, the disposition of these resources is a matter for the Commissioner; but I understand that there has been an increase in the resources allocated to road traffic policing and rescue. There is no evidence of any significant increase in the road toll in the Australian Capital Territory over earlier years. There have been 13 fatalities in the Territory so far in 1986, which compares with nine in 1985 and thirteen in 1984, over the same period. There is no truth in the report that 42 police officers from Canberra have been transferred to the national crime investigation. There are discussions within the Government about guarding duties being transferred to my colleague who is in charge of protective services. This would have no effect whatsoever on Australian Capital Territory road policing. While it is true to say that Canberra policing is not given a higher priority in the recent statement of objectives and priorities, this is not a downgrading of Canberra but an upgrading of the national issues of organised crime and drug trafficking. I hope that the community of Canberra can better understand the situation of the Australian Federal Police as a result of this information. Mr N.A. Brown —My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. Is it a fact that he appointed a Mr Alan Oxley to be Australia's senior trade representative in Geneva? Was that Mr Oxley the senior political adviser to the Premier of Victoria, Mr Cain, and after that political appointment did he receive another political appointment as a member of the Victorian Public Service Board? Did his appointment to the headquarters of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in Geneva cause an outrage in the ranks of Australia's professional trade commissioners as an obvious political appointment of yet another of the Labor Party's cronies? How does he justify his continued attempts to make political appointments to the Australian Trade Commission? Mr DAWKINS —It is the case that it was my decision to appoint, as was my authority under the Trade Commissioners Act at the time, Alan Oxley to the position of the head of our office in Geneva for the purposes of pursuing very important negotiations in relation to the GATT. It is the case that he at one stage worked for the Premier of Victoria. It is also the case that when I made the appointment he was a member or commissioner of the Public Service Board in Victoria. The reaction within my Department is of little concern to me. Honourable members interjecting- Mr DAWKINS —Hang on a minute! I was looking for the best possible candidate. He had important experience in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and since his appointment to the GATT has been one of the most distinguished representatives Australia has ever had there. Mr FITZGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Now that it has been determined that Singleton, a beautiful township in the Hunter electorate, will retain its Army base, will the Minister provide an assurance that an expenditure program will be undertaken to improve the facilities at that base? Mr BEAZLEY —As the honourable member will be aware, I made an announcement last week that we had an intention to review the requirements for the Army for both an artillery and an infantry training school, having determined to acquire no further land in New South Wales for that purpose. One of the options being looked at at the moment is the upgrading of the Singleton facility in the way the honourable gentleman describes. It will not be possible to give him any sort of direct answer to that for some time. However, I can say to him that, if it were to be shifted from that area, it will be some very considerable time before that will happen and my own inclination, it must be said, is to leave it where it is. Mr CONNOLLY —I direct my question to the Minister for Trade. I refer the Minister to the appointment of yet another Labor crony, Mr David Combe, as Australian Consul-General and Trade Commissioner to Vancouver last year. Was the Minister advised that, in view of the responsibilities which the Vancouver post had for trade and consular matters in the State of Washington, it would be necessary to obtain the agreement of the United States to Mr Combe's appointment? In view of this, did he approve his department arranging for the transfer of the Vancouver post's responsibilities in the State of Washington to the Australian Consul-General in San Francisco? I remind the Minister that the distance between Seattle and San Francisco is approximately 1,000 kilometres compared with 200 kilometres between Seattle and Vancouver. Mr DAWKINS —If this constitutes an attack on me, I hope it goes on day after day after day. This matter-in fact, all matters addressed in the question-was addressed at the time quite publicly. I have never tried to make any secret of my decision to appoint David Combe to the position of Trade Commissioner in Vancouver. Every report I have received since his appointment vindicates the judgment that he is performing his duties as an excellent Trade Commissioner. As far as the sharing of work between the posts within the Trade Commission is concerned, this is reviewed from time to time. There had been requests from the posts in the United States to include the State of Washington within their territory, and indeed the opportunity was taken to make that decision. I say in passing that I find it of interest that, since the Melbourne Herald embarked on its campaign of sullying me and Mr Combe in relation to this matter, its circulation has collapsed even further-to such levels that there are now serious doubts as to whether the Melbourne Herald will even survive. I hope that the Herald does survive because I enjoy reading its rather humorous attempts to get stuck into me, and I would miss them very much if they were ever to disappear. Mr GRIFFITHS —I address my question to the Minister for Aviation. I remind him of my question of 17 April 1986 in this chamber. In particular, I refer to page 2522 of Hansard for that day where the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, by way of a personal explanation, made certain comments. I would add that this was after an injunction by the honourable member for Melbourne warning the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he should exercise extreme care in his personal explanation, but in any event the Deputy Leader of the Opposition indicated, inter alia, in relation to my allegations- Mr N.A. Brown —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is not a question. It is a politically motivated speech, in the first place. Secondly- Madam SPEAKER —Order! No point of order is involved. Mr N.A. Brown —I have a second point of order. It is simply to confirm with you, Madam Speaker, that I have asked for your indulgence to make an addition to the personal explanation that I made the other day. I think that you have confirmed that and I am grateful to you for doing so. Madam SPEAKER —Yes. The honourable member for Maribyrnong will now get to the point of his question. Mr GRIFFITHS —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said: He had a first class ticket. He was not issued with an economy class ticket; he had a first class ticket, which he was entitled to have under the rules . . . He went on to say: There could be no suggestion, therefore, that he had an economy class ticket and asked for a first class ticket or a first class seat. I ask the Minister whether he has any information relating to the category of ticket issued to the person in question? If he does have such information, is this a clear case of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition misleading this House? Mr PETER MORRIS —When this question was raised on the last occasion, I indicated that I had no knowledge of it other than the information provided in the question. I undertook to seek information for the honourable member for Maribyrnong on the matter. I noticed that certain statements were made in this House later that day in respect of the matter. I received advice from Trans Australia Airlines after the flight involved, which had not been known to me at the time the question was asked, was identified. The official flight record shows nothing in relation to the substance of the question asked. There was further discussion that day in this chamber. I understand that a short time ago a person I understand to be the person involved-and the subject of the conversation and the discussion in the House between the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and the honourable member for Maribyrnong-provided a warrant for the difference between an economy class air fare and a first class fare. Mr BRAITHWAITE —My question is to the Minister for Trade. I refer to the Minister's answer to a question on notice, tabled on 15 April, in which, referring to two candidates under final consideration for Thomas Walton's position, that of Senior Trade Commissioner in Milan, the Minister said: A decision has not yet been taken, on which applicant will be appointed. I now ask the Minister whether at that time he was aware that, first, Sir Peter Abeles had recommended Mr Klein for Mr Walton's position; secondly, that a selection committee from the Trade Commission had recommended Mr Klein's appointment to that position; thirdly, until Opposition pressure mounted against his appointment, Mr Klein was to go on secondment for training to take up Mr Walton's position; and, fourthly, a replacement for Mr Klein, in the office of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, had already been decided upon? Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member for Dawson raises a number of questions which I will deal with in some detail. In the first instance, in my replies about this matter, I have made it perfectly clear that at no stage have I had any dealings with the selection process which the Commission decided to institute in relation to the appointment of someone to fill the forthcoming vacancy in Milan. Of course, the Opposition is attempting to fabricate a case-that I initiated the recall of Mr Walton for one reason and for one reason only, that is, to secure the appointment of someone whom it chooses to call a crony. It has never been my intention to publicly canvass the reasons behind Mr Walton's recall, or indeed his shortcomings. All the more reason, of course, because once I ordered his recall on 2 December he in fact complied with that request and indicated that he would be leaving the post on 5 February. However, since the middle of January-after I ceased to have any dealings in the matter of his recall or indeed in the choice of a replacement-this matter has become a bizarre and politically inspired campaign full of half truths and mistruths. I want to say, Madam Speaker, that, in order that there should be a very clear understanding of all the facts which have led up to my decision, I take this opportunity of tabling a report prepared by the Acting Secretary of my Department, which gives the details in relation to this matter. It will be seen that the decision to recall Mr Walton-a decision taken by me-was taken in such a way that I at all times acted properly, as will be indicated from a reading of the report prepared by Mr Lightowler. Secondly, it is suggested that I tried to interfere with the selection process, and that is what is being suggested here again by the honourable member for Dawson. I repeat that at no time did I try to influence the selection process. That is a matter which was confirmed before the Senate Estimates Committee by the Acting Deputy Managing Director of the Commission, and more recently by the Managing Director of the Trade Commission. I take the opportunity to table those documents as well. The case which is attempted to be made against me relies very much on the word of Mr Walton and, I might say, the fertile imagination of his Melbourne solicitor. Let us take Mr Walton's remarks in relation to this matter one by one. Let me say that the first and most glaring instance of Mr Walton's unreliability is the fact that he suggests that, in relation to certain minutes which have now become very famous, I had said that they contained political dynamite. No one who has read those minutes can suggest where that political dynamite might be. He then said he was never advised of the Department or anyone else having any reservations about his capacity. It will be seen from the Lightowler report that that point is entirely disproved and that Mr Walton was being less than frank in making that comment. In two separate statements made less than a week apart last year, on the one hand he said that I engaged in a discussion with him, I swore at him, I gave him heated instructions and, on the other, within a week he was saying that while I was with him in Rome we exchanged nothing more than formal salutations. That, again, will be seen from a reading of the Lightowler report. So this is the word that is being relied upon by those who doubt my account of the events which have led to this decision. Last week Mr Walton said that he had not been involved in any impropriety and he had received no reprimand. This matter, of course, was repeated today and yesterday in newspapers. So that that matter is firmly on the record, I table the reprimand, which indicates quite clearly that it was seen by Mr Walton. Next, of course, we have the questions from the Opposition in regard to how I had misused the term `retirement post' in relation to Mr Walton's description of his posting to Milan. Again, let me indicate that this expression was used by Mr Walton. I table a document dated 27 August 1985 which indicates inter alia the reasons why his appointment should be continued. I might say that all of the reasons he advanced are personal. None of them is related to advancing any of Australia's trading interests. Of course, because it was raised during the Senate committee hearing last week and because some Opposition senators disputed my claim, the officers made a further search of the file which showed that as early as 1981 Mr Walton was first indicating his desire for a retirement post of the kind described. I table that document as well. I suppose that the worst of the misrepresentations which have been involved in this matter are those which were the subject of the intervention of the Leader of the National Party of Australia at the beginning of today's parliamentary sitting. There was the suggestion that I or someone acting on my behalf had somehow attempted to influence this matter or the way in which it would be dealt with in this Parliament. That is obviously untrue and indicates once more why those acting either on Mr Walton's behalf or on their own behalf have been responsible for some of the most outrageous misrepresentations as far as this matter is concerned. Mr Braithwaite —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked four questions and got no answers to any of them. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member is aware of that. Mr WRIGHT —I direct my question to the Attorney-General. I refer to the proposed meat processing consortium involving at least four of Australia's largest meat companies. As this merger could mean the loss of up to 2,000 jobs in Queensland and New South Wales meat works, could lock the majority of graziers into a one price only arrangement for their cattle, could bring about the demise of many of the 31 licensed meat works in Queensland and could create a virtual monopoly in the meat processing industry, will he have the proposed consortium immediately investigated under the anti-cartel buying provisions and the anti-monopoly provisions of the Trade Practices Act? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am aware that there are reports of a proposed merger that would give four companies control of 40 per cent of the Queensland beef slaughtering capacity. To that extent it would attract attention pursuant to provisions of the Trade Practices Act. Section 45 of the Act prohibits agreements which substantially lessen competition. Section 45a deems price fixing agreements to substantially lessen competition and section 50 prohibits acquisition of shares or assets which result in dominance of a market. So we there see, pursuant to the principles of the Trade Practices Act, the safeguards that are there not only for producers but also consumers. It would appear at this stage that the matter is worthy of examination. I understand that representations have been made by the honourable member to members of my Department. My Department is examining the matter and I understand that the Trade Practices Commission is commencing investigations in view of the matters raised by the honourable member. As soon as those investigations have been completed, we will be able to let the honourable member know the result. Mr TUCKEY —I direct my question to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I refer the Minister to his answer to my previous question and I ask: Is it not a fact that Mr Rodney Groux and Mr Tony Luchetti, both of his office, gave assistance to Mr Justice Murphy in the matter that I described? Mr JOHN BROWN —I answered that question very frankly. I was asked whether any consultant or person employed by me ever, with my express permission- Mr Spender —The question was- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The question has been asked. The honourable member for North Sydney does not have to repeat it. Mr JOHN BROWN —I answered the question very frankly and very truthfully, as I always do. This question relates to an entirely different matter-whether I knew that Mr Groux was doing some work for Justice Murphy. Mr N.A. Brown —Did you? Mr JOHN BROWN —It was brought to my attention by Mr Groux that he wished to do some work for Mr Justice Murphy. I said: `Well, what you do in your time is your business and your business alone'. I suggest that that is still the case. I do not think it is any business of the Opposition either. Mr GEAR —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to reports of a mass review of investment income for pension eligibility? Can the Minister reaffirm this Government's commitment to ensuring that pensions are given on the basis of need and within the capacity of this Government to fund them adequately? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for his question. I have seen the reports to which he refers and which claim that my Department is conducting a review of policy on assessment of investment income for pension eligibility purposes. The Department is considering the proper application of the Social Security Act to a range of new investment products and to some products not covered in existing departmental guidelines. This work is routine and is necessary for everyday guidance to staff assessing the entitlements of pensioners with investments. In response to the representations, my Department will later give consideration to the existing guidelines. However, it is not expected that any changes to the guidelines will be substantial. More importantly, it needs to be remembered that investment income is not relevant to the overwhelming majority of pensions. That situation is unlikely to change. In summary, it is true that the Department is looking at investments of various kinds to determine how they should be treated for social security purposes. That has always been the case. It is particularly the case at present as there are a number of new trusts and various forms of investment that are of interest to both the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Social Security. No change of policy is involved in what is currently going on and it will not have any impact on the vast majority of pensions. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. In view of his having acknowledged to the House that he knew that at least one and possibly two members of his staff were engaged in work relating to the preparation of Mr Justice Murphy's defence, can the honourable gentleman, as a Minister of the Crown, assure the House that none of that work was carried out during hours for which those gentlemen were remunerated for performing their duties as servants of the Crown? Mr JOHN BROWN —Apparently the Leader of the Opposition did not hear my previous answer. I said quite clearly and quite unequivocally that, if Mr Groux did any work for Mr Justice Murphy, he did it in his own time without any express- Mr Howard —Answer my question. Mr JOHN BROWN —I have answered your question; you are too stupid to listen. Mr Howard —No, you haven't answered it. I am asking you to assure the House that that happened. Mr JOHN BROWN —I have assured the House and I will assure it again that no work that Mr Groux may or may not have done for Mr Justice Murphy was done with any express permission from me and, as far as I know, in any time for which he was remunerated by the Government. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of difficulties that have arisen between Australia and our important neighbour, Indonesia, what action has the Government taken to restore good relations? What action could be taken in the future to build good will between the two nations? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for his question without notice as an important issue is involved in the question. Let me say at the outset that in no case have recent frictions between Australia and New Zealand been created by any action of the Australian Government. It is as well that that be said clearly and unequivocally and be understood by everyone who has any interest in this subject. Mr Sinclair —Do you mean New Zealand or Indonesia? Mr HAWKE —Just before I go on with my positive observations in this matter let me say that in my time overseas I was fascinated to see the usual bifurcation of attitude on the part of the Opposition. On the one hand we had this interrupting, shouting Leader of the National Party wanting to declare war on Indonesia tomorrow-that sort of intervention-and on the other hand we had the observation of the Leader of the Opposition that apparently we had not been subservient enough to Indonesia in the past. So you pay your money and you take your choice between the belligerence of the Leader of the National Party and the subservience of the Leader of the Opposition. As far as this Government is concerned, we are in neither camp. We are neither about a belligerent attitude towards Indonesia-a confrontationist attitude embraced by the Leader of the National Party-nor about a position where we will be seen to accept any sort of slight which may be inflicted upon Australia by our friends within the authority structure in Indonesia. Since we have been in government-I pay particular tribute to my friend and colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I am sure that he will reciprocate the observation- Mr Hayden —All I can say is: Where would I be today without you? Mr HAWKE —That is right. How true. I can usually top the other side of the House, but I cannot top that one. As I was about to say, under the guidance of our Foreign Minister, this Government has sought from day one to pursue a position from which we would be able to have positive, friendly and constructive relations with the Government and the people of Indonesia. That remains our position and intention. But I want to make it clear that we regarded recent decisions and actions as peremptory and we made representations accordingly. I am pleased to say that as a result of the representations that were made the decision in regard to visas for Australian tourists was quickly turned around. I welcome that quick turn around. However, that still leaves the position that by the action of the Indonesian authorities the journalists of this country are put in a second class category as regards journalists from other countries. I make it quite clear that that is not a position that this Government appreciates. We have taken steps through our Ambassador in Indonesia, Mr Morrison, to have representations made to the Indonesian authorities. Similarly, representations have been made within Australia to the Indonesian Ambassador. We hope that as a result of the representations we are making both in Indonesia and here there will be a review of the situation by the Indonesian authorities so that there is no discrimination-as there should be no discrimination-against journalists of this country. We will continue to make such representations. I make the point in this Parliament, at the first opportunity after my return to Australia, that I made overseas: There is no doubt that as a result of the article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald there have been strains in the relationship between our two countries. It would be quite dishonest for us to attempt to say anything else. I say on the floor of this Parliament what I said in Rome: Our friends in Indonesia must understand that Australia is a fully fledged democracy. A distinguishing characteristic of this democracy is the freedom of the Press. This Government neither does control nor will it ever seek to control-I think in saying that I also speak for the other side of the House-the media. Whatever the government of this country, we are not going to have a controlled media. Mr Howard —That is not an issue between us. Mr HAWKE —It is not an issue between us. I speak for both sides of the House when I say that. Freedom of the Press is a characteristic of this society, this country. It must be accepted and understood. Once it is understood by our friends in Indonesia I believe we will have a better chance of fully resuming the sort of constructive and positive relations that this Government has worked so hard to create. Mr MILLAR —I direct my question to the Minister for Primary Industry. In the light of current estimates to the effect that the Government's guaranteed floor price for sugar will now cost the Government not more than $17m, in contrast to the figure of $54m as stated in the rural package, will the Minister now provide a cane farmer survival guarantee of $240 per tonne for this season? Mr KERIN —The short answer to the question is no. Let me go back one stage. It is very easy for the Opposition to make promises. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is now promising up to $240 a tonne. That is another $35m. I have had the National Party's 14-point plan costed. Its minimum cost is $2.714 billion. The maximum cost is $6.033 billion. My colleague the Minister for Finance has also costed various promises of the Opposition. We can add another $4.179 billion. What the Opposition is now promising is between $6.9 billion and $10.2 billion extra while it attacks the Government on the size of the deficit. Promises which are being made about the sugar industry fall into the same category. I will just put a few facts before the House and the honourable gentleman who asked the question. We set up a committee of inquiry on which the two governments, the millers and the producers were represented. It came down with a signed report suggesting a level of price support of $220, $215 and $210 a tonne. In our negotiations with the Queensland Government-if one could ever call it that, given the person who runs the Government there-we said that we would come in at a level of $230, $225 and $220 a tonne. At that stage it looked as though the final pool price for the 1985 season would be of the order of $215 so the exposure was quite a large amount. That is why we offered a $150m package on the basis of a Queensland and New South Wales contribution. There has been a jump in prices. As the current United States price is 9c per lb it would look as though the final pool price for this year will be $224 or $225 a tonne. If the United States price keeps at the present rate, in future years there will simply be no need for any underpinning or any contribution by either governments to price support, but we simply do not know what the future holds. We will run out of long term contracts. The present increase in prices is due mainly to damage to the Cuban crop and the fact that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has entered the market. We do not know what the situation will be down the track. The whole idea of price underwriting or price underpinning-price support-from this Government is to keep confidence in the industry, and $230 a tonne represents a fair level of confidence for the industry. The industry has not been prepared to enter into the level of beneficial deregulation that we would have liked. We think it is important to keep the reality of the market before this industry. I point out that the final pool price in 1984 was $234.65 a tonne. Our underpinning the price up to $230 a tonne represents a reduction of only 41c a tonne of cane for growers. In the 1984 season with a final pool price of $234.65, the range of farm cash operating surpluses for the sugar industry was $35,998 for the far north, down to a figure of $726 in the wet north. A lot of the people in the industry received about $15,000 to $20,000. So with the underpinning at $230 a tonne and exposure for the Commonwealth of up to $54m underpinning is fair and reasonable and will provide the support and confidence that is required for the industry. The Commonwealth's package that has been offered following further discussions by Cabinet amounts to up to $100m. The other part of the package is $46m adjustment for the mills and the growers. That involves, in terms of the discussion I had with the Minister for Primary Industries in Queensland, Mr Turner, a 75 per cent interest subsidy to mills and growers. Again that is very generous and the Government makes that generous offer because of its concern for the sugar industry. That sort of concern is not expressed by the Queensland Government. The Queensland Premier is not prepared to put in money for price support because of the precedent it will set. The Queensland Government is not prepared to put money into the sugar industry because of the precedent it thinks it will set, yet it can be critical of the Federal Government because the money it is putting in for price support is not enough. That is clear nonsense, and the Queensland Premier has done everything possible to frustrate his own industry. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Madam Speaker, I wish to speak further on the matter of privilege which was raised earlier today. I have just been handed a note which I think you ought to have before you as you consider this matter. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the Minister. Mr DAWKINS —It is a note signed by Mr Anderson, who was the officer referred to in the Dawson Waldron statement. It states: On 16 April Mr Michael Kroger telephoned me at work and said that Mr T. Walton had asked him to phone me and seek my assistance in bringing the parties together to resolve the dispute on fair and equitable grounds. He said Mr Walton was very concerned that the matter had been escalated to a drawn out day to day political issue and he was anxious to have it settled. Mr Walton was only concerned about the reflection on his ability and personal integrity and his future employment prospects and or compensation. Any resolution would have to be fair and there should be no suggestion that either party had been `blackmailed' or `bought off'. No details of any settlement should be made public and no public statements made about it. He sought my assistance as a long standing friend and colleague of Mr Walton and also a very senior officer of the Commission to advise him what procedures should be followed to open up constructive discussions along the lines outlined above. I informed him I would make enquiries and come back to him. Because of the sensitivity of the matter I immediately reported the conversation to Mr Exell who had the prime responsibility for this issue in the Commission. After discussing the issue with Mr Exell it was decided that I should not contact Mr Kroger but that the solicitors representing the Commission should be informed of the conversation and be the point of contact with Mr Kroger. I take the opportunity to table the document. Mr N.A. Brown —There was something else said in that conversation, was there not? Mr DAWKINS —Well, that is the whole of it. Mr N.A. Brown —That was all, was it? Mr DAWKINS —That is the note. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence. It seems that evidence is being taken from parties as to what seems to be a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege. Perhaps I could suggest that you or your officers might care to approach directly both Mr Kroger and Mr Anderson so that both sides of the story are understood, before your determination is finally made. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the Leader of the National Party. Mr DAWKINS —Madam Speaker, I just want to add to an answer I gave earlier today. On the question of Mr Oxley's appointment, I did not mean to say that I did not care what the Department says; what I wanted to say was that it was an appointment for me to make. If there was any consternation at the time, I am very sure that that consternation has now subsided. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —For the information of honourable members, I present the first report on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands inquiry 1986 by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Policy Co-ordination Unit of the Department of Community Services. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —Pursuant to sub-clause 7 (11) of the Schedule to the Airlines Agreement Act 1981, I present a joint report by the Australian National Airlines Commission and Ansett Transport Industries Ltd on consultations held during 1985 with regard to air fares and passenger revenue load factors and aircraft utilisation. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —Pursuant to sub-clause 13 of the Schedule to the Airlines Agreement Act 1981, I present financial statements covering the operation of passenger air services on trunk routes and the total operation of air services carried on by the Australian National Airlines Commission for 1984-85, together with the Auditor-General's report. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —Pursuant to sub-clause 13 of the Schedule to the Airlines Agreement Act 1981, I present financial statements covering the operation of passenger air services on trunk routes and the total operation of air services carried on by Ansett Transport Industries Ltd for 1984-85, together with the auditor's report. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Future Directions for Commercial Radio Interim Report: AM/FM Conversion. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DAWKINS —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr DAWKINS —In the Age of last Saturday, I was referred to in the words `a family company of which he was a director had been sent to the bottom of the harbour'. This is absolutely untrue and a wicked lie, and I have instructed my solicitors to take action accordingly. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Dr THEOPHANOUS —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I claim to have been grossly misrepresented in yesterday's Australian Financial Review in an article by Mr David Clark. There have been a large number of comments in the media on my paper `the Re-industrialisation of Australia'. I have not responded to those comments because I take a very broad view of the media's right to comment on the ideas of members. Nevertheless, in this case there has been an attack on my intellectual reputation through a deliberate and mischievous distortion of what I have said. I shall not take up the time of the House in correcting all of the misrepresentations by Mr Clark in his long article. However, I want to correct two of his most mischievous assertions. First, Mr Clark claims that I have been advocating increases in tariffs and that in this regard my views are completely different from those of John Maynard Keynes. I quote directly from my paper: The devaluation was in effect a 15 to 20 per cent increase in tariffs and did not result in the reduction in imports which had been anticipated. We should therefore be quite sceptical of further increases in tariffs as the solution. Mr Clark does not, of course, comment on my real proposals in relation to this very important issue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is allowed to say where he has been misrepresented. I hope that he will come to the point. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Secondly, Mr Clark claims that I do not understand that Australia has `failed to industrialise our export trade and our import output relationships across manufacturing have never developed anywhere the complexity of truly industrialised economies'. Not only are these problems recognised and analysed in the paper, but two separate lengthy sections are devoted to the resolution of them. By these and other misrepresentations Mr Clark carries out the worst form of intellectual dishonesty, that is, to misrepresent the opponent's view and then proceed to engage in a critique not of his real views but a distortion of them. Fortunately, the views of Mr Clark are not shared by the hundreds of people who have responded positively to the suggestions in the paper. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I indicated to Madam Speaker before lunch that I would ask her indulgence to add to a personal explanation I made on 12 April. It was that the staff member had a first class ticket, as I said in my personal explanation, and was entitled to have it. It was necessary, however, to change airlines, as I now understand it, due to a rescheduling of the Ansett flight, He obtained an economy class ticket from Trans Australia Airlines, but he and another staff member were given firstclass seats. The Department of the Special Minister of State was credited with the cost of the unused first class Ansett ticket and TAA has now been given a warrant for the difference between the first class and economy class fares. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —by leave-I table the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders, as amended, the Export Control Orders No. 7 of 1986 and accompanying explanatory statement. Amendments to the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders made under the Export Control Act 1982 entered into force on 18 February 1986, and were not disallowed by this House within the statutory time limit. They have, however, run into trouble in the Senate, with the threat of a disallowance vote to be taken there on 30 April 1986. Honourable members will be well aware that these Orders were introduced as a result of a recent Federal Court full bench decision which found that the law did not give effect to the Government's intentions in regard to one aspect of the provision of a cost effective export inspection service by the Department of Primary Industry. The amendments gave my Department the legal right to take into account issues affecting management efficiency, staff safety, and welfare of relevant export industries when considering requests to provide services; and also gave the Minister for Primary Industry the right to intervene in departmental decision-making processes where it is in the national interest to do so. They also provide for decisions by officials to be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. If the amendments were not made, the Orders would have required my Department to provide inspection services unless `impossible' to do so, regardless of the consequences to Australia, the cost, or any consideration of staff welfare and safety. I would have had no clearly defined right to become involved, even though I am answerable to this Parliament for the actions of my Department. The provisions break no new ground in either administrative law or delegated legislation. Similar provisions are contained in many pieces of legislation passed by this Parliament and previous parliaments. The amendments were considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and specialised legal advice was received by that committee. As honourable members will be aware, the Committee is a bipartisan Committee comprising members of the major political parties which examines all delegated legislation to ascertain whether the legislation satisfies the following four principles: First, that it is in accordance with the statute; secondly, that it does not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties; thirdly, that it does not unduly make the rights and liberties of the citizens dependent upon administrative decisions which are not subject to review of their merits by a judicial or other independent tribunal, and, fourthly, that it does not contain matter more appropriate for parliamentary enactment. The Chairman of the Committee told the Senate on 19 March 1986 that after considering the Orders generally and the legal adviser's report in particular, the Committee concluded that it could not object to the Orders under its principles and that the Committee did not consider that any of its principles were infringed. In this particular issue there has been too much concentration on the political aspects of the Mudginberri abattoir dispute and the subsequent legal proceedings and not enough on the problems that the amendments to the legislation are designed to overcome. The amendments were not made to allow the Government to avoid its responsibilities or to give the unions more power. They are in the interest of proper government administration and are to correct what is widely acknowledged to be a deficiency in existing legislation. However, for political reasons the Opposition parties chose to oppose the changes in this House and the Senate. I say `for political reasons' because, while their record of public administration leaves much to be desired, I cannot believe that their grasp of the principles of proper administration is so poor as for them to oppose the changes on any other grounds. This House passed the changes, but the Opposition parties in the Senate threatened to disallow the Orders. As a consequence, the Senate was asked for time to refer the matter to the industry for further consideration, as I believed that the meat industry, in particular, needed more time to consider the issues. I was given until 30 April. Because of the importance to the meat industry I arranged for the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Policy Council-AMLIPC-to look at the issue. The Chairman of the Inspection Policy Council has also provided me with a view. Indications from the first meeting of the AMLIPC held to discuss the issue were that it felt the Orders as proposed were too broad. As a result senior officials from my Department discussed the matter with the AMLIPC and put before the Council for consideration revised wording of the Orders to make the conditions of the discretion more specific. I believe that the reworded Orders adequately address industry's concerns and consequently the Government is willing to compromise and make changes to the Orders put before the Senate in an effort to find common ground. In framing these amendments, the Government has considered the need of Australia's meat and livestock industry to develop and maintain a reputation as a reliable supplier on the international market. However, AMLIPC was only able to agree unanimously that provision should be made for withholding inspection services where staff are not available to satisfy all applications within applicable budgetary limits and where there is an occupational health or safety risk. The majority of AMLIPC members were not supportive of the other provisions, namely, that inspection services might be temporarily withheld where there is a risk of physical assault or intimidation of staff, even where the police are agreed that there is a risk, or where there is a need for a cooling-off period in the event of an industrial dispute-although they did offer to have the industry further consider the industrial relations aspects at a later date. The AMLIPC also opposed any provision which would give the Minister a right to intervene in departmental decision making when the national interest is involved. The previous views expressed by the opposition parties in this House and in the Senate on ministerial involvement are difficult to fathom. National interest in this context covers, I believe, the interests of the industry and the public interest, and it is clear that there may be times when the public interest is greater than that of the industry and this must at least be able to be taken into account without recourse to the courts. The unclear position of the responsible Minister's involvement in officials' decisions where national interest considerations may be involved runs contrary to all the principles of our system of elected government. The attitude by some industry groups and by the Opposition to the realities of managing a complex service industry seems blinkered to me, possibly because the issue is still being clouded by the emotionalism attached to Mudginberri and by political considerations of the organisations concerned. Quite frankly, it is beyond me how anyone can refuse to agree to clarify the law where staff safety is involved or where some cooling-off period for industrial negotiation is desirable. On the question of staff safety, the inspection service has on a number of occasions been confronted with staff being placed at physical risk by threats of violence or actual violence. In a very recent incident such threats led to an inspector being physically assaulted and injured off the premises. The service must not be put in a position where there are any doubts about its legal right to clear its staff from such situations. Further, it should be recognised that most industrial disputes involving inspection staff are localised and short in duration being resolved by level-headed conciliatory negotiation. To inflame such minor disputes by immediately trying to force inspectors to work regardless of the circumstances and merits of the case is stupid in industrial relations terms. We must allow management the flexibility to have a short cooling-off period to negotiate and attempt a conciliation. My view is that we have a recipe for industrial disaster if the Orders are not amended. Those opposed to the amendments are, in fact, putting more power in the hands of the unions, for the unions are now the only group that has any discretion. Recognising the importance of these issues, the Inspection Policy Council while not being unaminous on the matter is in general agreement with the inclusion of provisions that would allow services to be withheld where availability and management efficiency are involved and in the interests of staff safety and to provide an industrial relations cooling-off period. The proposal to allow ministerial intervention is also generally supported by the IPC on the grounds that it will effectively provide an additional avenue for appeal. I would point out that the IPC has indicated to me previously its unaminous view that it is untenable to have the inspection service and the Government placed in the position where they have little say in the provision of an inspection service, yet are held fully accountable for that service. Following receipt of this advice from AMLIPC and IPC, I have had new Orders prepared. The new Orders, which were gazetted and tabled in this House and in the Senate today, are explained in the explanatory statement. Briefly, they repeal the existing provisions and substitute more detailed criteria under which a discretion may be exercised. The criteria are drafted so as to leave some scope for negotiations to take place in an industrial dispute and to give flexibility where there is physical threat to staff. In the ministerial directions provision, the Minister would be required to consult directly with relevant industry bodies before making any direction on national interest grounds. The House should note that industry supports Orders 100A and 100B. While the new Orders 100A and 100B go some way to resolving the administrative problems, industrial, staff safety and public accountability aspects are not, however, recognised. What the industry is doing is asking the management of the inspection service to run its operation in a commercial way without the discretion that industry demands in its daily businesses. I notice from the Hansard of the Senate debate of 19 March 1986 that there was some concern expressed that ministerial direction should be provided for in the principal Act, rather than orders. I gather this was despite the view of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. If the placement of new orders 111a.1 and 111a.2 remains the only concern I would be agreeable to amending the Export Control Act 1982 accordingly and repealing the relevant orders at that time. I hope that common sense now prevails in the Senate. The orders as now presented represent a genuine attempt by this Government to meet the requests of industry. They reflect my concern that disallowance would result, over time, in greater costs and detract from the ongoing drive to provide inspection services in an efficient and cost effective way in accordance with the accepted principles of good public administration. The judgment of the Full Bench is very clear on the point that under the previous law the Inspection Service must provide services unless it is actually impossible to do so. The full bench clearly indicated that the policy aspects could be fixed by amending the orders, and the Government has taken this course of action. If any of the new orders are disallowed, I wish to make it clear that the Inspection Service will abide by the law, in a sensible, non-emotional way. But it will not, as some people seem to think, disregard the law when it suits the industry for it to do so. I present the following paper: Changes to Export Inspection-Ministerial Statement, 29 April 1986. Motion (by Mr Scholes) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(3.28) —I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `Orders 100c, 100d and 111a of the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders, as contained in Prescribed Goods (General) Orders as amended (Amendment), being Export Control Orders No. 7 of 1986, made under the Export Control Act 1982, be disallowed'. The debate on these export control orders arises from the failure of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to execute his ministerial duty in providing Commonwealth meat inspectors during the picketing at the Mudginberri abattoir. This whole issue has been a watershed for excessive union power in Australia. It has also exposed the extent to which this Government is prepared to lock itself into actions, no matter how irresponsible they may be, to preserve excessive union power. I have sought the disallowance of control of the former orders, on behalf of not only the meat export industries which were directly affected by these changes to export inspection laws but also all Australians, employees and employers alike, who value their rights and freedoms in our society. The previous orders flowed directly from an incident at the remote abattoir at Mudginberri in the Northern Territory. At the heart of the incident was the right of individual employees to negotiate their own conditions of employment and reach agreements on employment conditions, including wage rates, without the demands and approval of their union. That is the heart of this issue, let there be no mistake. It was an attempt to stop voluntary agreements between employees and employers. The orders 100a and 111a, if passed, would have effectively given the green light to ongoing industrial disruption and trade union standover tactics in the meat export industry, aimed at preventing voluntary agreements serving the best interests of employees and employers and achieving productivity gains. Before responding to the Minister's new orders, I must emphasise why this matter has become a watershed for Labor and excessive union power. The orders would have inserted a vaguely-defined ministerial discretion into export inspection laws. The Hawke Labor Government cannot deny that it was seeking a cop-out clause in the event of a repeat of the Mudginberri experience. Honourable members will recall that the Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia, on 19 December last, ruled that the Minister had an obligation, not a discretion, to provide export inspection services to the abattoir. I want to put this issue into its historical perspective. Last year employees at the Mudginberri abattoir met with management to discuss their terms of employment, including pay rates. They agreed to introduce a new set of terms which increased productivity and on average doubled the pay rates of the workers. This agreement was approved by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, but the union could not resist trying to get its sticky fingers into the act. The agreement was reached without the big union bosses' involvement or approval. They feared that it would create a precedent, exploding the myth that unions are necessary to protect the workers. The union bosses rightly feared that the employees themselves could do far better by negotiating with their bosses than by adhering to an inflexible, unacceptable award that the union has previously achieved. So the union decided on action to be taken to sabotage the deal, if possible. It is also curiously coincidental that export meat inspectors employed by the Commonwealth were moved off the Mudginberri premises and back to the township of Jabiru. Shortly after this incident, a picket line was established by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, a few kilometres away from the works. Was this not splendid timing? One could be forgiven for believing that there was collusion. Mr Kerin —There was no collusion, you know that. I have explained that to you. You know full well there was no collusion. Mr HUNT —Some people have said that it was collusion. Mr Kerin —Well, that is not true. Mr HUNT —I will take the Minister's word for it. He says that it was not collusion, but it appeared to be. It seemed to be very coincidental. Of course, the abattoir workers wanted to continue the killing and boning operations uninterrupted, but the presence of a picket line established by the union, which claimed to represent them, effectively forced the cessation of export trade from the abattoir. The proprietor, Mr Pendarvis, did not buckle under the immense pressure of the AMIEU and, behind it, the faceless operational commanders at the Australian Council of Trade Unions headquarters. He stuck to his guns and for that he must get full credit. He believed that his workers had the right to make their own agreement. The courts have vindicated those actions. The outrageous treatment of Mr Pendarvis, which resulted from the Hawke Government's failure to ensure that export inspections were carried out, has been exposed by the Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia, which on 19 December ruled that the Minister had an obligation, not a discretion, to provide that export inspection service. The response of the Government was to lodge an appeal to the High Court of Australia. That appeal was thrown out on 21 February this year. Clearly, the Government did not have a leg to stand on. On 4 February the Minister announced that he had discussed with the Australian Meat and Live-stock Inspection Policy Council his intention to insert ministerial discretion into the export laws. It was not so much a discussion; the announcement was presented to the Policy Council as a fait accompli. It is interesting to note the reaction of the Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council now that it has been given time by the Opposition to consider that matter. The Council has taken a very different position from that of the Minister. I will raise those differences shortly because, once again, they reveal the real intentions of this Government. Any impartial observer will recognise that the web of ACTU control over the industrial relations system is the driving force behind the Government's actions. These orders are a rerun of those that ran into trouble in the Senate, with a threat of disallowance this coming Wednesday. In spite of consultations with the Industry Policy Council, which accepts two of the four conditions in the proposed orders, the Minister has come back using complicated provisions, with one intent-that is, to give him the discretion that he originally attempted to snake through the Parliament last month. Mr Kerin —Rubbish! Mr HUNT —The Minister says `rubbish'. But he is back here with exactly the same purpose. He is trying to get a discretion for himself. He does not want to be in a situation of having to provide export inspection services in the event of another picket line being set up by the union. Who is he protecting? He is protecting those union bosses; that is who he is trying to protect. Mr Nehl —Shameful! Mr HUNT —It is absolutely shameful action. In this context I note that the Minister has claimed that the Inspection Policy Council has indicated its view that ministerial intervention is untenable. Supporting the Government view were the consumer representatives and, surprisingly, two Government representatives and the ministerial-appointed Chairman! They were the only ones who supported the Government. The only ones who supported it were the consumer representatives, the two Government representatives and the Government-appointed Chairman. Of course, they had to support the Minister. But all of the meat and livestock industry representatives were totally in agreement with the advice of the IPC. In adding a further two orders, the Minister has introduced two plausible orders requiring him to consult with some members of the affected industries. But the affected industries will not have a bar of it. The Opposition has no objection to the intent of orders 100a and 100b, with one qualification; in order 100a the Minister has sought to give the Secretary to the Department a discretion by the use of the verb `may'. We are not satisfied with this verb. We believe the order should state `shall'. Unless the Minister is prepared to substitute `may' for `shall' we will take appropriate action in the Senate. I am sorry that the Minister has left the chamber in disgust. I do not know where he has gone but he has gone away. I hope that somebody makes a note of that because it is very important. Turning to the specific orders to which the Opposition objects, I raise, firstly, order 100C. This refers to the departmental Secretary making some judgment about the potential for violence if there is a picket. Such a discretion to the Department, or effectively to the Minister, is not justifiable. I share the view of the Industry Policy Council and the National Farmers Federation that this is first and foremost a matter for civil law. Orders such as these are not an appropriate place for such a discretion. What an incredible business it is to have this sort of provision whereby the Minister tries to give himself a discretion in case there is a threat of intimidation or violence. Indeed, the Federal Court decision on 19 December left open the scope for a service not to be provided under circumstances where such provision was a physical impossibility. I also make the point that police powers can be invoked in situations such as Mudginberri, dependent only on the political will power of the State or Territory. There is a grave danger that the inclusion of 100C would be interpreted, certainly at a legal level, as an invitation to use the potential for violence as an excuse not to provide meat inspectors. Let us be clear that meat inspections are a government monopoly service for which the meat producers pay at least 50 per cent. There is no alternative service if government inspectors are not available. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that there are safeguards against the misuse of such monopoly power; Mudginberri was the prime example. I ask the Government, the Minister or whoever is in charge of the House at the moment-there are only two Government members here-whether the Government would invoke a similar clause in legislation which dealt with picket lines established by the Builders Labourers Federation. There is silence. Government members would prefer not to answer that question. I can understand why they would not want to answer that question, but it is an interesting question to ponder. The Opposition is not setting out to expose people to violence in seeking to disallow order 100C. We simply make the point that this power is not needed because civil law provides for civil protection of people. We will not open the way for virtual blackmail to be enforced upon the Minister or the Secretary to the Department. Clearly, order 100D would give the power of temporary determination pending what could be a long drawn out court or industry consultation proceeding. By approving 100C, this Parliament would be setting an outrageous precedent. The precedent goes well beyond the inspection service. It goes to the heart of the Government's responsibility as an employer of labour providing community services. If this precedent is enforced it means that, where a Minister makes a judgment that an industrial dispute is likely to risk government employees or their families, the Government should have the discretion not to provide those services. Take the example of a picket line being in place and Customs or quarantine officers being involved. The Government may well say: `It is better to stay out than to take on the unions'. To take the argument further, what would happen if the Commissioner of Police made a judgment that the safety of police officers and their families was at risk if they crossed a picket or took action to protect civil order. This would give the union movement an effective power of veto over government services to the community. The parallel should be noted. The export inspection service polices health and hygiene standards and is essential by law for the export of produce. Order 111a is more offensive still. This is a re-write of the national interest provision which would offer a carte blanche discretionary power. Honourable members should note the words. The Minister, after carefully trying to look impartial in other sections, comes out with these words: Notwithstanding anything provided in Orders, where the Minister considers it is desirable, taking into account the national interest . . . And so the statement goes on, requiring only that the Minister consult with what are defined as `relevant industry bodies'. Look at what he had done with the advice of the Industry Policy Council on Orders 100c, 100d and 111a. He has ignored them. Could an industry trust a union-dominated government in these circumstances? Of course it could not. Mr Everingham —No way. We know what happened at Mudginberri. Mr HUNT —Exactly. Further, let me stress that, under the wording of these changes, the relevant industry organisations need not include any of the constituent councils of the National Farmers Federation which represent the payers of half the export inspection costs. I wish to indicate that the farm bodies are opposed to these orders. On 23 April the President of the National Farmers Federation, Mr McLachlan, advised me that the Federation supported the Industry Council in its fight against the broad powers of discretion sought by the Minister. I fully share Mr McLachlan's concern. The Opposition is not prepared to stand by and watch this nation being sold out to the domination of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, nor are the vast majority of Australian citizens. We will fight these changes tooth and nail and, therefore, I move for the disallowance of these orders. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Is the motion seconded? Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(3.44) —I second the motion. There can be no doubt why this matter is before the House at the moment. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has come into this chamber to make changes to the Export Control Act, firstly, because of his failure to act in accordance with his responsibilities as set out under that Act and is abrogating his responsibilities in favour of union domination. Secondly, this matter is back in this chamber because the Senate would not approve the original changes and requested the Minister to have further negotiations with the industry. While some of those consultations have taken place, I just question whether the Minister has had consultations and reached agreement with the major organisation representing beef producers in Australia; that is, the National Farmers Federation. If consultations were held, they were less than effective. Thirdly, this matter is before the House because of the Mudginberri dispute, with which the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) is very familiar. If it had not been for the Mudginberri dispute, this matter would not have crystallised. The Mudginberri decision was a watershed decision in that management was able to reach an agreement with the work force on providing the necessary productivity at a cost that was both fair and reasonable to the employer and the employees. It was because the management did not get the approval of the unions and the meat inspectors that this dispute came about. At the height of that dispute I was a member of a group of parliamentarians who went into the area and there saw the union picket which had been set up in the area without a permit. There were certain calls on the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) to do something about it but he refused to do anything because he was frightened of confronting the unions in such an impossible situation. Mr Tim Fischer —A monumental failure of duty by the Minister. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I must agree with that. I might add that there was a failure by two Ministers, not just one. I repeat that it was the lack of responsibility on the part of both Ministers that brought this situation to a head. The Minister for Primary Industry has said that this sort of thing will come about only in impossible situations. That picket involved four members of the union. They did not pose any threat to anybody legally entering the area, and that is what we were doing. I believe that the suggestion that some risk to safety was involved for any Commonwealth meat inspectors who passed the picket line is absolute nonsense. The Minister abrogated his responsibility in favour of being told what the union interest was and doing what it said. When we come to the national interest we must ask: What does the Government consider to be the national interest in this case? Is it just that the Government is prepared to knuckle under to union interest? I suggest to members of this Parliament that in this case the national interest was one which we have to address as a nation; that is, our ability to earn export dollars and to try to bridge the trade deficit gap of about $1 billion each month. Mudginberri, in its own small way, was doing that. As I understand it, a market of about $4m per year in the European Community and elsewhere is actually being lost or is certainly under threat at the moment. Four million dollars may not sound much to a union but it means a lot to a private company which is trying to earn, trying to be productive and trying to do its part for Australia in this regard. I think we should confirm at this time that national interest is not union interest. It is not the ACTU's interest; it is the interest of those producers and those people who are trying to help the Australian economy. Pendarvis's crime was that he tried to buck the union system. Mr Hunt —And the workers. Mr BRAITHWAITE —And the workers. In this case the workers were not represented within his meatworks because he was prepared to enter into an agreement. Again that could be a benchmark as far as future agreements with the beef industry in Australia are concerned. Neither the beef industry nor Australia would have been an insignificant beneficiary of any arrangement that might have been made there. In 1984-85, chilled or frozen beef and veal contributed $1,750m to our exports and our balance of payments. Let us not fool ourselves. The Minister abrogated his responsibilities to the national interest by not trying to get exports up and production up simply to obey the dictates of the union. It is interesting to note that the decision that was made in this regard by the Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia indicated that the Minister had an obligation-not a discretion-to act. He is now trying to run away from that obligation he has to Australian primary industry. It is strange that the Minister should seek, as one of his priorities, to try to back out of this arrangement in favour of the unions as his principal constituency, the one he should be addressing, is the primary production area of Australia. We have only to look at the rural package that was brought into this chamber a fortnight ago to see how little the Minister thinks of his primary industry constituents. We have only to look at his answer to a question during Question Time in connection with the sugar industry to see that he is prepared to walk away yet again from a promised $54m underwriting of the sugar industry. He is treating not only the sugar industry but also the beef industry with contempt in bringing this matter into this chamber and trying to justify it. I believe that the Minister's credibility is on the line more so than the orders he seeks to introduce. I believe that what Australia wants at the moment as far as exports are concerned is a market in which we can prove to overseas consumers that we are reliable. The Mudginberri dispute smashed that completely. Agreements could not be entered into and contracts could not be fulfilled. The stain of the unions on Australia's reputation for reliability has spread. Our labour costs need to be competitive. Mudginberri would have given us that competitiveness. It would have given us labour costs that were of benefit to the worker and also to the employer. Productivity was also a feature of the contract with Pendarvis and his men and would have increased. The Minister is trying to prop up a union case and he knows that the union is mainly to blame for other costs exporters face, such as interest rates, fuel costs and inflation. It is interesting to note that while the Minister is fiddling around with these orders to save the union movement, our inflation rate is on the way up, whereas those of our competitors are on the way down. That is another problem faced by our producers. The export industry does not enjoy a free float of the dollar. The dollar has been regulated, again in accordance with the wishes of the union movement. It is interesting to note that the group which should have been consulted on this matter, the National Farmers Federation, was the first group in Australia that was prepared to take up a cause for an employer and fight it through the courts. It is also interesting to note that the Pendarvises of Mudginberri have not lost a case they have put through court, either the Federal Court of Australia or common law, yet they are still in a loss situation. The National Farmers Federation was prepared to support them all along the line. The National Farmers Federation is totally opposed to the orders that were originally brought into the Senate. I believe that it is just as opposed to the orders that are now being introduced into this chamber. Again I ask: What sort of consultation was there with the NFF, if it is still in disagreement with the Government on this issue? I ask the Government what chance it feels it has of being in a better position after these orders have passed through the Senate. I believe that there is now no better case being spelt out than there was at the time of the introduction of the original orders. I believe that the Senate will and should resist the Minister's attempts to have these changes made, which we understand will be a direct abrogation of his responsibilities and duties. It is for that reason that I seconded the motion for the disallowance of the orders. Debate (on motion by Mr Keogh) adjourned. 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 Robert Brown,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Hawker,Mr Hodgman,Mr Kerin,Mr Lee,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Snow and Mr West. 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 Braithwaite,Mr N.A. Brown,Mr Fife,Mr Hawker,Mr Hodges and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Electorate of Farrer respectfully showeth that the Hawke Government should: Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices Not increase or extend fuel taxes; Maintain its tax cut commitment. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to import parity pricing. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth that the Hawke Socialist Government should: pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Socialist Government should not continue to rob the taxpayers of Australia by failing to pass on the fuel tax cuts due under the Import Parity Pricing System. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce 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 Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Right 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. 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 humbly pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change.'' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Hodgman and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce 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 remain sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that persistent rumour suggests that the Hawke Government intends to reduce Government expenditure by contracting or eliminating programs for war veterans and war widows. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment and that of previous Governments to ex-servicemen and women by: Ensure no additional cut-backs will be made to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. Review the previous cut-backs in such areas as the travel allowances, dental scheme and repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Proceeds with abolishing more stringent conditions applying to the granting of the TPI pension. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Kent and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that under the guise of ceasefire the Government of Sri Lanka has largely militarised Tamil regions and has now resorted to airship attacks in highly populated areas and indiscriminate killings of civilians which is seen even by the Indian Foreign Minister as having genocidal tendencies. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to: 1. Intercede with the Government of Sri Lanka to desist from airship attacks and seeking a military solution; 2. To offer refuge under humanitarian and compassionate programs, to Tamils who are fleeing from the violence; 3. Abandon all direct and indirect forms of repatriation of any Tamil who has sought refuge in Australia and grant them meaningful assistance to resettle; 4. As a member of the Commonwealth, persuade the Government of Sri Lanka to pursue a political solution which will allow the Tamils to live in peace and dignity, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr N.A. Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned showeth that there is widespread public concern about the provisions of the Bill of Rights, and especially the dangerous powers to be vested in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, and the failure to protect vital rights such as the right to own private property. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: (1) that the Hawke Labor Government not proceed with the Bills enacting the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. and (2) that we the people be given the opportunity to express our opinion on the Bill of Rights in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights that the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education that the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate that the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned call upon all Members to pay due respect to returned Service personnel and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government does not proceed with its intention to further means test veterans' disability pensions in order to achieve their desired cuts in government spending. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the recent cuts announced in the Mini-Budget to Preschools and Day Care Services are a reversal of A.L.P. policy to make child care services available to all at an affordable cost. Further, that the fee rises arising from the cuts will cause great hardship to the majority of families using these services. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia 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 Hunt. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of South Australia 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the 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 Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Victoria 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 Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: We deplore the tax threshold of $5100, as the proposal adversely affects welfare recipients and low income earners. We urge that the figure be $7500 to enable these citizens to have some chance to live with dignity. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Jenkins. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the lack of a Medicare Office in Wyong is seriously inconveniencing the residents of Wyong Shire. Your petitioners therefore request that a Medicare Office is established in Wyong as soon as possible. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully sheweth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your Petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the Division of Gwydir respectfully sheweth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your Petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights or within Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Sutherland Shire and New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional Nuclear Reactor. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectifully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the humble petitioners respectfully believe that the representatives in Australia of the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) and of the South West African People's Organisation of Namibia (SWAPO) should not have to suffer unending financial problems related to the cost of rent, food and clothing, and the maintenance of two small offices run on the most austere basis. Your petitioners therefore pray and urge Australian Government provision of: 1. Official recognition of the ANC and SWAPO as the legitimate representatives of the people of South Africa and Namibia; 2. Financial support to the offices and representatives of the ANC and SWAPO to promote the anti-Apartheid cause in Australia; 3. Additional financial support for the official representatives of the ANC and SWAPO to assist the humanitarian needs of Namibian and South African Refugees who are victims of Apartheid; 4. Scholarships for South African and Namibian refugees. These to be provided through the ANC and SWAPO education departments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. We, the undersigned petitioners, call upon the Australian Parliament to set up strong national Aboriginal land-rights legislation. We call upon Parliament to establish this legislation in line with the five principles of ALP Party Policy and to use its powers to over-ride states which do not comply with the legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's proposed cutbacks in funding for the ``First Home Owners Scheme'', that the House of Representatives undertake to oppose such a move, in regard to its effect on young married couples in the community. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should undertake measures to restore the level of payments previously available under the Scheme. And yout petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's important horticultural industry is being severely disadvantaged by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of horticultural growers to maintain supplies of food and plant products to Australian families at a realistic cost. Widespread unemployment will result if horticultural producers are further depressed. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian horticultural growers to develop production potential so the nation, as a whole, can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's proposal to bring about a reduction in the amount payable under the present Family Allowance Scheme, that the House of Representatives assembled oppose such a move, on the evidence of its impact upon the family unit. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek to restore payments to the former level. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That deterioration of the total global environment is continuing at an increasing rate; that important environmental resources vital to human livelihood such as trees, soil and water are decreasing at an alarming rate; that there is a need for educating all people to assume a greater responsibility for the conservation sustainable use and maintenance of vital resources; that dynamic and active initiatives are needed to conserve and renew the total environment; and that protecting, conserving and repairing the Earth can unite all people and nations in co-operative action for survival. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will propose to the United Nations General Assembly at its 41st Session in September 1986 that 1988 be proclaimed the ``First International Earth Repair Year'' (FIERY) as a vital action to ignite global co-operation for Worldpeace. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of Australian residents shows that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any form of compulsory identity cards. We believe that the introduction of Identity cards will erode civil liberties; will create an increased risk of invasion of privacy; and will not result in any significant increase in Government revenue. We call on the Parliament to immediately reject any proposal for the introduction of compulsory Identity cards. by Mr Staples. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: in this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a Nuclear Test Moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers that such a Moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would- be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to: 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; and, to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards: inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destabilising nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government (a) take new initiatives to encourage all member states of the United Nations-especially the governments of nuclear weapon states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time; (b) call on all nuclear weapon states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All Federal Members of Parliament and Senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth. Our alarm with the continued spiralling cost of commodities, brought about we believe, by the monopolisation of retail outlets by multi- and transnational consortiums. We would ask the Government legislate effective price control and anti-monopoly measures to prevent further erosion of the living standards of the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, seek your most urgent action to rectify this deep concern to the community. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and local governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Gwydir electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Cowper electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of the State of Queensland 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 the present justice system in this country nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system of Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Forces, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond Electorate respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its illconsidered capital gains tax proposal. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free. 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 in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Price. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has announced its intention to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, currently the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government has no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in this manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but is handing over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e. set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to prevent this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e. set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully request that: The worlds resources be redirected to the relief of human suffering, starvation, poverty and disease. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Stop spending taxpayers money on self promotion through high cost high profile but superficial policy on nuclear disarmament and make a genuine bi-partisan commitment to positive and practical policies designed to achieve progressive world-wide nuclear disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's productivity-superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of Dawson shows that the proposed Bill of Rights: overlooks basic rights concerning union membership, education, and private property, is a basis for massive intrusion into State responsibilities, establishes a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission with powers similar to a Court but without accepted legal procedures and protections for the accused, and provides no avenue of appeal against decisions of the HR&EOC. The petition further shows that fundamental protection of human rights is already to be found in the Courts, in tolerance, in fair play, belief in democratic institutions, and in support for rule of law. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament will not allow the Australian Bill of Rights Bill to pass into law. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully showeth: 1. That in its present form the Australian Bill of Rights 1985 does not represent the reasoned opinions of public opinion. 2. The Bill denies more rights than it upholds. 3. That one day's debate in the House of Representatives was insufficient time for our elected representatives to debate legislation which will control our lives indefinitely. Your petitioners therefore pray: (a) That the Bill lay before the House to allow reasoned debate by the electors of Australia. (b) That our elected representatives be allowed to consider the Bill without haste. (c) That any divisions on the Bill be recorded by a conscience vote by Members and not on Party lines. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: We, the undersigned petitioners of the electorate of Farrer, do respectfully show our opposition to the proposed Fringe Benefits Tax, as it applies to the purchase of company cars. Such a tax will be an additional burden upon small businesses, and will adversely affect the Australian car industry, including component manufacturers. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of the North Coast of New South Wales, Australia, respectfully showeth: That the community of Grafton and the Clarence Valley desire the retention of the A.B.C. Radio Studios in Grafton for the Second Regional Radio Network and pledge total support of Grafton City Council's submission on the Green Paper entitled `Discussion Paper-Second Regional Radio Network for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation'. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will sympathetically look at the problems of all these people in northern New South Wales and that the responsible Minister will take the necessary action to ensure the retention of the A.B.C. Radio Studio in Grafton and heed the submission of Grafton City Council in response to the Green Paper entitled `Discussion Paper-Second Regional Radio Network for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Shire of Caboolture situated in the Federal Division of Fisher, Queensland, respectfully showeth: that the present Commonwealth funding for day care facilities for child care in the Shire of Caboolture is totally inadequate to meet the growing demands of the district which is one of the fastest growing areas in Queensland and Australia. that the funding for Aboriginal and migrant child care facilities is disproportionately high in comparison to growth areas such as Caboolture which are seriously disadvantaged under present Federal Government funding guidelines. that there is an apparent excessive number of places for child care funding in Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory, while there is a lack of these places in Caboolture, Queensland, and other areas remote from the Capital. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That rapid growth areas such as the Shire of Caboolture be given special consideration in the allocation of funding. 2. That such funding be made available at similar levels to that provided to migrant and Aboriginal communities. 3. That funding in Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory be reduced to a level appropriate to reasonable requirements and that the funds be reallocated to localities of greater need. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of certain citizens of Somerset Dam in the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That we object to the hasty and ill conceived relocation of the public telephone facility at Somerset Dam on the grounds that- (a) it does not meet the needs of the area; (b) it does not have the support of the local Community; (c) it is open to vandalism; (d) it is poorly lit. Your petitioners therefore request that: A further public telephone service be made available at the previous location or if this is not possible that the present public telephone service be resited at its previous location. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The total disallowance by the Hawke Labor Government of tax deductibility for entertainment and hospitality expenses will unfairly penalise Australian business and cost thousands of jobs for young and unskilled people. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Abandon its total ban on entertainment expenses and allow tax deductibility for legitimate and necessary expenses. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: that the current policy pursued by the Hawke Government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. that consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. that unless the Government act urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Fisher respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains tax Hidden Death tax described as ``Capital Gains tax after death'' Gift Tax Increased Company tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The ban by the Hawke Socialist Government on negative gearing and restrictions on property depreciation will adversely affect thousands of disadvantaged people who rent their homes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: End its ill-considered and discriminatory policy on rented property and allow depreciation on all buildings used to produce rental income. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: that the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers and conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right of Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The concern for all Australians and their families in the failure of the Prime Minister and his Ministers to prevent the continuing decline in our international commodity trade. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.02) —We all recall that the current account deficit for March was $1,023m. It was the sixth successive month when the current account deficit was above $1 billion and it reflects an annual current account deficit this year of around $14 billion, the worst annual outcome ever. We know that on top of that the consumer price index increase of 2.3 per cent has produced an annual inflation rate of 9.2 per cent. That stands against the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of 3.8 per cent, against our major trading partners average of 3.8 per cent and against the figures of 1.8 per cent for Japan and 0.7 per cent for West Germany in a month when we know that inflation in the United States of America for the second successive time was negative. We know that this Government is the highest taxing government in peacetime history. We also know that our overseas deficit has reached an alarming level. Our overseas debt is now in excess of $77 billion, something in excess of $20,000 per family. We know that advisers to the Government and academics have seen that changes must be introduced. Professor Tom Valentine of Macquarie University at yesterday's International Association of Economics and Business Management Students conference stated: . . . the Reserve Bank's policy of using interest rates to support the Australian dollar in the hope that the current account deficit will fall through the so-called J-curve effect has not succeeded. He also said that currency support through interest rate control is demonstrably unviable and that it is essential that there be: . . . the promotion of wage flexibility and restraint, and the encouragement of savings. We find that even when the much vaunted Treasurer (Mr Keating) was overseas trying to talk up the economy those who listened to the words in London were more than a little sceptical. David Robins, an economist for London broker, Phillips and Drew, stated: He- he was talking about the Treasurer- should have said how Australia is going to decrease the current account deficit . . . . . . . What they could have done is not have an incomes policy and reduced the real wages in Australia to keep the competitive edge built up through the depreciation. And having let the economy grow very quickly by spending government money, they have built in a large structural imbalance into the current account debt repayment. Every economic statistic facing this Government as it goes into the 1986-87 Budget is disastrous. It is in that climate that, not unnaturally, we on this side of the House look towards the measures that the Government will pursue to try to correct the imbalance in the balance of payments and to see what it will do to correct the disastrous scene that faces not only the rural sector, small businessmen and home owners but also every Australian and every Australian family. We listened with interest to the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer for the first time in the three years of the Labor Government were going overseas supposedly to try to talk up the opportunities for Australian exports, to talk down the implications of the common agricultural policy in the European Economic Community and to ensure that the impact of the farm Bill in the United States was not as adverse as everyone predicted it would be. Indeed, even today, in the climate of all the things that are happening, we find the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) saying that Hawke's talks were essentially very successful. Let us look at the reality. We opened this morning's newspaper to find the heading `United States attacks Australian wheat market as Hawke returns'. We saw headlines which unfortunately are backed by substance in the story. We have learned that Australia had expected to sell 400,000 tonnes of wheat to North Yemen this year and that the move by the United States, according to the new Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, has already cost Australia an estimated $10m. We know that it is not just a matter of the North Yemen market. We know that last week the United States sold 50,000 tonnes of wheat to another Australian market-Jordan-and that it paid a subsidy of $US24 a tonne. We know that Egypt, which is Australia's current premier wheat market, has already had earmarked by the United States 350,000 tonnes of wheat which will be subsidised in order to establish a niche there. The sales made so far under the United States Farm Bill program are aimed essentially at reducing the current stocks of 50 million tonnes of wheat. This year's harvest in the United States is expected to yield another 66 million tonnes and much of it will also be disposed of on the international market thanks to the subsidies of the United States and in spite of any representations the Government might have made. I think it is of interest that we were told by the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), who is at the table, that the level of support by the United States as a result of his representations has been reduced to only $1 billion. In fact we all know that that is not so. It has now transpired that the level of subsidy will be at least $1.5 billion. What is important as we look at the stories that the Government is spreading? Firstly, let us look at the North Yemen story because it is very illustrative of the problem that is facing our whole export sector. This morning we heard that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), at a Press briefing following a Caucus meeting, stated: The Government knew about the American wheat tender but had reason to believe that it would not be accepted. Had we known that it would turn out this way we could have done something about it. That is a bit like the argument last week between the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh)-the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. Today we had an explanation in the House that this was not a matter of taking away from Australia's trade; it was all a product of misunderstanding. Simply, the EEC had apparently sold something like 132,000 tonnes of flour to North Yemen and the United States sale was not a replacement for Australian wheat trade to North Yemen but a replacement for European Community flour. I wish to goodness that the Special Minister of State had listened to the Minister for Primary Industry at Caucus, or perhaps we really are getting the truth from the Special Minister of State. Let me repeat it. The Special Minister of State said: The Government knew about the American wheat tender but had reason to believe that it would not be accepted. In other words what is happening is that this Government has supposedly been overseas trying to apply in some way pressure against the United States and the European community, but the result is demonstrably to the detriment of Australian exporters and is certainly adversely impacting on Australia's balance of payments. We should remember that the North Yemen story is not new. Indeed, back in January this year we learnt that the export enhancement program of the United States had already cost Australian farmers $1.32m in lower prices on a wheat sale to North Yemen and that was in spite of earlier assurances. We know that this does not apply to just grain. Let us face reality. We know that the United States farm Bill is also disastrous for cotton. The floor has been pulled out of the market. The export price for Australian cotton has already been reduced by about $100 a bale, from about $300 a bale down to about $200 a bale. We know that, with the very large stocks of cotton in the United States, it is likely that the cotton market will crash further. Only today, I have learned that we will suffer not only in relation to grain on the Middle East markets and in relation to cotton on world markets but also in relation to rice in Papua New Guinea. Let us face it, cotton is not a product that the European Community is selling and rice is certainly not a product that the European Community sells into Papua New Guinea. Indeed, it would seem, as far as the Papua New Guinea position is concerned, that a company called Rice Industries Pty Ltd of Australia currently exports all the rice required by Papua New Guinea from the Australian rice growing industry, and we have heard that, as a result of subsidies in the United States, henceforth something like 50,000 to 60,000 tonnes of rice is to be shipped into that market at the rate of about 4,000 to 5,000 tonnes a month. We learn from the American Embassy that the United States Government has passed a new law to subsidise rice farmers in the United States, and we know that Thailand, the world's largest rice exporter, has called the United States plan a declaration of war. Angry protests have certainly been heard from India as well. So the situation is that every major commodity has been affected in some way by the United States approach and we know that the Prime Minister and the Minister at the table, the Minister for Trade, have been abroad supposedly to do something about that approach. Let us look at exactly what has happened. When the Minister for Trade came back to Australia from his trip to the United States we were told that the changes he thought he had been able to secure in Washington meant that the consequences of the United States farm Bill would not be as disastrous as they might have been had those changes not been developed. He made that statement on 18 February last. He said that as a result of his efforts there would not be a price deterioration in Australian exports. On 20 February he came into the House and said that in the months ahead the Government would be working closely with the United States Administration, with affected developing country agricultural exporters and with countries in our own region to ensure that the mandate for a new negotiating round in the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade would proceed so that Australian exporters would not be affected. The reality is that none of those promises has come true. Indeed, the Minister for Trade said: The undertakings I have received from the US Administration will help to ensure a better deal this year and next for Australian farmers. What do we learn this morning about wheat sales to Yemen? United States action has already cost Australian wheat growers $10m. What is the position as far as the Department of Trade is concerned? This is where our concern lies. First, Ministers have gone abroad, following which they have told us the good news story about how effective they have been. We all know the reality of the Prime Minister's change in attitude towards the attack by the United States on Libya to try to control international terrorism. We all know how in this House he refused to say anything about terrorism being something the world should be concerned about and refused to come out and endorse the American action. He got over to Washington and we finally found that he gave unequivocal support for the United States action. Why? Because supposedly he was going to get guarantees from the United States Administration. However, as Wallace Brown said in the Courier-Mail of 19 April in an article headed `Time to look at the bottom line', Mr Reagan has inserted a five-word rider to the assurances he gave the Australian Prime Minister. The rider is `to the extent we can'. The reality is that this Government has lost its effective bargaining power. First, it has lost it because the Department of Trade has been restructured to place emphasis on manufacturing industry. I have not time to read all the extracts I have, but I draw the attention of honourable members to the House of Representative Hansard of 13 May last, at page 2151, when the Minister said: . . . the Department is looking particularly to some manufacturing and service industries, which embody our comparative advantage and which are most likely to achieve export success quickly. He also said: While we can expect improved returns for commodity exports, the boost to exports is potentially more powerful outside the traditional commodity trades, in services and manufacturing. This Minister has removed the ability of the Australian Trade Commissioner Service to place particular emphasis on commodity and mineral exports. Without that emphasis there is no earthly chance of our being able to achieve redress in our balance of payments, for those major agricultural and mineral exports still are the basis of Australia's export revenue. The reality is that the Minister at the table not only has lost his credibility abroad but also has demonstrably lost his credibility at home. We know of his succession of misdemeanours, including his involvement in Coomel Pty Ltd and a bottom of the harbour company. We know of the conflict of interests he demonstrably had when he failed to reveal his association with a Bell Resources Ltd shareholding, and we know that his membership of a Cabinet sub-committee has placed him in an impossible position in terms of the credibility he now enjoys not only amongst his Cabinet colleagues but amongst those with Caucus. We know of his intervention in Department of Trade appointments to Trade Commissioner posts. We have heard and are still hearing of his variation to the story regarding his involvement in seeking the appointment of Mr Emanuel Klein, from the office of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), to the post in Milan instead of the Senior Trade Commissioner, Mr Tom Walton. We know of his involvement in appointing that other Australian Labor Party stooge, Mr Alan Oxley, to the post in Geneva. We know that Mr David Combe-that man about whom diabolical things were said by Mr Justice Hope; the man who was seen by Mr Justice Hope, when heading a royal commission, as having involved himself in such a way as to prejudice Australia's security-was appointed by this Minister to the post of Australian Trade Commissioner in Vancouver, the post from which Canada exports most of its grain to those markets for which Australia principally competes. What happened? The United States found it necessary to change the ground rules of that appointment, so that Mr Combe no longer enjoys the status that his predecessor enjoyed. We need to understand that before Mr David Combe took up that appointment another person was already appointed, but that situation was changed by this Minister. We know that Mr Peter Steedman, a failed member of this House, working under the Minister is in charge of that disastrous Priority One: Young Australia program. We know that Michael Delaney, the former Press Secretary to the Minister for Trade, is head of the drug campaign which, sadly, looks as though it also will be a disaster. None of the officials who are working with those affected by drugs have given any endorsement to the program. Sadly, they all accept that the Minister at the table has really not been able to give them someone who is able to give the leadership that the drug campaign deserves. Neither in the manner of the Minister's appointment of trade commissioners nor in the exercise of his responsibilities can the Australian community have any faith that the international problems of this nation will be redressed, and the Minister himself and the Government will suffer as a result. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(4.18) —Mr Deputy Speaker, what a shabby little exercise this really is. Fancy the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) coming in here and talking about my reputation. Is there anyone in this House-with the possible exception of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey)-with a reputation so sullied, so destroyed, as that of the Leader of the National Party? No one in Australia, no one anywhere in the world, would ever take that man's word. Why should they? He has been proven on so many occasions to be so thoroughly untrustworthy and guilty of so many misdemeanours that it is hardly worth cataloguing them here today when we want to talk about an issue that is important to Australia-that is, how to improve Australia's trade performance. Let me just say that this is also a shabby little exercise because we are being lectured to by the failed men and women of the coalition parties-those who were not content with vandalising the economy when they were in office, when we had negative growth, record inflation, record unemployment and record levels of taxation-who, not content with being economic vandals in office, now come in here and try to undermine the great success which this Government has been able to achieve in the last three years. What good do honourable members opposite think it will do the Australian economy to launch an attack on the Australian economy and its recovery under this Government? Do they really think that that is doing Australia's reputation any good whatsoever? They are interested only in knocking the economy in order that they might somehow be able to dent the great economic credibility of this Government, an economic credibility which is recognised not only in Australia but around the world. Over the last three years we have had an economy which has been the envy of the world. We were outgrowing most of the major economies, if not all of them. That is a reputation we intend to maintain. This paltry excuse to have a debate on international commodity trade really is just an excuse to have another pot-shot at me and really reveals members of the Opposition for what they really are. The right honourable member spent the last 10 minutes of his speech talking about me, when we are supposed to be talking about the undeniably grave issues confronting Australia, particularly Australian agriculture. Let us recall that it was the failed policies of everyone back to Jack McEwen that are really the reason why Australia is having so much difficulty in accommodating the changes that have occurred in world circumstances. It was those totally inappropriate policies involving Australian industry, whereby they decided to jack up impossibly higher protection barriers so that Australian industry had no incentive whatsoever to become internationally competitive and to begin to participate in the fastest growing area of world trade, that is, trade in manufactures and services. They were not interested in that and they are not interested in trying to find solutions to the problems they have bequeathed the Australian economy now. However, we are serious about doing something about Australia's industrial base and we are doing that without diminishing in any way our concentration or our efforts in promoting agricultural trade or trade in mineral and energy commodities. What a rankly absurd charge for the Opposition to make that we alone are supposed to be able to correct the problems which have descended on world commodity markets, not in the last two years, not as a result of this Government, but which have been occurring over the last 15 years as a result of the deterioration in the circumstances confronting agricultural commodities around the world. Those opposite expect us, on our own, to be able to cure these problems-the problems of market corruption, the problems of growing, mounting stockpiles around the world in these commodity areas, and the problems of falling prices all around the world in relation to those commodities. They expect us to change, on our own, the view of Congress in relation to the legislation which it wants to pass. They want us, on our own, to reform the common agricultural policy, which after all has been the root of the problems that have confronted us. Now all they seek to do is to diminish not only my efforts in trying to secure a better deal for Australian agriculture but also the efforts of my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and, most importantly, the great efforts of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) just at the time he has come back from what in the circumstances must be considered a very successful visit indeed. There are some international problems which we obviously cannot do very much about. We cannot do much about the predatory policies that are being pursued by the United States or by the European Community. We cannot change those on our own but we can, through forceful and persuasive negotiation, do something about limiting the effects on Australian agriculture and Australian farmers. That is what we have been able to do. Those opposite can scoff if they like at the achievements which flowed out of my visit to Washington earlier this year, but they must remember that a mandatory export enhancement program of $US2 billion was reduced to $US1 billion by an amendment sponsored by the Administration in the Congress in response to our overtures. Mr Sinclair —One-and-a-half-you cannot get your figures right. Mr DAWKINS —Why don't you be quiet? The right honourable member does not understand the difference between `mandatory' and `voluntary'. He is an idiot. I do not think he has even read what the EEP is all about. It has always had a mandatory component, and it has had a voluntary component on top of that. What the right honourable member does not understand is that we were able to achieve a halving in the level of the statutory or mandatory part of that particular program. There was always going to be a part above that. It was an acknowledgment that we made at the time, but what has the right honourable member done? What contribution has he made, not only in the last three years but in the last decade, to improving circumstances for agricultural trade in the world? We have to acknowledge the mealy-mouthed attitude of the Opposition. It is not really serious about the problems that confront us. We have been steadfastly and bit by bit trying to improve circumstances in what is admittedly one of the gravest circumstances confronting agricultural trade-not a circumstance which has descended on us in the last year or even three years. It has been the result of a deterioration in world agricultural trade over the last 15 years. As I have said, we have tried to do our bit in trying to stimulate and encourage greater growth in the major economies around the world. One of the things that would stimulate demand for agricultural commodities would be a faster rate of growth in the developed economies. That is why the Treasurer (Mr Keating), in his recent foray to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Ministerial Council, has been urging very forcefully that countries like Japan and Germany, which have inflation rates of about zero, should do more to stimulate growth within their own economies. Unless they are prepared to stimulate the level of growth in their economies, naturally we are not going to have a continuation or maintenance of the momentum for growth which the world needs as a whole if we are going to sustain growth and increasing demand for agricultural commodities. That is the first thing we are trying to do. We want the world to follow our example in terms of how to run an economy which returns a respectable rate of growth. There are other things we have been trying to do as well. We have been trying to take action to prevent the worst aspects of the predatory policies of the Europeans and the Americans falling on Australia. As a result of the Prime Minister's visit, we have achieved very substantial new commitments in that regard, assurances given by the United States President about how the interests of-(Quorum formed) Before I was interrupted, I was indicating the success the Government had been able to achieve in terms of improving circumstances for world agricultural trade. I repeat the important assurances which the Prime Minister was able to obtain from the United States President in terms of the concern which the United States has expressed to ensure that the consequences of its policies do not affect Australia harshly. I think that is a very important undertaking for the Prime Minister to have got in a number of important areas. Achievements were also secured by the Prime Minister in his discussions in Brussels. It is interesting to compare the approach that we have taken with the European Commission and the approach taken by our predecessors. That Government decided, in the form of Ransley Victor Garland, to go to Europe, thump the table and make demands which were just laughed at by the Europeans. The present Government, through patience and the forceful presentation of arguments, has been able to secure some real undertakings from the Europeans in regard to our markets. Of course, we do not for a moment resile from the necessity to continue to criticise the common agricultural policy and its effects not only on Australia but on other countries, including a number of developing countries, but one will not change that situation simply by shouting and banging the table. The publication of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics study on the effects of the CAP has been one of the most important contributions to a critical assessment of the effects of the CAP not only in Europe but around the world. That kind of attitude is beginning to have an effect within the Commission itself. The Commission is now prepared to commit itself to a standstill as far as subsidies under the CAP are concerned. There are two other very important areas where this Government has been successful. Through our persistence and our continued efforts to have agriculture taken seriously in the context of the new round, we not only have the support of the United States in that regard but now, for the first time, we have the Europeans committed to the idea that agriculture should be a prominent issue in the consideration of the new round. If we are able to achieve our objective of seeing a reduction and an elimination of export subsidies over the next 10 years as a result of the new round of negotiations, that will be one of the greatest contributions we can make to Australian agriculture in the long term. But as well as that we are working hard to secure new markets. For instance, in regard to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics we are in the process of negotiating a commodities agreement with that country, which has become a very important market for us and we want to maintain it as an important market. It is important in relation to our wheat sales, with the largest sale in value terms ever made by the Wheat Board having been made to the USSR this year. As well as that, $30m worth of sugar was sold to the USSR this year. If one goes on to China, the Middle East and so on, we are not only interested in securing new markets and extending old markets but- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(4.33) —The speech by the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) contained a lot of tired old rhetoric. In fact, it was as tired as the Minister sounded, and indeed as he looks right now. I am sure all honourable members will agree with me that he should aim at getting results to match his rhetoric. Having heard his speech, one realises that he cannot answer the arguments contained in the Opposition's matter of public importance. He started by stooping to a base personal attack, the sort of thing we hear so often from this Minister. It shows that he is not interested in trade, particularly as it affects primary industry. As the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) has already said, the Minister is more interested in trying to boost manufacturing exports than primary industry. But manufacturing will take some time, even if it can develop export markets. In the meantime Australia's major exports are primary industry products and some of the base metals and coal. The Minister should be concentrating more effort on looking at these matters, instead of going around, as he seems to be spending most of his time doing these days, trying to help his cronies get into plum jobs. Today's Question Time only reinforced the fact that he really is the Minister for cronyism rather than the Minister for Trade. Today's discussion shows that the Minister for Trade is incompetent. Not only has he lost his credibility abroad, but he has also lost it within Australia. His speech today was full of tired excuses and at no stage did he talk about the internal problems that are making Australia's primary industry uncompetitive. I refer to such matters as record interest rates and inflation. Inflation is now over 9 per cent, more than double the rate in the United States. Indeed, the United States inflation rate is falling while that in Australia is rising. Our inflation rate is more than four times that in Japan. Of course, the biggest problem facing Australia right now is the rising level of overseas debt-a debt now well in excess of $70 billion, which works out in excess of $5,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has just returned from his trip to the United States and the Common Market countries. This big trip was the follow-up to what the Minister for Trade was supposed to have done during his trip earlier this year. It was a chance for the Prime Minister to show that he really can get results for farmers and that he can achieve something in our overseas markets. It was a chance to show farmers that he is concerned about the crisis facing agriculture. The question arises: What has he really achieved? What did he really come back with? Obviously very very little. Mr Beale —Nothing. Mr HAWKER —Probably it will end up being nothing by the time we see the real results. It is interesting to see what the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) said in this House just two weeks ago when talking of this Government's approach to overseas trade. He said: We have changed the abusive tactics used by our predecessors for more calmly reasoned argument, pointing out the adverse effects of these subsidisation practices on world markets, other countries including the Third World, and, indeed, on the subsidising countries themselves. We have had some successes in this regard. What are they? Where are they? Indeed, what has he achieved? The Prime Minister went over to the United States following claims by the Minister for Trade that he had had real success over the United States Farm Bill. In fact, he was almost prepared to go so far as to say that he, the Minister of Trade, had had such success with the export enhancement program that he had had the subsidies cut from $2 billion to $1 billion. My colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) pointed out in a Press release on 22 April that he had found a copy of a telegram from the United States Embassy that shows that assistance under the Farm Bill's export enhancement program could be as high as US$1.5 billion. Mr Braithwaite —What did the Minister say? Mr HAWKER —The Minister is still trying to maintain that the figure is $1 billion. He is still trying to fudge the figures, still trying to claim that he has achieved something. Yet again, when we look at the statement delivered by the Minister for Primary Industry on economic and rural policy and at the attached notes in that statement, we see the following: The Government will seek continued reaffirmation of the United States agreement to refrain from subsidising grain sales into our key wheat markets. Great stuff! I imagine every honourable member would support that. Everyone would like to see the United States refrain from moving into our traditional markets. What are the facts? They are very interesting. As members of parliament were flying to Canberra today, what were they greeted with? What did they find when they opened the newspapers this morning? The Australian Financial Review says it all: In a major snub to the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke- Mr Downer —Snub? Mr HAWKER —That is right, a snub: . . . after his recent agricultural trade mission to Washington, the United States last week took a big share of Australia's coveted wheat market, the Arab Republic of North Yemen. After an initial sale of 50,000 tonnes at a subsidy of $US20 a tonne, it looks likely that this will be followed by a sale of an additional 50,000 tonnes. To add insult to this snub, the tenders were let for that contract the day before the Prime Minister left for Washington. So much for the Prime Minister's great trip to Washington. But it is far more serious than that. Later the article points out: The sale to North Yemen can be viewed as the tip of the iceberg for Australia. Apart from another 50,000 tonnes of subsidised wheat being available for export to North Yemen, we have already seen a sale of 50,000 tonnes to Jordan at a subsidy of $US24 a tonne. The United States also sold 30,000 tonnes of wheat to Egypt, another of our great traditional markets. The article continues: More seriously (because the Egyptian market is Australia's premier wheat market) the United States has also earmarked 355,000 tonnes of wheat for subsidised sales to Egypt. The article concludes: But worst of all, the sales so far made under the export enhancement program scheme are aimed at reducing the current stocks of 50 million tonnes of wheat. To put that figure into perspective, 50 million tonnes of wheat in the stockpile, and Australia's export sales in the current year are likely to be of the order of 16 million tonnes. So much for the Prime Minister and his great trip to the United States, which was going to cap off the work that the Minister for Trade had supposedly done! Mr Hodgman —A fiasco. Mr HAWKER —It was indeed a fiasco. It is devastating. Primary producers in Australia are the ones who will suffer. It is not good enough for the Minister to come in here and talk about the problems of the world markets. The question is: What is the Minister doing about it? What is he really achieving? It is all very well to go overseas and talk to people, to talk about reasoned and argued approaches; it is results that people are looking for. As I have already stated, Australia's primary producers are already in dire straits. They are already facing considerable problems because of this Government's internal economic policies which have led to the highest interest rates since the great depression. We have inflation that is now rising when every other country has its inflation rate falling-inflation rates which are locked in with this wonderful accord, the big deal with the Australian Council of Trade Unions where the real masters of this Government have told the Government that, if it gives workers a discount in wages, that must be made up with some productivity gains which will be labelled as superannuation. Therefore, Australia has not only rising inflation but in fact it will continue to be a problem because the wage system that this Government has taken from the ACTU will lock us into a high inflation rate. As has been already pointed out, this Government has failed to address the problems that are facing Australia in its lack of competitiveness in world markets. It has failed to tackle the real problems at home of high interest rates and inflation. It has also failed to come up with a real wage policy. I think today's matter of public importance is all about the Government's failure to get results, the failure of the Minister for Trade and the failure of the Prime Minister. They have failed to prevent a continuing decline in our international commodity trade. In fact, I would suggest that the Prime Minister should hot foot it over to Bali right now to see President Reagan-even if the Indonesians do not want to see the Prime Minister there-and get the real assurances that he has tried to tell us that he got when he came back from the United States. The Prime Minister should admit that he has failed and should go back this time to do his job properly so that he can get it right. Then and only then can the Prime Minister expect the recognition of his efforts that he so desperately craves. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(4.42) —In many ways this is an absolutely remarkable matter of public importance because it comes from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). The Leader of the National Party-this matter of public importance concerns trade-is perhaps best known as the real architect of protectionism and of restrictive trade in terms of international trade in this Parliament. Indeed, as I rise to speak to this matter of public importance, I cannot help but experience the sensation that we are in a sort of time warp because, really, this matter of public importance would have been far more appropriate and far more relevant to Australia had it been moved in this Parliament five or 15 years ago. I say that because the difficulties that Australia has with trade problems are not something that have suddenly occurred in the past six months, one year or two years; they have been ongoing problems which were most manifest as a result of the policies of the Liberal-National Party coalition. Of course, they were years when the Leader of the National Party-as he is now-played a prominent role as both Minister for Primary Industry and Minister for Trade. The fact is, as I have said, that while Australia's trade performance has been difficult over recent years, it is really a matter which has been fundamental in Australia for the last 30 years. The difficulties that we now experience are very much in every way a legacy of the inept policies of the Liberal and National parties, which had stewardship in this country for 27 of the past 30 years. So, it is the height of hypocrisy for the Opposition parties to move this matter of public importance today. I will make a few points about what happened to Australia over the last 30 years in terms of international trade. The first point is that our share of world exports collapsed from 2.6 per cent to 1.2 per cent of the world market-a collapse of 50 per cent in real terms. We also slipped from eighth to twenty-third on the ranking of world exporters. In anybody's terms that is a dramatic reduction, a dramatic slip in our ranking of world exporters. There is a third point that is relevant, that is, between 1962 and 1981 Australian exports as a proportion of gross domestic product actually fell from 14 per cent to 13 per cent. The relevance of that is that worldwide in many countries-including Europe, North America, Japan, West Germany and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as a whole-the export proportion was actually increasing by a magnitude of about 50 per cent. It is really as a result of the economic incompetence of the Opposition parties that Australia's standard of living absolutely and relatively declined during that period. In terms of per capita income, we slipped from fifth in the order of the OECD ladder in 1950 to twelfth by the time the McMahon Government was thrown out in 1972. So, it is a really remarkable assertion that the Opposition parties make today that Australia has trading problems and that those problems are the result of this Government, because not only did the Opposition leave us with that legacy of 30 years of poor growth, at the same time it failed to exploit the magnificent trading opportunities which were available right at our door step. In the last 20 years, economic growth in the newly industrialised countries of the western region has been two to three times that of Europe and the OECD as a whole. In fact, the growth in the region's demand for products has been three to four times higher. Yet the shame of this and the shame of this motion today is that Australia's share of that market under the stewardship of those failed men opposite went backwards. We went backwards from 7 per cent to 4 per cent in the years prior to 1983. None of that has happened under this Government. There is nothing new about Australia's trading performance; it has all occurred over the last 30 years. In fact, if one looks at the volume and the value of exports that have been produced under the policies of this Government, one will see that when we came to government in 1982-83 there was $20 billion in exports from Australia; the figure in 1984-85 was $29 billion; and the figure this year will be more than $32 billion in exports. That is an increase of 50 per cent in exports. It is absurd and the height of nonsense for the Opposition to come in here today and allege that this Government is in any way responsible for a decline in world markets. In fact, quite the contrary is true because under this Government, particularly in the commodity area, our share of world markets in terms of volume has increased. If anyone on the Opposition benches has an immediate, overnight, simple, quick fix solution to the problem of prices for wheat or agricultural products, he is a better person than us. The fact is that members opposite do not have the solution and they never had the solution. Members opposite could not get an increase in the share of exports when they were in government, but we have been able to do that under our Government. They are some of the facts of the matter that are pertinent to this debate. The second speaker for the Opposition made some points about our trade, particularly in agricultural commodities. I will look at two areas, because I think they are highly relevant and not only to total exports-because agricultural commodities provide about 40 per cent of our total exports-but also very important to primary producers throughout Australia. I will look at two areas: The marketing of rural products and what this Government has done in that area and, secondly, what we have done to increase and improve our trading prospects. When we came to Government, in the marketing area we faced a situation in which rural marketing organisations had been under seige. The efficiency of the Australian Dairy Corporation had been seriously questioned and the Australian Wheat Board's accounts were in an unacceptable and unaccountable state. In many ways initiative in many corporations had been stifled by red tape. We had agro-political conflicts which were destroying and diminishing the confidence of our statutory marketing authorities. Nowhere were those difficulties more pronounced than in the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. Under this Government all of those problems have been resolved. We have swept away the old AMLC and we have replaced it with a new efficient marketing authority. We have also provided an extra $7m in Government funding for assistance for AMLC funding. (Quorum formed) In the minute that is left to me I point out that during this debate on trade policy, which is important to Australia, only three members of the Opposition have been present, while many Government members, of course, have been present to support this contribution to the debate. The point was raised regarding what we have done for exports in this country. We have done everything we can and we will continue to do everything we can in the future. We have restructured the Department of Trade. We have put in place new marketing initiatives. My colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), knows that we have done that. In the rural area, the agricultural area, we have reformed agricultural marketing councils. We have reduced real labour unit costs in this country to the lowest level for five years. The level of industrial disputes has been reduced to its lowest level for 17 years. We have seen a devaluation of 25 per cent, which has given a new competitive edge to exporters and importers in this country. That is what we have done for trade and employment. It puts paid to this lie which has been generated by members of the Opposition. In 30 years of their government our competitive performance was eroded to one of the poorest performances in the world. It has been up to this Government to try to turn that around, to restore this position and generate new opportunities in Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is now concluded. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the Committee's report on proposals for the variations on the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs, the 87th series, together with a copy of minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mrs KELLY —I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Government members-Hear, hear! Mrs KELLY —I thank honourable members for their enthusiastic response. The report I have just tabled reports on the 16 items in the 87th series of variations to the plan or layout of the city of Canberra. The Committee recommends approval of all 16 variations. The Committee, in considering these variations, examined 21 submissions and took evidence from 17 witnesses appearing as individuals and representing various organisations. The cost involved in the proposals dealt with is approximately $6m. I wish to comment on only four of the variations. Variation 9 provides the road layout for the Bruce Ridge West housing estate. An objection received by the Committee emphasised the need to oblige developers to comply with development conditions on the site. It was alleged that even though the National Capital Development Commission indicted significant effort was made to ensure a high landscape quality, such development conditions were difficult to enforce. The Committee hopes that with the impending transfer of land administration the National Capital Development Commission, development conditions will be closely monitored. In approving the variation the Committee urges the NCDC to examine the possibility of increasing the size of cluster developments to take full advantage of the housing potential on the site. Mr Simmons —Are you going to fix up the roads in the ACT? Mrs KELLY —This is all about roads. Variation 12 proposes the provision of a trunk cyclepath from Streeton Drive in Holder to the existing Yarramundi Reach cyclepath at Lady Denman Drive. Members of the Parliament who cycle to this Parliament will find this of great use. The Committee received an objection to the alignment of the proposed cyclepath from the Canberra Lakes Pony Club. The club was concerned that the route would prevent access to an area known as the `sandpits' and that the proximity of the cycleway to the cross country jumping course would create potential hazards. The Committee noted that the NCDC had made various concessions to the club, including revising its original alignment proposal, undertaking to erect a length of equestrian fencing and indicating its willingness to construct an alternative sandpit area in another location. The Committee was also made aware that most of the area used by the club, with the exception of two small blocks on short term lease, is unleased Commonwealth land. The Committee believes the rights of other groups wishing to enjoy the visual and scenic character of the river corridor must be recognised. It considers the proposed alignment to be appropriate and approves the variation. Variation 14 provides for roads off Learmonth Drive and Kambah Pool Road in Tuggeranong to permit the area to be developed as a golf course and associated housing. I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will be interested in that. Objections received by the Committee focused on anticipated traffic problems and potential environmental hazard to the Murrumbidgee River. The NCDC, on request, supplied the Committee with traffic estimates which indicate that the development will not generate a marked increase in vehicle numbers. The Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment has also examined the proposal. It has written to the developer of the Murrumbidgee Country Club setting out measures and conditions which should be included in the development to protect the Murrumbidgee River and its surroundings and to maintain the safety and amenity of the existing residential area adjacent to the proposed golf course. The developer has indicated he will comply with these requirements. The Committee wishes to be briefed at a later date on progress on the development and the extent to which the development conditions have been complied with. The Committee is anxious to ensure that there be a green belt maintained at the residential end of the golf course with no further blocks developed at a later date. It would also like to ensure that there be no concessional element in the lease price due to the location of the residential development in the same area as the golf course. The Committee approves the variation, noting NCDC planning intentions to develop the whole area for residential housing if the golf course proposal were not to proceed. Variation 15 provides for a network of roads off Bugden Avenue in Fadden to enable the area to be developed for residential blocks, water pollution control ponds and open space. Due to significant local resident interest in this proposal, the Committee undertook a site inspection, with NCDC officers, residents representing the Fadden Residents Action Group and individual residents in attendance. The Committee received an extensive submission from the resident action group as well as several individual submissions. Submissions generally opposed the proposal, although two favoured the development. Major concerns raised in objection related to inadequate public notification and inaccurately conveyed information regarding the extent and exact location of the development. A second major problem identified was that of traffic flows and access of vehicles, including buses, to existing roads opposite the development and into the development site itself. In relation to the provision of information about development intentions to residents, the Committee is satisfied that initial purchasers were made aware that at some future time section 349 would be developed in part. Problems arise in relation to subsequent purchasers where estate agents may not have provided this information. However, the Committee is of the view that it is the responsibility of buyers themselves to inquire into the nature of surrounding areas before making a purchase. There appears to be substance to the claim that signs marking the designated Mount Wanniassa-Canberra Nature Park were moved and may have misled residents about the exact location of the nature park and thus the area available for development. However, the area originally designated for development has been reduced and the total area available for recreation and open space is significant. The Committee is concerned that the volume of traffic already generated in the area will be compounded by vehicles arriving and leaving the proposed residential area. It believes that a roundabout should be constructed at the Sternberg Crescent and Bugden Avenue intersection to alleviate some of the major traffic problems in the area. Recognition is also given to the restricted footpaths on Bugden Avenue and the Committee supports the Commission's proposal to construct a pedestrian footpath along the western section. Further support is given to a proposal to increase the width of the collector road in the proposed new subdivision from 7.5 metres to 9 metres to allow buses to operate up Bugden Avenue from Sternberg Crescent. The Committee recognises that opposing this proposed development would be seen as a precedent for preventing the total suburban land release program and would thereby impede the Commission's attempts at urban consolidation. This would be contrary to the Committee's thinking on the future development of land in the Australian Capital Territory. The Committee approves the variation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) — Order! Advice has been received from the President of the Senate that Senator Archer has been appointed a member of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority in place of the late Senator Missen. Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that it had agreed to the following resolution: That the following amendment be made to the Resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, viz: Paragraph (12), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(12) That the committee report by 8 May 1986.''. Ordered that the message be taken into consideration forthwith. Motion (by Mr West) agreed to: (1) That the House concurs in the resolution transmitted in message No. 2400 of the Senate relating to the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, and (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution. Debate resumed from 16 April, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —I understand it is the wish of the House to debate this Bill concurrently with the Futures Industry (Fees) Bill 1986 and the Companies and Securities Legislation Amendment (Futures Industry) Bill 1986. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.03) —The three Bills before the House are the Futures Industry Bill 1986, the Futures Industry (Fees) Bill 1986 and the Companies and Securities Legislation Amendment (Futures Industry) Bill 1986. These Bills have been agreed to by the parties to the formal agreement under which the companies and securities legislation of this country is enacted and by which the co-operative scheme works. It has been agreed that the co-operative scheme should be extended to cover the regulation of the futures market. The Bills, if enacted, would apply in the Australian Capital Territory and there will be legislation in each of the States to give effect to the Bills. Not a great deal is known about the Australian futures industry save by those who operate in that industry. It may surprise some honourable members to know that the Sydney Futures Exchange Ltd is in fact one of the major exchanges in the world. In looking at the 1985 annual report of the Sydney Futures Exchange, one can see that the volume of business transacted on the Exchange, leaving aside the American markets, is major. If one looks at the top 10 share index futures and options contracts in the world by volume in 1985, one sees that the leaders in trading in that area are by far the American exchanges, with the Chicago Board Options Exchange trading more than 90 million such contracts. The Sydney Futures Exchange is ninth on the list, trading 284,000 contracts. That is very much less but still significant, when one puts to one side the American activity, as the number of options traded by the London Stock Exchange of that kind is in fact less than those traded in Australia in 1985, that is, on the Sydney Futures Exchange. Again, if one looks at the top 10 interest rates futures and options contracts in the world by volume in 1985, one sees that once again the American exchanges lead the way. But, aside from the eighth position, which is held by the London International Financial Futures Exchange, the ninth position is held by the Sydney Futures Exchange. It is, therefore, a very significant Exchange outside of the United States of America. The development of the business on the Sydney Futures Exchange and elsewhere in this country is of importance to our financial system and to its development. The Sydney Futures Exchange is in fact the main futures exchange in Australia. There is one in Melbourne which has been started recently. The market in Australia has grown significantly in the past 10 to 15 years with an expansion of commodities dealt in and an expansion of the number of clients using the market. After changes to the banking regulations in December 1983, the futures market became accessible to international clients, which is a most important factor for its development. The Australian market is now significant in international terms at least partly because of its position in the international time zone, its ability to trade when European and North American exchanges are closed and also the fact that when, in particular, North Americans and the British wish to trade, they can trade on a market where English is the spoken language; that makes it very simply a simpler operation for them. Not a great deal is known about the actual nature of futures contracts. It is worth while saying something about them. For that purpose I quote from a document which has been prepared by the Sydney Futures Exchange for the purpose of an application made to the Trade Practices Commission to point out the relevant features of futures contracts. The document points out: Futures contracts are a particular form of forward contract. Futures contracts are recognised as being standardised instruments which call for delivery at a specified future date of a specified grade of a commodity at a price determined at the time at which the contract is made. It goes on to point out: Futures contracts differ from other forms of forward contracts in several important respects, viz (a) Futures contracts are highly standardised, thus ensuring fungibility i.e. all futures contracts of a particular class are perfect substitutes for each other and obligations under the futures contract are readily transferable. Fungibility is a critical property of futures contracts in that it enables them to be treated as a trading vehicle. Forward contracts generally do not have this quality. (b) Futures contracts are traded competitively by `open outcry' (a form of open auction) on an organised futures exchange, subject to the rules of the exchange. In general, forward contracts are not. If one goes to the Sydney Futures Exchange, one sees exactly what is meant by `open outcry'; it is open outcry. I noticed when I visited that there were some women operators. I was told that the women operators are in fact coming more into favour because their voices are somewhat more piercing than the voices of men. I considered whether it was possible for an application to be made under discrimination legislation to have this situation redressed, but apparently it is one of the inherent qualities that women possess but men do not. I was also told that in America-I think it was the Chicago Futures Exchange but I might be wrong-the activity was so heavy that, in order to make sure that one got a place in what is known as the pit, one chose former football players as operators. One got big people down there so that they could actually find their way into the pit. It is a pretty exhausting kind of work. I understand that, after a few years, most people go on to do something else. Let us look at the rationale for regulation. First of all, the Sydney Futures Exchange points out that there is a need to promote overseas investor confidence, that futures trading across international borders can be undertaken at a relatively low cost and is facilitated by the international integration of commodity and financial markets, and that competition is rife among exchanges around the world and a sound structure within which to trade is essential in promoting the Australian exchange. Next, the Sydney Futures Exchange points out that there is the proscription of a list of futures trading, there are protections for consumers of the market, and there is the factor that the market is a growing one. It is felt by the Exchange that a comprehensive regulatory framework is necessary if it is to grow and, in particular, if it is to attract the kind of outside interest we would like to see attracted to it. Remember that the futures market, as I understand it, in places such as Tokyo and Hong Kong, is less competitive and less sought after than the Sydney Futures Exchange. So anything that can be done to promote the Exchange should be done. The Exchange points out that whilst the New South Wales Futures Markets Act, which amongst other things was passed in order to overcome problems that might have been encountered with the Gaming and Betting Act, provides some regulation, the regulatory structure of the industry remains largely for the industry itself. The present regulatory structure does not cover brokers who choose not to become members of the Sydney Futures Exchange. These brokers can still conduct Sydney Futures Exchange business through a member and are free to conduct business on behalf of Australian clients on overseas futures market. It is thought that recent failures of these brokers have reflected on the industry. As an Opposition, our general view about regulation is that we should keep regulation to the minimum. But we think that, where the regulation is sought by the market itself and where the Bill is in substance supported by the market, that, as a general rule, provides a sound reason for regulation. There have been two exposure drafts of the present legislation. The exposure drafts have been commented on by the Sydney Futures Exchange and the Law Council of Australia. The major Bill which is presently before the House-I speak of the Futures Industry Bill-has been altered to take note of comments that have been made on the first and second exposure drafts. In saying that I am not suggesting that all criticisms have been taken up but quite a number have. Let me say a few further things about the futures market. In the first place the futures market facilitates risk management. It has a sound economic function of providing a market mechanism for the allocation of risk. There may be other ways to insure against risk when one is dealing in commodities in particular but none so flexible and cost competitive. Futures contracts are highly liquid and are priced continually in competitive market-places. Futures markets also provide a mechanism for sharing information about supply and demand conditions because the market itself reflects supply and demand conditions. By so reflecting supply and demand conditions it gives the best possible information as to the conditions of the market. As has been said by Professor Franklin Edwards: Futures markets provide two fundamental economic services. The first is that futures contracts provide price signals which can be used by the producers, processors, and distributors to allocate real resources. More specifically, futures prices may influence storage and inventory decisions and may exert an important influence on production decisions. This is their `price discovery' function. Futures markets are seen as an efficient collector, processor, and disseminator of information. In the absence of futures prices, each economic actor himself would have to devote the required time and expenditure necessary to collect and interpret the underlying economic information about demand and supply conditions. If futures markets perform their price discovery function sufficiently well, and they can be reasonably relied upon to do so, individuals can avoid most of the informational costs they would bear otherwise, since they can simply rely upon easily observable futures prices in making their decisions. Professor Franklin Edwards goes on to say: The second economic function of futures markets is to provide a market mechanism for the allocation of risk. This is their `hedging' function. There may be other ways to insure against risk- as I said a few moments ago- but none which is more flexible or less costly: The Exchange performs those two economic functions. Before I turn to the Bills themselves I should say something briefly about the distinction between hedgers and speculators. Once again, I draw upon the exceedingly useful document of the Sydney Futures Exchange, which points out: It is common to classify participants in futures markets as either ``hedgers'' or ``speculators''. Like most schemes of classification this oversimplifies a complex array of motives and trading strategies but is nevertheless useful. Regardless of a trader's motives for entering the futures market such trading brings with it certain risks. . . . In general terms hedgers are those traders who deal in both the relevant physical commodity and the futures market, and whose use of the futures market is predominantly intended to manage the risks associated with price fluctuations in the market for the physical commodity. The Exchange points out: Hedging generates benefits of two kinds. First there is the direct commercial benefit to the individual hedger himself which arises from his ability to handle greater volumes of a commodity at the same level of risk (or alternatively, handle the same volume at reduced risk). Secondly there are the benefits which flow more generally relating to improved allocative efficiency. As to speculators the Exchange points out: Speculators typically have no involvement in the physical market but trade futures solely to profit by correctly forecasting price movements. The role of speculators may be summarised, firstly, as bearing the risks that hedgers seek to avoid and, secondly, as generating liquidity in the market, thereby making it a more effective hedging medium. Turning now to the Bill, I point out that, to a very great extent, the Bills are aimed at client protection by ensuring that brokers and exchanges operate according to certain standards and safeguards and that the market in which they operate are orderly and fair. The Opposition supports the Bills and accompanying legislation and does not propose to move any amendments to them. As I said earlier, the Opposition recognises that the industry is in favour of the legislation and its speedy enactment. But the Opposition also realises that the legislation is likely to suffer teething problems in the early period of its operation. The Law Council of Australia has, for example, made some fairly detailed criticisms of the Futures Industry Bill which is now before the House. It is not easy at this stage to forecast how likely some of the difficulties raised by the Law Council are. Some of the difficulties the Law Council sees may not arise in practice. Difficulties may arise in practice which will be greater than the Law Council envisages. We all know that there are bound to be difficulties which no one at this stage has spotted, under Bills as complex as these. Let me make certain points about the legislation which might be borne in mind as possible subjects of amendment in the future. These are very technical comments. Clause 4 (1), the definition of agreement, may need clarification to take account of the novation of futures contracts. In regard to clause 4 (1) it may well be useful to add a clause similar in terms to section 4 (5) of the Securities Industries Code to ensure that exempt brokers are exempt from all of the provisions of the legislation and not just the licensing requirements. As to clause 51, practice may show that the grounds upon which associations may have their approval by the ministerial council suspended or cancelled should be specified in the legislation itself. I make the point that clause 85 (3) is an illustration of problems peculiar to the futures markets' severing of the contractual nexus. Effectively the contracts become, it may be said, a species of money or certainly a species of highly negotiable instrument. The question may be posed if a contract were rendered illegal at its formation by a contravention of a provision of the Act or, indeed, by a contravention of some other provision of an Act, which might go to the legality of the contract, can a subsequent party rely on the illegality to avoid his obligation? I should think that it was not intended that that was to be so. It is certainly of primary importance to the futures market that this kind of problem does not arise. Under clause 87, there are obligations on futures brokers to provide certain information to clients. Clause 87 provides: A futures broker shall, before accepting a person as a client of the broker, give to the person- (a) a document that- (i) explains the nature of futures contracts; (ii) explains the nature of the obligations assumed by a person who instructs a futures broker to enter into a futures contract; (iii) sets out a risk disclosure statement in the prescribed form; and (iv) sets out the specifications, and details of the essential terms, of each kind of futures contract in which the broker deals on behalf of clients; and (b) a copy of each agreement into which the broker proposes, if the broker agrees to accept instructions from the person in relation to dealings in futures contracts, to require the person to enter. Some practical problems may be associated with this provision. It may be considered and may prove to be overregulation. But let us remember that people who deal on futures markets are, for the most part, fairly sophisticated. In financial terms one is dealing with either hedgers or speculators. I should think that most people who get involved in the futures market know what the risks are and know what the market is about. If we are to develop a substantial international interest in this country it would be a pity if transactions were held up or simply were not entered into and other markets used by reason of the need to give to someone, who knows very well what the futures market is like and may have operated in the futures market for many years, a document setting out the details provided by clause 87. If the clients are at the other side of the world, obviously enough there are difficulties. That is a matter to which I draw the Government's attention as something which may require to be adjusted if it appears that there are practical problems in the application of clause 87 not only to those resident outside an area where a futures exchange is conducted in this country, but also, more importantly, to those resident overseas. Clause 116 deals with the application of fidelity funds, but it does not appear to deal with the problem of apportionment of responsibility where a broker is a member of more than one futures exchange or association. As a general comment there is some overlapping with the Securities Industries Code. Some of the areas of overlap have already been identified by the Law Council and more may become apparent as the legislation becomes operative. I would be interested in knowing whether the Government has carried out a detailed investigation of the co-relation between the two pieces of legislation. This seems to be particularly appropriate as the Securities Industries Code is currently undergoing a complete revision. Perhaps the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) can clarify my last point for me. Clause 45 (1) of the Bill provides: A person shall not establish, maintain or provide, or assist in establishing, maintaining or providing, or hold himself, herself or itself out as maintaining or providing, a futures market that is neither a futures market of a futures exchange nor an exempt futures market. I wonder whether it was intended to use the words `a futures market or a futures exchange'. I presume that phrase simply points to a market in a futures exchange. If that is so, no real problem seems to arise. Those are the matters to which I draw the attention of the House. As I said at the outset, the Bill is thought to be necessary. There have been two exposure drafts upon which there has been considerable comment. In practice problems may be encountered. I hope that the Government will take notice of any problems which may arise and will legislate to deal with them. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(5.30) —The Futures Industry Bill, the Futures Industry (Fees) Bill and the Companies and Securities Legislation Amendment (Futures Industry) Bill which we are debating concurrently at present introduce a number of controls and regulations into the futures industry. In particular-this was referred to by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender)-the legislation deals with a number of important prudential changes and reflects, to a very large extent, the fact that over the last 10 to 15 years Australia has entered into a situation in which trading in commodities and financial trading has become much more refined, much more complex and much more sophisticated. The futures market has developed in Australia as it has in other similar advanced Western countries and the time has arrived when it has become apparent, not only to operators within the market but also to State governments and certainly to the Commonwealth Government, that there is a need for regulations of this kind to be introduced. The honourable member for North Sydney acknowledged the fact that the market had, to a very large extent, called for this legislation, and, of course, that is true. I hope that he included in the market not just the operators, the brokers, the large hedgers and the large speculators but also the small operators and the customers of the futures markets who, up until the present, have to a very large extent found themselves unfortunately in a position in which some of the smart operators in this area have been able to rip them off. So it is not just the market in terms of the large dominating influences, the large dominating operators; it is the market right across the board. Certainly demand has developed for legislation of this kind. The development of the futures market in Australia has been quite interesting. It was only last year that the Sydney Futures Exchange had its twenty-fifth birthday-it was established in 1960 when it began trading in a single contract, wool. When it started trading in wool it was trading on a tiny trading floor in O'Connell Street, Sydney. Of course the market has undergone very significant development since then. The number of commodities that are now traded has grown to nine. They include agricultural commodities, precious metals, the present market leaders in financial futures, bank bills, bonds, United States dollars and the all ordinaries share price index. Over the last 10 years, particularly in more recent years, the most rapid development has taken place in connection with trading in financial futures. As I have said, the futures market in Australia has become quite highly developed, quite complex and quite sophisticated. The honourable member for North Sydney also referred to at least one of the two very significant changes which took place last year as a result of deregulation. He referred to the removal of the exchange controls which had inhibited overseas trading by Australians and trading in the Sydney Futures Exchange by non-residents. Of course that means that the futures market in Australia has been exposed to international trading arrangements. The honourable member for North Sydney also drew attention, quite correctly, to the fortunate strategic position which we enjoy in Australia as a result of being an English speaking country and at the same time occupying a longitudinal time slot which sometimes makes it possible for exchange dealings of this kind to take place in Australia when markets in other countries have closed. The other significant development which took place last year was the the abolition of fixed commission rates which have now been replaced by freely negotiated commissions between brokers and their clients. It has been an industry where a series of very significant and important developments have taken place. In May last year, at the time when the exchange turned 25 years of age, a very important introduction into its operation was exchange traded options. This is a very significant departure from the simple type of futures which had been traded previously in the Sydney Futures Exchange. The introduction of exchange traded options gave the Australian market users at that time an unprecedented measure of flexibility in their trading and their risk management strategies. They confer on the buyer the right to buy or sell futures contracts at a predetermined price called the exercise price. The holder of one of those options has no obligation to do anything; he has the right just to buy or sell the futures at a set price. Under that arrangement a call option is an option to buy a futures contract while a put option is an option to sell a futures contract. The option itself is in the money, if it would be profitable to exercise it. The question of whether or not it would be profitable in the future for the person who buys those exchange traded options to exercise those options depends upon the changes which have taken place between the time he entered into the contract and the time that the option would no longer be available to him. The honourable member for North Sydney quoted someone who said that participation in the futures market is either by people who are engaged in hedging or people who are engaged in speculative activity. Even to a greater extent than normal stock markets in our metropolitan cities, the futures market is an area in which people are able to speculate. A fair amount of gambling takes place. I think the background to this legislation is of particular interest. In June 1982 the Ministerial Council of the National Companies and Securities Commission-which is part of the co-operative scheme established in 1978 and known as the formal agreement under which the Commonwealth and each of the six States participate in all of the mechanical arrangements for the operation of the National Companies and Securities Commission on a national scale-resolved that a draft Bill regulating the futures industry should be prepared. What we are considering now is the final stage in the development of that consideration. In October 1984 the first exposure draft was available. It was very widely distributed and very widely considered and a number of suggestions were made by interested parties. Many of those suggestions, either in the first exposure draft or in the subsequent one of November 1985, have now been incorporated in the legislation that we are in the process of considering. Over the range of operations within the futures market the legislation gives consideration to questions concerning appropriate inspection and investigation powers, the approval and regulation of futures exchanges and clearing houses, a system for the licensing of future brokers and others involved in the industry and a significant number of prudential controls and requirements which will be imposed by this legislation. As a result of this initiating legislation on the part of the Commonwealth at present, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) indicated this in his second reading speech, the other parties to the formal agreement-of course they are the six States and the two Territories following the inclusion of the Northern Territory recently-will introduce complementary legislation that will apply throughout Australia. The need to have a uniform regulatory system governing the futures industry in Australia was recognised by the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System in its report some years ago. As was indicated by the honourable member for North Sydney in his contribution, that has been endorsed by the Sydney Futures Exchange Ltd as well. So, there is widespread support for the proposals that are being considered. I know that some concerns and some doubts have been expressed about the adequacy with which the particular activities or operations within the futures industry have been defined. Clause 4 of the legislation itself says that a `futures contract' means: (a) an agreement that is, or has at any time been, an eligible commodity agreement or an adjustment agreement; (b) a futures option; or (c) a prescribed exchange-traded option, but does not include- and then goes on to identify a currency swap, an interest rate swap, a forward exchange rate contract and a forward interest rate contract. It indicates as well that the definition does not include an agreement that, at the time it was entered into, is included in a class of agreements prescribed for the purposes of that particular paragraph. Whether or not those concerns are legitimate and justified I am not certain. It may be possible for the Attorney-General, in summing up, to indicate what the present state of play is concerning our attitude towards the adequacy or otherwise of some of those definitions, particularly the definition concerning a futures contract. I know that concern has been expressed about whether or not some things, such as life insurance policies and perhaps even the forward bullion markets, would be picked up and become subject to these regulations through the futures market. I am not sure about that, and I would be interested to hear any observations about it. Earlier this year Mr John Green, a partner in Dawson Waldron, said: The futures industry is an industry with an intense magnetic attraction to the greedy, the naive and the dishonest, He is an operator in the market; he is one of the people to whom reference was made by the honourable member for North Sydney. They are his comments, and to a very large extent he is spot on-it is an industry with a magnetic attraction to the greedy, the naive and the dishonest. There has been some examination of the extent to which people who use the futures market as a gambling mechanism are likely to be successful. Perhaps people giving consideration to entering it on that basis need to think again. They need to be vary careful about the way in which they enter the futures market, the basis upon which they enter it, the purposes for which they enter it and the way in which they ultimately operate within it, because it is a very dangerous area for speculative investment. It is fulfilling, as I have said before, an extremely important function in the increasing complexity, refinement and sophistication of our total commodity and financial trading structures and markets. To a large extent, it is of fairly recent origin and has received only relatively recent acceptance. At one time a serious view was taken of a person engaged in effect in the purchase and sale of commodities, including financial securities of various kinds, which he or she did not own and had no guarantee of access to. The role of the futures market in stabilising and in hedging, quite apart from the speculative element, has been increasingly recognised, appreciated and accepted. One of the concerns is, as I have said, in connection with the wide definition of a futures contract. Despite some tightening of the position by the two draft exposures that have been made available since this matter was first considered by the ministerial council, there is still some residual concern. I referred to the fact that there is a large element of speculation and gambling involved in the futures market. For example, a survey in the United States shows that between 80 and 85 per cent of speculators in the futures market lose their money. The principal function of futures trading is to enable producers, consumers and merchants to protect themselves from price fluctuations-in other words, to hedge. That is an important function, an important role, fulfilled by the futures market. It is one of the more legitimate roles. The gamblers involved in speculation in the futures markets are not doing anything illegal. Gamblers are as free to go into that market as people are free to go into the ordinary stock exchange and speculate there. A significant case can be made out for the important role those people fulfil, even with the speculative character of those operations, in that market as well. Of course, a futures contract is a legally binding contract to purchase or sell a set amount of a commodity, a security or a currency on a specific date for a specific time. As I have said, the complexity of those arrangements has increased significantly over recent years. In the situation that gave rise to this legislation, one of the problems which the futures trading industry faced was that deregulation of financial markets attracted into the industry its share of cowboys. In the absence of regulatory legislation, virtually anyone could set himself up as a futures trader. Almost unbelievably, in an era of increasingly stringent requirements in retail investment markets generally, a person with little or no experience in the commodity and currency futures markets could set up a company with an issued capital of just $2, rent some premises and hang up a shingle outside the door. Mr Reith —What is wrong with that? Mr ROBERT BROWN —Such a person was then free to attract a large amount of money from any investor willing to hand it over. If the operator was not a member of the Futures Exchange, he was outside its rules and sanctions. That is one deficiency, in the first place. Even the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission admitted that it had difficulty policing such operations because technically many of them fell outside the definition of `prescribed interest'. The Trade Practices Commission had persuaded some of those cowboy operators to tone down their advertising claims and, apart from this small compromise, these doubtful operators were literally a law unto themselves. Reputable futures exchange dealers estimated that at least four companies were operating outside the rules that governed normal futures operations. Some had rented offices in the same building as the Futures Exchange itself, and in the eyes of some investors this lent an air of legitimacy to those operations. An honourable member interjected just a while ago, asking: `What is wrong with that?'. If that is the sort of position the Opposition adopts, if that is the sort of position it wants to maintain, defend and protect as it normally does for the crook operators in the community, that is a matter for members of the Opposition to decide upon. The risk when dealing with such operations is that some may be bucket shops-they match one customer's contract against that of another who has taken the opposite position, or simply gamble that the contract will go against the customer. By contrast, under the Futures Exchange rules a broker is required to trade the contract on the Exchange's trading floor. This means that the contract is registered and its performance is guaranteed to the broker by the clearing house. There is no such guarantee with bucket shop trades. In conclusion, I repeat: This is extremely important legislation to regulate, control and introduce a great deal more sense into futures trading operations in Australia than has existed. I congratulate the Government for introducing the legislation and indicate my support for it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REITH(Flinders)(5.50) —I was very interested in the contribution of the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). I gauged that the honourable member could not quite make up his mind as to what his attitude to the futures industry was, because in one breath he was talking about $2 companies and crooks and about greed and cowboys, yet on the other hand he was talking about the necessity to proceed with this legislation, which the Opposition supports. He made the point, and it is a valid point, that this is an important industry. I say to the honourable member for Charlton: Let us not denigrate the vast majority of those people who are involved in this industry, which is important for Australia. I approach this legislation without any prior involvement with the futures market either as a purchaser or as a dealer in futures contracts or as a result of any professional experience as a member of this place or as a country solicitor, as I once was. My layman's definition of a futures contract is a commitment to purchase or sell a commodity or financial interest on set terms at a set price at some future date. It is a growing industry in Australia. As has been mentioned, we have this window in terms of a time frame and, if United States experience is any guide, the industry will continue to grow at exponential rates. The concept of leverage is central to the futures market. A futures contract allows a market operator to purchase an interest to buy or sell on a minimal deposit. There was a very good example in the Melbourne Age in March 1986 which talked about a standard transaction: An investor goes short on gold, that is, he or she takes out a contract in April to sell 100 ounces of gold at, say, $300 per ounce to be delivered in June. Although the value of the gold is $30,000, the trader has to put down a deposit of only $2,000. After that, every $1 fall in the price means $100 profit. This is because the trader has a contract to sell 100 ounces of gold at $300 an ounce. If the price falls, he or she can close out the contract or cancel it out by buying 100 ounces at the new price and take the difference as a direct profit. If before June the price falls to, say, $290, a $10 decline is worth $1,000 and the trader can close out the contract and earn a 50 per cent return on that initial investment of $2,000. Of course, that is a 50 per cent return minus brokerage fees. We can see that there is pretty big money in this game if one can get it right and, as the honourable member for Charlton pointed out, there are many who from time to time get it wrong. All I say to those involved in the industry or who are peripheral to the industry is: `Watch out if you are going to put your money on the line'. The basic difference between an option and a futures contract is that options do not commit the holder to buy or sell, whereas futures are a solid commitment. With futures there is a requirement that adverse price movements must be covered by further deposits known as margins, which cover unrealised losses. The calling of margins on a daily basis is, in itself, a significant control. I think that is an important point. If those positions are not met, the clearing house has an ability to close those contracts out. If that all sounds terribly complicated, well, it is, which explains why the market is largely dominated by big players such as banks and others and explains why the number of retail speculators is said to account, on some recent figures cited in the Press, for about only 10 per cent of market turnover. Whilst this Bill is put up in part on the basis of protection for orphans and widows, the reality is that the market is very different from that. The Bill before the House seeks to regulate the industry. It provides for licensing of brokers and advisers and the provision of fidelity funds. It bans certain market practices and generally establishes a regulatory framework. As a starting point, my personal opinion is that passing regulatory measures to establish a framework for the operation of a free market is a perfectly justifiable role for Parliament, subject, of course, to the establishment of a need for such a framework. The Liberal Party has long held that sort of view. In fact, the trade practices legislation in the time of the Menzies Government was, of course, introduced by Sir Garfield Barwick. The Opposition is supporting the legislation because a regulatory framework is called for by the industry and there are arguments for providing a secure framework so that Australia can capture the opportunities that await in this industry for us. The Sydney Futures Exchange, which is the major player in Australia in terms of futures contracts, wants to get on with the job. That is fair enough and we are prepared to support the legislation. There will, however, be a committee established under the Act and I hope that that Committee and the Attorney-General's Department will review the operations of this legislation on a pretty careful basis. I put today in this debate some of the points which I see as being important to look at as time proceeds, and essentially they place some greater emphasis on self-regulation as opposed to legislative regulation. I am inclined to the view that the line between self-regulation as a means of proceeding to regulate and legislative regulation, which is the nub of this Bill, has been drawn too much in favour of a legislative framework. The second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) really, in my view, is virtually silent on that question, although in terms of the need for a framework overall there is, as was referred to by the honourable member for Charlton, a reference to the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. I read the relevant part of the Campbell Committee's report and found little to substantiate the point that the Minister made in his second reading speech. I might also say that my discussions were limited to people in Melbourne and that those discussions did not, in my view, add much to the argument either. The general comment seemed to be that the legislation is mainly aimed at those operators outside the Australian Financial Futures Market, which is the market based in Melbourne, and outside the Sydney Futures Exchange. If that is right, it would be fair to say that the legislation has some fairly classic characteristics. They are, of course, such that it boils down to an attempt to provide an all-embracing framework, which means covering every possibility, and is thus a proposal to cover all of the lowest common denominators in the industry. In addition to the points made above, my guess is that the industry accepts it partly because it sees it as inevitable. The States tend to be going along with it on the basis that they feel inhibited by a prior agreement to legislate in accordance with decisions of the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities, and I have a feeling also that this legislative package has ended up with a life of its own. The big players in the market are not too worried because most are already complying with the accounting procedures, fidelity funds, et cetera, and the legislation certainly gives the market some status, stability and enhanced reputation. My first preference is to follow the world trends and have a futures industry which is, as much as possible, self-regulatory so that, for example, membership of either the Melbourne exchange or the Sydney Futures Exchange could be an automatic exemption from the licensing provisions, the provisos to that being, of course, that there be no unreasonable barriers to entry to the exchanges and that the rules of the exchanges should be comprehensive. There is a place for legislation outlawing criminal practices. Those are the sorts of things which the exchanges are not likely to want to have within their jurisdiction and that certainly is one justification for this Bill and the provisions included in it. This approach-one of greater self-regulation-would certainly obviate the problems of double jeopardy and overlapping jurisdictions. It would also provide, in my view, much greater flexibility than the complicated processes provided by the Ministerial Council. A further reason for putting these points of view now, with a view to some later amendments as experience is gained with the operation of this Bill, is in fact provided for by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech when we are advised that some parts of the Bill will not come into immediate effect because the National Securities and Companies Commission is currently reviewing the whole question of licensing. I understand that the differentiation between advisers and dealers under the Securities Industry Act may go and the concept of representatives is also being looked at, perhaps with a view to abolition. As much of this legislation is based on the concept of licensing and on the concept of maintaining a legislative approach similar to the securities industry, it seems slightly odd to be proceeding in the face of the likelihood of such changes to the Securities Industry Act, especially as the new licences are not likely to come in under this Bill until the second half of 1986, and the Securities Industries Act abolitions, if they come into effect, may well arrive in 1987. It says little about the Government's ability to bring this legislative package quickly before the House inasmuch as we have had two exposure drafts, but the industry did not have the opportunity to look at the third draft. As one who only a week ago started to look at this matter, it is a complicated situation when one has a Bill that is 136 pages thick, on which there have been comments in two exposure drafts, and then attempts to reconcile the comments on the exposure drafts with what is in fact the third exposure, which is this Bill. There are some complications, and it is inadequate to have but a week to examine the matter. I raise some general questions-not as somebody with some legal background but from a layman's point of view in looking at this Bill. The first relates to the definition of futures adviser. Apparently in the first exposure draft there was an exclusion from the definition of futures adviser of the categories of solicitors and accountants in public practice as such whose carrying on of that business is solely incidental to the practice of their profession. For reasons I am unaware of, that exclusion-in other words, keeping the barristers, solicitors and accountants out of the operation of this Act-was done away with by the Government in its subsequent exposure draft. It seems to me that the effect of omitting that exclusion from the definition of futures adviser is that participants in the futures industry may be unable to seek legal advice about the contracts which they enter into unless their solicitor has obtained a futures adviser's licence. That to me is quite absurd and I hope the Government will re-examine it. I also looked at the definition in regard to publishers of certain advices in regard to the futures industry. There have been some celebrated cases in America involving a Mr Glanville, I think it was, who has an investment newsletter. If he gives the word to sell, everybody sells and the market goes into a heap. I can understand that the Government would like to have a broad net to cover people advising in that sort of capacity. I read that definition four, five or more times and it is hard to get a real feeling as to what it is about. All I can say is that, if my comments are not persuasive in leading the Government to look at the matter carefully, I would hope that the Australian Journalists Association will take a pretty close look at it. I am sure that, if anybody can bring pressure to bear on the Government, it is the AJA. The second point I wish to make relates to futures contracts themselves and the definition which has already been referred to in this debate. The definition contains an exclusion for certain types of currency and interest rate swap contracts. To be excluded, however, such a contract must have a banking corporation or a merchant bank as a party. An earlier version of the definition which was circulated for comment excluded such swap contracts if they were of a kind to which a bank or merchant bank is commonly a party. The definition in the Bill, by requiring that a banking corporation or merchant bank actually be a party to such a contract, catches normal swap contracts between consenting corporate adults. These contracts are a normal part of day to day financial management for many medium to large businesses in Australia. The ability is preserved in paragraph (e) of the definition to prescribe classes of agreements as being excluded from the definition of futures contract, but no indication has been given of the classes of agreement which it is proposed to prescribe. I am sure that the industry will be interested in some reaction to that. There is, of course, another solution which is much more wide ranging. That would be to exclude from the definition of futures contract all contracts between bodies corporate. This would ensure protection for those individuals who participate in the futures industry, while not hampering the conduct of a normal business transaction. There is ample precedent for such an exclusion-for example, in the credit Acts which have been introduced in a number of States and Territories, and the money-lending legislation which preceded it. I am aware that that is a much broader proposition, but it is well worth looking at if experience with the current legislation is not what is hoped for it. I turn to clause 13, which gives power to the Commission to require the production of books. Speaking as a layman, that is obviously based on the proposition that if there are problems there must be wide investigative powers to track them down; people can move money from account to account and so on. It is a wide power which can cover the financial position or character of people who have worked for a broker, regardless of whether the books have anything to do with the futures industry. I think it needs to be looked at, and although clause 13 (1) (a) limits the power there should be some inexpensive and quick means of interposing a disinterested third party to assess whether the required production is reasonable. In those circumstances I believe it would be unreasonable to require somebody who has simply worked for a broker to have to go to the Supreme Court to get some protection against an abuse of power. A further point relates to the fact that a number of clauses suspend the normal rule that people are not required to incriminate themselves. I do not know whether that is a standard rule in legislation of this type, but it is a question which I believe should be answered. I would like to hear what justification there is for it. Lastly, clause 39 (3) allows the Commission to make an innocent party pay for the costs of an investigation, regardless of whether the costs are reasonable. That seems onerous to me and again needs to be looked at. We all know that some Queen's Counsel in this country charge like wounded bulls, and there is no doubt that if one has not lost everything on the futures exchange, one soon could if one had to foot the bill of an investigator appointed by the Government who also happens to be a QC. There are a number of other matters which I would like to have raised but for time constraints, but the queries and matters I have raised substantiate the argument that more time should have been devoted to examining this legislation in the Parliament. Certainly more notice should have been given to honourable members to examine it and more notice given to members of the industry who will be so greatly affected by it. I conclude by saying that, although this subject is for most people as dull as dishwater, this is an important industry and we must make sure that the right decisions are taken when implementing the legislative framework. This Bill will need amending in due course, and I hope that my remarks will be useful when that time comes. I also take the opportunity of thanking some people in Melbourne who are involved in the industry, none of whom would claim to be responsible, nor should be so held to be responsible, for any comments I have made. I refer to Dr Goss of Monash University, Mark Lampell of Bache, Cortis and Carr Ltd, Mr John Field of Blake and Riggall, the Law Institute and Mr Heffernan of the Melbourne Stock Exchange, all of whom gave of their time. I appreciate it when people outside this place are prepared to give of their time and make some fruitful and useful comments in regard to this legislation. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(6.08) —The 160-clause Futures Industry Bill 1986 is the product of a long period of gestation in that it arose out of a formal agreement executed by the Commonwealth and all the States on 22 December 1978, in the halcyon days of the Fraser Government. It has taken some eight years to reach this point of time, and in common with the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) I question whether the Government has given the Parliament, indeed the members of both Houses, sufficient time to look at this legislation. It is novel legislation. It effectively is a code. It contains 160 clauses. I agree with the honourable member for Flinders that some provisions of this Bill-say this quite bluntly as one of the Queen's counsel to whom he referred but not one of the type who charge like a wounded bull-are almost unintelligible. They are gobbledegook, legal jargon. I do not know what magical little minds have been working away by candlelight at midnight to come up with some of these provisions. Whatever the intention, I am talking of the final product, and the first think I say about this legislation is that it will be an absolute bonanza for the legal profession because there are provisions here which I find almost impossible to understand, let alone comprehend. When the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) introduced the second reading of this Bill he said: The parties to the formal agreement have agreed that the co-operative scheme should be extended to cover the regulation of the futures industry and franchising. The necessary amendments to the formal agreement have been approved by each participating government and the amending agreement is presently in the process of being signed by each of the parties. In accordance with that amending agreement, the proposed futures legislation has been agreed to unanimously by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. In the coming months, the other parties to the formal agreement will be introducing legislation that will apply the Commonwealth legislation throughout Australia. Well, Mr Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General, I will have a bet with you. I do not think the legislation will be applied identically in other parts of Australia because I think that some of the things wrong with this Bill will be picked up by people when there is more time to look at it. I accept the overall thrust that, for the reasons which are quite clear, the need to have a uniform regulatory system governing the futures industry in Australia has been recognised. It was recognised by the Campbell Committee and it has been endorsed by the Sydney Futures Exchange. Everybody seems to think that it is very necessary. It strikes me as slightly Gilbertian that, at a time when both sides of the Parliament are talking about deregulation, we are about to very heavily regulate an industry which is not only exciting but also highly private enterprise oriented and very speculative. As we know, one can make a fortune on the futures exchange, and one can lose very substantially. It is a high risk business. However, it seems that the industry wants to be regulated-heaven knows why-by a 160-section Act of the Commonwealth of Australia to apply in the Australian Capital Territory and then to be unanimously re-enacted in every State of the Commonwealth. Well, I find that somewhat odd. However, the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out in his second reading speech that the Bill will, firstly, require futures brokers and advisers to be licensed. There does not seem to be a great problem with that. Secondly, it will establish a system for the approval of futures exchanges and clearing houses. That seems fairly straightforward. Thirdly, it will require futures exchanges and futures associations to establish a fidelity fund for the protection of clients. No-one could argue with that. Fourthly, it will provide criminal sanctions for manipulative and fraudulent practices, and, finally, it will require futures brokers to maintain adequate records and separate client funds from their own funds. All that is good. However, nowhere in the Deputy Prime Minister's speech do we have detail about what I will call the nasties in this Bill. I am well aware that our lead speaker in this debate, the honourable member for North Sydney, the shadow Attorney-General, has indicated that the Opposition will not be opposing nor moving any amendments. I will quickly run through a few of the nasties I see so that at least I am on the record in the short time available to me as having drawn the attention of Parliament to some of these things, and then in the concluding minutes available to me I will expose this Government-this Hawke socialist Government which talks with a forked tongue-because I am going to compare what it has done in this Bill with what it did in the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill, as it strikes me all as a little bit strange. We did not hear, for example, the Deputy Prime Minister in his second reading speech talk about the power of the Commission to require production of books, which was referred to by the honourable member for Flinders and also, I think, in passing by the honourable member for North Sydney. I refer to the power of a magistrate, under clause 14, to issue a warrant to seize books. The provisions of clause 15 dealing with offences did not seem to get much of a mention at all in the Attorney-General's second reading speech, and nor did the provisions of clause 16, whereby copies or extracts shall be admitted in evidence. We heard precious little in relation to clause 17, which hacks into the well-established solicitor-client privilege. The honourable member for North Sydney, very conscious of these matters, and indeed the honourable member for Flinders, have just drawn attention to the fact that-I am sure members of the legal profession will be interested to know this-if they fall within the ambit of the clause 17 provisions, which everyone wants and is unanimous about, they will be liable to a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment for three months, or both. I simply make the point: Surprise, surprise, we did not hear anything about this in the speech of the Deputy Prime Minister. If we run through the remaining provisions, we find that the honourable member for Flinders referred to the question of the right to remain silent, the right not to incriminate oneself-that now goes out the window-disclosure to commission, investigation of certain matters and power of the court to make certain orders. One can go right through the investigation provisions in Division 2. I take on board, as everyone agrees we will not oppose and we will not amend it, that there are some interesting provisions in relation to powers of inspection, seizure of books, the question of privilege, the question of incrimination and the admissibility of evidence. There is even a clause 31 on the weight of evidence which is most extraordinary, but, there you are, it is there. Everyone agrees with it, so who am I, the Federal member for Denison, to utter one word of criticism. Having said that, I invite people in the next few weeks and months to have a look at these provisions to see whether or not they contain matters which might perhaps be looked at in a slightly different light by the various State Governments when they come to introduce mirror legislation in their own areas. As I have said, the Deputy Prime Minister has said-who am I to doubt-that it is the unanimous decision of everyone that this will be done and that there will be identical legislation passed in every other State of the Commonwealth. I do note, and simply say in passing, that the only legislation in Australia at this moment dealing specifically with the futures industry is the New South Wales Futures Markets Act. Even though that has been brought in by and during the term of the Wran Government, there are a lot of provisions in this legislation which do not appear in the New South Wales legislation. In the remaining moments available to me I will draw the obvious comparison. Why is it, short of complying with the formal agreement, short of giving effect to the agreement executed between the Commonwealth and the States three days before Christmas in 1978-nearly eight years ago-that this Government rushes to legislate to effectively set up a very extensive, detailed investigatory procedure in relation to futures when barely four weeks ago in this Parliament this Government rushed with equivalent speed in directly the opposite direction? It is just four weeks ago that the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill 1986 which I described at that time as corrupt legislation came into this House. What that effectively did was to take away the power under clause 50 with respect to a proposed Trade Practices Commission inquiry in relation to the then attempted takeover or raid on Australia's biggest company, Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. I am not going to re-litigate the issue, but I just want to place on record that, if one wants any vindication of everything I said in my speech on 20 March this year-it can be found from pages 1731 through to 1734 of Hansard-one has only to read the ruling of His Honour Mr Justice Marks in the case of BHP versus National Companies and Securities Commission in the Supreme Court of Victoria, dated 26 March 1986, which is some six days after my speech. I do not expect the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister to tell me and explain why, in relation to the question of transfer of market dominance, the Government rushed in one direction to exclude and prevent an inquiry, but in the case of the futures industry it moves in precisely the opposite direction to facilitate an inquiry and to facilitate it with almost every legal advantage that one can bring to mind. I say in conclusion that, when one compares the judgment of His Honour Mr Justice Marks in the BHP case in the Supreme Court of Victoria on 26 March and his remarks about the Bell company and Mr Holmes a Court with my humble remarks in this Parliament on 20 March, one would be staggered to see that either I am quite prescient and a mind reader-which I certainly am not-or that there may have been more than a smidgin of truth in the things I said in the House at that time. The legislation will be passed with bipartisan support. The whole world wants it. I can see great benefit to the legal profession. I think it will be a gold mine. I wish the legislation well. I wish I were younger and richer and I could be involved in the futures industry. It would certainly be much brighter and probably more rewarding than some work. The honourable member for Flinders said that this is as dull as dishwater. I do not think it is as dull as dishwater. I think the honourable member for North Sydney put a bit of sparkle in it. I hope I have gingered- Mr Spender —That is kind of you to say that, but I did not feel I was able to do that. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member is too modest. In the dashing reply that we will hear from the Deputy Prime Minister, perhaps he will explain why the Government went one way on 20 March this year in regard to trade practices and the other way today in relation to the futures industry. But he will not tell us the answer, in which case, as so often happens under the Hawke socialist Government, we will all be left in the dark. Nobody will ever know, but it will become academic because the Hawke socialist Government will go out of the window at the next Federal election in a manner which is even more dramatic than the crash of the Whitlam Government in 1975. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford Smith-Attorney General)(6.22) —in reply-I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate on the Futures Industry Bill 1986. I have only about six minutes in which to reply. I will do my best to cover the many matters that were raised. We always appreciate the remarks of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). He is a colourful character and I am disappointed to think that he is becoming so pessimistic that he is thinking of retiring, cashing in his superannuation and having a run on the futures exchange. There is need for legislation and regulation because I am reminded-this is a specific answer to what the honourable member said-that there have been losses and there needs to be some regulation. In regard to the question of investigations and inspection powers, which he found horrendous, I am reminded of the same provisions that now apply under the Securities Industry Act. The other matter which he raised was the question of the dominance aspect of section 50 and why it was rushed in. I make it very clear that it was not rushed in. Those proposals were circulated last year. He would know, for example, that the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd supported the proposal because it concerned transfer of monopoly provisions. Certainly, some litigation was taking place. In fact, BHP took action against the person making the bid. The fascinating thing is that, in the middle of all of that, somebody else raced in and bought an equivalent 20 per cent and nobody was able to say a word. However, we will leave it at that because the issue, of course, is the small shareholder who was waiting with bated breath to receive his $7.70 and he could not even get into the market. Others made other arrangements. However, it is a free market and one makes one's arrangements. The honourable gentleman made no comment about those matters. Let me deal with the matters raised by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). He was concerned, quite rightly, about whether there is an overlap with the Securities Industry Act. I invite him to look at paragraphs 9 and 10 of the explanatory memorandum which deal with that matter. Paragraph 9 makes this point: Whereas securities markets are concerned with the transfer of title in property, a major function of a futures market is to facilitate risk management rather than enable title in property to be transferred. Paragraph 10 states: In order to provide an appropriate framework for the various `products' traded on futures and securities exchanges, it is proposed that the following regime will apply . . . That regime is then set out. In regard to the comment that clause 45 concerns a futures market of a futures exchange, I am advised that it is a futures market conducted by that futures exchange. I hope that the honourable member gets the message. We would agree that, in regard to the other matters raised by the honourable member, there could be teething problems. The whole arrangement will be kept under review and we will take any action necessary to remedy any identified defects. My colleague the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) was concerned about the definition of futures contract. It is thought at this stage that the definition is adequate. But we certainly take the point that there be a review. Certain specific agreements, for example, currency swap, have been excluded. But the Bill also includes the power to exclude agreements by regulation to ensure that contracts that may be developed that should not be included can be prescribed as being out of the regime of the Bill. The honourable member commented that insurance and superannuation contracts are not covered by the Bill. The definition of adjustment agreement does not include these types of contracts. The honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) was also concerned about the question of the definition of futures adviser. Solicitors or accountants would need an adviser's licence only if they carry on a business of advising other persons concerning futures contracts. It is certainly arguable that if they do carry on a business, they should be covered. However, legal advice on a single or a time-to-time contract would not be covered. The definition of futures contract does have flexibility in that there is an ability to exclude contracts by regulation. Again, there was concern about the investigation provisions. They are based on provisions in the Securities Industry Act. I am advised that there is a necessity to have consistency between the futures and securities industries in relation to these matters. I think I have quickly summed up some of the matters that have been mentioned. It was thought that the Bill had only been available for a week. I do not want to be pedantic. It has been available for discussion in parliamentary terms since 16 April. That is a little longer than a week. We do face the difficulty-I recognise this-that once the ministerial council reaches the stage of approving these matters, it always expects that they be introduced in the current session of the Parliament. That does create a pressure. Perhaps in future we will be able to put before the Parliament, including the Opposition, what one would call draft proposals, so it would have more time. The Government has no vested interest in these matters. It is purely an obligation to comply with the terms of the arrangement that has been made in respect of the whole of the securities industry, including the futures industry, at ministerial council level. I thank honourable members for their contribution. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 16 April, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 16 April, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 14 March, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(8.00) —The Companies and Securities Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 proposes the following major changes to the companies and securities laws: First, all partial bids are to be restricted to a proportion of each shareholder's holding. The pro rata bid is to be done away with. Second, for both full and partial offers, maximum acceptance conditions are to be prohibited. Third, benefits under escalation agreements entered into within six months of the bid, whether full or partial, are to be cancelled. Fourth, all Part A bids, full or partial, are to be subject to a minimum price, being the highest price paid for shares in the target company by the offeror within the previous four months. Fifth, the so-called multiplier effect is to be eliminated from partial bids. Sixth, shark-repellent provisions may be put in the articles of listed companies which would subject takeover bids to a plebiscite of a target company's shareholders. Seventh, shares held by a nominee or trustee on behalf of different persons are to be deemed to be subject to separate offers for each separate holding. Eighth, the substantial shareholder provisions of the Companies Act are to be amended so that shareholders holding over 10 per cent will be required to notify net variations of only one per cent or more in their holdings. Recent events have focused attention on takeovers and takeover law. The most noticeable recent events have been the general high level of takeover activity and the struggle for control of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, which is still, as far as we can judge, going on. An argument has become current which needs only to be stated to be demonstrated to be both groundless and nonsensical. That argument is that to oppose or to propose amendments to legislation affecting takeovers creates market uncertainty. In truth, those protesting about uncertainty are usually players with vested interests in the outcome of the game. Uncertainty is not created by debate over legislation. Whatever market uncertainty may exist at any time results simply from the coincidence of legislative changes being proposed to takeover rules at a time of high levels of takeover activity and particularly at a time when financial reporters, the media in general and sections of the Australian public have become transfixed by the struggle for control of BHP. The logical consequence of arguing that opposition to amendments creates market uncertainty is either that amendments should never be introduced, which is absurd, or that they should never be opposed, which is equally absurd. Almost invariably, the proponents of this nonsensical argument are direct participants in current market events whose motivation is self-interest in its purest and most uncomplicated form. The other critics frequently come from the camp which would describe itself as informed commentators. Commentators they may be; informed they rarely are. The lessons from the BHP takeover marathon and the extraordinary sequence of events it has unleashed are these: Look to the legislation; examine its overall effect; do not be diverted by the immediate, by superficially glamorous events, by white knights, black knights or boards and management determined to achieve their purposes and to secure their own position regardless of the interests of shareholders; things settle down; the current becomes the past; the seemingly important becomes the trivial and even the voices of self-interest are heard no more; and, on the subject of self-interest, never forget that those who support or oppose legislation that affects transactions of such huge commercial importance are but rarely motivated by a disinterested desire to set things right. I speak now of the players in the game. Self-interest has many voices. Most frequently, it is disguised as the public good. Yet, if we look to those who promote the public good in such areas as takeover law, when changes may affect their own situations and prospects, it is strange how often the public good mirrors their own private interests. The Opposition does not oppose this Bill, subject to a concern that it has expressed on the issue of retrospectivity. I communicated to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) a proposed amendment which would have the effect of safeguarding the position of any company which had made a takeover offer by having registered a Part A statement before 3 February of this year or on that day. The reason why 3 February was chosen was that on that day an announcement was made by the Victorian Attorney-General, who is also the Chairman of the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities, pointing out that from that day forward anyone who was concerned about takeovers should look to the consequence of making a pro rata bid. He also pointed out, in fairly explicit language, that changes were to be introduced. The Attorney-General has answered and dealt with the request very fairly. He put it to the Ministerial Council and he has advised me: By a majority decision the Ministerial Council has decided not to support the amendment. In this context, it is relevant to note that the proposed amendment would appear to have no practical effect. I have been informed that there are two current pro rata bids in New South Wales and one current pro rata bid in Victoria. In the case of each of these bids, the Part A statement was lodged after 3 February 1986. Of course, I accept that statement from the Attorney-General. Since the amendment that was to have been proposed by the Opposition would have no practical effect, the Opposition does not propose to put the amendment which would have overcome a retroactive effect in the Bill. Turning now to the Bill, there are three general criticisms that may be made of it. We make these criticisms without opposing the Bill. The first is that there has been no attempt to analyse the economic effects of the Bill on takeovers. It should be obvious to anyone interested in economic policy that takeover rules can have a crucial effect not only on the conduct of take overs but also on the level of foreign investment in Australia. I will quote from a paper recently given by Mr John Green, a partner in Dawson Waldron, a major firm of Sydney solicitors, who said: We have had too limited research into the question and given the possible impact on the economy, it is hardly appropriate to rush in with new legislation. Although this Bill has been very hastily drafted, as is apparent on reading it, most of the principles on which it is based have been considered and debated at some length . . . But what has been lacking in the whole debate is an overview, particularly an economic one. For example, the major thrust of this Bill is to ban pro rata partials. But ask yourself how is that consistent with the Federal Government's current foreign investment policies? On the one hand, the Government is seeking to encourage foreign capital into Australia, subject to a rule-of-thumb limitation on 51% equity. But now a foreign company which wants to acquire control, but no more, of an Australian company can no longer make a bid for just 51%. To get 51%, under a truly proportional bid, the foreigner will have to bid for more because, as we all know, not everyone will accept. Under a pro rata bid there is a greater prospect of success than there will be under a proportional bid. So to limit an acquisition to 51% and get it will not now be possible. By this Bill, the Government is encouraging foreign companies to make full bids and then subsequently to `Australianise'. The obvious result is that some foreign investors will be deterred from investing in Australian companies. This is not idle speculation as Mr Green has said in his paper: The acquisition may become less attractive. If you think the risks of foreign investors turning away from Australia because of this Bill are small, you should ask your lawyers or financial advisers not if, but how many, proposals of which they are aware have walked away. Secondly, there are deficiencies which appear to exist in the legislation and which appear to be available to be exploited by those who would be interested and concerned in getting around the legislation. I refer to what seems to be thought to be the consequence of the prohibition on pro rata partial bids and the introduction of proportional bids. Mr Green gave an example of a possible way around it and, as I recall, it went somewhat along these lines: Since the limitations on proportional bids-that is, the restriction that one shall not have cash bids on a pro rata basis-apply, of course, only to cash bids, if one throws in as a minor consideration something along with the cash, such as a few cans of beer if one happens to be a takeover company which is in the business of making beer, one may be able to get around the provisions of the Bill. That would certainly not appear to be impossible and it would certainly not appear to be the only problem that exists in terms of loopholing. The third general criticism is that the Bill rests on a number of doubtful assumptions. Let me take just one. There is a plebiscite provision which is designed to give the ordinary shareholder a say in whether or not his or her company should be taken over. But this provision may instead be used by entrenched minorities to protect their position and to prevent the ordinary shareholder selling at a good price. Let me elaborate upon that. The constituent documents of a company may provide, under the Bill, that shares acquired under a partial take- over bid may not be registered unless a resolution approving the registration has been passed by the shareholders. I point out that that means that one's ability to deal with one's shares is dependent on a vote of one's fellow shareholders. The offeror and person associated with the offeror are prohibited from voting on a plebiscite resolution and the approval required is to be the approval of such proportion, not exceeding one-half, as is specified. The offeror is to be given notice of the result of the resolution before a date 14 days prior to the end of the offer period. Ten per cent of shareholders can ask for a review by a court of the plebiscite provisions. Let me now go to the problem. Plebiscite provisions are not to continue in force for more than three years after their adoption but may be renewed in the same manner as applies to adoption. A company proposing to introduce or renew a plebiscite provision is required to send a statement to shareholders explaining the effect of the provision and the reasons for it, including factual matters and principles, stating whether any director is aware of a particular takeover proposal and, in the case of renewal, reviewing the advantages and disadvantages of such a course. But the plebiscite provisions could enable existing controlling shareholders to defeat a partial bid which sought to challenge their control. For example, let us assume that the company seeking to acquire a proportion of shares in the target company owns just on 20 per cent. That means that if that organisation wishes to acquire, say, 51 per cent it has to bid for around 40 per cent to 50 per cent of the shares held by all other shareholders. But there will be some who will not want to sell. If one has an entrenched minority-for example, another group owning 20 per cent or 25 per cent-and if remembering that the offeror is excluded from voting the shareholding is dispersed amongst fairly small shareholders, the consequence of general shareholder apathy is that the entrenched minority could prevent a takeover offer from being successful. As I have said, the changes proposed rest on a number of doubtful assumptions and that is one of them. The financial community is divided upon the benefits, which is understandable because we are dealing with a quite new ball game. We should ask the question: What will be the effect on the level of takeover activity? Some argue that there are too many takeovers but nobody is able to say what should be a proper level of takeover activity. Economists may be able to provide an ideal by definition but to translate that theoretical definition into market reality is impossible. Next, we should understand that there is a very real probability that the level of takeover activity will diminish, not simply because some foreign investors will be deterred, but because under proportional partial rules the cost of acquisition may become higher. Mr Hodgman —Hear, hear! Mr Hand —No prompting. Mr SPENDER —In the words of Mr Mark Burrows of Baring Brothers, Halkerston and Partners Ltd: One thing is certain, the move to proportionate bidding will if an offer is made increase the price that the partial offeror will have to pay and that will no doubt be a good thing for shareholders. My question is whether or not that higher price, but more particularly the risks transferred from the offeree to the offeror is such that no bid at all emerges. I heard an interjection earlier from an honourable member on the opposite side of the chamber to the effect that a reduction in takeover activity would be no problem. I would ask the honourable gentleman, although I cannot ask him directly, whether he thinks it is a good idea that management should be entrenched. Mr Hand —I said `no prompting'. The honourable member for Denison was helping you to make your speech. You were being prompted from behind. That is what I was referring to. Mr SPENDER —I point out to the honourable gentleman that one of the things I am capable of doing is making my own speeches. They may be good, they may be bad or they may be brilliant; but I do not have to be prompted, even though I always welcome interjections from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), whose eloquence and learning are always matters of great interest to this House. I turn to some more specific and very mundane questions arising under the legislation. First of all, I will deal with the argument relating to partial bids. As I have said, we do not oppose the Bill but I think we need to understand that some major questions arise out of it. The argument for change from pro rata partial takeover or partial takeover to strictly proportional partial takeovers runs along the following lines: The rationale is to ensure equality of opportunity between shareholders. The present system, so it is argued, lends itself to favouritism towards large or strategic shareholders. The partial bid will include a premium for the value of effective control and, once this is passed, the value of the remaining shares will ordinarily have been reduced. The idea is, therefore, that the opportunity to participate in the value of any controlled premium should be proportionally available in respect of all shares. It is also argued that pro rata partial bids which promote competition between shareholders to maximise their advantages result in a coercion of shareholders and their failure to accept may result in their being locked in, or so it is said. On the other hand, proportional bids, it is argued, by definition provide each shareholder with an equal opportunity to participate in the benefits of the bid. The investment community is divided on this proposal. The effect of the proposed change is not clear. As I have said, the drafting is by no means free of ambiguity or possible loopholes. We lack an in-depth analysis of the operation of the entire takeover system. We lack, in particular, an analysis of the economic effects of the present proposals. In terms of some specific comments that should be made, I turn to clause 6(d) which will amend section 16(2) of the Act. It states that the cash price specified in the offer must not be less than the highest price per share paid or agreed to be paid under an agreement to purchase shares made in the four-month period prior to the date of dispatch of the offer. One must ask this question: What is the real rationale for that? One can say that it adds to fairness, but it represents a fairly fundamental interference with the market process. Some would argue that it is fair that we should interfere in that way. But we must ask ourselves: Is it really fair? Is it really right? Let me give an example to the House. Let us assume that one has made an agreement in the four months before one is to make one's take- over offer, that is, before one dispatches one's offer, and one has bought shares at a very high price. Let us assume that the bottom falls out of the oil market and one is purchasing a company such as Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd-although if one could afford to purchase a company such as BHP one probably would not need to worry about too many things. But one is entitled, I think, to commercial certainty. Why is it that, if the target company becomes very much less valuable as a consequence of matters which one did not know about at the time one made one's pre-bid acquisitions, one should be forced by the law to bid only at a price which, on what is then known of the market, does not reflect the true worth of the target company? Let me raise another matter, of a very technical nature. A bidder or his associate will be prohibited from giving or receiving benefits under agreements entered into within six months of a takeover offer. The proposed amendment provides that any agreement, arrangement or understanding, which is defined widely to include informal, oral and equitable agreements, made in the six months prior to a takeover offer or a proposal for a takeover offer whereby an offeror or person associated with an offeror gives to or receives a benefit from a person who acquires shares in the company, is void. This is to be done by clause 10, adding a new section 39b. If the main object of this amendment is to prevent agreements which will circumvent the plebiscite provisions, its fate should be decided in accordance with the fate of the plebiscite provisions. As I have pointed out, the plebiscite provisions in themselves raise some fairly fundamental questions for the House. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. However, we draw attention to problems that appear either to arise under the Bill, to be inherent in it, or to be possibilities that need to be considered. I hope that the Government and, in particular, the Attorney-General will take the criticisms that have been made of the Bill in the spirit in which they have been offered and will look very carefully to any problems that may emerge under the legislation. I particular, I ask the Attorney-General to take note of two things: First, the economic effects of the proposals and secondly, and in particular, the likely economic effects of the proposals on the level of foreign takeover activity. As a country we have gone past the stage of being frightened of foreigners. We certainly should have gone past that stage. We should understand that foreign investment in this country is needed. We should not wish to divert it. I fear that a consequence of this Bill may be that foreign investment will be diverted. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(8.26) —In speaking to the Companies and Securities Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 I draw on some comments made earlier this evening by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) in the context of his expressing some concern about the State agreements and the operation of the Ministerial Council. For better or for worse we have a Commonwealth, a Federation and a Constitution which delineate powers. Honourable members opposite referred to the riches to be secured by the legal profession. The honourable member for Denison was somewhat saddened, feeling that at his age and with his capacities he perhaps would be better occupied with the aftermath of this legislation. That is not caused by this legislation. It is not caused by this Government. I suggest that it is much more a result and always will be a result of a model of Federation and a Constitution that divide powers. A recent newspaper article by Leigh Masel, which reports comments by a previous chairman of the National Companies and Securities Commission, states: Despite some obvious flaws concerning the political administrative model associated with an agency which is so largely bent upon maintaining a spirit of co-operation by seven government bureaucracies . . . the Formal Agreement reflects in a general way the broad objectives of a mixed economy . . . The fact is that, given the constitutional and legal responsibilities we have, the model works reasonably well. In effect the Commonwealth and the six States have agreed that these changes are appropriate following a fair degree of public debate and discussion hence the dating and including of offers that are currently in train. The arguments about proportional and pro rata takeovers have been difficult in recent times. They raise issues of equity, fairness and justice. The fact that these issues are being addressed and are affecting current takeovers is more than appropriate. I sat and listened with interest to the arguments of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) about entrenched minorities and the apathy of shareholders. I find it difficult to understand, in terms of my mathematical understanding, how a takeover bid-up could not handle an entrenched minority. It is purely a question of the proportion of shares one wants to take over. Unless the minority is 48 or 49 per cent, I would have thought it was a question of the degree of takeover and the degree of offer. To suggest that the legislation is faulty because shareholders are apathetic may relate more to the size of the bid being made than to the legislation itself. Of course the honourable member made no mention of the locked in minorities which, in so many cases, have been the victims in Australian takeover and share dealings where a small number of shareholders become, as it were, victims of the system. I am sure that we all know of small shareholders who have owned shares in companies which have been taken over and perhaps become unlisted. Their shares can then be sold only to the then majority owner at a very difficult to establish price. The other aspects covered by the Bill regarding pre-bid selling, the multiplier effect and small shareholders protections are all important. It is probably appropriate to comment on what I see our system is supposed to have been doing. Our system provides the capacity for Australians from all walks of life and from all backgrounds to invest in, have partial ownership of and involvement in an Australian company whereby they feel that they are part of what is happening in the country. They feel that their money is doing some good and they have an active involvement in the affairs of the nation. Those people who, once upon a time, were perhaps the bulk of the shareholders-certainly in some companies they are still the majority of shareholders-have become less visible and less significant as we have seen major organisations, which are capable of marshalling very large amounts of money, launching bids on companies to which the small shareholder has no chance of responding. I suspect that very few of the shares of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd that were transferred in recent weeks were sold to small shareholders. The sellers and the buyers were not small Australians or normal Australian shareholders. They were the large Australian shareholders and institutions, many of whom were protected under various other financial arrangements. The aspect that Mr Masel raised in his comments in the Australian Financial Review today goes perhaps a bit deeper and reflects the concern shared by members of the Opposition. It is interesting to note that both the Opposition speakers are from the legal fraternity. The comments Mr Masel made concerned the ultimate determinant. It is of some merit to read his comments into the record of this debate because I am sure that his words will be appropriate and relevant for quite some time to come. He stated: Basically the legislation administered by the commission should provide a framework for business activities such as takeover bids and more particularly provide a scheme whereby shareholders are furnished with information to enable them to make up their own minds on the facts. They should be able to see (with competent advisers if need be) the problems that may arise and to make their own individual decisions on the offer documents. Who then should be the appropriate forum for the determination of these matters-the commission or the courts? He goes on to state: When one considers the history of regulatory commissions and the reasons which prompted them, we in Australia seem to be too ready to turn accepted doctrine on its head by allowing the debate to occur, not in the market place or within their forum designed to balance competing interests such as a regulatory commission, but in the courts. This must have the effect of bringing about regulation which will prove not only cumbersome and ineffective, but also one developed within a labyrinth in which only security lawyers can find their way. I think Mr Masel expresses the concern of many people, the concern that to be a shareholder these days one almost needs to be a corporate lawyer. If one has some form of shareholding one almost needs a Queen's Counsel on one's payroll and a permanent presence in the Exchange and virtually needs to be a fully professional share dealer or share purchaser. That underlines very strongly the need for not just the amendments we are debating today but the overall existence of the Commission itself. In the same newspaper today we get a quite different view in the Chanticleer column, which states: One government setting the regulations or even better a less black letter approach would solve the problem of the present system where a group of politicians set decisions, of which none are ultimately responsible, and then there are the delays of some months before the decisions are actually made law. The loser in this stupidity is the market . . . The point between those two comments in the one newspaper is that on the one hand the ex-chairman of the Commission is saying that the Commission and the regulatory bodies should be the appropriate forum to settle, rule and arbitrate on these matters and on the other hand the so-called Chanticleer is saying that the courts make a mess of it, so technically we should not have any legislation covering this matter. That would mean that those who could best handle share dealings can do so. In the first view the concern is clearly for normal individual shareholders; in the second view the concern is clearly for the market. The market does not consist of normal Australian shareholders; the market consists of market specialists who are mobilising very large amounts of capital or borrowings and transferring shares in very high volumes. That brings me back to the comments of the honourable member for North Sydney, who posed the question of the proper level of takeover activity. Perhaps he should have addressed that matter more thoroughly rather than raise it as an area of interest. Some in the community would see a proper level of takeover activity as virtually the whole market turning over every couple of weeks. Obviously others would argue for a much more stable, much more established and much less erratic and destabilised takeover rate. The damage that has been done to the standing of Australian companies in recent years has been monumental. We are driving Australians away from buying shares and investing in shares as a legitimate concern. In future people will invest in indirect shareholdings instead, which means that we will end up with a small number of very large players in the market and regulations like the ones we are speaking of here will perhaps become even more important. The honourable member for North Sydney raised the matter of foreign takeovers and foreign players in the market. I have the fairly quaint notion that most Australians hold the view that we would rather retain a large degree Australian ownership; whilst we require foreign investment we should utilise it if we have to in a way whereby the choice as to how it is utilised remains in the hands of Australians rather than investment decisions and investment choices being increasingly transferred to people outside this country. The current debate about what constitutes an Australian is one that I find increasingly interesting given that apparently it has some market overtones as well. I suspect that in the next few years we will see a continuing stream of amendments to this legislation and to other legislation affecting the transfer of share ownerships in this country. I think that the concerns are reflected by many in the market, not necessarily all or even close to a majority. The market is being affected so much by government decisions and legislation and by those who see the loopholes that the honourable member for North Sydney raised. I think that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) indicated earlier that there will be loopholes and a fair number of opportunities for market specialists to find ways of achieving their ends despite these amendments. I suspect that the cat and mouse game will go on for a long time to come. The tragedy of that is that the eventual victim will not be the Government or the large market players but basically the small Australians who once thought that owning stocks and shares in a particular Australian company was a thing to be proud of, something of security and a sensible investment in their own and their country's future. They will be the losers because they will eventually leave the market completely. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(8.39) —The purposes of the Companies and Securities Legislation Amendment Bill were outlined by the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). Firstly, partial takeover bids are to be restricted to proportional bids, that is, partial takeover offers must be made for a specified proportion of each shareholder's shareholding. Secondly, the cash price specified in the offer must be not less than the highest price per share paid, or agreed to be paid, under an agreement to purchase shares made in the four-month period prior to the date of dispatch of the offers. Thirdly, the maximum acceptance provisions will be prohibited. Fourthly, with retrospective operation of the legislation, if offers under a pro rata partial bid remain open when Part 2 of the Bill comes into operation, currently at the date of royal assent, they will be deemed to be for a proportion of each shareholder's shareholding. Fifthly, where an acquisition of shares is made in a listed public company through an agreement made in the four months preceeding the date of an on-market takeover announcement, the price to be specified in a subsequent announcement of offer is deemed to be that originally agreed to regardless of any variation in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Sixthly, acceptance of proportional takeover offers is restricted to persons who are registered or are entitled to be registered as the holders of the shares to which the offer relates but who have not acquired their shares from a shareholder who has previously accepted the offer in relation to the prescribed proportion of his shares. Seventhly, where shares are held by a nominee or trustee on behalf of different persons, a takeover offer is deemed to be a separate offer to each beneficial shareholder. Eighthly, constituent documents of a company may provide that shares provided under a partial takeover bid may not be registered unless a resolution of approval has been passed by the shareholders. Ninethly, a bidder or his or her associate will be prohibited from giving or receiving benefits under agreements entered into within six months of a takeover offer. Tenthly, substantial shareholders will be required only to notify net variations of one per cent of their entitlement where such variation does not result in their being entitled to less than 10 per cent of the company's voting shares. Those points basically are the purport of the Bill. But, as my colleague and learned leader the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has pointed out, whilst this Bill is not opposed by the Opposition there are some points which we feel ought to be made. In his very erudite address, the honourable member for North Sydney pointed to the fact that recent events, particularly the high level of takeover activity and also the struggle for control of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, have focused attention on takeovers and takeover law. In that excellent exposition for which the honourable member for North Sydney is to be congratulated by this House and all Australians, he made three basic and fundamental criticisms of this Bill. He said, firstly, that no attempt had been made to gauge or analyse the economic effect of the Bill on takeovers. It should be obvious to anyone interested in economic policy that takeover rules can have a crucial effect not only on the conduct of takeovers but also on the level of foreign investment in Australia. Secondly, the honourable member for North Sydney, with the skill and ability for which he is becoming renowned in this Parliament, pointed out that even now the deficiencies and loopholes in this Bill are being identified. Thirdly, the honourable member for North Sydney said, I think with great veracity, that the changes proposed rest on a number of very doubtful assumptions. He added that the Australian financial community is divided on this issue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -We are going to get a contribution from the honourable member for Denison, are we not? Mr HODGMAN —My word, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been itching to make my contribution on this debate. It takes but nine months to produce a baby; it takes but three years to produce an elephant. It has taken 5 1/2 years to produce this Bill because, as was the case with the former legislation, this Bill originated following a formal agreement entered into and executed by the Commonwealth and all the States back on 22 December 1978. Honourable members will well remember that that was during the halcyon days of the Fraser Government when this country was moving ahead, when its economy was in good condition and when it had good government. The people recognised that because, in 1980, the Fraser Government was re-elected yet again-for the third time. It was only by an unfortunate quirk of fate and a complete misleading and deception of the people of Australia by a man who arrived, if I can use that expression, on the political scene, pranced on to the centre stage of Australian politics, conned the people of Australia with all sorts of false promises and mythology, that this Government gained office in 1983. The Hawke socialist Government, as we all know, is in its last days. It will be out of office following the next Federal election. But 1978 was a halcyon year. I think it was just about the time you entered this chamber, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has taken 5 1/2 years for this legislation to reach the representatives of the people. Do honourable members know how much time has been given to consider it? Seven days! It took five and a half years to produce-we could create two and a half elephants in that time-but the Government has given us only seven days to consider it. Mr Deputy Speaker, you are a student of politics; you are also a student of the English language. I will read the definition of the word `vindicate' from the Concise Oxford Dictionary. I actually have a copy of that dictionary marked `Deputy Clerk', because I borrowed it from the Deputy Clerk for just a moment. Mr John Brown —Don't forget to give it back, as you normally do. Mr HODGMAN —I will give it back to the Deputy Clerk. Unlike the Minister at the table, I return property which I borrow. The word `vindicate' is extraordinarily appropriate to the remarks I am about to address. I am delighted that you invited me to make my contribution, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will make my contribution. It will not please some in the chamber; nevertheless, I will make it. `Vindicate' is defined as successfully establishing the existence or merits or justice of one's veracity, courage, conduct, character and assertion. I am proud because I believe that this Bill, with all its shortcomings, vindicates something I said in this House just 30 days ago. It got me into hot water. However the honourable member who spoke a moment ago, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris)-and I see that my very good friend the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member of Barker (Mr Porter) is sitting next to me; he will be as ecstatic as I am at the extraordinary physiological change we have seen come over the honourable member who spoke before me-had political laryngitis some 30 days ago. He found his voice tonight when he made a most extraordinary speech. But where was he when we were talking about takeover bids in relation to Australia's largest company, just 30 days ago? When did he speak out as he did tonight on that takeover bid, the raid upon Australia's largest company, BHP, with 180,000 shareholders-many of them ordinary decent Australians. When this Bill talks in lofty terms about equal dealings between shareholders, where did we hear this Government speaking out 30 days ago about bids which are in category A for one group of shareholders and category Z for another group? If there is one thing that came out of the Holmes a Court raid on BHP, it was this: If you were big, if you were corporate, there was special deal for you. But, if you were Mr and Mrs Australia, an ordinary Australian shareholder, you took your place at the end of the queue. This Bill pontificates that it is a Bill to amend the law relating to partial takeover bids. That is what the Deputy Prime Minister said it was all about. But where does it talk about equity between one shareholder and another? Where does it talk about fair dealing? The shadow Attorney-General is quite correct when he points to the fact that loopholes and deficiencies are already starting to appear in this Bill. I am flattered by the comment that the shadow Attorney-General applied to his own remarks, which I have just adopted, because I think it is very significant that, whilst this Bill purports to amend the law relating to partial takeover bids, its application, had it been in place in relation to the recent raid on BHP by Mr Holmes a Court, would have been somewhat interesting indeed. I do not intend to use all the time available to me. I am aware that the former Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), is waiting there, anxious to rise to his feet and to enjoin the debate on this issue. I simply say, and I say it with utter frankness-and again if it means treading on toes, I make no apology whatsoever-that this legislation originates from an agreement executed between the Commonwealth and all the States of Australia as long ago as 22 December 1978. The Bill is for an Act to amend laws relating to companies and securities. It is said to have the united and universal support of all the body politic in Australia, that is to say, the Commonwealth Parliament and the parliaments of the States and, to the extent that it is empowered to so legislate, the Northern Territory. I just say in passing, of course, that it remains to me an incredible fact that, despite all the promises and all the commitments that I lived with as Minister for the Capital Territory in the period running up to the 1983 Federal election, the long-promised capacity of the Australian Capital Territory to legislate in its own right has still not been provided by the Hawke socialist Government. Mr John Brown —You have just given us a clue why you lost in 1983. Mr HODGMAN —I know why I lost-because the greatest confidence trickster in the history of Australian politics stood on the stage in the Sydney Opera House, promised the people of Australia the world, and has given them nothing. He will be going into the Guinness Book of Records for the second time. He is already in for beer consumption. He will also be going in as the Prime Minister who has broken more promises in the shortest possible time in the history of Western parliamentary democracy. That is what he will be going in for. I am sorry that the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) is not present because the honourable member made one of the most profound comments and one of the wisest comments I have heard in 20 years in politics when he said that there can be no free market unless it is an informed market. My good friend the honourable member for North Sydney who encourages me with his hostile interjections in the friendliest possible way, will note what the honourable member for Mayo said: `You cannot have a free market unless it is an informed market'. The one thing I do give the Government credit for in this legislation is that it will hopefully lead to a more informed and, therefore, a freer market. It is not usual for me to quote from judgments; indeed, it has often been said that, if one has to refer to authorities-case law, that is to say-one is somewhat deficient because, if one can rely just on broad basic principle, one wins more trials than if one keeps quoting authorities. But I want to read a couple of quotations from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria on 26 March this year. I hope that my good friend the honourable member for North Sydney, who I have no doubt has read the judgment, will note the relevance of the points I am about to make. It talks about a takeover bid, and I will delete the names just so that the innocent as well as the guilty will be protected. It states: This followed shortly after a capitulation following hard on the heels of a refusal by the court to set aside a subpoena calling on documents disclosing details of the $2 billion loan facility, itself preceded by strong prima facie evidence pointing to their importance and other possible breaches of the requirements of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) (Victoria) Code. I think it is wrong that in this country offers can be made but details in relation to the offers concealed. It is wrong, when a factual situation develops, that a judge, in relation to a particular takeover offer and a refusal to comply with a subpoena calling on documents disclosing details of a loan facility, has to say that it involves possible breaches of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) (Victoria) Code. I think it is wrong when a judge has to say, as he so correctly said, that in that case the offeror was bent on keeping the loan facility arrangement secret. I think it is wrong when a judge says, as he so properly said, that secrecy in the circumstances of the takeover scheme is impossible, in his view, to excuse. Finally, I think it is wrong when a judge says, as he so properly said in this case, that this conduct has been compounded recently by the highly misleading, if not deceptive, public statements of the chairman to the effect that the present offers have been withdrawn merely because of the length of the court hearing with overtones that this was connected with the length of his opponent's case. Can we have a country where offers are made openly, where loan facilities are disclosed, where all shareholders, big and small, have an equal right to assess what is being put to them and make a proper judgment on it? Can we have a country where people know what is going on and where there is no insider trading? I thank God for people of the calibre of His Honour Mr Justice Marks of the Supreme Court of Victoria. I join with the honourable member for North Sydney in asking: What is wrong with foreign investment in this country of ours if the investment capacity is not already here? I conclude by saying that we are going down a track that the United States of America has just been through. I have been in the United States within the last eight weeks. They are sick and tired of the non-productivity of takeover bid after takeover bid for takeover bids' sake. Surely, across this Parliament on both sides of the House there must be members who recognise that it is unproductive and contrary to the economic interests of this country for corporate raiders to have a field day taking over, taking over, and taking over again, lining pockets, with $80m profit here and $100m profit there. Is that productivity which is in the interests of the economy of this country? I have to say that I do not think it is. I believe in a free market. I believe in free enterprise. But this passion of takeover on takeover on takeover, in the long run, contributes nothing to the economy of Australia. I do not know what my colleague on the other side of the House is going to say, but I hope that in the breadth of his remarks he will accept one thing-that what we want in Australia is productivity. We are doing so little with so much. Countries with so little are doing so much more-look at Singapore, at Taiwan, and at Israel. Australia is a country in second gear. I would have hoped that there would be some leadership in this country to get Australia into top gear and to achieve our national destiny. We are just not doing that. I now look with very great care at any takeover bid because what I have seen in the last two months has opened my eyes. I do not want to see it ever happen again. I do not ever want again to see a situation where shareholders and ordinary Australians, including the taxpayers of this country, are kept in the dark and a government legislates with corrupt legislation to prevent that matter being the subject of inquiry. With those qualifications, I do not oppose the Bill. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(9.00) —As explained by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), the Companies and Securities Legislation Amendment Bill will implement recommendations made by the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee in its report on partial takeover bids. Honourable members will remember that the Attorney-General in his second reading speech stressed that the Bill should not be read by the investment community as a signal that this Government had adopted a general anti-takeover position. I concur with the Attorney-General, for I also recognise that the take- over process, which involves the maximisation of returns on assets, is a crucial ingredient in a healthy economy and important to our long term growth, output and employment. However, I also have reservations, and I noted that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) also had some reservations, about takeovers. I understand the concern of many Australians who question the number of takeovers that have occurred in recent times or have been mooted in this country in recent years, especially takeovers financed with money borrowed off-shore-borrowings which have had a significant influence on and have significantly increased, this country's external debts. It never ceases to amaze me how some of the conservative elements in the political arena have endeavoured to explain the foreign debt that this country has. They have endeavoured to lay the blame on the Hawke Labor Government for the size of Australia's external debt. But what they also need to say, and what I intend to canvass in my own area and to use this chamber to do so, is that 60 per cent of the debt is owed by the private sector. It needs to be explained that the actual debt of the Commonwealth is approximately $13 billion. That is about 20 per cent of the total foreign debt of this country. Yet we have an amount of about $13 billion in our foreign reserves, so that debt is offset by those reserves. The debt owed by the State governments and local government is again about 20 per cent, but 60 per cent of that foreign debt is owed by the private sector-by companies. I question how much has been borrowed for takeovers. It is speculative and it is difficult to find out, because we are talking about $40 billion that has been borrowed off-shore. One questions how much has been used for takeover purposes, but I believe that it is considerable. Last Saturday I had what some may call the privilege, but a task in some ways, of attending the Housing Industry Association's twenty-first national conference, in Brisbane. For a while I thought that I was at some Liberal Party convention because, although the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was originally invited to open the convention, Lady Lynch was the one who finally opened it, and I concurred with many of her comments. But the keynote speaker was Sir Charles Court. Mr Hodgman —A great Australian. Mr WRIGHT —Yes, a great Western Australian, I am told. He made some interesting observations, on which I shall comment in a moment. At that conference was Alan Cadman, the honourable member for Mitchell, a Liberal member; he was the chairman of the selection panel. The Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, was the guest speaker at dinner. Also present was Julian Beale, the honourable member for Deakin, and a number of other Liberals were present. I come back to Sir Charles Court because he made some very interesting comments, with two of which I would agree. After criticising and belting the unions unfairly and attacking the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, he said that the people should look for leadership among the grass roots because there was no messiah on the horizon. He said that there was no alternative. The funny part about it was that John Howard was sitting in the frontrow, so I wondered how he felt. The other point on which I agreed with Sir Charles was when he called for a moratorium on takeovers for two years, and I totally support him. Like the honourable member for Deakin, I have grave reservations as to the real advantages of the takeovers that are taking place in our country. I question the advantages to the productivity call in this country. I wonder how much time is spent in boardrooms by directors worrying about who will take them over, looking over their shoulders all the time rather than being involved in initiative and innovation. I suggest that the looming takeover mentality that is now with us dulls initiative, innovation and effort-it certainly dulls productivity. We need to rethink the attitude that exists, especially when that money is borrowed off-shore, where it builds up and increases foreign debt, where it makes Australia look bad and brings us to third world country status. Also we need to take a hard look not just at takeovers but at mergers-the consortiums that are being brought forward. Today I brought to the Attorney-General's attention a consortium in the meat industry and I welcome the way in which he has quickly acted. I welcome the fact that this morning he was able to arrange for me to meet a senior officer of his Department and also a senior officer in the Trade Practices Commission. This is the example that governments, both State and Federal, need to look at. We are not only questioning takeovers but also talking about mergers which can have a similar effect-a merger in this case involving four or five Australian meat processing companies. Those companies are F. J. Walker, a division of Elders IXL, Metro Meat, a subsidiary of Adelaide Steamship and Tooth and Company, Smorgon Consolidated Industries, Tancred Brothers Holdings and, indirectly, Thomas Borthwick and Sons. I believe that we are witnessing the finality of a carefully planned strategy to take over and monopolise the meat processing industry in Queensland and New South Wales. The honourable member for Deakin also spoke of cover-up and the sneaky fashion in which takeovers are so often carried out. It has certainly been true with this consortium because we have seen the alleged use of the name of the Avocado Club. Instead of coming clean and talking to the meat unions which will be affected, involving some 2,000 jobs to be lost, and instead of talking to the Cattlemen's Union and the Cattle Council as some 6,000 to 7,000 graziers will be locked into a one-bid, one-price system, we have had weeks and weeks of denial. It has only been this week in an article by Nigel Austin in Australian Business that it has been admitted by Geoffrey Tancred that the merger is on and that there is a May D-day. It is out-it is official. The article explains that the plan is to amalgamate eight of the 10 northern abattoirs. I notice that the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) has just entered the chamber and I know of his interest in the rural sector and his concern for his graziers. I would seek his support and that of the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) and others in what will happen to graziers and meat workers who live in their electorates. If this merger goes ahead, 40 to 50 per cent of the cattle slaughtered in Queensland will be controlled by this consortium. It will mean the control of 1 1/2 million head of cattle that are killed each year in Queensland. It will mean control of a major part of the export market, involving up to 400,000 tonnes of the red meat that is exported, worth about $1,000m a year. It will have a nationwide effect because the companies involved are not just in Queensland but are in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. One must have regard to the effect on the ordinary person as some 2,000 jobs are at stake. Pentland outside Charters Towers could lose 400 to 500 people. It depends solely and totally on the meatworks. In Queerah, near Cairns, another 350 people will lose their jobs because the cattle will be taken to Townsville. Merinda meatworks near Bowen, owned by Thomas Borthwick, will be sold out to the consortium, and will go probably to Townsville or Mackay to Bakers Creek. Hundreds of jobs will be lost, and in the north some 1,200 jobs. In Bremer River in the Oxley area, represented so well by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), some 500 members of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union will not go back to work. That meatworks will not be open and my advice is that it will become a cold storage unit. One sees the effect of takeovers and mergers. (Quorum formed) It is a great pity when this issue is so important that we have only three members of the Opposition who seem to be concerned about the thousands of meatworkers who stand to lose their jobs and about the 6,000 or 7,000 graziers who will be caught in a one-price situation. It simply amazes and shocks me that National Party members are not concerned. We have not heard one word fighting for the graziers, and not one word fighting for the consumers or the meatworkers. I also suggest that he should consider the demise of the small processors. There are 31 licensed meatworks in Queensland. If this amalgamation goes ahead, we will see the wiping out and demise of half of those. Mr Ronald Edwards —How many? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) — Order! I am sure the honourable member for Capricornia does not need any support from members of his own Party. Mr WRIGHT —I certainly welcome the support from Government members, because it shows their interest in this issue; unlike the members of the Opposition who do not have the decency to come in here and listen to what is going on. They are not concerned about the people of Queensland, New South Wales and other parts of Australia. The demise of the small processors in Queensland will be devastating. It will tear apart the Darling Downs and areas around Brisbane as we see the small meat processors go to the wall. I welcome, at least in part, the consideration being given by the Queensland Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs, Vince Lester, who says that he is now going to investigate this issue. I just hope that he joins with the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in trying to do something about this. I suggest that we need to change the present laws to not only stop the takeovers-- Mr Hand —Here is the honourable member for Maranoa. Mr WRIGHT —I welcome the honourable member for Maranoa because I suggest that many of his constituents will be on his doorstep asking him why he has not been supporting the honourable member for Capricornia and other Labor members on this issue. It is worth noting that it was the Labor Government's rural committee led by the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) which today agreed to meet immediately with the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and graziers over this issue. We have not heard one word, however, from the National Party. No-one in that Party seems to be concerned; they just do not seem to care. We see here an argument for rationalisation. I can understand that. In Queensland we have a situation where we do have too many meatworks. We do have a situation where many of those meatworks on the beef killing chains are under capacity with some working at 33 per cent, some at 58 per cent and some meatworks operating for only five or six months of the year. I can understand that over a period of time there ought to be some changes and there ought to be a rationalisation of the industry; but not overnight, not so it wipes out the jobs of 2,000 meatworkers, not so it destroys small towns throughout the State, and not so it wipes out the small meatworks, their investors and those associated with them. Further, we should not allow the effect that it will have on road hauliers, the railway departments and all those involved in the meat industry. However, it seems that those involved in this merger do not seem to care. I notice that anything Elders IXL is into seems to be devastating. It seems that that company is prepared to rip off its own people on the land, people with high interest rates on borrowings. When it comes to mergers and takeovers that company does not care what the effect is, as long as it fills the cash registers. It is looking at this whole issue with cash register eyes. No wonder we now have the graziers condemning that company. I put it to the House that there is a need to try to stop this merger. There is a need to try to put an end to what is taking place here. I am pleased that the honourable member for Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) has come in because like Queensland the Northern Territory is an important producer of cattle. I suggest to the honourable member for the Northern Territory that he ought to join with me in this issue because, as this merger, this consortium takes over the export industry, his own Territory will be affected. I know the honourable member for the Northern Territory has just come into the House and I know that he does not normally have much interest in this issue, but I suggest that this time he take up the cudgels on behalf of some of the people of the Territory whom he should be representing, because this merger will have a devastating effect. The concept is a simple one: What these companies will do is surrender their plants. They will go to the merging group-the consortium-and surrender the plants of operation throughout Queensland and northern New South Wales. It will be a simple basis, an exchange of shares. That is why we need a Trade Practices Commission inquiry. We need to look at it very carefully because it will affect not only the wholesale industry, the meat industry, the export industry but also, finally, the retailing industry. Many of those companies involved in this merger also have major retail outlets. Mr Ronald Edwards —And the consumer must suffer. Mr WRIGHT —The consumer must suffer. A simple example in the township of Biloela in my electorate I think shows exactly what happens when monopolies get control. We had a case there of two small businesses selling groceries. Woolworths came in and undercut them, wiped them out and the two firms closed down. Today, Woolworths is the only outlet there and the price of Woolworths products in Biloela is 11 per cent higher than any other Woolworths store in the district. That is typical of what happens when you get monopolies. That is what is going to take place if this merger is allowed to go ahead. I call on the Queensland Government, which has influence through the meat industry in that State and which gives out the licences, to play its part. I believe that the States and the Federal Government need to join together on this issue. It is an issue that will affect directly and indirectly thousands upon thousands of Australians. I wonder how the 2,000 meatworkers feel tonight knowing that Pentland is going to close down, Merinda is going to close down, Queerah is going to close down and Bremer River will never open. I wonder how the 500 meatworkers at Bremer River feel knowing that their whole meatworks will be turned into some sort of cold storage area, knowing that never again will they process meat there. I wonder how those people who have depended on the meat industry in the north will feel, or the graziers who in recent days have gone to cattle sales, put their cattle in and there has been only one opening bid for every lot of cattle offered. They have rung the meatworks. Normally it is competitive. Buyers can shop around and get different prices. However, when they ring up it is coincidental that only one price is offered. If that is not cartel buying, collusive buying, I do not know what it is. There is certainly a need to review the present laws. I would like to have seen a provision in the companies and securities legislation so that we can delve into this. I do not believe it is enough to leave it to trade practices legislation. Whilst I welcome what the Attorney-General is prepared to do-I am aware of his interest and concern about this issue-it appears that we need to bring the States together with the Commonwealth and address this problem. It will happen again and again. We have a responsibility in this Parliament to put an end to it because of the ultimate effect it will have on all Australians, whether they be consumers, producers or workers in the meat industry. It is not good enough simply to sit back and say: `That is private enterprise'. That is the nonsense that has been going on from the conservative forces-how wonderful private enterprise is. We know the value of private enterprise provided there is competition. Mr Everingham —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I feel terribly sorry for the honourable member for Capricornia who has been driven out of Queensland by a 75-year-old. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr WRIGHT —I take that interjection. At least I never took $20,000 from lawyers from a rort that he had with casinos in Alice Springs. I did not mind leaving State politics, but the honourable member receiving $20,000 on the side is a disgrace. The honourable member should not be a part of this assembly. I return to the issue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member must refer to the Bill before the House. Mr WRIGHT —I welcome your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, but you seemed to accept the interjection from the honourable member for the Northern Territory, which I say had no relationship at all to the debate before the House. The issue that I have spoken on affects all Australians; it affects the State of Queensland, it is an issue of concern and I believe that we need to move now to stop the emergence of a consortium. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.19) —in reply-I thank honourable members for the calm and dispassionate way in which they have dealt with the Companies and Securities Legislation Amendment Bill 1986! I am delighted to know that the Bill is not opposed. I can understand the concern of honourable members because companies and securities legislation is a matter for concern. The honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) talked eloquently about the difficulties in the trade practices area which to some extent come into the area of companies and securities legislation. Mergers and monopolies are under the control of the trade practices legislation. But when one turns to market forces and takeover provisions, of course, one is then dealing with the Securities Industry Act which would perhaps relate to mergers or transfers of monopolies. The issue, of course, is the legislation itself. It has not been opposed and I can understand why that is so. Honourable members who have taken part in the debate this evening have all expressed concern, as has the ministerial council. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) was somewhat critical of what he regarded as the delay in the matter. I am not too clear about the basis of the 5 1/2-year period to which he referred. But let me make the point- Mr Hodgman —From 22 December 1978. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is a lot longer than 5 1/2 years ago. I wonder where the honourable member obtained that figure. But let me come to the point and try to deal with it fairly. The ministerial council received the report from the Law Review Committee in August 1985. So there has been no delay from the point of view of what this Bill is about. It is concerned-and I still think it has difficulties in delivering what it is concerned about-to guarantee that the small shareholder gets the same chance and the same price as the large shareholder. This has not happened, as honourable members can see. It has not happened because of the issues concerning what is called the pro rata situation. Big investors and shareholders could wait until the last moment and then take all the shares on offer. The small shareholder-if honourable members want to talk about the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, there are 186,000 of them-would not be given one offer. The idea was to put some equity into the situation and develop a scheme so that everybody would get the offer. That has not happened, either, despite the fact that this piece of legislation has come into being. The ministerial council is still concerned about the efforts being made to get around the provisions. I am concerned-and one must look at the matter from the point of view of the ministerial council-to see whether we have achieved the correct result. We have got nowhere near it. Let us look at what has happened recently. The small shareholder who might have wanted to take the $7.70 offer did not get into the ring at all because legislation was interpreted by the court to the effect that it was not a fair offer. I make no judgment about that. But in the process of making the assessment of whether it was a fair offer or otherwise, another person came in and took 20 per cent of the shares without any worries at all. There seems to be some cross-fertilisation between the existing group in BHP and the new buyer because they took 20 per cent of each other's holdings. From the point of view of exposure-- Mr Moore —Yes, but on the market. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —On the market, but of course the terms are still not able to be disclosed. The honourable member should look at it this way: How were the financial arrangements made? Mr Moore —On the market-- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member is not listening; he should listen for a moment. I make the point that in the process 20 per cent of the shares are gone. All the little people are still on the sideline. There is an inquiry by the National Companies and Securities Commission regarding the process of the financial arrangements-who was lending money to whom, perhaps in order to buy back the shares. That has now been the subject of a High Court challenge which will insist, perhaps, that that information should still be kept secret. The honourable member for Denison has been so anxious to pillory Holmes a Court-I have no brief for any of them-by saying what a dreadful thing he did. We now find that his offer is now available to the small shareholder after all this time. In the process, because of this endeavour to give everybody fair and equitable opportunities, somebody else has gone into the market, taken a very dominant position and acquired a 20 per cent holding-it appears that there is a cross-holding involved-and the financial arrangements are still not known. I make that point. Mr Moore —But the market has gone over that price. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It might have been a higher price. But what was the concern to stop the small shareholder taking the $7.70 offered in the first bid? Mr Moore —He can get a better price now. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He could not at the time. The point that honourable members opposite are overlooking is that 20 of the top shareholders in BHP own about 40 per cent of the shares. If one looks at the investment procedures on the share market, one will find that those who are interested in superannuation funds must get quick profits, within about three months. So they buy and sell BHP shares perhaps three times a year. Mr Moore —There is nothing wrong with that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There is nothing wrong with it at all, except the small shareholder cannot get into the act because of all the restrictions- Mr Moore —Of course he can. The small shareholder can get a better price now. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If the honourable member for Ryan would only look at the matter from this point of view: The small shareholder has not been able to get off the ground until now. Honourable members opposite have been very anxious to say what was wrong with this offer to the small shareholder. Now the small shareholder is able to take it after all this time. In the process, of course, there has been an arrangement with a very friendly board. The companies have 20 per cent of each other's holdings and there have been drinks in the board room to say what a great result it is. One wonders how the 186,000 small shareholders can get into the act. If everybody is so concerned about the small shareholder being able to get the same offer- Mr Moore —You do not know what you are talking about. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I happen to know what I am talking about because the honourable member is very anxious to stop me saying it. In fact, he voted against it. Mr Moore —No, I am all for the market. Give everybody a chance on the market. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —But the honourable member did not let them get into the market. The honourable member is trying to stop me talking. The issue at the moment- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —I ask the honourable member for Ryan to cease interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think he ought to. We are trying to say, at a ministerial council level, that there is a better mechanism of making provision for the small shareholder. It can easily be done by the National Companies and Securities Commission acting as trustee for the bid. It would be very easy. We should get rid of all of this nonsense that there should be some debate as to the merits of the Part A statement. Honourable members opposite did not see the small shareholder debating the merits of the Part A statement. They did not see the small shareholder having a chance to deal with the movement of 20 per cent of the shares. They did not see any of that. This evening we are debating legislation on the basis that something ought to be done about it. I agree with that point; let us agree on that issue. But let us not have too much regulation and litigation on the basis that the small shareholder is being deprived of an offer when in fact he could not even take it. The people who did take the offer and have moved the shares have been the big investors, and that is the risk of the market. It is about time that we looked at the matter from the point of view of the ministerial council to see whether we can free this up completely. If there is to be a takeover offer and the offer is made, it should be guaranteed that the funds are deposited in such a way, particularly through the Commission, that the small shareholder gets his share immediately. We should get rid of all of this nonsense regarding litigation to prevent these situations. As honourable members know, the offer that was originally prevented from coming into operation is now in operation after all this time. Yet there has been a massive movement in the change of shares, a massive movement regarding the control of that company. The national interest had to be preserved from the point of view of the steel industry which the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris) and others are concerned about. We were not concerned with the share market as such, but the fall out to the nation if the steel industry were to be closed down. So we do have an interest in the matter. When one discusses the share market, one must make this point: If the cash management trusts and the superannuation funds are to make a profit-and there is nothing wrong with that-there will be a continual mass movement in shares. It will happen frequently. The small shareholder may never get into the issue because the big transfers involve blocks of shares. That is the problem. If one is talking about takeover offers-I am referring to the equity situation-and one wants to guarantee that that can happen, the small shareholder should be given a chance to be able to take up that bid. At the moment it is not likely to happen because there is far too much litigation. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) was also worried about what one would call an entrenched minority. He is right about that. One matter to which he might address his mind, though, in terms of making the plebiscite provisions into the constituent documents, is that there must be a special resolution, and that would require approval of 75 per cent of the members. Mr Spender —Of the members who voted. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, 75 per cent. That is seen to be a bit of a safeguard. We have had a long argument about the economic advantages of, and other matters relating to, takeovers. That is an argument that will continue because, as honourable members know, the Industries Assistance Commission suggests, on an economic basis, that there are advantages-that can be a matter of contest-in mergers. In other words, the suggestion is that mergers can produce better productivity and cheaper economy of scale. Does it not follow that that can lead to a conflict in that the Trade Practices Commission may also consider that a merger means a dominance in the market or a lessening of competition? We could have a conflict between the economist and what could be called the legal approach to the issue of the consumer. In the middle, we have the issue of whether, if there are too many restrictions of that sort, the share market would not move very much. We are very anxious to see that the share market is freed up on the basis that we want Australians to be involved in investment in their country. That is the best thing that can happen. But it will not happen readily if there is too much litigation on this issue. What I have been anxious to say to the business community in Australia is that I see nothing wrong with one piece of national companies and securities legislation. Mr Hodgman —But you are a centralist. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is not a matter of being a centralist. If the business community does not want it, it does not happen. We will end up with a plethora of commissions, trying to bring in all sorts of amendments to legislation to guarantee that something will happen for the small investor. I think the small investor in the end is quite happy to take the risk in the same way as the large investor. But too much litigation, too much regulation and too much investigation will have a negative influence on that market. Mr Moore —That's quite right. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know what the honourable member is saying. He agrees with me. If we are to free up this market-and the market is about buying and selling-we ought to be able to let it operate. I think that the business community will agree with me that it would be much better to have one piece of legislation that would free up the market. Everybody would know where they stand. We could readily put it into operation. I am not critical of my ministerial colleagues in the States, but I assure honourable members that they would be very puzzled if the business community suddenly told them that they did not want all the State corporate affairs commissions. They could certainly continue from the point of view of incorporation of corporations. They could control that aspect and the States would get appropriate revenue from that. But from the point of view of administration, with only one market and only one economy in Australia, I do not know for the life of me why we cannot agree to have one piece of legislation. That would get rid of all the difficulties we seem to be bogged down in, worrying about how we can draft more laws. As the honourable member for North Sydney said, there are always ways of getting around the laws. I will just finish on this note: The recent example of BHP clearly shows that the small shareholder did not get into the ring at any stage. That is the point. The problem that we now face in this country is how to attract people into the share market. They will not go into the share market if they can never be one of the players, even if they are small shareholders. They will not go into the share market if they can never get an offer for their shares while the big fellow up the road is able to buy in, get what he likes and certainly get a seat on the board. The share market itself ought to realise that there can be excessive regulation. It understands that. It is also important to give information to shareholders. From the Government's point of view it is important for the development of this country that, in industries such as the steel industry, we have boards of directors who are interested in the industry and do not get involved in the share market purely from the point of view of capital gain. That would not readily be their major interest if their only interest is in a three-to six-month cycle. To be a fair dinkum director of BHP and interested in the steel industry one should put one's heart and soul into deciding what to do about possible competition, whether from Korea or elsewhere, what to do about new technology and how to be an expert in the steel industry. The speculators and financiers can be left there because they can get the profits but, if one gets too caught up in the issue of what is the right price for the shares and consequently loses the industry, there will be nothing to sell in the finish. That was the danger when we moved to introduce the steel industry plan to bolster up the board of BHP, no matter what its composition, to make certain that there was a market in Australia. The company is guaranteed 80 per cent of that market and a bounty also. That is not a bad result for a board. But it will be counter-productive if, in the process of deciding who will own BHP, the board does not become involved in the steel industry. That is the risk. If the managers of the superannuation funds or the life insurance people are interested only in making a turnover, that is simply recycling money. It does nothing for the industry. Mr Moore —What is Holmes a Court interested in? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is the point. It is a challenge to find out what they are all interested in. In fairness to the existing board, which has spent a fair bit of time in the steel industry, it is very keen about the industry now. But until 1983, if we look at the inquiry in New South Wales, that particular board was prone to get out of the steel industry because there was more profit in oil. The situation has changed and now the board can see the advantages for the company of investing in new technology, doing business with China, developing trade for Australia and at the same time guaranteeing employment, vitality and viability for cities such as Wollongong, Newcastle, Whyalla-and Kwinana, if it were to be opened up. We can see the great advantages for this country. We need to have boards of directors who are not interested only in the quick turnover on the money market. They have to be dedicated to the industry. Mr Moore —Where does Holmes a Court fit into this? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He fits the rules that apply at present. His ability to be successful in business is a bit like the ability of the honourable member for Ryan to win a seat-he is able to win a seat without any special criteria except the support of the public; that is his privilege. The rules in the share market are that, if one has enough shares and enough money, one can control a corporation. The honourable member will not disagree with that. My point is that many Opposition members have taken part in this debate but not one of them has disclosed whether he has any shares in BHP. It is an interesting aspect. Mr Spender —Look; I declare an interest. I have, through a company, 71 shares, I think. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —So you have a pecuniary interest, John? Mr Spender —An immense one! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am wondering why all Opposition members took the considered view that the offer from Holmes a Court was such a terrible thing, yet nobody said a word about the offer from Elders. There was not one word from them about that. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I suggest the Attorney-General not respond to the interjections. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not responding. I am trying to tell them that I did not hear one word from them against the takeover by Elders. What is the difference between Holmes a Court and John Elliott? It must be politics, for sure. On that note, I thought it appropriate at this stage, and given the lateness of the hour, to have a bit of a workout of what might happen in this market. But the issue is very clear. The Ministerial Council is concerned to guarantee that we do something better than what has happened. It is appropriate to say that the legislation will still need further review. It will need further amendment. It will need freeing up. I would like to see the Ministerial Council agree with that. That will not be an easy task because the question is how best to do it. It is very simple to do it my way. If the amount in a takeover offer, whatever it is, were deposited with the National Companies and Securities Commission as a trustee, the Commission could administer the actual transfer of the shares. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented and seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HODGMAN —The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) quite incorrectly accused me-- Dr Theophanous —How many Elders shares have you got? Mr HODGMAN —I do not own a share in anything-not even the Soviet Embassy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —On what point does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —The Deputy Prime Minister has just asserted that I and others did not speak about small shareholders. I want to refute that statement. I can do so very briefly. It is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. I will just read the precise words which are brief and which will clear the record and show that the Deputy Prime Minister has misrepresented me. I said: Why has the Hawke socialist Government failed to obtain positive, iron-clad commitments from Mr Holmes a Court . . . that there will be fair dealing and even-handed treatment between all the shareholders of BHP, both corporate and individual, the little people of Australia who have invested in BHP, and that under no circumstances- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has made his point. Mr HODGMAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, I must finish. I continued: under no circumstances will one group of shareholders get a benefit over and above that available to other groups of shareholders? I stood up for the little people, the small shareholders. This Government betrayed them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Debate resumed from 17 April, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 concurrently with the Excise Tariff Amendments Bill 1986 and the Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(9.42) —After the previous address or two in which I found the inconsistencies quite alarming, I am sure that this scintillating discussion on customs and excise will draw the House's attention to fever point. There are those who are regular participants in debates in the customs and excise area but I do not see many in the House. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) is a consistent participant. No doubt, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) is an excise contributor. Mr Hand —I am the only teetotaller in this place. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will either sit down in his proper seat or leave the chamber. Mr MOORE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for protecting me from such outrageous left wing tactics. I indicate to the House tonight that the Opposition will not oppose the legislation before the House but I will be moving in Committee to oppose clauses 25, 26, and 27, which relate to the maturation of brandy, whisky and rum. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) will no doubt swat up and find out what that means. While he is catching his car, I will go on with other aspects of the legislation. One of the three Bills which are being debated cognately tonight is the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill, which covers a wide ranging series of amendments. Those who have participated in these debates before will recognise that this legislation catches up at the end of a session with a series of amendments that have been brought in from time to time to bring to the notice of the public events that have occurred. The Bill covers amendments to the Coal Excise Act which relate to the method of calculating the excise duty on coal. We, in opposition, have always thought that the proposition that a tax be placed on exports is rather quaint. In government we would move to do something about this. This tax was placed on the export of coal at a stage when the coal industry in Australia, in Queensland in particular, was highly profitable. This tax was brought in as a way of earning revenue for the Government. At a time when the industry is experiencing many difficulties, I very much question the wisdom of its maintenance in this regard. This is purely a measurement of how excise is calculated. It is not objected to by the Queensland Coal Association and I see no reason why we should object to it. This Bill proposes to amend the Customs Act 1901. Everybody in this chamber, including the Minister, will recall that that is one of the oldest Acts of the Parliament. It has enormous powers, probably more intrusive powers than any other Act on the statute book in Australia. Those who have an intimate knowledge of the Customs area and a great feeling for it will know the enormous powers that rest there. These amendments relate purely to protecting cultural objects and are really a way in which Customs officers can give effect to a notification by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment relating to particular artifacts. Frequently it is not easy for Customs officials to be able to identify the sorts of artifacts or articles which are subject to prohibition in relation to their entry or export because of the definition within the Act. I am hopeful that these amendments will do something to make their task easier. The attempts made to take a variety of items out of Australia have been very wide at times and I am quite sure that these provisions will be of some use. The re-importation concession is valuable and certainly of interest to the Australian manufacturing sector. The areas which relate to entry of ship's stores and aircraft's stores are, in my view, sensible and I am sure would not have been brought forward otherwise. I think the powers to detain and search persons are appropriate these days given the fact that increasing numbers of people are being subjected to body searches because of drug-related activities. I am aware of many instances of people entering Australia objecting to being searched by certain people. This amendment clarifies that situation. The most important part of the legislation-the part which we will be opposing in the Committee stage-is the amendment to the Spirits Act 1906. The Government is proposing to abolish the two-year minimum maturation period for brandy, whisky and rum. This removal will be applied from 1 April 1990. I am quite sure that that date will be well known to some honourable members. It should be borne in mind that the producers of brandy who want to see the requisite quality brought into it have an interest in maintaining the two-year maturation period. This proposal is supported by the majority of the members of the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association. The people who are opposed to this proposal or who propose something less than this are really supporters of a new technology or a requirement for cheaper brandy and they are egged on really by the fact that it is very hard to identify the maturation period of the brandy imported into Australia at present. Leaving aside the brandy problems, I shall refer to the problems associated with rum. The honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) is well known for his great interest in this matter. I submit to the House that it would not be in the best interests of the rum industry to require it to lower its maturation period. That view has been expressed by those who produce within the industry. The sugar industry is going through a difficult period and I do not think the lowering of standards will help that industry at all. Also, in my view, it does not help the consumer of the product. The consumer benefits substantially from the two-year maturation period, as the Minister would know. That is the subject of a learned dissertation and it is something which I am sure the Minister will follow through. People who operate in this area have raised a number of objections with myself and an honourable senator about the whole process of lowering the period of maturation from two years to six months. If that were done producers fear that they would not be able to give appropriate attention to quality and marketing in their areas. One of the most serious problems is in regard to labelling. If producers were to label their products so that people would clearly know that a two-year or two-year plus maturated product would sell at a premium as opposed to products maturated for a six-month or thereabouts period which may be cheaper, people would more readily accept the change. However, there is no indication in this legislation or anywhere else that the change will be notified to the consumer. The fact that these changes will not occur until 30 June 1990 indicates to me that the Government recognises that there are some problems within the industry which will take years to work through. Mr Barry Jones —Have you had a look at section 9 of the Spirits Act? Mr MOORE —Yes, I have, but that does not do anything about the labelling problems, which are the main problems. Mr Barry Jones —I think it does. Mr MOORE —Does it? The Excise Tariff Amendment Bill makes a number of previously notified changes to the Excise Tariff Amendment Act and inserts new definitions into the Act of what is a brandy, a fruit brandy, a liqueur, a rum, a spiritous beverage and a whisky and restricts the tariff items dealing with these products. It also increases the excise duty on manufactured tobacco, which is a Budget measure. The legislation increases the excise duty on liquefied petroleum gas, which is in line with the Government policy of six-monthly reviews. It is worthwhile saying at this point that the Government's policy of having six-monthly increases in excise in line with the consumer price index is a very sneaky way of charging Australian consumers more. It is a way the Government has been able to increase Government revenue with no one knowing it is doing so. The price of booze goes up, so the Government says: `Let us slip it into the fuel price structure at the same time'. So the people who live on the Darling Downs who have to pay these exorbitant fuel charges and taxes-people who have made a major contribution to the development of this nation, as the previous honourable member for Darling Downs and present honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) would recognise-are locked into a six-monthly upward review of government charges in regard to the most used product on the farm which is fuel. Mr McVeigh —You aren't in favour of that, surely! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for Groom will remain silent and will move to his own seat if he wishes to make comments. Mr MOORE —That is not the way to seat such a sterling member as the honourable member for Groom. The other item in this area relates to vice-regal concessions. Until now excise concessions were granted to the occupants of Government Houses. Amendments in the legislation provide that items imported for personal use as distinct from official use will be withdrawn and that only those items used in official duties will be conceded on future occasions. The Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 relates to the transfer of powers from the Minister to the Comptroller-General of Customs which has been taking place over some time. In the principal Act, which I think was passed by Parliament about a year ago, some 75 per cent of the powers vested in the Minister were transferred to the Comptroller-General. Provisions in this Bill reduce those powers even further and vests in the Minister only those powers which relate to policy items, rather than administrative items. Mr Price —Very sound! Mr MOORE —It might be very sound but I ask of the Minister concerned that, when proposing this continued dilution of minis- terial responsibility-because power equals responsibility- he consider what has been the experience of the Australian Customs Service since the powers have been administered directly by the Comptroller-General, rather than by the Minister. Have the delegations of power, which were the previous practice, been eliminated? In what way does the Minister these days oversee the activities within the Department in a real administrative sense, bearing in mind- Dr Theophanous —As you did when you were Minister. Mr MOORE —A lot more than teddy bears have gone through. Mr Price —Tell us about your television set. Mr MOORE —We will talk about teddy bears first. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask honourable members on my right to cease interjecting. I also ask the honourable member for Ryan to ignore the interjections. Mr MOORE —I am sometimes provoked by honourable members, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —You will have the protection of the Chair, if you seek it. Mr MOORE —Thank you very much indeed, sir. I appreciate that very much. I ask the Minister, when he responds to these matters, to address the question of the efficiency of the Customs Service since the transfer of powers from the Minister to the Comptroller-General. Has the Service been improved? Has the experience of not having to effect the delegations that were previously required been beneficial to the Service? Has it been beneficial to the overall supervision of the Customs Service? Has the transfer of powers been beneficial to the management structure of Customs? It is a very significant change and an area in which Parliament should be reported to. For many years the Customs Service has been used in one way or another to provide increased protection for the manufacturing sector. If one could not get an Industries Assistance Commission report to stand up in the way one wanted it to, one always tried a dumping charge. If one could get the dumping charge to sit, that in itself was a great way to effect a protective measure. If that failed or the classifications were challenged and failed one always had the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I have long wondered about the efficiency of this process. The honourable member for Groom frequently appealed about the use of these measures in relation to harvesting machines. I ask the Minister to indicate where the new process has had any impact on this area and whether the powers, having been transferred from the Minister to the Comptroller-General, have allowed the administration to pick up the judgment as to whether certain items ought to be protected. These powers within the Service are very real as is their impact on industries throughout Australia, the manufacturing industry, primary industry and the mining sector. Customs and excise legislation seldom evokes an enormous amount of interest, although I have noticed that the last few customs and excise debates we have had have attracted more speakers. The importance of the Customs Service is probably becoming more recognised. The role the Service plays in the surveillance of the Australian shore in terms of the entry of prohibited goods such as drugs is increasingly on the minds of Australians. I hope that because of that the Government is giving mind to the Service as a whole. For many years it was always my impression that Customs was allowed to wither on the vine a bit. We did not give the resources it needed to carry out the services Australian citizens wanted. It has only been in recent times when the question of the entry of drugs and immigrants into Australia and the defence of Australian shores has come to the fore, we have seen a recognition of the Service. I am quite sure that the Comptroller-General would be aware of the increasing demands on the Service and hope that his requests to meet those demands will be helped by Government decisions in relation to resources and Government votes. For many years aeroplane and boat services and personnel were inadequate to meet the Customs standards I feel the Australian public would require if it had to put up a defence of its front line operations. I hope that the Minister will respond to these matters. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(10.00) —The shadow Minister for northern development and local government, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), just made a number of observations in relation to the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill and the Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill but he missed several main aspects. Therefore, I believe that it is my obligation to talk about some of those aspects. I was a bit surprised that he missed what I would consider to be two very key issues which I would have thought are of great importance to the Australian community. The first issue that I want to talk about is the introduction of new tariff concessions that permit the duty free entry of goods which are reimported after they have been repaired and renovated outside Australia where it is established that such work could not be performed in Australia. This is important because if we are to develop our manufacturing and engineering industries we have to have a process which is very flexible about the repairing and renovation of goods, especially capital goods, that are important in the manufacturing process. In cases where repairs have to be done overseas it would be possible for the goods to be taken out of Australia after the original duty has been paid on them, be repaired and be brought back without new charges being imposed. That kind of flexibility will be important. The Comptroller- General of Customs will be authorised to make a commercial tariff concession order which will permit duty free entry of goods only if it is established that the repair or renovation could not be performed in Australia in the normal course of business. The Comptroller-General has the power to refuse to make an order if this is likely to substantially adversely affect the market for goods or services in Australia or would not be in the national interest. This measure would be very beneficial to Australia because it would give local repairers an opportunity to demonstrate and, if need be, to upgrade their capacity. If an application for the concession is made it will have to be documented and a notice placed in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette giving local repairers the chance of offering their services in the first instance. That is an important feature of the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill. Another important feature of the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill is the reference to cultural objects. Again this matter was not referred to by the shadow Minister. This measure will allow Customs officers to seize protected cultural objects notified by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment while the items are under the control of the Australian Customs Service. This amendment is very commendable because its aim is to ensure that items of national cultural significance are not imported or exported for profit or private holding but are held in public trust for the benefit of the whole community to which those objects rightfully belong. The amendment would also extend certain forms of protection to the cultural heritage of other nations in line with the 1970 United States Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import or export of cultural property. This is a very important matter, as honourable members will be aware, for certain nations, especially Italy and Greece, where there has been substantial theft of important cultural items and smuggling of those items into other nations including Australia without much penalty or redress by the original nation concerned. Thus I welcome that clause. It is an important provision and will prevent the situation that has led to the scattering of cultural artefacts and important objects of many nations and people; this has taken place by private individuals and organisations purchasing or otherwise acquiring such items and taking them out of the country of origin without permission. There is currently widespread recognition of the right of people to have such items remain in the nation of origin in the context of its history. I suggest that that recognition should extend also to our nation. Currently debate has arisen about some cultural objects of Aboriginal heritage that have found their way into the Vatican. Maybe that situation could have been prevented had this sort of legislation been in place at the time. The most surprising thing about the shadow Minister's comments was his failure to refer to an important clause in the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill. I am referring, of course, to the proposal to remove excise duty on excisable airport shop goods purchased at inwards duty free shops provided such goods, in combination with customable goods, do not exceed one litre of alcoholic liquor or 250 grams of tobacco products. This proposal will put into place the idea that Australian travellers overseas will for the first time be able to purchase duty free goods in Australia on their return. This is a very important provision because it means that instead of people who want to take advantage of duty free concessions when they travel having to buy goods of other nations, they will be able to buy Australian goods on their return to Australia. That is one of the important first steps if we are to encourage people to buy Australian, rather than imported, goods. It is a wonder that this sort of approach has taken so long for us to develop. The only thing that I can say about it is that the measure has not been extended sufficiently because it applies only to alcohol and tobacco products. I do not see why we should not encourage the situation whereby people who, on returning from overseas, could purchase duty free at least the number of goods that are permissible under current circumstances, including a number of manufactured products. This concession has important ramifications from the point of view of its potential impact on imports. It would especially have ramifications if it were extended in the way that I have suggested the Government ought to think about, that is, to extend it to other goods such as manufactured goods which are often brought into Australia with the duty free concession. Not only do I approve of this measure that has been put into place by this legislation but I also suggest that we try to expand it even further in the future. Hopefully, there will be a time when airport duty free areas will be mostly concerned with Australian made goods which are increasingly becoming more competitive on the world market. Of course there are a number of other provisions in these Bills to which the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Mr Barry Jones) referred when he introduced them. For example, we have provision for the abolition of the excise duty on wine produced with added sugar and revised definitions and restructured tariff items dealing with brandy, whisky, rum and liquers. I want to focus on two other aspects of the Bill in the remaining minutes. The first concerns the third Bill, the Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. In that Bill new powers are given to the Comptroller-General and it refers to the reasons why those powers have been given and why other powers have been retained in the hands of the Minister. The shadow Minister suggested that somehow there was some problems with the transfer of these responsibilities to the Comptroller-General. I remind him, however, that this transfer follows upon the original transfer of a substantial number of powers-basically administrative powers. This further transfer is taking place only after an inquiry involving the Minister and the Australian Customs Service has been undertaken. It was only after that inquiry was undertaken and a determination was made to divide the administrative functions from the other functions-that is, the functions which are policy orientated-that it was found that only about 10 per cent of the powers and Customs rules are really needed for the Minister to be able to formulate and implement policy and other matters on the administrative side, including some of the important administrative decisions, should properly be left in the hands of the Comptroller-General. Of course, the Comptroller-General will still have to report to the Minister about any problems that arise in the general administration of the Customs Service; so it is not the case that the Minister is going to wash his hands of any administration requirements. It is important that the Minister has retained certain powers which relate to the policy aspects of this whole area, in particular the powers for the extension of the variation of bounty assistance arrangements in relation to the protection of particular industries. Powers concerning customs tariffs alterations and the formulation of schemes for calling for and dealing with tenders for the right to import goods-in other words, a whole series of powers concerned with import licensing and with proposals dealing with customs tariffs alterations-have all been retained by the Minister. In addition to these powers, the Minister will also retain a large number of important powers concerning dumping. The shadow Minister referred to the question of what would happen in regard to dumping. Why is it important that the Minister retain all these powers? It is important because we need constantly to re-evaluate and reconsider this whole area of import licensing, this whole area of bounty assistance and this whole area of anti-dumping provisions. It is particularly in this area of licensing and this area of customs tariff arrangements that we can provide a link between our industry policies on the one hand and our trade policies on the other. This essential link between industry and trade needs to be studied and developed if we are to overcome some of the fundamental problems that we have at present in relation to our trading situation. This link and these powers will be of pivotal importance. It is therefore extremely important that the Minister has retained those powers within his own hands. I believe that we ought to inquire more actively into how those particular powers can be used in the current situation where the growth in the economy is excessively sucking imports into this country. I am not suggesting that those powers should be used in any heavy-handed fashion through some kind of across the board measure. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Earlier today the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) raised as a matter of privilege an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 25 April in which it is claimed that the solicitors for the Australian Trade Commission had tried-- Mr Sinclair-Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether it would not have been preferable to have made this statement to the House before the adjournment debate. I know that we are in the adjournment phase, but this matter is very material for a lot of people outside the Parliament. I am a little concerned that you are making it after the formal question `That the House do now adjourn' has been proposed. I notice that the proceedings are no longer being broadcast, for example. Madam SPEAKER —I am making it at the earliest possible time, as I told the House I would. There was a matter before the House prior to 10.15 p.m. Mr Sinclair-I understand that. I am concerned that the statement is being made after the adjournment question has been proposed and not before. Madam SPEAKER —I said that I would report at the earliest possible moment, and I am doing so. Earlier today the Leader of the National Party raised as a matter of privilege an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 25 April in which it was claimed that the solicitors for the Australian Trade Commission had tried to halt Opposition attacks on the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) in connection with actions involving Mr T. Walton. In order to accord precedence to a motion on such a matter, the Speaker must be satisfied that:- the matter has been raised at the earliest possible opportunity, and a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made out. The first criterion has been satisfied. In connection with the second requirement, I have noted that the right honourable gentleman has suggested that, in order to help me reach a conclusion, I should take steps to ensure that I am informed of the alternative views on the matter. However, my task in these matters is not to instigate inquiries, but rather to form a view, on the information made available to me, as to whether or not a prima facie case has been established, which would cause me to accord precedence to a motion. The authorities are very clear in indicating that attempts by improper means to influence members in their parliamentary conduct are a breach of privilege. Attempted intimidation is an example, and acts tending indirectly to obstruct members in the discharge of their duty may also be treated as a breach of privilege. It is claimed that there was a proposal, the genesis of which I need not go into, that what may be described as the pursuit of a subject in Parliament should not be continued. If it is accepted that such a proposal was contemplated or discussed, it must be considered whether such actions constituted an attempt to influence members by improper means. In addition, in matters such as this, I feel that I should restate my belief that all complaints of breach of privilege or contempt should be considered in light of the general reluctance of parliaments to invoke their privilege and contempt processes in cases other than those where it is considered imperative to do so in order to protect parliament against obstructions, or threats of obstruction, such as would involve substantial interference with its functioning. On the information before me, I am not satisfied that the actions referred to constitute an attempt by improper means to influence members in their parliamentary conduct. In these circumstances, I do not find that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made out. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.19) —Today in my mail I received the latest offering from the Priority One con game. I am pleased to see that the very well paid supposed head of that Priority One task force is in the chamber tonight to take note of some of my criticisms of that scheme. One only has to look at the material forwarded to parliamentarians and no doubt to a great many others in the community to realise just what an absolute and utter sham Priority One really is. The self-promotion of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the utter cynicism and the betrayal of the trust placed in the Government by so many young people-never to be repeated, I hasten to add-almost defy description. On the front page of the Priority One broadsheet the Prime Minister's name is mentioned no fewer than eight times. There are only about eight paragraphs-it works out to be almost one Bob Hawke or one Prime Minister every sentence. Have a listen, Madam Speaker, to the very first paragraph alongside his smiling face. It states: Most people have one, some have two. For three weeks in 1985 Bob Hawke had 32. And if you think 32 phones are excessive, you will be interested to know that they were all in constant use. But then, Bob Hawke was determined to lend an ear to young Australians and it seems that Prime Minister's ears are in great demand. One would think that the Prime Minister was sitting beside the phones himself. For heaven's sake, it is an utterly cynical exercise. Moreover, it is one that is doomed to failure. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) has a great deal on his mind at present, but not least on his mind ought to be the success or otherwise of Priority One. We have been promised 10,000 traineeships by 30 June. We know that to date only some 1,000 have materialised and, on the admission of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) that target will not be anywhere near met, for a very long time and, if it is to be met, it will undoubtedly be met in the public sector. The very thick booklet, a very expensive publication no doubt widely distributed which attempts to interpret and detail the responses of that massively-promoted phone-in, is an exercise in trivia. It is the most trite, embarrassing and ridiculous publication that any government could put its name to. Moreover, it is politically biased. It heads a whole number of subjects and purports to give summaries of the callers. So, on nuclear issues-this is the intellectual level of this booklet-it summarises by stating: This is a very keenly felt area for many young Australians. That is true. It continues: Strong media coverage is likely to have contributed to the clarity with which individual issues are expressed. Then it lists a whole number of callers, all, of course, who are anti-uranium, anti-American base, pro-nuclear free zone in their approach. It is absolute left-wing garbage. All the other topics under such headings as `Uranium', `US bases', `Africa', `Heritage', `Immigration' and `Wildlife' are meant only to be a reflection of government policy. Therefore, those callers who, in all honesty, tried to make a contribution by way of the phone-in have been duped and used. Of course, under the heading `The Law' it deals with the so-called gerrymander in Queensland. Is that not amazing? Several pages are handed over to Joh Bjelke-Petersen bashing. The whole thing is an absolute fraud. It is an expensive fraud. It is a cynical betrayal of the hopes and aspirations of a great many young Australians. Any Government member who adds his support to this is nothing but an utter disgrace to his electorate and to this Parliament. It is garbage. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.24) —I rise tonight to bring to the attention of the House the ethics of journalists, in particular one Mr Mark Baker who writes for the Melbourne Age. I will bring several items before the House to back up my claim. Recently, in fact last week, I had the privilege of leading a delegation of seven members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence of this Parliament to Papua New Guinea where we had discussions with a number of Ministers, including Prime Minister Wingti, and a tour right around Papua New Guinea to the Ok Tedi gold and copper mine, refugee camps and a number of other places. It was a very interesting and informative tour, but it was in relation to the refugee camps that Mr Baker decided that he had better justify his employer's expense of sending him to Papua New Guinea to be with the delegation, because his reports do not reflect the truth of what happened there. The Age article of 22 April headlined `Jakarta threat to reject aid', from a reporter of Australian Associated Press, states: In another development, Mark Baker reports from Wewak on Papua New Guinea's northern coast that a row has broken out amongst an Australian Federal parliamentary delegation over a Labor member's charge that Indonesia is a `bully' attempting to wipe out Melanesian culture. I do not wish to debate that. That point was made by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent). He has a right to make those statements and I do not wish to debate them here. In fact, the Committee has'nt even debated them. I say that to put the article into context. The article continues: Mr Kent was censured tonight for his criticism by a special meeting of the delegation. The leader of the delegation, Mr David Charles, the Labor member for Isaacs in Victoria, refused to comment on Mr Kent's outbursts. The first untruth is that no special meeting was called specifically to discuss any comments in that regard. Half-way through the tour I called a meeting which had been organised before we left Port Moresby with the secretary of the Committee, Mr Phil Bergin, to revise what had occurred in the first few days and in particular what we had seen at the refugee camps and at other sites such as Ok Tedi. It was raised at that meeting whether we should make individual statements or speak as a Committee. There was discussion around that point, but the beat-up by Mr Baker is totally false. Another article was run on 24 April. On the front page it is stated: `MPs call for tough stand'. That is the stand by three members of the Committee in relation to the discussions about Indonesia-nothing to do with the Committee's trip or what we saw. That is their right, and every member in the House has a view on Indonesia, I suppose. In relation to that I quote from the Melbourne Age as follows: Their stand, and their backing of Mr Kent's description of Indonesia as a `bully' attempting to wipe out Melanesian culture, has widened the split in the seven-member delegation which has just completed visits to refugee camps on the PNG-Indonesian border. Mr Baker has again tried to look at the issue of Indonesia, on the one hand, and the Committee, on the other, to bring them all together and relate them. They have absolutely no relation whatsoever. Once again, it is a scandalous beat-up and an attempt to make a story out of something that just was not there. Further to that, to show the integrity of this particular journalist, I refer to last Saturday's edition of the Melbourne Age. In completely different circumstances, the front page headline states: `Take in Irians, pleads PNG'. The article states: The Papua New Guinea Prime Minister, Mr Wingti, has attacked Australian policy on Irian Jayan refugees and called on the Federal Government to resettle some of the hundreds of guerilla supporters living in PNG border camps. The very next day a Press release came from the Papua New Guinea Prime Minister, Paias Wingti, in which it is stated: The Papua New Guinea Government had not criticised Australia over resettlement of Irian Jaya refugees held in camps in PNG, the Prime Minister Mr Paias Wingti said today. Mr Wingti said his Government had not even formally asked Australia to take any refugees, let alone criticised Australia for something it had not expressed a view on. Further in the rather lengthy Press release, it is stated: The Prime Minister said weekend media reports quoting him as saying Australia had offered reasons for not taking refugees had been quoted entirely out of context. Madam Speaker, I put to you that the various articles, the beat-ups of what occurred in what was a very good delegation which had a very interesting and informative trip, all really show that some journalists are scurrilous and have no ethics. It is little wonder that some people call into question the ethics of Australian journalists in Asia. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(10.29) —Tonight I would like to address some comments to the House about the Armenian community in Australia. April 24 each year marks the date on which the genocide of Armenian people in Turkey in 1915 and beyond is commemorated. This year is the seventy-first anniversary of the first and one of the worst acts of genocide perpetrated on mankind this century. From available evidence, more than 1 1/2 million Armenians were slaughtered for no better reason than being an ethnic community, unwanted in their own homeland. Armenian culture has developed and, despite frequent challenges and enormous difficulties, has endured for well over 2,000 years. By contrast, our Australian culture is still in its infancy-it is not yet 200 years old. Nevertheless, we are most fortunate to have an opportunity to enrich and strengthen the Australian nation by embracing the heritage and traditions of so many people from many lands who now call Australia home. The Armenian people have suffered much, been confronted by, and overcome many hardships through the centuries to retain their culture and to preserve their heritage and traditions-those things which are distinctively and especially Armenian. Their desire for independence and freedom for themselves and their beloved nation; the courage, enterprise and skills of the Armenian people; their determination and resolve to remember the great and colourful, although often tragic, history of the Armenian nation; the influence of a religion which is based on one of the oldest branches of the Christian faith-all these are qualities that will ensure that Armenians everywhere continue their development as an independent, freedom-loving people. They are also the qualities which have played a significant role in ensuring the successful resettlement of Armenians in Australia and which will continue to ensure that we may all work together in harmony, each with respect and understanding for the other, so that our plans and hopes for a better, more secure and happier future will be realised. As a community, distinct but not separate, Armenians will, I am sure, continue to contribute to the development of a cohesive multicultural society in Australia. I have no doubt that the Armenian community will continue to make many significant contributions to the development of their adopted home, and that as a result Australian institutions, culture and traditions will be enriched and extended across a wider, brighter, more interesting tapestry. I encourage all Armenians in Australia to make as full a contribution to our community as they can. We will all share and appreciate the benefits now and in the future. Let us all work together at living together, so that in time Mount Kosciusko may replace Mount Ararat in Armenian hearts and dreams. Perhaps in their hearts and minds they have all died a little-or a lot-for beloved Armenia. Perhaps they still cry for her and for her brave and bloodied past and people. But as we remember the glories and the sacrifices of the past, we must be careful not to let them overwhelm our plans and hopes for, and our faith in, the future. It is a future where the dying and crying are but sacred and revered memories recalled and commemorated, as they must and should be, in the freedom, security and peace of a world which has no option but to realise that there is no alternative to the fact that we are a universal and international family, a brotherhood and sisterhood of men and women who must learn to live, with goodwill and understanding, together. As we recall tonight the tragedy of the Armenian genocide, let us not do so in any spirit of hopelessness or revenge, but with the determination and commitment that will ensure that such a ghastly atrocity is not-ever again-perpetrated by one nation upon another, for whatever the cause. We have had enough of terrorism in all its dreadful forms. Let us at least learn from the horrific lessons of history, so that in future our children and our children's children inherit a world where the wounds of the past have been allowed to heal, but their scars remain as a necessary and salutary reminder of the depths to which humanity can sink if we do not commit ourselves to achieving justice, freedom and dignity for all people everywhere. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(10.34) —I wish to take a couple of minutes of the time of the House to raise an issue which has received some attention-adverse attention-in the media in the last few weeks arising out of a campaign by the people of the western suburbs of Sydney to try to improve their accessibility to tertiary institutions, especially a university. There has been some publicity suggesting that the standards of students in the western suburbs are too low to warrant the existence of a tertiary institution. When I saw those remarks-and I am not saying that statistically they may not be accurate in regard to totals-I remembered that on 1 March this year the Sydney Morning Herald published a list of top students. The list was introduced in the following way: A list of the top one per cent of students in the 1985 Higher School Certificate has been issued by the Board of Senior School Studies. That list as published consisted of names without addresses, plus the schools where the students had sat for their Higher School Certificate. I went through the list in terms of the schools in my electorate, picked out the names, and checked them against addresses on the electoral roll. I found six students in that list of 250 who lived in my electorate and attended schools there. In addition to those six there could obviously be others who attend private schools outside the electorate or so-called selective high schools, such as James Ruse, which is not very far from my electorate, which had the best results of all schools in the last Higher School Certificate examinations. The important point is that there were at least six students in this category. There are 53 electorates in New South Wales, there were 250 students in the top one per cent, and therefore the average would be just under five per electorate. We in fact had six or six-plus in that category. The point I am trying to emphasise is that obviously there are some outstanding students in the area. I congratulate those students and that is the reason why I sought to find their names. One point I would like to make is that there has been a campaign against external examinations, run to some extent by the Teachers Federation or some part of that Federation in New South Wales. Of those six students, two attended Holroyd High School, one Greystanes High School, one Fairfield High School, and two Patrician Brothers, Fairfield. If somebody without external examinations tried to get a job with an employer and said that he went to Fairfield High School, Holroyd High School, Greystanes High School or Patrician Brothers, Fairfield, I think the attitude to the employer in many cases would be that the standards there are much lower than the standards represented by the schools in the area, for example, of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). Mr Kent —Why is that? Dr KLUGMAN —Because people have ridiculous ideas that if one goes to a high school at St Ives, somehow the standards are higher than they are at Holroyd High School. The only chance open to students from areas with lower socio-economic reputations is for them to sit in competitive examinations and to show quite clearly that they are able to compete with students from other areas and to come out on top. I congratulate the six students concerned and the teachers at the schools they attended, but the specific point I make is that there are some excellent students in the area. They deserve access, and to some extent they already have access, to institutes of higher learning in Sydney. Everything should be done to make it possible for people to advance via competitive examinations in our society. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(10.39) —In introducing the Community Employment Amendment Bill some time ago, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) stated that the Hawke Government had allocated $1 billion to the community employment program over three Budgets. At that time 16,000 projects had been funded and 87,000 short term employment opportunities had been created for the long term unemployed, who represented 62 per cent of all CEP placements. One recognises that $1 billion is a lot of money. One must also recognise that the average duration of unemployment suffered by individuals is lengthening. It was around 34 weeks out of work in 1981, and latest figures for 1985 indicate that 52 weeks of unemployment was the mean. The community employment program notwithstanding, young people are unemployed longer before they find a job today. Jobstart, a scheme arranged to provide a subsidy to potential employees who are long term unemployed, probably has a lot more going for it than the Commonwealth employment program. The takeup rate by employers would indicate that wage costs are a barrier to taking on new staff, and this of course was corroborated by Priority One, the Budget strategy for young people. I believe that was an admission by the Labor Government that its policies and attitudes towards youth unemployment have been out of touch with reality. Of course, it remains for the Government to pursue the logic of the wage subsidy component of both programs and support the deregulation of the labour market in certain circumstances, thus widening the employment and training opportunities for all. However, because that is not likely, I would like to comment on a disincentive factor in the jobstart scheme. Any unemployed person who is keen and willing to undertake part time work can, by his very actions, be penalised by being ruled ineligible to obtain a full time job if over the nine month period he has worked three months at 15 hours per week. Of course, the reward for some in this scheme, that is, a job, is sitting on their backsides and not undertaking any form of casual or part time work and, in fact, not even looking for any. I wonder why it is that in this country we are rewarding some people who will not look for work and in many cases penalising the fellow who is prepared to have a go at anything. This discriminatory aspect of jobstart has been brought to my attention a number of times, most recently by Eddie Kelly, a very disappointed father in Bundaberg who was trying to find part time work for his family and was prepared to do any sort of casual work. I remember reading in the Australian newspaper last year of the difficulty crop growers were experiencing in obtaining labour to harvest their crops-asparagus and citrus fruits readily come to mind. Mr Ron Parr from Mundubbera, a citrus growing area, rang me in my office here and said that he could not get enough pickers for his orange crops. This is in a region which has over twice the average unemployment rate. The only ones willing to work were some Swedes who, unfortunately for Mr Parr, had no work visas. The end result in such circumstances is a loss to the grower in unharvested or late harvested crops and no reduction in the transfer of public moneys from the producing sectors to the unemployed. People continually ask me, especially when they see an Australian newspaper with a front page photo of a fellow boasting that he has not looked for work for six years, why the unemployed should be paid for doing nothing. I believe they have a point. If we look at three years of CEP, it is $1 billion. The estimate for unemployment benefit payments for 1985-86 is almost $3 billion. That is a lot of money. Participants in CEP schemes work for local authorities and governments as well as community groups. It appears they are doing the work well and the schemes are considered beneficial to the community. Taking the figures supplied in the Budget Estimates, I must ask: Why cannot those 540,000 unemployed who will average $100 a week in benefit payments for 1985-86 put in a couple of days work with those or similar organisations which are now employing CEP participants? There appears to be an organisation structure which can utilise the unemployed for productive work, so with some modification why not give the opportunity to utilise the pool of labour in excess of half a million and benefit the country? The 16-year-old may need to do a day's work and the married man three days work per week-all productive and paid for by unemployment benefit money, and the taxpayers will get something for their taxes. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(10.44) —I commence my comments tonight by supporting the remarks that were made by the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson) in relation to the Armenians. I think those comments were very timely and appropriate. I am very pleased to hear a member of the Opposition making those sorts of comments. I think the way the honourable member expressed the cause was, as I said, timely and I think also in a very sensitive fashion. Tonight I will deal with the situation which is being imposed on the Australian people by the major banks. Some time earlier I raised in this House and in other places the way that the Commonwealth Bank in particular was imposing loan service fees on home mortgages, and those fees were being applied on a sliding scale which in effect made them simply de facto increases in mortgage interest rates. As a result of that publicity from me and many others, the banks were forced into withdrawing-particularly the Commonwealth Bank and some others-those loan service fee amounts that they were proposing to impose. The result was a very good one for ordinary Australians struggling to pay their mortgage bills. However, recently I have had brought to my attention the fact that the National Australia Bank is now advertising that it is prepared to pay to people who invest in that bank 16.6 per cent interest per annum on special accounts. However, when one looks more closely at these advertisements one finds underneath the 16.6 per cent per annum, in tiny print, the word `effective'. I am told that, when one checks to see just what interest the bank is paying in terms of the normally expressed interest rates, the actual amount is only 15.8 per cent. I think that this sort of misleading advertising by a leading bank is very worrying indeed. If this were a less supposedly reputable organisation, I have no doubt at all that people would be talking about fly by night finance companies, and so on. In fact, because it is a large national organisation, it seems to be able to get away with it. I think it is quite disgraceful that a supposedly reputably organisation should advertise in this way. I do not believe that the National Australia Bank needs to do this. I certainly think it is particularly concerning that this advertisement seems to be pitched at older people-pensioners and retired people-who have money to invest. The normal rate that seems to be available is about 16 per cent, and by advertising that it is offering money at 16.6 per cent I have no doubt that it is endeavouring to steal a march on its more honest competitors in this particular manner. I think that this is just another example of the way the banks seems to operate in this country-in a quite cavalier fashion, almost oblivious of the normal standards required in dealing as business corporations in our society. I think it is pretty unsatisfactory and I think it is about time some action was taken to ensure that this sort of deceptive advertising does not continue. No doubt the argument will be put up that everyone knows what `effective interest rates' means if one can read the fine print and that if one knows something about the law and the law of lending one may be able to work through it. However, for ordinary lay people who would not be aware of such things, I think it is a pretty shabby performance. I think we ought to be able to expect better of a leading financial institution such as the National Australia Bank and I hope that it will withdraw this advertisement at an early time and start advertising the interest rates that it applies in simple interest rate terms which everyone understands and not `effective', `compound' or any other types of interest rates that are used only to mislead the public at large. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.49) —On 18 February this year I placed on the Notice Paper question No. 3248 to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The question I asked is as follows: (1) Did the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) prepare a valuation of the plant and equipment at the Belconnen Mall, ACT; if so, will he table the valuation in the House. (2) Did the ATO valuation of the Belconnen Mall contain any component for redevelopment of the site. (3) Is the apportionment, in the agreement for sale, of $8,921,710, which is listed as goods, for plant and equipment. (4) If the ATO did not prepare a valuation of plant and equipment what steps did he take to verify the figure of $8,921,710. (5) Is the Commonwealth now prevented from disputing the correctness of the figure of $8,921,710; if so, how does he reconcile this with his answer to my question without notice (Hansard, 14 February 1986, pages 585-6) concerning the sale of Belconnen Mall. (6) Did he read in full the agreement for sale prior to its execution. (7) Is it a fact that if the figure of $8,921,710 for plant and equipment is maintained and upheld (a) there will be a tax windfall to the purchasers in excess of $2.4 million, (b) the purchasers will be entitled to claim nearly $5 million for further depreciation of plant and equipment which had already been depreciated by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority and (c) there will be an additional tax burden of $2.4 million imposed upon the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. (8) Is he able to say whether the Canberra Commercial Development Authority is satisfied with the situation. (9) Did he discuss the proposed sale with the Minister for Territories prior to the close of tenders; if so, (a) on what dates, (b) at what places and (c) what were the material particulars of the discussion. (10) Did he consider the arrangement of Commonwealth-funded bridging finance to facilitate the sale of the Belconnen Mall (11) Was the option of writing-up plant and equipment offered to any of the other tenderers prior to the close of tenders. Madam Speaker, as you know, I am a very patient man. But that series of questions has remained on the Notice Paper unanswered for 70 days. That is nearly 20 per cent of the year. It is a scandal and a disgrace that those questions remain unanswered. The Prime Minister has just returned from a trip. He is probably tired and jetlagged. I called his office and found that he has returned to the Lodge. But I must say that my patience is fast becoming exhausted. This is a scandalous situation in that the Belconnen shopping centre, which is worth well over $100m, has been flogged off to a preferred purchaser, a preferred tenderer, for a mere $89m. I have placed a series of 11 questions on the Notice Paper. They remain unanswered. The matter has now been taken up by the national Press. There was an article in the National Times 10 days ago, which I am sure has now been brought to the Prime Minister's attention, involving the relationship between his Government and Westfield Property Trust in relation to this sale of the century windfall price of the Belconnen Mall, together with other property dealings in Sydney which are of grave concern. I now inform the House that I am aware that there was an Australian Taxation Office valuation of the plant and equipment. I further inform the House that it did not- Mr Downer —How much was it? Mr HODGMAN —It was well below the figure that could have been obtained, namely, $102m on a tender put in by a Western Australian corporation. It did not contain a component in relation to redevelopment of the site. Moreover there is the question of revenue. I note the presence in the Parliament tonight of the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). I will invite him to pursue this matter. There has been a writing-up of plant and equipment which, had it been done by private enterprise, would have led to a prosecution for criminal conspiracy. There has been a shifting of a tax burden in favour of a preferred tenderer to the disadvantage of a statutory authority, a matter which I regard as very suspicious. The Prime Minister is now on notice that he has seven days to answer these questions. If he does not, he will have to face the consequences. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(11.54) —I rise tonight to speak totally unprepared, and I seek the indulgence of the House. I am extremely concerned at the announcement that there has been a major nuclear disaster in the Soviet Union. As one who has condemned the nuclear industry in the United States of America and elsewhere, I feel equally passionate about any accident that is perpetrated on the people of this world, whether they be people from the Soviet Union, the United States or anywhere else. I honestly believe that we have reason to be concerned, and I hope passionately that those honourable members opposite who have smirks on their faces tonight will have the same smirks on their faces in 12 months' time. If they are smiling then, I will enjoy that too. I have no prepared speech, but I wish to place on record in the House tonight my deep and passionate concern about where we are going. In trying to put together some words to say that would be appropriate, I grabbed some words from a speech I made regarding Harrisburg and the Three Mile Island disaster, where what occurred to a nuclear reactor was called an incredible event-often referred to as the China syndrome. I understand that the Soviet Union may well be facing such an event and that the Soviet Government has called on other government for assistance in trying to put out a fire that has got out of control as a result of an accident at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor. I want to say, totally off the cuff, that sometimes when I have had the opportunity to speak in my own Caucus I have asked colleagues of the Left, the Centre and Right to show respect for one another's views. I know that many people have a great concern about where we are going down the nuclear path. I said in my Caucus-I do not think my colleagues will be upset if I repeat it-that I would like to have in our Caucus room, emblazoned above our Chairman, the slogan `Respect one another', so that we can see it and listen to each other's arguments and respect them. I believe in that. I accept decisions when I do not have the numbers on certain issues, but let us respect each other. With regard to those people who have been gung ho about the nuclear path, I find it hard to respect their views on that subject, because there is so much evidence that they are going the wrong way. I ask them to stop and think and look at the evidence. I say to them: `Please, just do that'. Tonight let us all forget the differences, even the party differences, and look at what has happened in the Soviet Union today. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(11.59) —I wish to reject a description made of this Parliament today in the Sydney Morning Herald that it is merely a sausage machine. I think that the rich tapestry provided in the adjournment debate which is coming to a close tonight and in other adjournment debates is proof enough that this Parliament is more than a sausage machine. The recent Builders Labourers Federation deregistration Bill was an example of fast-track legislation being amended by the Senate in a way that just did not merely rubber stamp the original proposals of the Government. The veterans' entitlements package-a massive package which took more than 11 months to be digested by this Parliament-is yet another example of Parliament doing its duty on that occasion by the veterans, and not rubber stamping the original Government proposals. Indeed, I reject outright that this Parliament is in any shape or form a sausage machine. I have to say that the Parliament I left-the State Parliament in Sydney-could be regarded as a sausage machine because of the way in which it conducts its proceedings, with Ministers merely tabling second reading speeches on recent occasions. That is the culmination of arrogance. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. Mr Hunt to ask Madam Speaker: (1) Has any decision been made regarding the source from which carpeting for the new Parliament House will be obtained. (2) If so, will the carpet be produced from Australian wool; if not, what are the reasons for using wool from overseas. (3) If no decision has been made, is it recognised that the use of Australian wool in carpeting for the new complex would be not only a substantial economic benefit for the Australian industry but would focus attention on the quality of the Australian product, especially when representatives of foreign governments are visiting the complex. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 29 April 1986: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 60. Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 58. Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 59 Child Care Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 52. Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 80. Criminology Research Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 51. Currency Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 83. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 76, 77. Defence Act-Determinations-1986- No. 15-District Allowance and Vehicle Allowance. No. 17-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and other allowances. Excise Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 78. Export Control Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 79. Federal Court of Australia Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 61. International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 55, 56, 57, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75. Lands Acquisition Act-Statements of lands (2) acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 53. Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 54. Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the date on which sections of the following Act shall come into operation-Customs and Excise Legislation Amendments Act (No. 2) 1985-Sections 4, 7, 12, 18 and 21-1 May 1986. Public Service Act-Determinations-1986, Nos. 11, 18, 21, 22. Public Works Committee Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 82. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1986/3-Secretary to the Department of Territories and part-time holders of public offices on other bodies. Seamen's Compensation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 81. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances-1986- No. 4-Seat of Government (Administration) (Amendment). No. 5-New South Wales Acts Application (Amendment). No. 6-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 2). Telecommunications Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 62.